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!
THE POLITICS OF MAYHEM, MISCHIEF AND MURDER Posted: Thursday December 17, 2009 at 5:14 pm EST by Judie Brown
The internet is abuzz with statements decrying the United States Senate for its action in defeating the so-called pro-life Nelson-Hatch Amendment to the health care reform proposal. This is the Senate version of the Stupak Amendment. But one has to wonder if anyone has actually read the language. The Nelson Amendment stipulates in part,
(b) Limitation on Abortion Funding.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, EXCEPT IN THE CASE WHERE A WOMAN SUFFERS FROM A PHYSICAL DISORDER, PHYSICAL INJURY, OR PHYSICAL ILLNESS THAT WOULD, AS CERTIFIED BY A PHYSICIAN, PLACE THE WOMAN IN DANGER OF DEATH UNLESS AN ABORTION IS PERFORMED, INCLUDING A LIFE-ENDANGERING PHYSICAL CONDITION CAUSED BY OR ARISING FROM THE PREGNANCY ITSELF, OR UNLESS THE PREGNANCY IS THE RESULT OF AN ACT OF RAPE OR INCEST. (emphasis added)
My, oh my, what a weak, watered-down excuse for restricting abortion funding! This language is actually an insult to the founding principles of the pro-life movement. But for those who deal in cold, hard facts rather than principle, think about this formula, which was e-mailed to me just yesterday:
If there are 1.21 million abortions a year and 12% of abortions occur because of a mother’s health, 1% because of rape, and .5% for incest, then the estimated total number of abortions for these reasons could be as many as 147,015 babies killed.
145,200 abortions due to health of mother (12% of all abortions)
+ 1,815 abortions due to rape and incest (1.5% of all abortions)
147,015 due to mother’s health/rape/incest
Twelve percent of that number, which is the number of women on Medicaid, would result in 17,640 babies being killed with the encouragement of supporters of the Stupak/Nelson Amendment.
That is equal to the population of Greenfield, Indiana, just outside of Indianapolis.
Quantitatively then, the alleged pro-life amendment supported by many, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Family Research Council, the National Right to Life Committee, Priests for Life and others, would have condemned at least 17,640 babies to death every year. What is worse is that the amendment implicitly acknowledges Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton as morally legitimate Supreme Court decisions by accepting the ground rules set forth by the Court. On its face, therefore, this amendment is fatally flawed, but I think there is another, even more sinister plot afoot.
Could it be that the so-called pro-life amendment tactic in the House and the Senate is really a sideshow designed to distract pro-life organizations and pro-life Americans in general from other serious dangers inherent in this legislation? Is it possible that the framers of this draconian proposal want to shield the public from the deleterious effects it would have on the United States as a whole and all of her citizens?
That’s what one Catholic bishop, Robert Vasa of the Baker, Oregon diocese, discusses in a column he wrote a few days ago:
The Catholic support for the Stupak Amendment, which brought the Hyde Amendment’s prohibition of the use of federal funds for abortion into the legislation, should not be interpreted as a complete support by the Church of everything else in the health care reform legislation. For instance, the proposed health bill continues to provide abortion payments in cases of rape and incest and when the life of the mother is threatened. This is contrary to Church teachings about the inviolability and dignity of every pre-born human being regardless of the circumstances of their origin.
The legislation aims at further developing school-based clinics that provide, as well as appropriate medical interventions, contraceptives and referrals for abortion. This is a completely unacceptable use of Catholic tax dollars. It is surmised that the states with assisted suicide, presently our own Oregon and Washington, will be provided with some federal funds for “counseling” for patients who might be candidates for this “medical service.” This too is unacceptable. There has been a program of federally funded abstinence education and the present proposal abolishes this while funding sex education. These sex education programs generally provide information on “how to” while avoiding pregnancy rather than “why not.” Whether this component is linked to abortion or not, and it probably is, the Church certainly opposes this approach to sex education. There may be some conscience protections in the bill particularly with regard to direct and intentional as well as elective abortion but this is grossly inadequate. Catholic and Christian physicians and nurses, well as all men and women of good will, as well as private or religious health care institutions, need to be free from coercion relative to the so-called “medically necessary” abortions, contraception, sterilization, and other “services” that do not respect the value, sanctity or integrity of human life. Such adequate conscience protections are not currently included.
There are other more global issues that make the health care reform legislation problematic. The provision of health care is done in the context of a sacrosanct relationship — that between the patient and the physician. This is both a personal and a professional relationship and the physician has the right and the need to be free to diagnose and prescribe for the patient a mode of treatment that is morally and medically sound. There is already a degree of interference in this relationship by way of a variety of mechanisms, but the reform legislation seems to heighten that interference. Further, the reform legislation moves in the direction of a monolithic system with many coverage mandates and little option for families to change the coverage provisions of their personal health care plan or to form pools that reward healthy behaviors. Many plans, for instance, are mandated to provide contraceptive coverage and any Catholic family who would wish to have this coverage excluded from their plan would be prohibited from doing so. They are thus forced to pay for a provision they oppose for religious reasons and that would, in this plan, be available to their minor children without parental consent. This intrusion into the heart of the family is likewise offensive.
Needless to say, the legislation is seriously flawed and though there might have been some small sense of victory with the Stupak Amendment there are still very serious concerns about the impact that this legislation could have on the provision of health care in America. It is not expected that we will be able to configure the plan in such a way that it would be entirely consistent with Catholic moral and social principles but we must work to assure, at very least, that we are free to live our faith in a way consistent with our faith tradition. The inclusion of a comprehensive conscience protection clause would go a long way in assuring that freedom.
Bishop Vasa speaks for many of us with his carefully constructed analysis of the fundamental difficulties we are currently confronting. His Excellency sees clearly the problematic nature of an anti-life Congress and administration committed to controlling the health care system by doling out services according to some bureaucratic agenda guaranteed to be anything but pro-life in principle or action.
I don’t know about you, but I would prefer to leave the mayhem, mischief and murder to mystery novelists, rather than seeing them played out in the life-or-death situations that families must face every single day.
Let’s stop kidding ourselves and face the truth of the matter. For many years now, the U.S. government has upheld and supported decriminalized abortion, and thus has been the arbiter of neither justice nor mercy. Let’s pray for a real Christmas gift for our nation: the death of health care reform as currently proposed.
Great article! One correction though: the rape and incest number is incorrect. 1.5% of 1.21 million is 18,150 (not 1,850). 18,150 babies conceived in rape or incest are murdered every year.
Unfortunately even the majority of those who call themselves "pro-life" support the murder of babies conceived in rape/incest, or risk to the mother; and they are even willing to pay for it! How awful! We need to convert these people.
I often wonder if there is another group of human beings in the world who are despised as much as babies conceived in rape, or incest, or when there is risk to the mother. Despised so much that approx. 70-80% of the general public support their murder, and are even willing to pay for it. Imagine how that makes those who were conceived in rape or incest feel; to know that most of your fellow human beings think your murder is justified. It's a terrible feeling!
I thank God for American Life League since it is truly pro-life in defending all preborn babies, no exceptions, in both words and actions. If it wasn't for ALL, I would have given up on the pro-life movement due to the fact that many within it seem to be wolves in sheep's clothing, and speak out of both sides of their mouth. Deborah Morlani@hotmail.com | December 18, 2009
I am sometimes titled as being orthodox or even too orthodox in my thinking while my actions don't back up my conviction, my spirit is weak, I long to be truly pro-life.
The win is in getting the amendment passed and the bill defeated. We are not in it to win the battle. The victory is Christ's. Our mission, like Paul reminds us, is to fight the good fight. We must lose our life to save it. Ultimately, Christ conquers death.
Now, suppose the amendment passes and the bill is still passed. What a hollow victory. As you point out, we have just "Souled out" 150 thousand of our own. Next time will it be 150 million? We have given up the high ground to defend the majority.
And like the bully who tells us our shoelace is untied to knee us in the face when we look down, a billion babies have been murdered while we hassle over who has the right to be a person. Laurence Casey | December 18, 2009
idont think the majority of bishops politicians lay catholics get it. rape incest or whatever it is murder!!!!! stop being cowards and tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. we are all going to have to answer to the lord on the sin of ommision. please catholics wake up especially the ones in leadership roles and pray that they will come to their conversion. god bless jerry jerry maltese | December 18, 2009
Bishop Vasa recently pronounced a hospital in his diocese was no longer Catholic. This hospital had formerly been owned by a religious order. Others, in other parts of the country and still owned by religious orders, should similarly be declared no longer Catholic.
Does anyone know of Catholic health care systems which remain Catholic? Is there any authentically Catholic health care institution which can be held up as a model? David Volk | February 23, 2010
David
While I do know that there are some Catholic hospitals that embrace ALL aspects of Church teaching, I also know that for the most part Bishops prefer to do nothing at all.
CALCULATING CATHOLICS AND THEIR MISCHIEF Posted: Wednesday December 16, 2009 at 12:58 pm EST by Judie Brown
Michael Voris, who is a constant amazement, inspiration and motivational force to me, appears in a series called “The Vortex” which is available on YouTube and his web site. RealCatholicTV is the only internet Catholic television news outlet, and let me tell you, Voris is among the best we have seen. In his most recent presentation, “Obama and the Catholic Bishops,” Voris exposes the USCCB definitively and with no holds barred.
Voris provides an accurate history of how the USCCB got into the pickle it is in today, and why the Democratic party’s principles and philosophy of yesteryear, which became synonymous with the Catholic bishops’ teaching many years ago, has today become the fundamental basis for much, if not all, the scandal that swirls around the Catholic bishops and their bureaucrats.
As Voris tells the listener, "When you sleep with dogs, you are gonna get fleas." But let us not take his word for it; let’s look at a few fleas.
With no disrespect intended, I have to begin this exercise with Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Catholic lawyer, author and apologist for dissent. Califano recently wrote an editorial for the Washington Post regarding the recent news that Rhode Island Bishop Tobin denied Holy Eucharist to pro-abortion Congressman Patrick Kennedy. He reflected back on his years with President Lyndon Johnson, boasting that as his chief domestic advisor,
I was the (Catholic) White House aide responsible for enforcing those policies.
Johnson's actions prompted a stinging attack from Catholic bishops, who charged that he was coercing the poor to practice birth control. The president told me to "work something out" with the bishops, who were our needed allies in battling poverty and racial discrimination. At meetings with Father Francis Hurley, the bishops' top Washington staffer, and Detroit Archbishop John Dearden, leader of the American bishops, I assured them that we were offering an option to the poor, not coercing acceptance.
We ultimately agreed that if the president phrased his policy in terms of "population control" (which allowed for more food and the church-approved rhythm method of family planning as well as contraception), the bishops would cool their rhetoric. LBJ kept his word, and when he later signed a U.N. declaration supporting population control, the bishops were silent.
Carter and I opposed federal funding of abortion unless the life of the woman was at stake, a position Catholic bishops shared. Congress authorized funds for abortion in that circumstance and in cases of rape or incest "promptly reported." My options were to resign or to enforce the law by issuing regulations that defined "prompt" reporting. Back then, women generally did not report rape or incest unless they thought they were pregnant, so I set prompt reporting at within 60 days. The bishops were furious, and their attack vehement. Some said that I should have resigned rather than enforce the law. But none suggested that I be denied the Eucharist.
Please note Califano’s stunning comments that the bishops, even in the late 1960s, were pandering to the Democratic party, but in this case, on the question of the intrinsic moral evil of contraception, which is anathema, or at least should be, to Catholics regardless of their power or position. It is particularly interesting to note that Califano was responsible, or at least it seems so, in keeping the bishops silent on this most crucial matter. But what is most distressing is that clearly, and history bears this out, the bishops acquiesced. It’s those darned fleas, isn’t it!
Califano also clarifies for all of us that in those days of camaraderie between the Catholic bishops and the Democratic party, there were moments of furious rhetoric but nothing of substance to set forth the fact that Catholics in public life could not set aside their Catholicism for the sake of politics.
Exactly 40 years ago this fall, candidate John Kennedy promised a group of Protestant ministers that he wouldn't let his Catholic faith interfere with his service as president, if he got elected. And he was elected . . . and he kept his word.
Looking back, this was one of the watersheds of public life in our country. Without ever intending it, Kennedy created a model of accommodation which then helped to shape a whole generation of Catholic officeholders . . . all of whom found a way to live comfortably with the canyon that opened up between their private consciences and their public service. Of course the cost is high. Pragmatism in public life usually has a louder voice than conscience -- and private conscience can very easily become not much more than private opinion.
Indeed Archbishop Chaput has placed the problem precisely where it belongs. Califano, another perfect example of what the Archbishop is teaching, boasts loudly even now about his glee at being one of the political heirs of this false idea that one can easily feel no pangs of conscience for setting aside his or her Catholic identity for the sake of political accommodations.
If you don’t believe it, listen to another infamous Catholic in public life.
There are millions of pro-abortion rights Catholics who understand that women faced with unintended pregnancies or complications in wanted pregnancies have to make difficult, complex decisions for themselves and their families. They do not make the decision to have an abortion lightly and without weighing all of their options. They must retain the ability to make this decision and the ability to access the care they need, whatever their choice may be. That means they must have access to health insurance that covers abortion care-- just as millions of Americans must have access to affordable health insurance and health care.
Kennedy Townsend is, of course, no stranger to controversy. She is a public dissenter of much of what the Church teaches. Perhaps she takes comfort in thinking that there are “millions of pro-abortion rights Catholics,” though it causes many of us great pain to realize that this is so.
What is really most interesting about her is that she is constantly admonishing Catholic bishops and not a single bishop has ever taken her to task on the matter. There is no record of a Catholic bishop ever publicly calling her to account and making it clear that she may not receive the body of Christ nor is there a public record of a single bishop responding to her nonsense.
Finally, there’s the case of Sr. Donna Quinn of the Sinsinawa Dominican community who recently made headlines again due to her public support for abortion.
Railing about the Senate’s failed amendment that would have limited abortion payment in health care reform, the Chicago Tribune reported:
“The Amendment lost today but now the work will be to take this Bill and come out with the same good news when the Senate and House work together,” Quinn said.
Citing a poem about the Virgin Mary, Quinn noted the providential date of the amendment’s defeat.
“I was reminded of being with men and women from the Unitarian faith tradition last year as they celebrated Mary who by her assent, they believed, was one of the first women in the New Testament to express Choice,” Quinn said.
Quoting writer Jeannine Gramick, Quinn wrote: “Faithful and respectful dissent is vital to the life of the [C]hurch. It enables the [C]hurch community to think, to deliberate, to debate and to grow in relationship to one another and in relationship to God. We cannot afford to let our dissenters be silenced. They are a gift to our [C]hurch."
Of course, it is not at all true that “respectful dissent is vital to the life of the Church.” The truth is that dissent is destructive and creates scandal from one end of the nation to the other. The Catholic Dictionary defines doctrinal dissent as "[t]he theory that a professed Catholic may legitimately disagree with an official teaching of the Catholic Church and, in fact, should disagree in order to advance the Church's interests."
It goes on to say:
It is based on one of several erroneous premises, e.g., Modernism, which denies that divine faith is an assent of the mind to God's revealed truth, or process theology, which postulates an evolving deity and therefore also an everchanging truth. Most often the dissent applies to some doctrine of Christian morals which, though infallibly true, because taught by the Church's universal ordinary magisterium, has not been solemnly defined.
Obviously there are many fleas parading around as Catholics these days. And until the Catholic bishops acquire the unanimous wherewithal to use a heavy dose of truth as the cure-all for this type of flea infestation, the problem will continue unabated.
As Pope Leo XIII so accurately taught: "The first law of history is not to dare to utter falsehood; the second, not to fear to tell the truth."
Dear Judie,
I've heard of Protestants that say if Catholics really truly believed that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, then they would be much more amazed, much more concerned with whether they were in a state of Grace, and much more reverent and thankful. I agree with that, and it got me to thinking that if we claim to be pro-life that means we believe the unborn are really people and we should be so outraged that saving these lives is our top priority, just as if over 4000 adults were murdered in this country every day because someone didn't want them. Then would the Church make those murders their top priority, and would we band together to fight against the injustice? Would every Catholic parish then have pro-life groups that included every single parishioner? Would Fr Jenkins and others like him have honored President Obama even if he and his administration aided and promoted the 4000+ daily murders of adults? Exactly how large does a person have to be before the entire Church is outraged at their demise, and will accept nothing less than freedom to live for ALL people. So there are two things that make no sense in our Church, that we are not more concerned about being in the state of Grace to receive our Lord (as obviously pro-abortion Catholics seem to think it's fine to receive Christ), and that as the Body of Christ every one of us are not outraged that thousands of us are literally torn to pieces every day.
"Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God." -Thomas Aquinas
To not be discouraged we remember that staying with the Church through thick and thin is our only hope.
"I am a swallow that could not find its way home in the Autumn, but your voice is like the rush of wings....
You lift your head to Heaven and the crown of it is not singed.
You stride to the borders of hell and your feet are unhurt.
You profess eternity and your soul is unafraid.
You order certainty and your lips are not silenced."
-Gertrude Von Le Fort
So we stay strong and trust God that the gates of hell will not prevail against us.
WHAT DOES A CELIBATE PRIEST KNOW ABOUT MARRIAGE? Posted: Tuesday December 15, 2009 at 4:18 pm EST by Judie Brown
By Rev. James Farfaglia
“What does he know about married life?” is a frequently voiced criticism of priests when they speak about the intricacies of married life. These same critics do not realize that a celibate priest is married … but in a different way.
Why do our people call us “Father”? We are married to the Church. The Church is our bride. The priest is another Christ (alter Christus), who gives his life as a gift to the bride.
Celibacy is a special gift from the Holy Spirit, a charism. It is a beautiful gift for the Church. When he is faithful to his calling, the celibate priest, in and through his body; i.e., through his very physical reality, is a sign or a witness not only of his total gift of himself to his bride, the Church, but he is also physically, through his body, pointing the way to the eschatological reality of eternal life: “For when they rise from the dead, men and women do not marry; no, they are like the angels in heaven” (Mark 12: 25).
Eternity is not only perfect communion with God; it is also perfect communion with all men and women in the communion of saints. The charism of celibacy is a sign or an anticipation of this eschatological reality. Through the gift of celibacy, the human person is able to immerse himself in a fulfilling communion with God and with humanity here on earth.
The priest gives his entire being to God in the covenant of spiritual marriage. When a celibate priest develops a profound life of contemplative prayer and reaches the heights of mystical prayer, the joys of the spirit become much greater than the joys of the flesh.
Thus the sacraments of holy matrimony and holy orders complement each other in the mystery of divine love. The priest gives his entire being to God in the covenant of spiritual marriage. He then takes bread and wine, and pronounces the words of Jesus: “This is My body and this is My blood given for you.” A man and a woman called to the covenant of marriage stand before the altar of sacrifice and give themselves to each other as a gift: This is my body and this is my blood given for you.
At the beginning of his pontificate, Pope John Paul II spent a long time speaking about marriage and sexuality. His discourses, (129 teachings from September 5, 1979 through November 28, 1984), comprise a monumental teaching called the theology of the body. Without a doubt, John Paul’s theology of the body will be considered the most profound and most complete teaching on the subject in the years to come.
In the arrangement of discourses by the Holy Father, we find that before the pontiff treats the sacrament of marriage, he first discusses celibacy for the kingdom of heaven. Why is this so? According to John Paul II’s amazing insight, we can only understand marriage by understanding celibacy. Maybe you never thought of celibacy in this way!
In heaven, we will participate in the awesome mystery of the marriage of the Lamb. This reality is the fulfillment of both the charism of celibacy and the vocation of matrimony. The sacrament of marriage is an image or a reflection of this mystery lived out here on earth. The charism of celibacy is an anticipation of the heavenly marriage lived out here on earth as a charismatic sign. Celibacy is lived as an anticipation of the world to come. It is celibacy that witnesses to married people that their marriage here on earth is an image of a heavenly reality, because the celibate makes present to them the eschatological reality in which all will live in heaven.
This is not a rejection of the good of the priest’s bodily masculine existence! Far from it—it is instead a fulfillment of all it means to be a man. Always remember the awesome reality that heaven is not just for the soul. The resurrection of the body is going to be really amazing. At the Second Coming, heaven is going to become for us an eternal physical reality.
These were the thoughts I had in mind when I wrote Man to Man—a helpful and practical book with a very inspirational message. You all know that as men—priests and laymen alike—we are constantly being challenged by a crazy and dysfunctional world. Now, more than ever, the Church and the world need men who are willing to be faithful, authentic, mature, coherent and heroic. Al Hughes, age 69 and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel—a real man’s man—had this to say about my book: “If I had read this book 50 years ago, I would be levitating and bilocating by now.”
I’m not promising that if you read my book, you will be floating above ground, but I do promise that if you read it and apply what I have to say to you—man to man—you will be rising far above the culture that surrounds us. And you will conclude that, yes, a priest does know something about marriage.
The Reverend James Farfagliais pastor of Saint Helena of the True Cross of Jesus Catholic Church in Corpus Christi, Texas. Originally from Ridgefield, Connecticut, he has founded and developed apostolates for the Catholic Church in Spain, Italy, Mexico, Canada and throughout the United States. He may be reached by e-mail at fjficthus@gmail.com. This article was published by Catholic Exchangeon December 7, 2009 and is featured here as a guest commentary with Rev. Farfaglia’s kind permission. Click hereto learn more about his book.
Thank you for this article by Rev Farfaglia, it is just what we need to remember now, that our priests are literally our spiritual "fathers", and of course the sexual act of marriage for procreation is not needed for a man who has given his life to be a father to all the children of God's Church. I like to think that while Jesus is the most obvious model for the celibacy of the priesthood, St Joseph was also a perfect model of celibacy. This world is in such great need of knowing that we are more than physical animals, and that yes, we were given command over our bodies by God, that we are not slaves to our bodies, and the priests are such a great example that yes, it is possible to be pure. Perhaps that is one reason the devil attacks priests at this important strength of theirs. I always want to just say thank you to priests for being our fathers, because our world is so lacking in fatherly care. God bless you Rev Farfaglia, and every priest. Mary Kuhns | December 16, 2009
A CATHOLIC BISHOP’S CONFUSING ASSESSMENT Posted: Monday December 14, 2009 at 4:52 pm EST by Judie Brown
Over the years, I have seen Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, specifically section 73, paragraph 3, used to defend all manner of incrementalism in supposedly pro-life legislation. I have also seen it cited as the measuring stick for deciding which candidate(s) to vote for in an election. Here is what the Holy Father wrote in section 73, paragraph 3:
A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favoring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.
The portion of this excerpt that appears to give solace to those who want to accept compromise that leads to the killing of certain preborn babies is this: “[W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.”
Taking these lines out of context and using them to argue in favor of flawed political proposals has become the norm among many Catholics and those of other faiths who want to justify their position on any number of matters. But most recently, this language was used in a way that I had not seen previously. Since this has to do with the recently issued Manhattan Declaration, I will put it into proper context.
When news of the Manhattan Declaration came out, many pro-life Americans eagerly reviewed the document. We did the same at American Life League. After our internal review, we decided not to sign it. At the time of our decision, we also determined that there was no need to make a public statement about it, one way or the other.
We understand the honorable intentions of those who drafted the document, and we applaud any effort that brings public attention to the moral morass in which this nation finds itself. However, that does not mean that we automatically lend our organization’s name to such an activity. In the case of the Manhattan Declaration, the problematic statement is this:
The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion—a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth.
Our difficulty with this language is, quite simply, that the words “The elimination of these important and effective prolife laws" endorse incrementalist legislation that leads to the conclusion that what pro-lifers are saying to expectant mothers is, “Do (this or that) and then you can kill the baby.”
It is a historical fact that legislation that seeks waiting periods and parental notice or consent is based on the premise that, since abortion is protected by law, pro-life Americans have to accept that fact, and work to control how and when the killing occurs. We find such a position contrary to the natural law and common sense, and we believe it is undermining the pro-life movement’s ultimate goal, which is to restore human rights to all persons, regardless of their stage of development. This is why we chose not to sign the Manhattan Declaration.
At the same time, we are aware of a number of noteworthy public figures who have signed it. Among these are several Catholic bishops, including Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, “who learned about the statement at a marriage summit in Manhattan at the invitation of New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan.” Robert Kumpel reported on the archbishop’s comments, which I, for one, found rather troubling. Kumpel reported,
“I was very much impressed by its threefold commitment to the sanctity of life, the effort to preserve the beauty and truth of marriage and to insure religious liberty,” said Archbishop Kurtz, who is the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee on Marriage and Family. …
Archbishop Kurtz is not troubled by these perceived flaws: “In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II said that we can never be satisfied with imperfect legislation. We know that abortion is wrong. Is it possible for a good Catholic to support a bill that has limited gains—restricting abortion—and John Paul said that if the legislator is pro-life and makes it known and if he is committed to continuing to work toward legislation to correct this, then it would be morally possible, in fact, required, to support that legislation. Some people look at imperfect legislation like it is a final state of affairs. Obviously, they are misinterpreting the strategy.”
“The reason I signed the declaration is because I felt it is a solid pro-life statement. I wouldn’t sign it if that wasn’t the case,” said Archbishop Kurtz. “We have a commitment to working hard in these three important areas. This declaration speaks from the convictions held by its authors and signers — and it is something worth fighting for, and it’s a recognition that our resolve needs to be stronger.”
The archbishop brings up the very same language from Evangelium Vitae that I have discussed above. However, he is using it to justify signing a document, not passing a law, not electing a public official and certainly not addressing the very individual to whom the Holy Father directed his comments, namely "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known" (emphasis added).
The most disturbing aspect of Archbishop Kurtz’ interpretation of Pope John Paul II’s message to elected officials, however, is his claim that the lawmaker not only may support incrementalist legislation, once his total opposition to procured abortion is well known, but that the lawmaker is required to support it. The Holy Father never made such a statement and, in fact, wrote that nuanced paragraph in section 73 for the precise purpose of making it clear that a legislator could go either way in his decision regarding flawed legislation.
It has always been my contention, along with many fellow members of the Pontifical Academy for Life and other thoughtful Catholics, including Patrick Delaney, Dr. Arthur Utz and Colin Harte, that had the Holy Father known that this language would be used to justify votes in favor of certain abortions, he would never have written it. I remain convinced of that to this very day.
In fact, this most recent misrepresentation of this language, as set forth by Archbishop Kurtz, confirms my suspicions beyond a doubt. Whatever made the archbishop think that signing a piece of paper was the equivalent of deciding whether or not to vote for a law designed to regulate abortion is beyond me.
However, one thing is crystal clear. As the seeds of confusion regarding section 73, paragraph 3 of Evangelium Vitae continue to be sown, one can now look at Archbishop Kurtz’s statement as proof positive that a statement, even if written by the pope himself, can mean whatever the speaker or writer wants it to mean, depending on the question at hand. No wonder so many Catholics remain in a state of confusion! God save us from such gobbledygook.
Thank you for this article and all your articles. I am glad that you have expounded on the Manhattan Declaration. I received many emails from devout Catholics to sign the Manhattan Declaration, but after checking with American Life League, I did not. American Life League's explanation made sense to me. The silence on all the evils of the health care reform bill from the USCCB which you expound on, regularly, is deafening to me. Thank God for God and His Truth which American Life League researches and makes known on the moral threats we face, today. We must continue to pray for all our Priests and make known our concerns.
I hope all your readership has called their Senators and Representatives to just say "NO" to the health care reform and tell others of all the evils you expound on. There is much pressure and bribery to pass the Senate version of health care reform before Christmas.
May God bless you, me and all souls with His Truth and His Grace to do the right thing according to His will, always.
with prayers,
Patty Patty Palmquist | December 17, 2009
It is ironic and upsetting to think that Judie Brown, were she a congresswoman considering the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, could cast the decisive negative vote that would force millions of Catholic taxpayers to pay for the unrestricted killing of unborn children through federal health care legislation.
Just as Catholics should not dissent from the Magisterium when it condemns abortion, euthanasia, contraception, and the massive killing of civilians in nuclear war (*CCC* 2314), so, too, we should not dissent from the Magisterium when it assures us (*Evangelium vitae* 73) that reluctantly voting for interim legislation is morally tolerable for the purpose of saving as many innocent lives as is politically achievable here and now pending either the establishment of a Catholic confessional state (*CCC* 2105) or armed revolt against a government that permits the mass murder of the unborn (*CCC* 2243).
Keep and spread the Faith.
Stephen M. O'Brien | December 17, 2009
Dear Mr. O'Brien
If Judie Brown were a member of Congress, she would have cornered Stupak at the beginning of this fiasco and helped him understand the seriousness of the situation and then she would have helped him write an amendment that babies can actually live with. But she is not a member of Congress and continues to express her views about those in Congress who are betraying the babies.
In spite of your repeated quotes from the Catechism, you are wrong about Evangelium Vitae, are interpreting it to suit a political agenda and therefore there is nothing I can say to change your mind.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | December 18, 2009
Stephen,
Your logic is seriously flawed. To refuse to vote for/support an unjust and evil proposal that contradicts faith and morals does not mean one supports funding abortion. To use your logic then, those who refuse to support the murder of abortionists must then support abortion. It doesn't make sense. We can't agree to murder in order to prevent other murders.
Please stop twisting JPII's words, and quoting them out of context, from EV; over and over again in EV he states that one must always refuse to vote for, or support, unjust laws and proposals that do not respect all human life from conception. Cardinal Ratzinger made it quite clear that #73 means that proposals made to lessen the harm of unjust laws cannot be contrary to faith and morals. Consenting to murder, or the funding of it, is definitely against faith and morals, right?
JPII has never even implied this principle you hold: "vote for absolutely any proposal, even if it consents to murder, as long as it decreases the number of murders." That kind of consequentialism principle is contrary to everything the Catholic Church teaches.
Deborah Morlani | December 18, 2009
I did not sign or promote the Manhattan Declaration either. It has some unfortunate statements, that are deceptive, within it.
The paragraph Judie mentions jumped out at me as a big red flag for the reasons she mentions, and also the statement "laws prohibiting government funding"; there are no laws "prohibiting government funding" that I'm aware of since the government does indeed fund the murders of babies conceived in rape, incest, or for risk to the mother. Why lie about that, unless they think those babies are worthless, not even considered worth mentioning.
Next time, if anyone wishes to make up some kind of declaration and call it pro-life, perhaps ask assistance from those who were conceived in rape or incest. It's amazing how often those babies are forgotten and tossed in the garbage can without a blink of an eye by some pro-lifers. Deborah Morlani | December 18, 2009
God bless you Judie. You are an inspiration as an orthodox faithful Catholic.
God knows; enough babies have been slaughtered. Where is the USCCB? You are fighting the good fight without their help.
STUPAK REDUX: POLITICAL LIES AND MANIPULATION Posted: Friday December 11, 2009 at 5:13 pm EST by Judie Brown
Congressman Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat and the darling of many American pro-life organizations, recently wrote a commentary for the New York Times that literally took my breath away. Entitled “What My Amendment Won’t Do,” Stupak panders to the abortion culture while attempting to defend his ethically deficient health care reform amendment. Regardless of public statements to the contrary, his amendment would not ban taxpayer dollars for all abortions. If the preborn child is scheduled for execution for reasons of rape, incest or life of the mother, that’s fine, according to the Stupak language. And that’s not the worst of it.
In his editorial, Stupak provides public assurances to those who argue that health care reform proposals must include preborn child murder because such programs must protect every aspect of women’s so-called reproductive health choices.
Disgusting as Stupak’s remarks are, I must share a portion of them in order to make my point perfectly clear:
Under our amendment, women who receive federal subsidies will be prohibited from using them to pay for insurance policies that cover abortion. The amendment does not prevent private plans from offering abortion services and it does not prohibit women from purchasing abortion coverage with their own money. The amendment specifically states that even those who receive federal subsidies can purchase a supplemental policy with private money to cover abortions.
If you were to read this paragraph with a proper understanding of the fact that abortion is an act of killing, rather than a simple surgical procedure similar to a nose piercing, you would have to admit that Stupak’s political posturing is anything but pro-life. Here is how that paragraph should read, if Stupak were honest about it:
Under our amendment, women who receive federal subsidies will be prohibited from using such funds to pay for insurance policies that cover any act that would result in the death of their baby prior to birth. The amendment does not prevent private plans from offering surgical, medical or chemical killing services, and it does not prohibit women from purchasing insurance coverage that would pay for the killing as long as they pay for such coverage with their own money. The amendment specifically states that even those who receive federal subsidies can purchase a supplemental policy with private money to pay those who would perform acts that would result in the death of their child or children prior to birth.
Stupak continues,
Some opponents of the amendment have tried to argue that it would effectively end health insurance coverage of abortion in both the private and public sectors. This argument is nothing more than a scare tactic.
The language in our amendment is completely consistent with the Hyde Amendment, which in the 33 years since its passage has done nothing to inhibit private health insurers from offering abortion coverage. There is no reason to believe that a continuation of this policy would suddenly create undue hardship for the insurance industry—or for those who wish to use their private insurance to pay for an abortion.
Reading such deluded jabber sickens me beyond belief. But it also reminds me of the biblical story of 1 Kings: 3, in which two women who lived together had a devastating experience because one of them lied. To reprise the story, each of them bore a child within three days of each other. As it turned out, one of them apparently inadvertently rolled over onto her baby, who was consequently suffocated to death. This woman proceeded to sneak into the other mother’s room in the middle of the night, place the dead baby on her bosom and take that mother’s child. She subsequently claimed the living child was her own, and the two women wound up in King Solomon’s court, begging him to resolve the conflict.
King Solomon, being the wise man that he was, made a startling recommendation for resolving the dilemma: Simply cut the baby in half and give each woman half of the body. Oh, the baby would be dead, of course, but then both women would be satisfied! This prompted the real mother to plead for her son’s life, and that is how the king knew who the rightful mother was.
Stupak’s double-talk, obviously designed to reassure his pro-abortion colleagues, reminds me of the mother whose child died at her own hand. She lied in order to get her own way. But at the last moment, it was her own lies that exposed her.
No matter how you look at it, a lie is a lie and telling the truth is the only way one can achieve genuine peace, whether one is a politician, a deceptive woman standing in King Solomon's presence or an abortionist.
Stupak created the slippery ground on which he is now standing; his dilemma is of his own making. Had he been honest from the start, he would have made it clear that as a pro-life politician, he would insist that there is no reason why any insurance policy, government program or charity should be paying for or providing murder as a service to an expectant mother. The problematic nature of positions such as Stupak’s exposes the sordid underbelly of the political compromising that frequently occurs in the highly deceptive political pro-life movement.
The Stupak Amendment has received rave reviews from the National Right to Life Committee, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and many others. It has been touted as totally pro-life, as an absolute ban on tax-funded abortion and so on. It makes good fundraising copy to make such claims, but look where it is taking us! Who will be cutting those babies in half if any sort of "health care reform" actually comes to pass in this nation?
And why is a halfhearted half-measure proclaimed a victory? There is no logical response to this rhetorical question, but there is a comparison I would like to offer for thoughtful reflection.
Today I listened to a Planned Parenthood abortionist tell a young expectant mother (actually a very good actress) that her baby was not really a baby “or anything like that.” Thanks to the creative genius of Lila Rose and Live Action Films, the world can listen to this abortionist’s lie and the many other lies contained in this just-under-six-minutes-long video.
But I have to ask, what is so different about this abortionist’s lie and the Stupak lie? When is an abortion not really an act of murder? When private money pays for it? When it is alleged to be needed because of rape, incest or the life of the mother?
Come on, people! Wake up and smell the coffee! We are talking about babies, not politically motivated vacuous rhetoric.
Until we pro-life Americans, as a group, come face to face with our own cowardice, our own lack of resolve, our own inability to stand for truth and never back down, regardless of what it might cost us, this sort of atrocious, mind-bending gibberish will continue to be passed off as pro-life!
And all the while, the killing and the profiteering will continue.
I agree with Judie Brown on being upset by the awful manner in which Congressman Bart Stupak describes his amendment, which I do not call pro-life legislation. What is even worse is that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has fallen into the same kind of atrocious language.
Unfortunately, Stupak is not a candidate for Catholic statesman of the year, and the voters of Congressional District #1 in Michigan have not had the good sense to elect Mrs. Brown or someone else with her exemplary rhetorical courage.
All that having been said, a Catholic is still justified in supporting the substance of the pathetically inadequate Stupak Amendment in order to comply with the advice of John Paul II in *Evangelium vitae* 73 about reducing the unspeakable physical and spiritual destruction wrought by the legalization of the massive killing of unborn children.
Now a question for Mrs. Brown: if you were a congresswoman right now and had been unable to make the Stupak Amendment much less pathetic, how would you have voted on it?
Stephen M. O'Brien | December 12, 2009
In response to the support from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for the Stupak Amendment, I fail to see any reason why this so called health care bill should be even considered.
This by no stretch of the imagination is nothing but a pure attempt for power and control. Yes, we need iimprovement for access and availability to adequate health care for all, but this can be done without government control and draconian mandates.
I do expect betrayal from elected public officials, but what is most disturbing to me is a sense of this coming from our Shepherds.
My question to them is, if this Stupak Amendment somehow survives in the final version, to be submitted to the president for his signature, will the bishops be OK with this monstrosity? Will they throw the faithful under the bus, ignoring the principle of subsidiarity? paul caron | December 13, 2009
I would have voted "present" - because a yes vote would have helped pass a bill from which they would strip any prolife language later on, or override it, and because the bill itself is inherently contrary to Catholic social teaching, even apart from abortion. That the bishops don't realize this is incredible Mary Ann Parks | December 13, 2009
Shortly before the House's version of the Health Care Bill was passed I heard Bart Stupak tell an interviewer that he just wanted Pelosi to allow a vote on his amendment. If she allowed the vote, whether the amendment passed or failed, he and his "pro-life" comrades would support the Health Care Bill. Translation: We just want to be able to go home and lie to our constituents that we voted against publicly funded abortion, when, in reality, we voted for it in voting for "health care reform."
Yes, WAKE UP PEOPLE! Any vote for that bill was a vote for using tax dollars for abortion, euthanasia, and a myriad of assaults on the sanctity of life. Stupak and his so-called "pro-life" cadre may have pulled the wool over the eyes of many, but the wolf is in the fold and his jaws are dripping with the blood of the innocents. Jody Ward | December 13, 2009
Mr. O'Brien
You are incorrect. The Holy Father did NOT teach in Evangelium Vitae that an elected official whose opposition to abortion is well known could vote for some abortion. It is in inaccuracy to suggest otherwise.
I would have voted against the Stupak amendment because it legitmizes abortion and is a sham.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | December 15, 2009
Dear Mr. Caron
According to what the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) has said publicly, they would support health care reform if STUPAK were included. What a tragedy!
The USCCB does not mention subsidiarity, the elderly or any of the other deadly implications of health care reform as we now know it.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | December 15, 2009
When a conscientious Catholic legislator feels compelled to vote for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment or similar interim legislation in accordance with *Evangelium vitae* 73, the elected official is not voting *for* any abortions, but rather, to use the Holy Father's own clear and explicit language, for limiting the number of authorized abortions. To reduce the number of legal abortions is to save lives in this world and to increase the number of those who, through the sacrament of Baptism, will have the opportunity of attaining the beatific vision in the next world. Stephen M. O'Brien | December 17, 2009
Mr. O'Brien
Nobody is "COMPELLED" to vote for an unjust amendment that discriminates against certain people and sanctions their murder. In fact quite the opposite is the case as Pope John Paul II makes clear in Veritatis Splendor when he reminds us in section 52:
"Furthermore, what must be done in any given situation depends on the circumstances, not all of which can be foreseen; on the other hand there are kinds of behaviour which can never, in any situation, be a proper response a response which is in conformity with the dignity of the person. Finally, it is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil."
Judie Brown
Judie Brown | December 18, 2009
I am repeating here something I posted to CNSNews:
Stupak is a realist. He knows that the Hyde Amendment would have died during the Clinton Administration had Hyde not changed the original language, which had only to do with saving the mother's life, to include Medicaid subsidies in case of rape or incest. Judie Brown is one of the ALL or none pro-lifers: better to lose the war against subsidies for elective abortions, than to betray our ideologically pure principles by funding only about 1% of abortions. NRLC has a more realistic attitude, and Judie has gotten into some big scraps with Wanda Franz over it. I leave everyone (including Judie, if she deigns to read these comments) with the words of former Utah Governor Bangerter. Back around 1990, when he threatened to veto a ban on abortions unless it included exceptions for rape and incest, he said, [quoting from memory] "If we enact a law which the Supreme Court finds unconstitutional, we haven't saved one baby, not one." Peter Nyikos | December 28, 2009
Dear Mr. Nyikos
Your statement smacks of the very type of incrementalist thinking that has left the babies, nearly 40 years after Roe and Doe, dying at the same rate or worse, at an escalating rate.
Remember that we are NOT talking about principles but rather human beings and whether or not those in positions of manmade power have the right to decide which among them may live and which may be murdered by acts of abortion.
To relegate the baby himself to part of a mathematical equation shows the hypocrisy of your approach.
By the way, I have never had a personal conversation with Dr. Franz about the enormous differences between political pragmatism and the position of American Life League which recognizes the human rights of each human being from his or her biological beginning.
Finally, we don't need the permission of the Court to save the babies.
SEVENTY-FIVE MILLION REASONS TO JUST SAY NO TO HEALTH CARE REFORM Posted: Thursday December 10, 2009 at 4:05 pm EST by Judie Brown
One of the least reported, but most blatantly repugnant expenditures contained in the Senate version of the health care reform bill is the allocation of $75,000,000 to Planned Parenthood and its cohorts for the express purpose of initiating the “Personal Responsibility Education for Adulthood Training” programs.
What could such a program be about, you might ask? Well, let’s examine the facts according to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, better known as SIECUS. They are reporting the following:
[T]he Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment offered by Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) to fund a comprehensive sex education funding stream, The Personal Responsibility Education for Adulthood Training. The amendment provides $75 million for states; $50 million of which would be geared to evidence-based, medically accurate, age-appropriate programs to educate adolescents about both abstinence and contraception in order to prevent unintended teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS. The remaining funds would be for innovative programs as well as research and evaluation....
SIECUS continues,
“We would like to thank Chairman Baucus and his staff for their strong support of a comprehensive approach to sex education, ensuring that all young people have access to information so that they can make responsible decisions and lead healthy and safe lives,” said William Smith, vice president for public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). “The Baucus Amendment creates a new comprehensive sex education program for the states and can be easily reconciled with a similar measure, the Healthy Teen Initiative, on the House side. This is a huge step in putting evidence and common sense over hyper morality and will get states the money they need to support good programming.”
For those who are uncertain about what “hypermorality” might be, it is a word created by the proponents of fornication to segregate into a highly specialized segment of society those who do not approve of what Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and others would like to do by way of brainwashing youngsters.
Proof of this is contained in the same SIECUS press release,which denounces any funding for abstinence-only education as being a “giant step backward.” The agenda of these conniving educators is obvious. So one has to wonder why this contemptible program is not mentioned by nearly all of those organizations that consider themselves to be part of the pro-life, pro-family movement.
Let me be clear, before moving ahead, that American Life League does not favor any sort of sexuality education in the classroom, regardless of what it is called. Whether it is “Personal Responsibility Education for Adulthood Training” or a “Healthy Teen Initiative” or “Abstinence Only,” the problem that is inherent in such programs remains the same: A usurpation of parental rights to teach children about matters of human sexuality within the context of the parent/child relationship. Parents are the primary educators of their children, not school teachers, not Planned Parenthood videos and not any other component of the culture that leads children down the path to debauchery.
As American Life League’s Michael Hichborn pointed out in his analysis of the Senate Healthcare Reform Bill, in Section 1803, pages 491-508, the bill stipulates grants of at least $250,000 for each state.
In order for states to receive money for such programs, they must provide the following: current statistics on the pregnancy and birth rates of children age 10–19; goals for reducing pregnancy and birth rates for said children; and a description of how such funds will be used to reach these goals, especially for “youth populations that are the most high-risk or vulnerable for pregnancies or otherwise have special circumstances, including youth in foster care, homeless youth, youth with HIV/AIDS, pregnant youth who are under 21 years of age, mothers who are under 21 years of age, and youth residing in areas with high birth rates for youth.”
Further, Hichborn and others make it perfectly clear that the “most dangerous aspect of this entire section is the creation of a ‘National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Resource Center’ through Subsection (C) on page 503”:
The Secretary shall award a grant to a nationally recognized, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that meets the requirements described in clause (ii) to establish and operate a national teen pregnancy prevention resource center (in this subparagraph referred to as the ‘Resource Center’) to carry out the purpose and activities described in clause (iii). (emphasis added)
According to the requirements set forth in clause (ii),
The organization has demonstrated experience working with and providing assistance to a broad range of individuals and entities to reduce teen pregnancy. The organization is research-based and has comprehensive knowledge and data about teen pregnancy prevention strategies.
As Hichborn accurately explains,
[T]here is no organization that better fits this description than Planned Parenthood. The language in this clause even includes PP’s preferred adjective for its explicit, promiscuity-promoting sex education: "comprehensive." If this provision is allowed to remain in America’s Healthy Future Act, PP will assume the position of a quasi-government agency with quasi-governmental powers to engage the nation’s youth on matters of sex, birth control and abortion.
So, I am forced to ask why so few of our allies in this battle have made note of this draconian aspect of the Senate and House health care reform proposals. Since organizations of a Catholic bent, such as the Knights of Columbus and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, know all too well, based on the empirical data, that sex education provides a springboard for adolescent promiscuity that leads to all manner of sexually transmitted diseases and to abortion, shouldn’t they be exposing this dreadful aspect of the health care reform proposals? Why is it that they insist on keeping the focus exclusively on the question of taxpayer support for some abortions? Why is taxpayer-mandated sex education, as part of alleged health care reform, moving ahead unchallenged by these respectable Catholic organizations?
What are the Knights of Columbus and the Catholic bishops thinking?
None other than esteemed academic, Fellowship of Catholic Scholars board member and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Kenneth Whitehead has connected the dots in a most convincing way. Whitehead questions why sex education continues to be so popular in view of what the results teach us about its failures.
Our teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock birth rates are at unprecedented levels. In 1940 only 4 percent of births in the United States were to unmarried women, compared with 11 percent in 1970, and 31 percent in 1993—that amounts to nearly a third of all births out of wedlock at the present time. By 1988 52 percent of teenage women in the United States were having premarital intercourse, compared with 29 percent in 1970. 56
The teenage abortion rates have gone up proportionately; around 40 percent of teenage pregnancies currently end in abortion, compared to about 25 percent, or 1 in 4, of all pregnancies.57 All of these high rates have come about during exactly the same time period that sex education too was being institutionalized in the schools. Of course the contemporary increase in sexual permissiveness and the decline in traditional sexual morality must surely be attributed to a multiplicity of causes; but it has certainly not helped much to have presented under the authority of the school indoctrination in the acceptability of today’s various deviant “lifestyles” as well as in the use of the supposed modern means of avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases while in fact engaging in a kind of permissive sexual activity that is now too often taken for granted.
And Whitehead is not the only one who has exposed the flawed philosophy of classroom sex education. When Pope Benedict XVI addressed Catholic educators at the Catholic University of America in April of last year, he made it a point to discuss why American education was failing: “We witness an assumption that every experience is of equal worth and a reluctance to admit imperfection and mistakes. And particularly disturbing, is the reduction of the precious and delicate area of education in sexuality to management of ‘risk,’ bereft of any reference to the beauty of conjugal love.”
Colin Mason of Population Research Institute, who covered Pope Benedict XVI’s address for LifeSiteNews.com, opined, “While these words were primarily intended for Catholic educators across the country, they hold a special meaning for the pro-life movement. They describe, in a beautifully succinct way, what we fight against every day: a sexual culture of lies, misrepresentations and illusions that results in an epidemic of contraception, sterilization, and abortion.”
Clearly there is cause for concern. There is no defense for incorporating failed sex-instruction courses in so-called health care reform. The two terms are in fact contradictory when used in the same sentence.
So why are so many organizations and leaders remaining silent?
It is not my place to answer for the Knights of Columbus or the bishop's conference, or any of the other groups that have thus far ignored this subject, but it is my place to remind the reader that this example of how our tax dollars might be put to work, along with the other life-threatening, life-altering aspects of so-called health care reform legislation, provide each of us with reasons aplenty to just say no to health care reform.
Re: Obamacare- Nothing about this legislation is really about "healtcare". It's about killing off "senior citizens", killing pre-born babies, embryo experimentation, and funding Planned Parenthood for school sex ed. programs. It also promotes the U.N.'s population control & "gay"agenda. We must see that the LIE of "safe" sex is what has caused the epidemic of s.t.d.'s. In the '50's there were only 3 problems besides pregnancy, but after the pill was introduced and living together was accepted as a way of life, they all exploded into new epidemics -including AIDS! (and HPV.) Grace Harman | December 10, 2009
It is baffling how so many of us Catholics could be getting it wrong for so long (over 35 years) Maybe I've said this before, but Judie you and ALL are the only place I know of that I can go to that will tell the truth no matter how "inconvenient" it is, and say it intelligently but with out a lot of words that mean nothing. Over the years the most common response when I've asked Church leadership or leadership of other pro-life groups about being more active, is that first we need to "change hearts". I realize it is a different situation, but when I hear that I think of Jesus' words, "how long must I endure you" -Matthew 17:17. When I hear those words I do what my mom always says to do, "offer it up". Jesus called us a perverse and wicked generation and so we are. I always seem to come back to the good Samaritan who helped the man that was beaten by robbers, taking care of him instead of saying, hey brother, I'm busy but I will pray that the robbers hearts are changed. It sounds nice, but sure doesn't help the man at the side of the road in his current predicament. We as Catholics have to wake up and know what is going on in this world. We are the light of the world for Pete's sake! We MUST be the light of the world but we're in so much darkness about the unborn. "But when your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkess. And if then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" -Matthew 6:23 When will the most vulnerable become our top priority? Hopefully soon. "Yes, I am coming soon!" -Revelation 22:20 Mary Kuhns | December 11, 2009
Obama promised Planned Parenthood w hat ever they wanted and it looks like he is making it happen. All this money, our money, for sex education that teaches birth control and condoms. Why did so many Catholics vote for him? I did not and I am so afraid for what he is doing. I PRAY every day. Keep up the good work, you are great. Sincerely Kathleen kathleen ericksen | December 11, 2009
Those who work zealously for a cause often tend to think they are the only ones doing a good enough job. They also tend to think everyone must address an issue with the same fervor as they do. I think it's a cheap shot to blame the Knights of Columbus for not doing more about bad things someone else is doing. The focus should always be on those who are the enemy -- not someone who is already doing something about the problem -- just not as much as you would like. For instance, most K of C Councils have erected memorials to the unborn and have regular prayer services to end abortion. They donate thousands of dollars to the billboard people. If you have aproblem with the Knights, go to carl Anderson. Don't throw out facts that other unscrupulous zealouts pick up on and then reproduce your column all over the place, thereby giving the Knights a bad name. God bless you for your pro-life work, Judy, but don't start attacking the innocent or those who work for the same goal as you, but in their own way. Bob Penzkover | December 12, 2009
Wow. That's all I can think of to say to Mr. Penzkover's accusations to what he calls "unscrupulous zealots", and asking Mrs. Brown not to "throw out the facts". Is that the same thing as hey now, don't confuse us with the facts. Mrs. Brown, please, please, please continue telling the truth, no matter who asks you not to. Since when did the facts become the problem? Since Jesus warned us that as they treated Him, so they will treat His followers. And to say that telling the whole truth will cause other "unscrupulous zealots" to pick up on and reproduce. Are you asking Mr.s Brown to be lukewarm and only state part of the truth? Aren't enough people doing that already? God hates lukewarm, He said so. If people like Mrs. Brown don't keep telling the whole truth then how will other people of good will such as the Knights of Columbus know when they may be doing things that aren't right? We are supposed to advise and reprove one another for the good of all of us. I've read before that the Knights of Columbus help park cars at Susan Komen Foundation events. Susan Komen helps fund Planned Parenthood. I don't think the Knights of Columbus know that, or they wouldn't help out at their events. I'm sure the Knights are thankful and take into consideration Mrs. Brown's information. We all want killing of the unborn to stop, and the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is our strongest weapon, and the only thing that will win this war. Yes, it is a war on the unborn, and that's the truth. Mary Kuhns | December 14, 2009
Dear Bob
Hold on a moment, please. The Knights of Columbus have welcomed and embraced pro abortion Catholics as members of their group for years and have never taken a step to remedy the situation. Further, they have cowtowed to politicians rather than strengthening famlies by opposing anti-life actions including those that parade as pro-life.
Why aren't they on the front lines exposing all the evil aspects of the various health care reform proposals?
Bob, If the K of C is innocent then the pro-life movement is effectively doomed.
Judie Brown
Judie Brown | December 15, 2009
Dear Judie,
The more I read your blog the more I realize what bad shape we're in as Catholics. I have unscubsribed to almost all other pro-life groups because of all the white-washing, and effectively keeping so many of us in the dark with half truths for so long. I didn't know the Knights of Columbus were anything less than militantly pro-life. I love our Pope, and I do believe he is firmly and throroughly pro-life. I will pray for him even more now that I know that many of his followers at the highest levels do not have respect and do not shepherd and protect all life. We are all in big trouble, and what was really the first sign or slap in the face for me that the Church is heavily infiltrated with politicism was the Notre Dame scandal. When I read that Fr Jenkins was planning to lead a pro-life Mass, I could hardly believe it. I don't understand how he could even receive the Eucharist after the scandal he caused, much less actually celebrate the Mass, with no sign of any remorse at all. I feel as though all of us who believe that every single conception is a new person are the outcasts and minority of our own Church. It hurts more and is more frightening when it comes from those we trust to protect us as their flock.
Mary Mary Kuhns | December 15, 2009
I would like more information pertaining to the statement, "the Knights of Columbus and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, know all too well, based on the empirical data, that sex education provides a springboard for adolescent promiscuity that leads to all manner of sexually transmitted diseases and to abortion."
I would especially like documentation of Planned Parenthood sex education that promotes various sexual practices as being "fun". Peter Nyikos | December 28, 2009
It was claimed that Stupak will vote for the healthcare bill regardless of whether his amendment passed or not, but the following seems to contradict that:
"Mr. Stupak said he still had commitments from at least 10 Democrats who voted for the House bill and pledged to vote against the final legislation if it loosened the abortion restrictions ??? enough to keep the bill from being approved. ???At the end of the day we are going to have something along the lines of my language,??? he said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/health/policy/26abort.html?_r=2 Peter Nyikos | December 28, 2009
Dear Mr. Nyikos
Sex education and adolescent promiscuity is documented in the following studies:
Commentary my Melissa Pardue: http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed101404a.cfm
The book by J. McIlhaney, M.D. which might surprise you: Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting Our Children
Judie Brown Judie Brown | January 2, 2010
Dear Mr. Nyikos
Yes, I have read what Stupak has been claiming most recently, and time will tell just how sincere he is. Based on his previous statements, one has to wonder.
HUMAN PERSONHOOD AND ILL-ADVISED CATHOLIC BISHOPS Posted: Wednesday December 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm EST by Judie Brown
The Montana Catholic Conference has released a statement critical of the efforts of state’s pro-lifers who are seeking recognition of human personhood via a state constitutional amendment. In their statement, the bishops declare,
We have been advised by leading pro-life attorneys that the strategy to pass a state constitutional amendment declaring personhood is problematic, in part, because of its heavy reliance on unpredictable courts and dependence on future legislative actions to define and implement the law. They have also expressed concerns that state personhood amendments might trigger an appellate process that could strengthen Roe v. Wade.
I am well aware of the opinions of the “leading pro-life attorneys” who are giving these bishops bad advice. I have found their arguments flawed on several levels. In fact, I recently addressed those of one such attorney, Clarke Forsythe of Americans United for Life, who has insisted that those of us who are working toward human personhood are “heading toward a brick wall.”
Sadly, his arguments, along with those of James Bopp Jr., Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom’s senior partner and the National Right to Life Committee’s general counsel, appear to have resonated with Catholic bishops for reasons I find both disturbing and antithetical to Catholic teaching.
I am not a theologian nor am I an attorney, but I do know what the Catholic Church teaches about the identity of the human person and the dignity inherent in each. This is neither a political nor a legal question. It's a question of whether one accepts or rejects the fundamental principle that human beings all deserve to be equally recognized as human persons endowed with human rights.
For nearly 40 years, the American legal system has been morally imprisoned by a set of U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton) that deny the humanity of the child prior to birth by setting aside all scientific evidence, not to mention common sense. The inanity of these decisions is clear, but apparently to some, how to go about undoing the damage they have done is not.
This is where the human personhood movement comes in, and it’s about time Catholic bishops thought about this from a perspective not clouded by the politics of false prudence, legal positivism or incrementalism. Too many dead bodies lie on that road; it’s time to change course!
There is no reliance within the human personhood movement on unpredictable courts, Your Excellencies. There is a firm, undeniable reliance on exact scientific evidence, which leads to the philosophical conclusion that a human being, from his or her beginning, is a human person. This is proven beyond doubt by studying the facts, not by fearing or misrepresenting court decisions. As a matter of fact, the human personhood movement does not address Roe v. Wade or Doe v. Bolton, for obvious reasons.
Pro-life Americans, including Roman Catholic bishops and their associates in the various state Catholic conferences, have to move beyond the politics and understand that Roe and Doe are symptomatic of a culture that long ago set out on the path of dehumanizing vulnerable persons. Roe and Doe were the result of a permissive attitude toward denying the personhood of human beings deemed “inconvenient” or “undesirable.”
If we honestly examine the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scottdecision, we learn a valuable lesson. The Supreme Court never recanted or overturned the prejudice on display in that decision. Citizens took it upon themselves to correct the injustices being perpetrated throughout society and by government against members of the human race. The result was a movement to renew the culture and restore justice by way of a constitutional amendment.
Similarly, it is not the human personhood movement’s goal to overturn Roe and Doe. Our goal is to restore recognition of personhood to all human beings. We do not need the court’s permission to do that.
It occurs to me that this fact flies in the face of all that the so-called leading pro-life attorneys have been saying to Catholic bishops nationwide. First and foremost, there is no human being who exists because of the Supreme Court, Congress or any other body of individuals. Each exists by the grace of God, His creative power and His endowment of personhood at the instant a human being is created. There is no doubt about this, particularly if one is a person of deep religious faith, as is each Catholic bishop.
Further, the human personhood movement relies heavily on a two-pronged educational strategy. We share the science and then we share the reasoning behind the movement. This is why we can state unhesitatingly that not only is legal recognition of human personhood the right goal for pro-life Americans, it is only logical way for society to once again acknowledge the truth of who the human being is and why each is so precious.
We encourage the Catholic bishops of Montana and elsewhere to set aside the disingenuous argument that the passage of a personhood amendment to a state constitution "might trigger an appellate process that could strengthen Roe v. Wade.” There is absolutely no way that anyone knows whether or not such a trigger would be pulled, but we all know that maintaining the status quo is unthinkable.
We cannot be satisfied, as servants of life and, more importantly, servants of God, with the “common sense" restrictions on abortion that seem to be the standard fare offered by many, including those leading pro-life attorneys relied upon by Montana’s bishops. It has never been the pro-life movement’s goal to restrict the killing so that it happens less. If one knows that the act of abortion is murder, then how could we ever defend the argument that restricting acts of murder so that fewer people are murdered is a worthy goal? What sort of twisted idea is that?
The key to advancing the culture of life in Montana is addressing the privacy provision in our state constitution which provides a right to abortion. Therefore, we are working with constitutional experts to develop an amendment which would exclude abortion from the privacy provision in the state constitution.
Passing such a constitutional amendment would open the way to addressing real change in the state. We could then pass laws to enact restrictions such as requiring short waiting periods before an abortion can be performed and requiring parental notification in cases when the person seeking an abortion is under age. These restrictions have been noted in a recent study as being effective in reducing abortion. Passage of such laws would save numerous lives on the way to changing hearts and minds as we work to achieve our ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.
This statement confirms my worst suspicions. Let me be perfectly clear.
There is no legitimate right to privacy in matters of life and death. No one can in good conscience argue that a “right to privacy” permits murder. Further there is no right to abortion, as Pope John Paul II reminded us in Evangelium Vitae(#20) when he taught what the consequences of such an argument are:
To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (Jn 8:34).
There is no doubt that the type of amendment that the Montana Catholic Conference is proposing would lead to a recognition of aborting a human being as a legitimate practice as long as such a practice was restricted in some way. The skewed thinking behind such a proposal is too inconceivable to even contemplate.
It is my fervent hope and prayer that Most Rev. George Leo Thomas, bishop of the Diocese of Helena, and Most Rev. Michael W. Warfel, bishop of the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings, will reexamine why they would endorse a flawed policy and oppose human personhood efforts in their state.
The unity of purpose that once made the pro-life movement in America so great was that we understood that unless and until every innocent human being was equally protected under the law and in the culture, there would be no end to the senseless murder of the innocent. That unity of purpose appears to have died, and we strive to revive that as well.
We are praying that our Catholic bishops will lead the way toward this lost unity of purpose, for as Saint Thomas Aquinas explained, “[H]uman law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence” (Evangelium Vitae #72).
I am wholeheartedly grateful for the commentary you wrote on the Bishops of MT today, thank you so much for noticing the discouraging and oppressive outlook they are presenting to MT Catholic pro-lifers. However, it's not going to stop us from supporting the MT Personhood Amendment in any way, shape or form. You have provided a light that shines the truth on the pro-life movement as a whole and the MT Bishops in particular. Pro-lifers are moving away from incrementalist approaches that are merely excuses to really not end abortion after all. It is terribly painful to see yet another day go by with 4,000 more Americans dead because of incrementalist thinking and in every minute that goes by God's unique and precious children are destroyed in the name of abortion. How can we let this go on a second longer? The Bishops of Montana are not speaking the language of pro-life as mandated by our Church and this is very upsetting for me as a Catholic of their Diocese. Until they really support ANY attempt to end the holocaust of abortion, they are not completely committed to end the thousands of deaths occurring every day and are not giving God's children a chance to breath, live and love our Saviour. When will they see that the light is shining on their brother and sisters in the womb? My goodness, anything is better than nothing and Personhood is far from nothing! Please, Bishops of Montana, George Thomas and Michael Warfel, let our children live! Sheila Veith | December 9, 2009
Great columns, Judie. I plan to be a footsoldier for the personhood amendment in CA. The American Catholic Bishops should be soooo happy that Catholics want to use their talents, of whatever type, FOR the lives of unborn human beings, and AGAINST abortion. Each person is given separate interests and abilities, and should be encouraged to be that part of the Body of Christ that they are meant to be. Our Bishops are very politically influenced, however. A very long time ago a priest told me that Catholics need to accomplish Christ's work on earth and BE the church. He said never to look to clergy or religious to BE the Church. With that in mind, I pray for the success of the personhood amendments in each state. Hope McNeil | December 9, 2009
Dear Judie, you're right, one abortion is one too many, as we believe that Christ died for each and every one of us, we must believe that EACH and EVERY one of us is EQUALLY valuable from the time of conception. As Janet Smith has said, paraphrased, once conception occurs, the universe has changed forever. There is a life that was not there before, but that will be there forever. We have to fight for every person, as Christ gave His life for every person. Thank you for having the courage to say the difficult things.
Mary Mary Kuhns | December 10, 2009
And if a sparrow, then how much more a person, "Are not two sparrows sold for next to nothing? Yet not a single sparrow falls to the ground without your Father's consent.. You are worth more than an entire flock of sparrows." Matthew 10:29,31 Mary Kuhns | December 10, 2009
Every time we look at the manger scene this Christmas let's remember that it is no coincidence that Jesus came to us as a baby. He knew just as well then as He knows now, that we as humans would diminish the personhood of babies in the womb. When Gabriel told Mary she was with child it elevated the unborn to personhood most clearly. Jesus did not just appear, He was nourished for nine months and grew strong in His mother's womb. Every child in the womb is as much a human person as Christ was in Mary's womb. Mary Kuhns | December 10, 2009
Dear Judy,
I hate to say this, but I sometimes wonder if the lawyers and some of our "national" pro-life institutions are afraid that if personhood were recognized, they'd be out of a job and out of the public spotlight. Sometimes I think the blood-money of abortion has flowed too conveniently both ways.
Thank you for not compromising on the personhood of our nations posterity!
God bless you!
Cathy Cathy Lemek | December 10, 2009
Dear Judy,
Why don't the Bishops address the moral imperative of the vote as opposed to their thoughts of how the judiciary would respond to the vote? It seems to me that the moral imperative would be to vote for personhood. I hope that those voting do not see the Bishop's lack of support as a moral imperative not to vote for personhood.
Thanks and God bless you,
Cathy Cathy Lemek | December 11, 2009
Dear Judie, I hope it isn't true, but I have also wondered, as Cathy stated above, that perhaps some people or group might be afraid of being out of a job or claim to fame if abortion ended. It is very difficult to think that and I hope it isn't true. We have to beg God that our motives are pure in serving Him. Then we have to trust Him to answer that prayer, because our Father would not give us a stone when we asked for a fish. I pray for all of us who want to see the end of abortion. Mary Mary Kuhns | December 12, 2009
Video Story: Marie Hahnenberg @ PLMD 2008
Marie Hahnenberg, researcher at American Life League, explains Planned Parenthood's complicity for killing millions of preborn children at the Pro-Life Memorial Day vigil at the U.S. Supreme Court Oct. 6.
