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!
ACORN, CCHD AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY Posted: Wednesday September 30, 2009 at 5:23 pm EST by Judie Brown
By Phil Sevilla
Last November, after the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now voter fraud and embezzlement scandals surfaced in the media before and during the 2008 election, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops cut off funding for the radical group, which had received community grants to the tune of $7,300,000 over the last 10 years from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. The Campaign for Human Development was created in 1969 by the American bishops' conference to combat poverty. But where have the hundreds of millions of Catholic dollars gone? Did you know that Barack Obama was once Chicago ACORN’s attorney and worked to train ACORN leaders?
With egg on its face, the USCCB voted to stop further funding of ACORN late last year due to growing public outrage. Did you also know that the U.S. bishops' conference was alerted long ago about ACORN’s corruption, but refused to heed the warnings made in Wanderer Forum Foundation’s report on the CCHD, prepared for the bishops in the late 1990s, as well as those made by Catholic whistleblowers such as Paul Likoudis, of the Wanderer Press in his 1994 exposé, The Legacy of CHD; and Stephanie Block, a Catholic investigative journalist in New Mexico who has written extensively on this topic? Only when the egregious ACORN scandals made the national media headlines, conservative talk radio shows and internet blogs did they act.
Well, ACORN has not been the only problem. According to a recent article published by California Catholic Daily on the CCHD, it is apparent, despite the CCHD leadership’s assurances that the problem with grant funding scrutiny has been fixed, that the problem has definitely not been fixed. In California, investigations show CCHD funds for 2009-2010 have gone to two organizations, one of which promotes same-sex marriage and the other of which opposes parental notification for abortion on a minor.
Bellarmine Veritatis Ministry conducted an eye-popping, well-documented review of recent grants approved by CCHD for advocacy organizations that promote abortion, same-sex marriage and contraception.
Remember this next time your diocese starts promoting its annual CCHD fundraising campaign. It is time to just say no to CCHD. Shut it down. Enough! ¡Basta!
The Principle of Subsidiarity
According to a well-written exegesis by Charles Gernazian, director of the Catholic American Center on Law and Religion, the principle of subsidiarity
has been an integral part of Catholic social teaching for over a century, [and] states that only things that need to be done at the national or “federal” level should be done by a “federal” government; and allows for things that can be done at the local or smaller level to be done at the more local and smaller units of society. Where individuals, intermediary groups, or small private groups of persons can address the particular exigencies and realities of a given situation, it is best to defer to such smaller groups because human beings need some flexibility and autonomy in order to effectively address their particular circumstances.
Besides the scandal of the national organization of American Catholic bishops’ long-standing financial support of politically motivated, corrupt and morally bankrupt organizations, paid for by donations of average Catholics in the pews, I have a bone to pick with the bishops about their continual violation of the principle of subsidiarity within the area of Catholic social action.
Why are we delegating our duties and responsibilities as Christians to a national bureaucracy such as the CCHD, which has funded notoriously politically partisan organizations that promote the culture of death? What about Catholic Charities organizations that have accepted federal, state and local funding, and have paid the price for it? There are Catholic Charities organizations around the country that have been taken over by agents of immoral radical social change. Think about it. Christ taught in Matthew 25:45, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.” He did not say that we must donate to big national bureaucracies to carry out our charitable works. He called us to personally help feed, clothe, shelter and comfort our neighbor.
The application of Catholic social teaching has been corrupted by so-called social service organizations that have done great harm to the Church’s mission by giving up their financial independence and freedom in order to promote works of charity. Publicly funded Catholic Charities in Boston had to shut down its adoption services when the state dictated that it could not discriminate against homosexual couples seeking to adopt. Publicly funded Catholic Charities in San Francisco was forced by the city supervisors to provide benefits to same-sex partners of their employees or else lose its funding. (Why was Catholic Charities in San Francisco hiring active homosexuals in the first place? Because sexual orientation nondiscrimination ordinances, which violate the rights of nonprofit religious organizations, have not been challenged by the Church!)
Read this declaration on Catholic Charities USA’s web site: “President Barack Obama in his famous campaign speech dealing with racism challenges everyone to have faith in God and faith in the American people. Together, we can overcome centuries of racial division to form a more perfect union – in the words of the Declaration of Independence.” I would ask the author of this statement, what about the rights of the preborn and their exclusion from our “more perfect union”?
The Gift of Self
There is another aspect of the principle of subsidiarity that has been violated by social change agents within the Church. When speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences in May 2008, Pope Benedict XVI summarized the Catholic principle of subsidiarity as the “coordination of society’s activities in a way that supports the internal life of the local communities.” Aren’t these bureaucratic organizations such as the CCHD and Catholic Charities USA in violation of this principle? Was the parable of the good Samaritan about delegating our good works to someone else or about a personal commitment to help our neighbor? How can we individual Catholics grow in the virtue of sacrificial charity and self-giving if all we’re asked to do is write checks?
In “A Catholic Solution to America’s Health Care Problem,” David Rusch, Ph.D. wrote,
A number of years ago I calculated the number of poor families in the U.S. and pondered how the Church might respond to their needs. I concluded that if each parish adopted two poor families, poverty in this nation would vanish. I suggested that the size of the parish or church determine how many families they would support, with an average of two per parish. The support would include all that was necessary for them to be a part of the community: food, job opportunities, education, and health care. Each parish voluntarily provides all these essentials, and poverty vanishes.
Wow! What a concept! Individual members of Catholic parishes adopting and supporting needy members of their parish or members of the community at large who have fallen on hard times. This, in a nutshell, is the essence of the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity.
What better way to promote Catholic social teaching is there than at the parish level and ultimately at the family level – where families or groups of families in the parish adopt those members of their local community who desperately need food, shelter, work, education and support for crisis pregnancies? In other words, rather than writing a check or dropping a few dollars in the second collection basket, you and I –and our families – become individual Saint Vincent de Paul societies, Legions of Mary and Gabriel Projects. A Gabriel Project ministry is a parish-based ministry that endeavors to provide parish-level first-responder assistance to mothers within their local community who are experiencing crisis pregnancies.
We give of ourselves, our time, talents and caritas, not just our treasure. Treasure by itself is always easier to give up, especially when there’s an abundance. Our time and talents are more difficult to offer and share in service to others.
Think about what our children can learn when, on Sundays or other days of the week, they spend time playing with or taking children less fortunate than they are to museums or other cultural activities, or going fishing, or throwing Frisbees or footballs together. We parents can pray and read the Bible together while preparing a meal for a family whose breadwinner has lost his job or may have a serious illness. We can help mothers facing crisis pregnancies with their housing, medical and prenatal needs; counseling; job training and job hunting; emotional and spiritual support; and, most importantly, our unconditional love and attention.
Something to think about.
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.
Judie, I remember writing Fr. Robert Vitillo about this way back in 2004, which you may have seen then from my dear Mother-in-Law Peggy Saindon. Fr. Vitillo was "deeply offended," and made reference to Catholic dollars going to Community Shares, under which ACORN (among others) were umbrella groups. I remember referencing the commingling of the water and wine at the Offertory of the Mass, and how similarly funds poured into the same repository cannot be distinguished in terms of their final distribution. Here we are nearly five years later. It's about time. God have mercy on our Nation.
And Judy - keep it up - and God bless you! Andrew Ellis | September 30, 2009
Hello,
Thank you for quoting and linking my article in your newsletter. I am awed by this.
God bless you,
Dave David Rusch | September 30, 2009
Judy, Thank you for your work and your words; we pray for you and your enterprises.
Why not call the baby-killers "pro-death-choice" and call ourselves "pro-life-choice"? We do not have to let them control the vocabulary with an unfinished sentence.
Maybe it would be useful to avoid the word "abortion" and always replace it with its definition, "the deliberate killing of innocent babies in the mother's womb." Saying all those words generates vivid pictures in listeners/readers' minds -- much more than the one Latin abstraction "abortion."
Keep up the good work; our prayers are with you and your enterprises. In Christo. Albert Baxley Albert Baxley | October 1, 2009
As the Respect Life Coordinator at my parish and also a sidewalk counselor I brought a familie's story that chose life at the last minute, to the Parish Council. At first they were thrilled to help out this poor family with a shower, after nine months of bulletin inserts. At the last minute they pulled the plug because the family were not a non-profit(I had to submit a proposal).Thankfully a local Maternity Home provided everything the family needed. This parish is the wealthiest in our Archdiocese. Maria Rugg | October 1, 2009
FORSYTHE'S DILEMMA: LEGAL POSITIVISM Posted: Tuesday September 29, 2009 at 4:11 pm EST by Judie Brown
The recent commentary by Clarke Forsythe, senior legal counsel at Americans United for Life, presents a challenge that must be met. Entitled “The Blackmun Myth” for the National Review Online and “Pro-Lifers Must be Realistic About How, When Roe Abortion Case Can be Reversed” for LifeNews.com, the article goes to great pains to rebut the fundamental arguments supporting the quest for state human personhood efforts. The fact that it never gets there is the point of this commentary.
Let’s begin with Forsythe’s first quip that those who pursue state human personhood efforts are “heading toward a brick wall.” While Forsythe alleges that pro-lifers are in error when they argue that state human personhood efforts will confront Roe v. Wade with a fundamental challenge regarding the humanity of the preborn child, his reasoning does not bring us to the conclusion he wishes the reader to draw.
To be honest, Mr. Forsythe is a well-known attorney of some note and he has done great work on state and federal legislation. In other words, he is no slouch! Yours truly is a pro-life leader without a legal background who has spent 40 years of her life studying, learning, sharing and struggling to restore legal personhood to preborn children.
However, it is obvious, even to me, that Forsythe is on very shaky ground when he maintains that Blackmun and his confreres on the Supreme Court did not know when a human being begins or chose not to address it. Further, nobody who has been focused on human personhood for the past 30 years has made that allegation.
What we did say, and what is factually accurate, is that the court refused to examine the scientific evidence and, in fact, said so in the Roe decision:
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
Blackmun, writing for the majority, makes it clear that either the Justices did not know the answer to the fundamental question or they chose for political reasons to hide behind the confused statements of those to whom they listened and deny culpability. Call it what you will, be it cowardice, shrewd politicking or downright stupidity, the Court did, in fact, admit ignorance on when a human being’s life begins. This is, according to attorneys at the Thomas More Law Center, among others, the central holding of Roe, and therefore the only question that will challenge and bring it down.
Forsythe explains that “no state can — by statute or constitutional amendment — change the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the federal [C]onstitution.” However, those of us guiding the human personhood struggle in various states and at the federal level have never said our goal was to “change” the meaning of the 14th Amendment. We just want to bring common sense back to what we know the authors of the Amendment intended when they wrote it in the first place.
One of the politicians debating the 14th Amendment at the time, Representative Joshua R. Giddings, as much as admitted this when he said,
Our fathers, recognizing God as the author of human life, proclaimed it a “self evident truth” that every human being holds from the Creator an inalienable right to live....
If this right be denied, no other can be acknowledged [emphasis added]. If there be exceptions to this central, this universal proposition, that all men, without respect to complexion or condition, hold from the Creator the right to live, who shall determine what portion of the community shall be slain? And who shall perpetrate the murders?
Clearly, it was never the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to deny legal protection to an entire class of persons, be they African-American or preborn. That is the entire point of the personhood effort in our nation today: to reaffirm this assertion. Doing so does not in any way “change” the 14th Amendment, but rather brings sanity back to the public understanding of why this Amendment applies to every human being, including those not yet born.
Although Forsythe opines, “that (because of our system of federalism) it will not – it cannot – establish 14th Amendment personhood or set up a test case to overturn Roe,” there are other equally astute legal minds who take the opposite position. For example, in rendering his opinion on the question, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center made the point:
It is a well established principle of law that States possess the right to adopt their own constitutions with rights more expansive than those conferred by the federal [C]onstitution. See Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 (1980) (affirming “the authority of the State to exercise its police power [and] its sovereign right to adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution).
It, therefore, remains to be seen when one offers conjecture on the subject of whether or not a state human personhood amendment can or cannot challenge the central holding of Roe, regardless of the cold water Forsythe is throwing on the efforts. He is not a seer, he is not a fortune teller, and while his opinion has validity, it is one of many opinions on this question.
On a different point, I find it troublesome that Forsythe says, because the U.S. Supreme Court’s Webster decision found the preamble of a Missouri law “constitutional,” pro-lifers should be happy to protect threatened preborn babies in “non-abortion situations.” While we are indeed grateful that we can do this by law, this will never result in the recognition of the preborn human being as a person in every situation, and it will not bring us to a point in history where human rights are recognized for all including the not yet born. If our goal is to ultimately achieve equal rights for all human persons, then human personhood is the only road to travel, regardless of what the Court said or did not say in Webster. The Court is not, after all, a supreme being; it is merely a group of men and women who are sorely misguided on the question of human personhood.
Forsythe alleges that those who support human personhood are suffering from a “profound misunderstanding of why most of those justices support Roe.” He sets forth his analysis of why this is so, and, in the process, makes a grave error. He exposes the real reason why he has repeatedly articulated his opposition to human personhood efforts in the states. Without being at all unfair or confrontational, I would propose that perhaps Forsythe has fallen into the mentality that the Court is indeed the final word on the subject of abortion and all that it entails.
Professor Charles Rice made this point years ago, when he wrote about the problem of secular humanism in the law leading to what he called a type of legal positivism. He wrote,
When the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, broke this necessary correspondence between humanity and legal personhood, it opened the door to unrestricted speculation as to the meaning of legal personhood. If human beings are not necessarily legal persons, well, then, who are? The Court, incidentally, was reflecting the growing dominance in American jurisprudence of legal positivism, the notion that since the mind is incapable of knowing the essences of things and since, in the words of Hans Kelsen, the leading legal positivist of this century, "justice" is merely an "irrational ideal," there is no inherent limit to what the law can do. Therefore, whatever decrees are handed down pursuant to prescribed legal forms by the ruling authorities must be accepted as valid law regardless of their content.”
Professor Rice is explaining something that is extremely vital to this current question of whether or not pursuing human personhood is the equivalent of running into a brick wall. I happen to believe that Rice is correct and that the Supreme Court and many lower courts, for that matter, have set themselves up as gods in their own right. They have denied that there is a Supreme Being who is God and have chosen to avoid, at all costs, formulating decisions based on the natural law. There has been a divorce, if you will, between reason and judicial opinion, and the results are everywhere, including the ongoing decriminalization of brutal acts of abortion.
With all due respect to Forsythe and his colleagues, it is my fervent belief that the pro-life movement is at a critical crossroads. It is imperative for each of us, upon examining our own attitudes and praying for guidance, to choose God’s way and stay the course; regardless of the barbs, the public insults and the efforts to undo what we are putting together in the various states and at the federal level in our quest for human personhood.
We are not at war against legal positivists and secular humanists; we are engaged in a battle with evil. Forsythe concludes by saying, “There are other goals that are more important — and more achievable in the current environment — than an illusory test case to ‘challenge Roe’ based on questions that the current justices simply aren’t asking.”
Contrary to that view, I would argue that it is not wise for us to base our efforts on paying attention to the “questions that the current justices” are asking, but rather to make absolutely certain we are faithful to God in our public witness to the questions He will be asking when we face Him, as each of us surely will, at the judgment.
I invite Forsythe to at least think about this, and to know that, even if he continues to take issue with human personhood efforts at the state level or elsewhere, we admire him, we praise him for all the good he has done and we look forward to working with him when possible, without ever surrendering our goal of equal rights for all, born and preborn.
Yes. I agree completely. Human life is a continuum from conception to death. Nothing is added to an embryo to make it human, it is from the beginning. It is human from the creation of DNA and combining of chromosomes. The only difference between conception and adulthood is time. Don't stop, I think this is the key. Great work. Gino Gaudio | September 29, 2009
My son responded to Blackmun!
See the
The Illegality of the Roe v. Wade Decision
link
on
http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/
Gary L. Morella | September 29, 2009
On another topic: SHouldn't the bishops of florida welcome and support ANY effort to overturn Roe??!! SOmethig smells rotten in Tallahassee, Judie! peter wilson | September 30, 2009
The State of Wisconsin passed laws in the 1850's mandating that Wisconsin ignore laws and decisions of Congress and the US Supreme Court in regard to slavery and the Fugitive Slave Laws.
Wisconsin and other pre-Civil War states are the precedent for today's states to estabish personhood for the pre-born.
ARE CATHOLIC BISHOPS ABOVE THE LAW? Posted: Monday September 28, 2009 at 3:59 pm EST by Judie Brown
According to recent news stories on the Obama administration’s effort to investigate the Bush administration's authorization of certain interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder and other Obama administration officials have said that no one is above the law. Regardless of your view of CIA operations, the truth is that there should not be a question about anybody being above the law. Without a proper regard for the law, chaos would reign.
Carry this a step further but in a slightly different direction. If we consider the Code of Canon Law, which is the body of laws governing the Catholic Church, we have to ask if these laws are subject to personal interpretation or are they in fact laws that should be uniformly interpreted and obeyed?
Here is how the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, answers the question, “From where does the Church get the right to make laws?”
Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Catholic Church, gave the right and duty to make laws to His Church (Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18). The Church uses her power to “bind and loose” to legislate for her children. Some Church laws simply make clear and more specific those laws which are made directly by God Himself. Other Church laws are for the purpose of good order and for the protection of the [C]hurch and her children. The Church has no power to change, alter, or dispense anyone from God’s laws. However, she can change, alter, or dispense from her own legislation in case of necessity or usefulness.
Contrasted with the imperial or Caesarian law (jus caesareum), canon law is sometimes styled pontifical law (jus pontificium), often also it is termed sacred law (jus sacrum), and sometimes even Divine law (jus divinum: c. 2, De privil.), as it concerns holy things, and has for its object the wellbeing of souls in the society divinely established by Jesus Christ.
Clearly then, “canon law” carries the full weight of actual law in the same way that civil law does. So, when it comes to the canon law known as Canon 915, we are confused by the apparent confusion among Catholic bishops regarding whether or not this canon law must be obeyed by them.
In order to answer that question respectfully but truthfully, we examined the rich history behind this particular canon law.
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.
Canon 915 is fundamentally a reflection of the obligation to defend the Catholic teaching that the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ are fully present in the sacrament of Holy Communion. Canon 915 is designed to protect Christ from the sacrilege that would occur if someone “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” were admitted to Communion. In other words, that person’s public actions would reveal that he or she was in defiance of Catholic teaching and therefore deemed unworthy to receive Christ. Canon 915 is not an opinion; it is a law of the Catholic Church that is based on infallible teaching and the wisdom of many Doctors of the Church, including Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Saint John Chrysostom (347–407 A.D.), wrote this regarding those who may receive Holy Communion:
What I am saying, I say to you also who minister, as well as to you who are ministered to. For it is necessary that I also address myself to you; that you may distribute the sacred gifts with great caution. For your punishment is not light should you, knowingly, admit anyone to the Communion of this Table whom you know to be unworthy of it. His blood will be required at thy hand (Ezech. xxxiii. 8). And even though he were a general, or a governor, or even he who wears the crown, should he draw near unworthy, forbid him: for higher is your authority than his. For if a spring of pure water were placed in your care for your flock, and you saw a sheep coming, with its mouth smeared with mud, you would not let it put down its mouth to dirty the well. Now you have been given charge of a well, not of water, but of Blood and the Spirit; and should you see someone draw near who is soiled with sin, a more grievous thing than clay or mud, and you are not moved to wrath, and you do not drive him away, how do you deserve to be forgiven? It was for this God honoured you with this dignity: that you might exercise judgment in these things. This is your office; this is your own security; this is your whole crown: not that you may go about clothed in a shining white habit.
And how, you may ask me, can I know about this person or that person? I am not speaking of those you do not know, but of those you do know. And shall I say something more serious? It is not as dreadful to be possessed by evil spirits, such as those of whom Paul speaks, as to tread Christ under foot, and to hold the blood of the testament unclean, and offer an affront to the spirit of grace (Heb. x, 29) He who has sinned, and comes to Holy Communion, is lower than one possessed by a demon. For those who are afflicted by an evil spirit are not on that account punished. But these others, should they come, unworthy, to the altar, they are handed over to everlasting punishment.
Further, Saint Thomas Aquinas answered the question, “Whether the priest ought to deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it?” in part by teaching, "A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it."
It is because of this consistent, clear teaching of the Catholic Church down through the ages that American Life League is able to say, without apology, that it is indeed a tragedy that there are so many Catholic bishops in the U.S. who, for a wide variety of reasons, refuse to abide by Canon 915 and protect Christ from sacrilege. Are these bishops above the law?
When Archbishop Raymond Burke, prefect of the Apostolic Signatua (the Church's highest court), recently wrote about the struggle to advance the culture of life, he emphasized once again the truths contained in Catholic teaching regarding Canon 915:
To ignore the fact that Catholics in public life, for example, who persistently violate the moral law regarding the inviolability of innocent human life or the integrity of the marital union, lead many into confusion or even error regarding the most fundamental teachings of the moral law, in fact, contributes to the confusion and error, redounding to the gravest harm to our brothers and sisters, and, therefore, to the whole nation. The perennial discipline of the Church, for that reason among other reasons, has prohibited the giving of Holy Communion and the granting of a Church funeral to those who persist, after admonition, in the grave violation of the moral law (Code of Canon Law, cann. 915; and 1184, § 1, 3º).
There is no doubt whatsoever that Canon 915 is a law that must be obeyed by all those who are entrusted with the giving of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ to Catholic people who approach the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister to receive Christ. As Archbishop Burke so compassionately said,
It is said that these disciplines which the Church has consistently observed down the centuries presume to pass a judgment on the eternal salvation of a soul, which belongs to God alone, and, therefore, should be abandoned. On the contrary, these disciplines are not a judgment on the eternal salvation of the soul in question. They are simply the acknowledgment of an objective truth, namely, that the public actions of the soul are in violation of the moral law, to his own grave harm and to the grave harm of all who are confused or led into error by his actions.
Are Catholic bishops above the law? My answer to that question is no, they are not. It is indeed a tragedy that that many individual bishops apparently believe they are.
Well said, Judie. As you well know, Bishops cannot lead us to believe they are ignorant of the Divine Law of the Church. Most bishops have doctorates in Canon Law, Theology, Divinity, etc., they are very learned men. Most bishops have attained the highest academic degrees in any given field. They know the law well. Therefore, when a public pro-abortion person disregards a bishop's directive to stay away and the person comes to Holy Communion 'of his own volition,' and the Minister of the Eucharist gives the Host to such a person, the bishop is doing evil [CIC, n.1755] because he has not publicly instructed his Ministers to deny. He is also causing 'Scandal' to the faithful. Woe to these bishops. The bishops next say they've done their job, that it's now the responsibility of the manifest sinner to not come up. Don't buy that lie. Cd. Ratzinger, now Pope B16, said: "The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" [5] when warning and counsel given to the manifest sinner "have not had their effect." Canon Law c.915 places the responsibility on the minister ??? 'ne admittantur' ??? who, in some canonists' opinion, could be punished themselves according to canon 1389 ??2, should the minister unlawfully administer the sacrament with the consequent danger of scandal for the rest of the faithful. If your diocesan bishop has not yet said publicly he would enforce c. 915 within his diocese against pro-abortion politicians [and other manifest sinners], then withhold your financial donations to your bishop. The silence of most Bishops is because they overwhelmingly vote as Democrats and do not want to offend nor embarrass their political pro-abortion leaders. So, financially support your parish only, not your accomplice bishop. Money talks. No dogma, no dollars. Barb Kralis | September 28, 2009
Dear Judie,
Thank you for this commentary and expounding on Canon 915.
It is a very sad state when Bishops knowingly and willingly turn a blind eye to those Catholics in violation of Canon 915. It does no one any favors.
This is such a huge problem which became very apparent with the Ted Kennedy Funeral scandal. LifeSiteNews.com has a feature spotlight on the Kennedy Funeral Scandal along with the Obama Anti-Life Record http://www.lifesitenews.com/features/KennedyFuneral/
Thank God for the brave Bishops who are following the Church's teaching and doing the right thing in regards to Canon 915.
The road is not easy in this culture of death and sin. The devil is till seeking for the ruin of souls.
St. Michael, St. Raphael and St. Gabriel the Archangels, pray for us. Patty Palmquist | September 29, 2009
The Catholic Church needs to excommunicate all abortionist politicians masquerading as Catholics around the world and do it immediately. We've lost a billion lives to abortion violence in the last 20 years. Enough is enough. The Church has to stop fiddling while the abortionists destroy the future of our species and really step up to the plate. These politicians have had a 40 year run and have done unimaginable damage to humanity. We cannot let this go on.
Somebody (maybe Judie and other pro-life Catholic leaders) needs to go to the USCCB or the Vatican and ask, demand, beg, plead with them to take action now, not later. This charade of abortionist "Catholic" politicians has to end. We must not let them get away with this any longer.
We need to persuade the Church (and other churches) to launch an all-out effort to stop the killing of unborn children worldwide, to demand all governments stop the killing, to reach the people of the world with our message. The pope, all bishops and all priests should use every opportunity from now on to ram home this point: that abortionist politicians are not morally fit to hold ANY public office anywhere at any time and that all Catholic voters must refrain from voting for them from now on.
Something needs to be done because we have allowed this crime to go on around the world for 40 years now and we must not tolerate it any longer. Joe | September 29, 2009
Amen, Barbara!
Judie Judie Brown | September 29, 2009
Judie, Thank you for all that you do for life. It is so sad that the Lay people have to get so involved because our priests and bishops WON'T!! If from the very start in 1973 there would have been a huge voice on the evil of abortion from our bishops, we would never have come to where we are now. So many of them are in their comfort zone and don't want to offend. Heaven help their souls! Their job is helping us to get to heaven and many of them are falling down miserably and giving such scandal.
God bless you Judie,
Carol S. Carol Stonelake | September 30, 2009
VIRAL IDEOLOGY ERADICATES THE MORAL COMPASS Posted: Friday September 25, 2009 at 12:44 pm EST by Judie Brown
Planned Parenthood is circulating another commentary that is apparently appealing to many newspaper editors, including Palm Springs’ own Desert Sun. Entitled “Parents and teens should learn about HPV,” the message is both old news and—at the same time—viral in its own right. By viral, I mean an attitudinal infection that spreads throughout the culture, tainting anyone who bows to its tempting siren call of setting aside common sense in favor of sexual pleasure. You’ll see what I mean shortly.
Human papillomavirus is a viral infection. HealthCentral.com's health encyclopedia defines it as follows: "A virus that is the cause of common warts of the hands and feet, as well as of lesions of the mucous membranes of the oral, anal and genital cavities. HPV genital infection is one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases."
How does one contract a sexually transmitted disease? STDs are transmitted through sexual contact.
Now that we are all on the same page, let’s see what Planned Parenthood says: “If you could give your teenage daughter a vaccination that would prevent her from contracting a sexually transmitted disease that could lead to cancer, would you do it?”
The opening salvo automatically assumes two things about the parent or teen that picks up the paper and reads this article. One, the parent really doesn’t have a concern about whether or not his daughter is sexually active, as long as he can assure her safety by getting her vaccinated. Two, the parent is worried that his sexually active daughter could wind up with cancer, which would be tragic, and so it is but another reason to run right down to the clinic with his daughter and get this shot.
But if you are a parent who doesn’t want to think about this, Planned Parenthood is here to assure you that, even though you don’t want to believe that your daughter would ever engage in sexual activity, “most will eventually.” Not only that, but Planned Parenthood wants you to know that since their first assumption about your little girl is correct, you should understand that “the odds are good [she] will contract human papillomavirus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 80 percent of women will contract HPV by age 50.”
Now they’ve got you on the edge of your seat, and you are really worried. What to do?
Well, don’t worry, because this vaccine is going to take care of everything. As a matter of fact, Planned Parenthood explains that the vaccine, Gardasil, is effective against the strains of HPV that most often lead to cancer. And all you have to pay for this insurance policy on your sexually promiscuous daughter is $165 per vaccination. And yes, that’s times three because your daughter will need three shots.
Planned Parenthood also wants you to know that the vaccine has come under attack by—you guessed it—those damnable “conservatives who contend it encourages promiscuity.”
But your friends at Planned Parenthood want to assure you of one thing: “Obviously, we’re not giving the shot to a 16-year-old and telling them to go out and have sex. It’s not even about becoming sexually active now. You are really vaccinating them against their future.”
Isn’t that special? No, not really. We’ve got news for you, Mr. or Mrs. Parent, so listen up.
Let’s start with the story of Simone Davis, a 17-year-old girl whose paternal grandmother, Jean Davis, fought to get parental rights so that she could raise her granddaughter in a loving home environment. Simone had gotten off to a pretty rough start in her life, and her grandmother reached out to do what she could, even choosing to become Simone’s guardian.
Simone was born in England, and now that she is considering going to college, her grandmother is working to help her get American citizenship, which might sound like a very simple activity. Not so, if Simone does not receive the Gardasil vaccine!
The 1996 Immigration and Naturalization Act requires girls and women within a specified age group to receive the vaccination against certain specified diseases "and any other vaccinations recommended by the CDC's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices. [sic]
Gardasil was added to the list of vaccines in 2008.
Thank God, Simone’s grandmother is not taking this lying down, nor is she buying the Planned Parenthood viral venom.
"My choice to make an informed decision for the health of my child has been taken away," she told ABCNews.com. "I have been like a crazy woman, I have been so upset about this. I am really in a panic."
"How can they call this America, the land of the free?" she asked. "Where are my parental rights?"
If you want to hear more from this feisty grandma, you can listen to an interview with Jean Davis on Catholic Radio International.
But that’s just the beginning of the Gardasil horror stories. WebMD reported in April of this year,
Girls and women who receive the Gardasil vaccine to prevent cervical cancer may be at increased risk of a rare but serious disorder of the nervous system in the first few weeks after getting their shots, researchers report.
Overall, the vaccine does not raise the odds of developing Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disorder of the peripheral nervous system, says Nizar Souayah, MD, of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark.
“But there is clear evidence from our database of an increased incidence of Guillain-Barre syndrome in the first six weeks, especially the first two weeks, after vaccination,” he tells WebMD.
Cynthia Janak, a business owner, researcher, journalist and concerned American, took a very close look at Gardasil. She examined several clinical studies prior to writing “The Pandemic of Harm.” While we do not have the space to quote her findings at length, I would tell anyone with sincere concerns for their children or grandchildren to read every word of this woman’s exhaustive examination of the facts that have been published in prestigious scientific and medical journals. Janak has done her homework.
Her article presents the precise findings of several studies as well as the links to each study and the charts published in the scientific and medical journals she cites.
One of the most significant comments Janak makes is this comparison between the reaction to the H1N1 virus and the adverse effects of HPV vaccines:
Another thing I am going to bring to your attention is that with the Gardasil vaccine we have over 15,000 adverse events reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) with over 47 deaths and this does not even cause the FDA or the CDC to raise an eyebrow and suspend this vaccine. But let a child in Texas die and two children in California get sick from the flu in April and now you have a pandemic and a national emergency and everyone will need to be vaccinated in the fall.
You have, as of July, 9,967 confirmed cases in Europe and 4 deaths and everyone is frantic about the [H1N1] pandemic, but what about the pandemic of harm the HPV vaccines are causing? You have the HPV vaccines causing harm to young women around the world and that is okay. No one is going to do anything.
This is indeed a central concern of mine as well. On one level, we have the health questions that nobody is answering. There’s too much money at stake and too many political types pressuring for more of the same from the likes of Planned Parenthood and their allies.
On another level, we find a total abrogation of responsibility by the very people who should be living, breathing virtuous examples for young people.
I have to ask, how many teenagers have died from chastity? How many have been institutionalized for drug abuse because they saved themselves until marriage? How many have had to go into therapy because their self-esteem was high and their desire for promiscuous activity low?
Planned Parenthood is not only barking up the wrong tree, it and its fellow sex advocates are destroying souls, debilitating perfectly healthy young people, killing preborn babies and making a literal killing. Take a look at their profit margin sometime!
The ideology of death is viral. We must strive to correct this course by infusing the antidote of moral principle into the public discourse at every opportunity.
P.S. Look for a complete, in-depth report on the Gardasil vaccine and its harmful side effects, with even more information from Cynthia Janak, in the next issue of Celebrate Life magazine.
A SORDID TALE ABOUT CATHOLIC CAMPAIGN FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Posted: Thursday September 24, 2009 at 3:49 pm EST by Judie Brown
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Catholic Campaign for Human Development has been at the center of more sleazy news reports over the years than anyone could possibly count. I remember when, for example, CCHD was deeply involved in funding the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The now-infamous community organizing group, better known as ACORN, is the one that President Obama seems to have forgotten, even though he is, as Joseph Farah documents, “tied inextricably” to them.
To its credit, CCHD severed ties with ACORN, but the concern is that it will continue to use the donations of faithful Catholics to advance an agenda that has little to do with what I, for one, consider to be genuine Catholic projects to benefit the less fortunate.
Mary Ann Kreitzer recently blogged about the questionable CCHD, telling her readers,
While CCHD claims to be aiming at poverty's roots, it misses the mark. One of the greatest causes of poverty is the breakdown of the family. And yet browsing the CCHD grantees list, you would be hard-pressed to find a single "charity" that helps to strengthen the poor family. As for including the poor in the makeup and decision-making of groups, even that is questionable. VOICE in Virginia is an affiliate of the Industrial Areas Foundation. It is primarily made up of affluent suburban Christians. In Catholic parishes (and presumably protestant churches as well), pastors strong-arm groups to attend the mass meetings and be the "voice" of the people. Among those out front, however, the identifiable voices are two "progressive" priests. It will be interesting to see if VOICE appears on the 2009 list of CCHD grantees. They are already diverting parish money for their liberal lobbying and will likely get their hand in the national till as well.
In a recently released report on CCHD, which was noted by the ever-vigilant LifeSiteNews.com, we learn that the CCHD is immersed in funding groups that support abortion, contraception, same-sex "marriage" and legalized prostitution. The report, which was published by the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, gives examples, complete with documentation, of the many ways in which CCHD is using its money to undermine the principles of Catholic teaching.
For example, the Bellarmine report says that the “Chinese Progressive Association (San Francisco) has received CCHD funding for the last four years as a worker’s rights group. However, this organization publicly supports both abortion and same-sex marriage.”
Our dearly departed friend, Father Richard John Neuhaus, was always so profound and witty in his examination of problems such as this one with CCHD. Last year, he wrote,
What most Catholics don’t know, and what would likely astonish them, is that CHD very explicitly does not fund Catholic institutions and apostolates that work with the poor. Part of the thinking when it was established in the ideological climate of the 1960s is that Catholic concern for the poor would not be perceived as credible if CHD funded Catholic organizations. Yes, that’s bizarre, but the history of CHD is bizarre. The bishops could really help poor people by promptly shutting down CHD and giving any remaining funds to, for instance, Catholic inner-city schools. In any event, if there is a collection at your parish this month, I suggest that you can return the envelope empty—and perhaps with a note of explanation—without the slightest moral hesitation.
You might notice that Father does not attribute the first “C” to the CCHD as he was under the false impression that the bishops had taken action and removed the word “Catholic” from the CCHD identity. Sadly, that is not the case.
What IS the case—and painfully obvious to me and many others—is that CCHD is so far gone that there is little hope of ever seeing them adhere to Catholic teaching, let alone provide support to only those organizations that deserve Catholic donations. Why the USCCB has not acknowledged this and dealt with it is a question I cannot answer, but the record speaks for itself.
We cannot, however, let this continue without a groundswell of grassroots response and action. I am therefore deeply grateful to our good pro-life friend, Fabiola Gergerich, a loyal pro-life activist and faithful Catholic for what follows. She e-mailed this note, and I now share it with the nation:
On November 16-19, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will be having its fall assembly in Baltimore. On November 21-22, there is to be a collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.
I ask that we be proactive by calling/e-mailing/writing our bishops to insist that they stop this fraud campaign once and for all! I am sure they can find some time in their fall assembly to discuss this great scandal to the Catholic Church.
Those of you confirmed Catholics: Please remember that when we made our confirmation, we promised to be soldiers for Christ. Guess what? God is calling His army! We lay faithful can NO longer sit by and watch our beautiful Church be overrun with dissenters. Many of you stood up for our country by “protesting” at various tea parties, town halls and the 9/12 march. Now you must stand up for something more important—OUR Catholic Church. The time to act is now—not next week—but now!
"And then remember that you received the seal of the Spirit, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and godliness, and the spirit of holy fear, and preserve what you have received. God the Father has sealed you, Christ the Lord strengthened you and gave the earnest of the Spirit in your heart." —St. Ambrose, De Mysteriis 7, 42.
"With gifts and qualities such as these, we are equal to any task and capable of overcoming any difficulties." —Pope John Paul II, Address to the young people of Scotland, May 31, 1982.
In closing, I have to admit that the faithful Catholic, Ryan Ellis, is spot-on in his analysis of the CCHD debacle. The closing paragraphs of his “ACORN and the Catholic Church: A Legacy of Big Hearts and Small Brains” challenge even the most timid in our midst to take action now:
Today, the CCHD continues to state that ACORN receives no money, and that better safeguards are in place. However, one must ask the following questions:
1. Why did anyone think it was a good idea to fund ACORN in the first place?
2. Did those decision makers get fired, or are they still appropriating our money?
3. Why would anyone be stupid enough to give to this collection ever again?
4. Why haven’t the bishops disbanded CCHD, or at least made the collection optional for parishes?
Speaking for myself, I never gave to this (or any other) second collection, because I don’t trust that my money won’t be stolen from the big-hearted goops that work in Catholic charitable endeavors. There are lots of ACORNs out there, prowling about seeking the ruin of souls (at least the souls of the charity check-writers). Put simply, Catholic charitable endeavors cannot be trusted with my money. Neither can chanceries, since bishops obviously let their local CCHDs get out of hand.
Here is what I did, and what I would recommend to anyone. At my parish, 7 percent of the general collection every week is kicked upstairs to the diocese as a kind of tax or tribute. Because dollars are fungible, I don’t want that to happen with my money. So, I give only to capital campaign collections at my parish, which all stays there. My pastor is happy to receive my contribution any way in which I feel comfortable, and I’ve fulfilled my canon law obligation to support my parish financially (221.1).
I suggest anyone concerned about the next dumb Catholic/smart ACORN strategy do the same. Hopefully, the Catholic Church hierarchy has learned, once again, that prudence is a cardinal virtue that informs the theological virtue of charity.
It is high time that we as Catholics, who defend Christ, defend life and defend the magisterium of the Catholic Church, really did put our money where our mouth is ... or in this case, put our money away until we find a charity worthy of our support.
Eliminate the USCCB! Judie, thank you for your consistent stance. You are a modern Catherine of Sienna. Until I read your book, Saving Those Damned Catholics, I never heard anyone else call for eliminating the USCCB. I never gave it a thought. I'm currently very distraught over their getting on the Green Movement bandwagon because the Greens have allied with the abortion movement. Their "Climate Change Justice Initiative" is embarrassing.
A political cartoon I saw in the Washington Times illustrates how embarrassing. It depicts "It used to be" -- a girl is confessing her sins, "Forgive Me Father for I have sinned." The next panel, "Now it's" -- same girl asks Al Gore to forgive her for her "large carbon footprints." Nina | September 24, 2009
Judie What about Catholic Charities and St Vincent de paul promoting this current health care bill david olio | September 25, 2009
In the mid-eighties, a prolife friend of mine told me that this particular collection gave to a gay lobby in WashDC and that we should not donate. I wrote and asked our Ordinary (Philadelphia, PA) about this and was told to check with CCHD. I did not follow up, and we did not support this collection. I believe money -- lots of it -- does change the attitudes of people and is the root of evil. You are right, we should and ought to be Christ-centered and all else will fall into place. After all, the First Commandment is about God and the Worship of God and without it, none follows. Thanks for all you and your staff are doing on our behalf for the most helpless of our kind, the unborn babies! I cherish all your feature stories. AMDG + JMJ. Roslyn Stephen | September 25, 2009
Judie,
I asked my diocese (Orange County, CA) about this, and here is what they said:
Hello Tony,
Yes, our Diocese is a strong supporter of CCHD.
I had sent an inquiry to the CCHD national office regarding this article. Unfortunately, the information about the voters' guides for CPA and YWU was correct and as soon as they verified it, they cancelled their grants. Here are updated articles.
The CCHD thoroughly investigates all organizations that receive grants; however, the thousands of grants that are given, there is always the potential for an organization to change policy. They will continue to investigate any organization that is reported to not comply with Catholic teachings.
Thank you for your inquiry about this.
Georgeann Lovett
Director of Respect Life, Justice and Peace
Diocese of Orange
2811 East Villa Real Drive
Orange, CA 92867-1999
Website: www.rcbo.org Tony Weber | September 25, 2009
Fr. Neuhaus has another comment on his April 2002 First Things. Says to stay away from IAF because it is divisive. Our diocese is currently experiencing that division in a bad way. See our web http://johntwo24-25.net/index.html Thank you and pray for us. Our bishop is so very stressed. jo joyce | September 25, 2009
David
The current situation is that the groups have clarified that they do not support a specific bill at this time but are still in favor of nationalized health care. This is problematic as the Catholic Church focuses on the principle of subsidiarity, and as the public at large does not understand that nationalized health care reform of any type places the government in charge of health care rather than providing support for individual families to make their own decisions.
It is my humble opinion that Catholic Charities and SVDP have a financial stake in all this which is sad indeed. Money should not replace or be superior to principle.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 27, 2009
Judie B. said of the health reform debate as it relates to Catholic organizations (and the USCCB) supporting it: "This is problematic as the Catholic Church focuses on the principle of subsidiarity."
This is actually wrong. Yes, subsidiarity is a factor in Catholic moral teaching, but the way it's being applied to the health reform debate in the US is incorrect. The sad thing is, the falicy brgan with a couple bishops so every Catholic who doesn't know any better automatically believes it's correct. Fortunately, most folks understand the mistaken application of subsidiarity (many theologians and bishops have since come out and corrected the misinformation) and reform efforts continue, alittle bruised, but undeterred. Rachel A | September 28, 2009
Dear Tony
The history is not about what CCHD says in its own defense; it is about the facts.
See this article which is referenced above in my commentary and is fully documented with the whole mess : http://www.catholicmediacoalition.org/picking_pockets.htm
Not a single refutation has come to our attention on the facts. Ms. Lovett should know by now that denial is not the same as facts.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 29, 2009
Dear Rachel
The Bishops that we have relied on along with our own theologian's expertise on Catholic teaching agree with Pope John Paul II who has made this very clear many times including in his encyclical letter, Centessimus Annus:
"...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 and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."
The way it is being applied in the health care reform debate is CORRECT, Rachel. The government should not be dictating health care policy for families to families; it should be supporting them in their efforts to achieve fairness which means reforming the pharmaceutical industry, the legal framework which drives insurance rates through the roof and so forth.
Health care reform that is based on cutting cost by killing the elderly and infirm violates much more than the principle of subsidiarity.
LEARNING FROM OUR MISTAKES Posted: Wednesday September 23, 2009 at 12:52 pm EST by Judie Brown
By Rev. Roger J. Landry
Last week, our editorial argued that one of the most important lessons pastors of the Church in the United States need to draw from the history of interactions with Senator Ted Kennedy on the sanctity of human life is that a strategy of conscience education alone with “personally opposed,” but publicly “pro-choice” Catholic politicians hasn’t worked. The attempt to engage, teach and help persuade such politicians to conversion didn’t succeed with Senator Kennedy, and it hasn’t succeeded yet with other “pro-choice” Catholic legislators.
To say that it hasn’t succeeded, however, is really not strong enough. It’s possible, after all, to fail a test with a grade of 59; in such a case, a student would be able to take some solace in the fact that, while there are some areas in need of improvement, he was close to minimal success. If a student fails a test with close to a zero, on the other hand, he obviously needs to make some radical changes if he ever hopes to succeed. And that is closer to the candid assessment that leaders of the Church need to make relative to the education-alone strategy during the past few decades.
Let us take an honest look at the numbers. When we survey the long list of “pro-choice” Catholic politicians from both parties—Kennedy, Kerry, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Daschle, Dodd, Durban, Leahy, Mikulski, Pelosi, Delahunt, Capuano, Markey, McGovern, Meehan, Granholm, Sebelius, Pataki, Richardson, Cellucci, Cuomo and Biden, to name just a handful—is it possible to say that the strategy has worked with any of them? Over the last three and a half decades, can we point to even one success story?
Another way to assess the results of the education-alone strategy is to measure the direction in which “pro-choice” Catholic politicians have moved over the years. Even if they haven’t experienced a total conversion, have they moved closer toward limiting abortions or toward making abortions easier to access? The facts show that the vast majority of “personally opposed,” but publicly “pro-choice” Catholic legislators have become far less personally opposed and far more publicly in favor over the duration of the strategy.
In the initial years after Roe versus Wade, publicly “pro-choice” Catholic legislators generally whispered their support for abortion. They displayed a palpable sense of shame, letting their abortion position out just enough so that it wouldn’t cost them the votes of abortion supporters. That discomfort began to dissipate after Governor Mario Cuomo’s 1984 “pro-choice” defense at Notre Dame.
We’ve now come to a situation in which “pro-choice” Catholic legislators vigorously curry the favor of Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List; scores of Catholics in Congress have the chutzpah to cosponsor the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate almost every abortion restriction ever passed at the federal or state level; and 16 out of 25 Catholic senators vote against conscience protections to prevent their fellow Catholics in the medical field from being forced to participate in abortions and sterilizations.
After looking at these facts, it seems clear that the education-alone strategy has even failed to deter many Catholics in Congress from becoming some of the most radical supporters, defenders and would-be public funders of abortion on Capitol Hill.
Why has the education-alone strategy been such a colossal failure? There are several reasons, but one of the most important, and least noted, is that it shares many of the same flawed approaches as the “personally opposed,” but publicly “pro-choice” position it seeks to remedy.
Today there are many “personally opposed,” but publicly “pro-choice” Catholic legislators for whom this phrase seems to be just an empty slogan, because they give almost no evidence that they even have any personal opposition to abortion. At least initially, however, there were some who sincerely held that irreconcilable position. These public figures had a deep personal repugnance for abortion but, for various reasons, were uncomfortable voting in favor of any laws that would prevent others from doing what they they maintain they would never personally do. Many hoped that women would not choose to abort their unborn sons or daughters. Some even spoke out on why they thought abortion was wrong and supported educational endeavors to help women in difficult pregnancies learn about fetal development.
No matter how much some politicians stressed education in the early days, however, it was trumped by the educational value and power of the law. The law taught forcefully that there was nothing wrong with abortion as long as a mother, and a mother alone, deemed it desirable for her physical or mental health. Even though the politicians held offices in which they could work to change what the law itself teaches about the morality of abortion, they did not exercise them, and even though they professionally were accustomed, in every piece of legislation, to imposing some notion of the good on those who disagree with them, with regard to the issue of abortion, they left everything to the judgment, ill-informed or not, of the conscience of the mother.
The essence of their position has been that, no matter how wrong they know abortion to be, the mother should have the right to do that wrong—a lethal, permanent wrong to her unborn child. They give the ill-informed conscience of the potential wrongdoer greater weight than the truth about abortion, the life of the unborn child, and the soul and psyche of the soon-to-be-forever-wounded mother combined.
When we examine the education-alone approach of pastors with respect to “pro-choice” politicians, we see that it too has basically become a “personally opposed,” but publicly “pro-choice” position as well. There’s obviously a clear personal repugnance on the part of pastors to the “pro-choice” Catholic politicians’ separation between faith and moral action, schizophrenia between private and public personality, and lip service to the Church’s teachings. Many pastors have sought to exercise their teaching office, stating forthrightly what abortion is and what the responsibilities of all legislators are with respect to it. All of their teaching, however, has been trumped by the weightier educational value of the de facto “law” that has left everything to the conscience, however ill-informed, of the “pro-choice” Catholic politicians.
These men and women have learned over time that, regardless of what canon law says, they are at liberty to ignore the Church’s teachings on life. Even though the U.S. bishops have taught with one voice that “pro-choice” Catholic legislators should not present themselves to receive Holy Communion, if they pay no heed to that teaching and present themselves anyway, they have observed that, in practice, they will almost never be denied. With Senator Kennedy’s funeral, they have now grasped that even a 100-percent pro-abortion voting record will not only not prevent them from having a Catholic funeral, but will not even stop them from receiving possibly one of the most publicly panegyrical Catholic funerals in U.S. history.
The upshot—these smart men and women have concluded—is that the Church’s practice is essentially “pro-choice” with respect to “pro-choice” Catholic politicians. The politicians’ own determination in conscience, erroneous or not, is given greater weight than, combined, the truth proclaimed by the Church, the duty to protect the politicians’ souls from a potentially mortal wound, and the responsibility to do all that is possible, according to one’s office, to try to stop the killing.
The education-alone approach has failed for the same reason that the “personally opposed,” but publicly “pro-choice” position has led to massive abortion on demand: The nature of sin is that the easier it is to commit and the fewer the consequences for doing it, the more sin we’ll have.
Jesus spoke of a different way in the Gospel (Mt 18:15–18). It involves not merely general educational statements that we hope offenders will apply to themselves in conscience, but the type of one-on-one instruction traditionally called fraternal correction. If that fails, and fails repeatedly, Jesus enjoined us to regard the offender as someone who no longer belongs to the community, who is no longer a member in good standing.
This may seem harsh, but we should remember that Jesus always seeks nothing but the best for his Church and for individual sinners, even obstinate sinners. Implied in Jesus’ strategy is that education involves not just information, but also formation, and that you can’t form disciples without discipline. This is a lesson that, after four decades of the undeniable failure of another approach, we need to consider anew.
Father Roger J. Landry is pastor of Saint Anthony of Padua parish in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and executive editor of the Anchor, the weekly newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Fall River, from which this commentary is reprinted with permission. His articlesand homilies are archived at http://catholicpreaching.com.
I thank God for Fr. Landry's courage and clear thinking, and his bishop's support for his expressing what needs to be expressed. David Volk | September 23, 2009
PERSONHOOD: IT’S ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS Posted: Tuesday September 22, 2009 at 2:39 pm EST by Judie Brown
American Life League recently helped organize an event in Florida with the leadership of the Personhood Florida organization.
As is usually the case when personhood comes to the forefront, pro-abortion extremists immediately begin making wild claims about what the real goal of personhood is. For example, a headline in the Sun Sentinel reads, “Personhood Florida seeks to outlaw abortion, birth control.”
And another headline from the Tampa Tribune reads, “Would proposed amendment make birth control illegal in Florida?”
WJXT-TV’s News 4 reported, “Abortion foes seek signatures for amendment: Constitutional amendment would also ban many forms of contraception.”
The common thread running through these headlines is the use of fear tactics. These are employed so that the average voter will be predisposed, prior to even reading the amendment language on the ballot, or the background behind it, to vote against it. So what’s a pro-life Floridian, or, for that matter, any pro-lifer in a state with personhood on the ballot, to say about this?
Well, let’s start with the facts. That’s always a good place to find information and the last place pro-abortion, culture-of-death radicals want anyone to go.
It’s about rights. During a Reuters interview, American Life League Communications Director Katie Walker said exactly what each pro-personhood worker should say, “It [personhood] is a very simple concept that is fulfilling the civil rights movement.”
In other words, for close to 40 years, an entire segment of our population — those waiting to be born — have been discriminated against by the law and society. These human beings, who are, in fact, persons in every sense of the word, deserve the very same civil rights, human rights and equal rights as you and me. They are no less people, no less part of the human family and no less important than any single one of us. The only difference is that they are not yet born. That, and the law currently protects the act of murdering them.
Personhood will change that. Personhood will acknowledge that, just like you and me, each of them is a person. As the proposed Florida personhood amendment states:
SECTION 28. Person Defined. --
(a) The words “person” and “natural person” apply to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, health, function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.
This language does not mention abortion, nor does it mention contraception or birth control. What the language does affirm is what many Americans had taken for granted prior to the U. S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Boltondecisions of January 22, 1973. It clarifies in law that a person is a person from his or her biological beginning.
It is a positive declaration of the individual. The language is a guarantee that human rights, civil rights and equal rights will apply to every person in any state where personhood becomes the law.
Now let’s get to the particulars. It is true that when a state affirms personhood, the state is admitting to the fact that the act of abortion robs a person of his rights and is, therefore, unacceptable. Regardless of how that individual’s life is taken — whether by chemical, medical or surgical means — the act of killing would be addressed by lawmakers subsequent to passage of the personhood amendment. Clearly, procured abortion would be, by definition, a crime.
Those who have been committed to protecting the act of abortion under the law will raise all the hard cases. They will cry that if personhood becomes the law, “even abortion in the case of rape, incest of the life of the mother” would be a crime. They are correct.
There is no legitimate reason, regardless of the circumstance, that can be given to condone an act of murder, an act that results in the death of an innocent person. Doctors know this is true, and that is why, from a medical ethics perspective, a doctor will always do everything he can to save the lives of both the mother and the preborn child, since both people are his patients. And even when that child’s biological father is the perpetrator of a violent act against the child’s mother, it is illogical to suggest that murdering the innocent third party is justified because of the crimes of that child’s father.
Many who condone abortion want the public to believe that my statement is heartless, cruel and disrespectful to women. But how could that possibly be the case? At least half of those who die by the act of abortion are girl babies who will, if allowed to live, grow into womanhood themselves. They are females who should have the same rights and the same respect as those already born.
Catherine Dolinski, who wrote the article for the Tampa Tribune, reported
That [personhood as law], opponents say, would make it a crime not just to kill a fetus by abortion, but also to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus as birth control pills can.… As described by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), birth control pills and intrauterine devices work partly by causing the lining of the uterus to thin, "making it less likely that a fertilized egg can attach to it."
Dolinski tries hard to depersonalize the baby by never using the word “baby.” However, it is a biological fact that the “fertilized egg,” accurately described as the single-cell human embryo or single-cell human being, is a human being, an individual whose human rights are just as worthy of protection as any other human being. The point is that he or she exists. What else can we say?
Further, whether that person came into being through sexual or asexual means is irrelevant. In either case, we are addressing the rights of a person who deserves to be protected by law. For those who may not have encountered the term “asexual means” before, I want to make it very clear that these human beings are no different than any other class of persons.
A human being can come into existence these days by asexual means. As Dr. Dianne Irving has written,
[E]xtensive human cloning, and other forms of human genetic engineering -- all of which can asexually reproduce new living single-cell human organisms (human beings) -- are already being done in IVF clinics, for both "research" and for "reproductive" purposes. One of the most common IVF techniques is called “twinning” – and twinning is one of many different kinds of cloning techniques. The procedure mimics the kind of identical twinning that takes place naturally inside the fallopian tube of a women, resulting in the asexual reproduction of an identical twin, triplet, etc.
By the way, it is quite obvious that ACOG has worked hard to legitimize the chemical killing of week-old human beings, because so many of its members are part of the culture of death.
We have to be honest and set forth the facts, while at the same time exposing the jaundiced views of those who have altered truth for the benefit of their income, their ideology and/or their perverse attitudes toward human beings and their value.
Sooner or later, each and every American will have to answer a simple question: Are there human beings who are less important and therefore disposable?
If the answer to that question is “yes,” then the follow up to it is this: Why would you condone the direct killing of someone based on his size or condition of dependency?
Is it because it is more convenient for you to use a method of birth control that can kill somebody than it is for you to admit the truth and change your lifestyle?
Is it because you have so little regard for the gift of life that your personal opinions are all that matter?
As we know, millions of Americans have already given the wrong answer, which is why we have murdered millions in this nation and described those acts as nothing more or less than personal choices. The “freedom of choice” has obliterated the ability of many to understand the ramifications of always placing one’s self first, even if it means that someone else must die.
As Florida pro-life leader Pat McEwen of Life Coalition International pointed out, "People who care about the life of babies are going to go out and gather signatures.… We will not give up. We are persistent."
Indeed, we must begin — in every state, not just Florida — to spread the word, open minds, touch hearts and reach out on behalf of those who currently go silently to their death every day because the world waxes cold to truth.
That doesn’t change the facts; it never will and so we must persist.
First of all, while I do not find this article bad for decrying the evil of abortion, I do find it very disrespectful to women and their husbands.
To call an unborn child a person who has rights to be protected by the state is a direct attack on subsidiarity. It is the duty of the husband and wife (i.e., father and mother of a child) to protect the potential rights of a child. Only if they abuse this can they be relieved of this duty.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches very clearly on subsidiarity as binding on religious assent:
1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "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 and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."
It is also absurd to say that an unborn child deserves "the very same civil rights, human rights and equal rights as you and me." A right is a moral power which only comes about by a duty. What duty does an unborn child have?
This is a horrifying article which does not expose the far-reaching effects of a "personhood" amendment. All women in the US should not have to be subjected to such violation simply because some or many women choose to abuse themselves and their children.
My questions are these:
How in the world, without violating both the privacy of a woman of reproductive age and subsidiarity, can a state demand to know who is pregnant and who is not in order to adequately protect all "persons" under its jurisdiction?
How is the state going to protect unborn children under this amendment if there is even a short period during a woman's pregnancy when both she and medical tests cannot tell certainly that she is pregnant?
How can the matter of pregnancy be usurped by the state and removed from the internal forum of the woman when she has done nothing to abuse her office of mother?
-- CS Chelsea Smith | September 25, 2009
Dear Chelsea
It is the duty of the husband and wife to welcome the child, and to affirm that child's personhood once he or she is conceived. If the couple does not wish to be with child, they can abstain from sexual relations during the fertile time.
Once the baby is conceived, that child's rights do not come from parents; they are derived from the fact that he is a child, a human being whose human rights are equal to his mother's and father's, not subservient to them.
The parents have a duty to nurture the child, there is no moral right to kill him. Every human being should have equal rights under the law, including preborn children.
Nobody is asking the state to demand to know who is and who is not pregnant, CS. We are asking the state to acknowledge the person prior to birth as having the same rights as all other persons.
You are missing the point when you ask questions about pregnancy itself. IF a preborn child comes into being by any means whatsoever, and is possibly in existence, whether proven or suspected, all the laws and attitudes of our culture should affirm that human being as a person. Then, if indeed there is no preborn child in existence or the mother miscarries, the right thing will have been done by opting to protect the child IN CASE that child is there.
No state can usurp the matter of pregnancy. A woman has a right to protect herself, but when she becomes pregnant she has an obligation to protect not only herself but her baby who is equally as valuable as she is. An expectant mother has two people to care for, herself and her baby.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 27, 2009
To follow up on the first comment, could "personhood" turn into yet another Pandora's box that would permit and encourage government intrusion into additional areas where it has no business?
If personhood for the unborn was established, then you can bet your last dime that the government would then mandate certain prenatal health and education programs for the mom-in-waiting, telling her how the nanny state wants her to raise her child. And of course that mandatory program would be utterly devoid of any faith-based component.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea. The child in the womb would no longer be the mother's or the father's -- or God's -- but the state's. Just as the state now infringes on the rights of parents "in the best interest of the (born) child," it would infringe equally egregiously "in the best interest" of the unborn child -- even to the point of ordering abortion for a child in the womb with a disability or abnormality.
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. JWT | September 27, 2009
Dear JWT
Your pespective comes from a total lack of understanding about the identity of the human being as a human person. To establish personhood for all human beings from their biological beginning has nothing to do with any sort of government mandates. We have to face one fact and the sooner we do, the better:
we have a federal governemnt with little to no regard for the dignity of any person, born or preborn. If the government were respectful of human dignity, it would not fund Planned Parenthood; it would not approve contraceptives under false pretenses; it would not approve tax dollars or private dollars for the killing of human embryonic people, et cetera.
The child in the womb is and always has been God's. The government has for more than 30 years denied that that child even existed. Not only that but the government has been infringing on that child human rights and equal rights for a very long time, as it has on all of us by using our tax dollars to market death.
What you are positing here is way off base, but thank you for your opinions. We do appreciate you giving us the chance to understand where you are coming from. Now please give us the same courtesy.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 29, 2009
I wholeheartedly support legally vesting personhood of the human being at the point each individual's existence begins. I did, however, raise a serious point about how the federal government might pervert personhood efforts. I forgive you for your misinterpretation of my comment, and most especially for your implication that I am discourteous. JWT | October 6, 2009
Thank you very much, JWT. I never try to be discourteous toward others, even when we disagree. So I appreciate your forgiveness.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 7, 2009
Thank you very much, JWT. I never try to be discourteous toward others, even when we disagree. So I appreciate your forgiveness.
Further, I note that you wrote specifically on the 29th of September:
If personhood for the unborn was established, then you can bet your last dime that the government would then mandate certain prenatal health and education programs for the mom-in-waiting, telling her how the nanny state wants her to raise her child. And of course that mandatory program would be utterly devoid of any faith-based component.
The reason I do not agree with this is that you and I are already recognized as persons, including when those of us who are female are with child, so the government is simply not going to respond the way you posit. If it did, Americans would be up in arms.
Pro-Life Story: Ghetto Nissi Posted By Ghetto Nissi on Mar, 8 2006 Here's my story. I have two friends that got pregnant while we were in high school. Alison became pregnant our junior year. Before that, she had been a good friend of mine but ... Read
