Judie Brown, Personhood Amendment and Catholic Bishops

Judie Brown of American Life League asks some of the same questions I’ve been asking lately.

**********

We remain steadfast, but…

By Judie Brown

Over the last few weeks, something rather bizarre has occurred in the pro-life movement and it is difficult for me to get my arms around it. So, I have decided to share the puzzlement I am experiencing in the hopes that others, upon reading this, will join me in a fervent Lenten prayer for healing.

This past January 17, as a personhood proposal was being presented as a way to amend Georgia’s state constitution, the two bishops in that state made a public statement in opposition to it. They wrote, “As the Catholic bishops of Georgia we, along with our brother bishops throughout the world, have unceasingly advocated for the sanctity of human life and continually supported legislative efforts to increase protection of human life.”

They claim to agree with the “objectives” of the proposed state constitutional amendment but oppose the approach because it “does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or reducing abortion in Georgia.”

A few weeks later, on February 26, the two Catholic bishops in Montana issued a statement expressing their views on a proposed personhood amendment to the Montana state constitution. They wrote, “We, the Catholic Bishops of Montana, remain steadfast in our commitment to defend human life in all of its stages, from conception to natural death.”

They went on to commend the “objective” of the efforts to amend the state’s constitution, but pointed out that they support efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution rather than the state’s. They wrote that they “do not believe that CI-100 is the most beneficial venue to pursue necessary change.” They listed several strategies which they deem appropriate at the state level, including funding pregnancy centers, providing support for expectant mothers and passing a law requiring parental notice with judicial bypass prior to a minor acquiring an abortion.

Two days later, the Colorado Catholic Conference issued a statement regarding the proposal by Colorado for Equal Rights to amend the Colorado state constitution with personhood language. In that statement, the Colorado Catholic Conference said, “We commend the goal of this effort to end abortion… but we do not believe that this year’s Colorado Personhood Amendment is the best means to pursue this issue at this time.”

The Colorado conference denied that any of the bishops had lent their support to the personhood initiative being promoted by Colorado for Equal Rights even though Bishop Tafoya, one of the three bishops in Colorado, had his picture taken with the campaign leader, Keith Mason, and had given every indication that he supported the effort.

The thread that ties these three separate actions together is the realization that even though these seven Catholic bishops in three states all share the goal of doing all they can to end the slaughter of the innocents, they also agree that personhood amendments to state constitutions are not realistic, timely or the best way to do things. Statements like those I have just excerpted are the source of my confusion.

For the record and, if I may say so, for the babies, allow me to point a few things out.

It was not anyone in the pro-life movement, but rather United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote in the Roe v. Wade decision, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s [abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

In other words, if those who understand that a preborn child is a person from the point of his creation want to restore absolute legal protection to children, then personhood must be established in the law. Justice Blackmun did not tell us how personhood could be established, but he did give us a clue and this is why so many pro-life activists have chosen to do what they can to propose personhood amendments to the various state constitutions. The hope is that one of these proposals will be passed by the people and if it eventually arrives at the U.S. Supreme Court, the actual merits of personhood will be argued.

Further, on March 7, 1974, Cardinal Humberto Medeiros spoke at a United States Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for the entire National Conference of Catholic Bishops and told the senators that any proposed constitutional amendment “…should clearly establish that, from conception onward, the unborn child is a human person in the terms of the Constitution.”

In that same statement, Cardinal Medeiros also made it perfectly clear that every proposal should be “universal and without exceptions.”

So, a totally pro-abortion Supreme Court justice and a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church both came to the same conclusion: Personhood is the key to ending the tyranny of the abortion empire in America. And yet when we have three actively dedicated pro-life organizations pursuing the very goal that Cardinal Medeiros encouraged, we also have Catholic bishops publicly distancing themselves from such efforts and opposing them in a variety of ways.

This is discouraging, but not surprising. In fact, it is a harbinger of things to come if those committed to pro-life principle do not press on rather than succumb to a spirit of despair.

Now is not the time to accept defeat simply because of the negative statements coming forth from Catholic conferences whether in the east, the west or anywhere in between. We cannot change the statements of those Church leaders who have chosen to oppose personhood efforts, but on the other hand, we cannot abandon the very principle that is foundational to all pro-life efforts not only in Montana, Georgia and Colorado – but everywhere else.

Among the many legal minds who have contributed to the fundamental strategy that underlies the necessary pro-life legal efforts in these three states is that of the wise Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice. In 35 years, he has never changed his perspective on personhood. What he said in 1973 he continues to say today. He teaches that it was the denial of personhood that was the foundation for everything that the Nazis did to the Jews, the Christians and others under their regime. The idea of relegating entire classes of people to subhuman status was the crux of the Nazi euthanasia program and all the gruesome acts that followed it.

Professor Rice ties that very attitude of annihilation by dehumanization directly to the abortion industry of today. And as he has written, the affirmation of the non-personhood of the preborn child means that the particular human beings who fall into this category are subject to all manner of cruelty and abuse, including death because they have no rights – they are not human beings according to the law.

This alone should give rise to a total advocacy of personhood on the part of every single pro-life American in our day and age. Whether a Catholic prelate or a man on the street, there is no denying that the culture of death now has a tragic grip on the thought process of those in authority in our nation and that must change.

As Professor Rice so eloquently wrote, “Roe applies precisely the principle that underlay the Nazi extermination of the Jews, that an innocent human being can be declared to be a non-person and subjected to death at the discretion of those who regard him as unfit or unwanted. The justices, who triggered the abortion avalanche by their own free decision, are no more defensible than the Nazi judges who acquiesced in the crimes of that regime and the functionaries who administered its decrees at Auschwitz and similar places.”

As if that were not enough, he concluded on this sober note, “The Court will allow states to enact marginal restrictions on surgical abortions, but those abortions are becoming obsolete because of early abortifacient drugs and devices.”

So, I am left bewildered and anguished by these questions: Why not personhood? How can one be steadfast and at the same time oppose such sensible strategies?

As Alan Keyes warned, “The evil that we fight is but a shadow of the evil that we do.”

Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. For three decades, she has advocated personhood declarations in law.

Spanish Bishops Release Statement about Voting in Elections

According to the CNA news report, there’s really nothing new here in what the Catholic Bishops stated but it was extremely important to restate it before the elections for the sake of the faithful. Hopefully, what the Spanish Bishops intend to “offer” in the way of considerations that encourage responsible voting will unequivocally reflect the truth of Catholic doctrine, particularly with respect to the sacredness of human life.

I trust that it will NOT be a confusing disaster similar to the recent USCCB document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”.

**********

Spanish bishops: Vote "no" for policies against the faith

Madrid, Jan 31, 2008 / 06:59 pm (CNA).- The Executive Committee of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference has issued a statement in view of the upcoming general elections reminding Catholics that while they can belong or support different political parties, some policies are incompatible with Christian teachings and therefore should not be supported.

In view of the March 9 elections, the bishops said they were offering “to Catholics and all those who wish to listen to some considerations that encourage responsible voting.” “We speak as pastors of the Church who have the duty and the right to guide the moral discernment that is necessary when making decisions that will contribute to the full recognition of the fundamental rights of all and the promotion of the common good,” they stated.

The bishops expressed their respect for “those who see things differently,” but they called for “freedom and respect for freely proposing our way of seeing things, without anybody feeling threatened or without our comments being interpreted as an offense or a danger to the freedom of others.”

“While it is true that Catholics can support different parties and be active in them,” they added, “it is also true that not all policies are equally compatible with the faith and the demands of the Christian life, nor are they equally close and proportionate to the objectives and values that Christians should promote in public life.”

For this reason, “Catholics and citizens who wish to act responsibly, before casting their vote in favor of a particular proposal, should evaluate the different political options, keeping in mind the appreciation that each party, each policy and each leader gives to the moral dimension of life,” the bishops said.

“The State’s neutrality on religion or secular nature should not be confused with a moral disconnect and the extinction of objective moral obligations,” the bishops continued. “In saying this we are not pretending to submit government leaders to Catholic moral criteria. But we are asking them to abide by the common moral denominator founded upon reason and upon the historical experience of each nation.”

The bishops recalled that “it is not just to try to artificially construct a society without religious references, [making it] exclusively worldly, without worship of God or any aspiration for eternal life.”

Scandal-Racked Jesuits Exhorted by Pope to Return to Orthodoxy

Nothing has been more devastating to our current society over the past forty years or so than the rejection of divine truth regarding human sexuality. The Jesuits have had their ranks infiltrated seriously by various sexual perverts and a host of accompanying demons.

LifeSiteNews reports that last week,

Pope Benedict XVI has called on the ancient order which has been rocked by scandal to reaffirm their "total adhesion to Catholic doctrine" mentioning specifically the Church's teachings on "sexual morality".

This can only have a good effect on society as a whole as the Jesuit order responds in obedience to Benedict XVI and the Magisterium of the Church.

The once illustrious Jesuits, the great defenders of faith, have over the last 40 years been steeped in dissident controversy. Jesuit priests have featured prominently in the homosexual priest scandal and Jesuit universities have been hotbeds of dissent on Church teachings especially those on life and family.

The Pope’s entire address can be found here.

Joanne Byfield: Pro-Life Movement Has Made No Political Gains In Canada

For a worthwhile summary of the current state of the pro-life movement in Canada, check out this article

Byfield sees slow progress in battle against abortion
Voters need to speak out before change will take place, she says

Byfield has impressive pro-life credentials. She thinks the media are playing a huge role in our current impasse.

She said in Canada it is impossible to have a public discourse about the issue of publicly funded, unrestricted access to abortion because most of the members of the mainstream media are pro-choice and consider abortion a settled issue that is not "of interest to anyone because it's not of interest to them."

No surprise, like Tristan Emmanuel, she points a finger at Christian leaders.

"Our churches aren't doing enough. There is a fear, on the part of pastors, to speak about abortion because they know there are wounded men and women out there and they don't want to make anyone uncomfortable."

Her solution?

Voters need to tell the politicians who come to their doors asking for votes, "We won't vote for you unless you do something to protect human life.

"Priority has to be (given) to de-insure abortion and our politicians have to hear it from person after person when they go from door to door. Our job is to get people to that point."

Joanne is certainly correct when she says that our politicians need to hear it from person to person, door to door. But how will that happen? Who can motivate citizens to take such action?

Good question. Consider this: Who controls the thinking and actions—the very morality—of our citizens? Who can have the greatest influence upon their lives?

If, generally speaking, Christians and pro-lifers do not agree that religious leaders fulfill that role almost exclusively, then I’m afraid I don’t know on what planet they are living. Granted, the “media” have very significant influence but they don’t shape the morality of the nation. They just talk to death the existing morality from their point of view. Nor do pro-lifers shape the thinking and actions of citizens to any significant extent. Isn’t that the point made by Joanne Byfield? Nor do politicians seem to be shaping the morality of our nation. Again, listen to Byfield.

Who then shapes morality?

Church leaders. The Church. And other religious leaders to a much lesser extent. The morality of Canada is essentially shaped actively or passively by our Christian leaders. The big question though for Christians and the pro-life movement as a whole is “Can we do anything about the failure of Christian leadership in Canada and thus change the moral direction of Canada?”

In the article It's Time For Pro-Lifers To Change Their Strategy In Canada Or The Toll On Babies Will Continue pro-life leaders are challenged to take their heads out of the sand and take a different approach to the defense of innocent unborn lives in Canada. The article deals more pointedly at the failure of Catholic Bishops but applies equally well to the failure of other Christian leaders. A prominent example of the fear which immobilizes pro-life leaders in Canada can be seen in this posting Are Pro-Life Leaders In Canada Afraid To Speak The Truth?

Joanne says

Priority has to be (given) to de-insure abortion and our politicians have to hear it from person after person when they go from door to door. Our job is to get people to that point.

No doubt everyone can participate at some level in the strategy to "get people to that point." But I would argue that the only people truly able to succeed in such a revolution of reforming voting habits is the clergy, through a reformation of the Canadian conscience. If we make Byfield's strategy our chief preoccupation, which seems to coincide with the general philosophy of action of pro-life leaders throughout Canada, we'll keep on spinning our wheels.

If anything at all can be done to halt the neo-paganism overtaking Canada, I believe that only when Christians/pro-lifers decide to take concentrated and united aim at a campaign of accountability for Canada’s clergy—the higher the ranks the better—the sooner we'll see citizens pressing political candidates door to door.

And not a minute before.

For those who claim pro-life leaders in Canada have tried such a strategy and found it impossible or impractical, I for one would like to see the evidence. Like Byfield, I see a trail of political and educational failure but where is the evidence of a national strategy to hold Christian leaders accountable for fulfilling their God ordained duties—and for their failures?

You say it can't be done? I say it's time to talk about it.

Tristan Emmanuel: Church Leaders Culpable

Tristan Emmanuel, who just returned from a great conference and Caribbean cruise, shares his disappointment in his No Apologies column today.

But there was also something sad about the event.

…I was struck time and time again, by how inept the leadership of the evangelical and conservative Catholic strains of Christianity have become when it comes to defending the faith.

…they are also not equipping their congregants for the daily battle of ideas in our culture.

He makes some very good and seldom-heard points, much along the lines of my recent posting Mother of all Human Rights’ Battles Launched by Ezra Levant. I was surprised that Tristan seemed a little more than simply disappointed by the reality he describes, given his “culture wars” background.

If he believed in the one holy, apostolic—and visible—catholic Church, no doubt he would agree near-perfectly with the analysis I offered in my posting, i.e. the failure of Bishops in their role to teach, govern and sanctify is the primary and dominant cause of our current malaise.

Tristan is certainly right when he gives credit to the Church for being the chief force in promoting a free and just society. The vast majority of society, including Christians, cannot seem to apprehend—or believe—such a concept.

I have often thought that in an ideal world - where the church was doing its job - the "ECP Centre" shouldn't be necessary. After all, churches should be advocating for brothers and sisters who find themselves on the wrong end of the law simply because they have spoke truth. The price of political freedom is free speech that gives offence. After all, what can be more offensive than the gospel's call to unrepentant sinners - be they abortionists, homosexuals or philanderers?

As I noted similarly in my posting, shouldn’t the pastors—the defenders of Truth—of Christ’s Church be the very first ones to be hauled before such “human rights” Commissions for announcing offensive truths? Instead, they have left the defense of truth to the rare courageous layman, journalist, or common citizen.

In my mind, there’s also no doubt that when those individuals fail whom God has called and ordained to announce the Gospel and defend His Truth, He can as easily “raise up the stones” to serve as salt and light to the world, to testify to His Truth and to mobilize His people.

That seems to be what Tristan alludes to in his closing paragraph.

The fact that so few pastors are actually equipping their congregants with a consistent Christian world and life view that manifests itself in "salt and light" activity - or in advocating on behalf of those who are subject of hate-crime investigations - tells me there is room for this Canadian to start equipping the saints in America.

In a similar sense, that is precisely the nature of the work undertaken by Vote Life, Canada! but without losing sight of the fact that Church leaders themselves must be continually called to live up to their God ordained roles and to account for their failures. Until the rank and file Christian is so persuaded in this task, in my opinion, we can be only marginally successful in winning the war.

Archbishop Chaput on the Public Life of Christian Citizens

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, Colorado last week delivered an address in New Orleans entitled “Catholic Identity in the American Public Arena.”

Read it. Pay attention. It’s distinctively Catholic but it’s also distinctively Christian. I especially liked his approach towards voting for pro-abortion politicians, covered in #’s 8 & 9. Wow!

Canadians: Please replace “American” with “Canadian” whenever appropriate.

Protestants, Reformed, Baptist—pretty please—replace “Catholic” with “Christian.” You’ll be surprised!

That should do it.

Be a better citizen. Be a better Canadian. Be a better Christian.

**********

Better Citizens, More Faithful Catholics

When we speak about a nation’s culture, we mean the entire fabric of its common life, from art and music to sports and schools. But since this is an election year, I want to apply the idea of Catholic witness specifically to our public life as citizens. Here are ten simple points to remember as we move toward November, and then we can take questions and talk about anything you like.

1. George Orwell said that one of the biggest dangers for modern democratic life is dishonest political language. Dishonest language leads to dishonest politics—which then leads to bad public policy and bad law. So we need to speak and act in a spirit of truth.

2. Catholic is a word that has real meaning. We don’t control or invent that meaning as individuals. We inherit it from the gospel and the experience of the Church over the centuries. We can choose to be something else, but if we choose to call ourselves Catholic, then that word has consequences for what we believe and how we act. We can’t truthfully claim to be Catholic and then act as though we’re not.

3. Being a Catholic is a bit like being married. We have a relationship with the Church and with Jesus Christ that’s similar to being a spouse. If a man says he loves his wife, his wife will want to see the evidence in his love and fidelity. The same applies to our relationship with God. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to show that by our love for the Church and our fidelity to what she teaches and believes. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves, because God certainly won’t be fooled.

4. The Church is not a political organism. She has no interest in partisanship because getting power or running governments is not what she’s about, and the more closely she identifies herself with any single party, the fewer people she can effectively reach.

5. Scripture and Catholic teaching, however, do have public consequences because they guide us in how we should act in relation to one another. Loving God requires that we also love the people He created, which means we need to treat them with justice, charity, and mercy. Being a Catholic involves solidarity with other people. The Catholic faith has implications for social justice—and that means it also has cultural, economic and political implications. The Catholic faith is never primarily about politics; but Catholic social action, including political action, is a natural byproduct of the Church’s moral message. We can’t call ourselves Catholic, and then simply stand by while immigrants get mistreated, or the poor get robbed, or unborn children get killed. The Catholic faith is always personal but never private. If our faith is real, then it will bear fruit in our public decisions and behaviors, including our political choices.

6. Each of us needs to follow our own conscience. But conscience doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It’s not a matter or personal opinion or preference. If our conscience has the habit of telling us what we want to hear on difficult issues, then it’s probably badly formed. A healthy conscience is the voice of God’s truth in our hearts, and it should usually make us uncomfortable, because none of us is yet a saint. The way we get a healthy conscience is by submitting it and shaping it to God’s will; and the way we find God’s will is by conforming our lives to the counsel and guidance of the Church that Jesus left us. If we find ourselves disagreeing as Catholics with the teaching of the Church on a serious matter, it’s probably not the Church that’s wrong. The problem is much more likely with us.

7. But how do we make good political choices when so many different issues are so important and complex? The first principle of Christian social thought is: Don’t deliberately kill the innocent, and don’t collude in allowing somebody else to do it. The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. The reason the abortion issue is so foundational is not because Catholics love little babies—although we certainly do—but because revoking the personhood of unborn children makes every other definition of personhood and human rights politically contingent.

8. So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics—people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views. And they also need a proportionate reason to justify it.

9. What is a proportionate reason when it comes to abortion? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them in the next life—which we certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives, then we can proceed.

10. The heart of truly faithful citizenship is this: We’re better citizens when we’re more faithful Catholics. The more authentically Catholic we are in our lives, choices, actions and convictions, the more truly we will contribute to the moral and political life of our nation.

[source]

**********

Archbishop Chaput’s forthcoming book on American Catholics and public life, “Render Unto Caesar,” will be published by Doubleday later this year.

Another outstanding article from the Archbishop, helpful fare for all Christians concerned about our current culture war crisis, is entitled “Religion and the Common Good” and is available here.

Mother of all Human Rights’ Battles Launched by Ezra Levant

Here’s a fight destined for history books.

LifeSiteNews has a great summary to date.

On Friday, January 11, Ezra Levant, the former publisher of the now defunct conservative Western Standard magazine, appeared before the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). Levant was brought before the Commission after a complainant accused him of hate speech, citing Levant's decision to republish in The Western Standard a series of controversial cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.

I’m hoping that Canada’s Human Rights Commissions have met their match in Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Macleans. If these formidable foes cannot smack down the Orwellian HRC’s in Canada, I’m afraid we are in our last days of freedom of speech [and religion] in Canada.

I’m happy that Bishop Frederick Henry has been willing to take on the HRC's, soul-less tyrants that they are. Although I’ve spoken out against Bishop Henry on some accounts, it is much to his credit that he is the only Canadian Bishop who has been threatened by such Commissions to answer for Christian teaching—which is unalterably opposed on some crucial accounts to the politically correct ideology demanded by such kangaroo courts. Bishop Henry had simply reaffirmed the truth contained in the Catholic doctrines on marriage and the family. To date he has survived the assaults and has prevailed.

In fairness, it must also be noted that, aside from the “Generals” in this war such as high profile Bishops like Frederick Henry, company captain and pastor Steven Boissoin as well as foot soldiers like Bill Whatcott and Chris Kempling have also faced off with the enemy. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly they have not prevailed. Were it a conventional war we were fighting we should not be surprised in the least by these casualties. How many soldiers normally die in battle for every General lost? Sure, that’s stretching the analogy but couldn’t statistics apply here as well because even in a spiritual battle, when humans are involved, casualties are still counted in names and faces.

A very big question here, and one which I hope will be asked, is, “Why haven’t most, if not all, of the Bishops [or other Christian leaders] been hauled to account before the Commissions?” After all, there’s but one Christian faith and one Catechism. So is it because they not declaring the Truth and defending the Faith? Should it depend on which geographic area of Canada where you live? In fact, why does the battle for freedom of speech, which may be considered a derivative of the more fundamental right to free expression, conscience and religion, have to be fought at this stage by “laypeople” and even non-Christians? Don’t misunderstand; I think it’s good and right and courageous of them to do so. Clearly, it is not only Christians who are able to recognize and adhere to the principles of natural law. So I thank God that they are doing it!

But the Bishops are the sanctifying power of society, entrusted to preach and to teach Truth. Doesn’t the truth touch at all upon this battle of rights we are now witnessing? Of course! It’s all about truth and fundamental human rights. Where do human rights originate? Hint: Don’t try to figure out that question without reference to Christian revelation and teaching, i.e. Truth. So where are the Bishops?

Our progression backwards in terms of fundamental rights and justice is simply clear testimony to a societal breakdown in the apprehension of objective truth. It is more than obvious that the “hate speech” battle now in the news reminds us that at one point in the past we had something which we now fear we have lost or are losing. What we are losing is the very integrity of Western civilization which was knitted and forged under the tutelage of Christian thought and leadership.

The ground we lose is ground lost solely because truth is consistently and appreciably undefended or misrepresented by the “Generals” in this war, the Bishops. The enemy of God and of man is only too happy to take it back, one step and one fight at a time, hoping with all his might to de-Christianize Canada and plunge it into an abyss of tyranny and totalitarianism—a political system tragically proven throughout history to be the reward of willfully ignorant, corrupted and unbelieving peoples.

The sooner we see the essential and decisive role of Bishops in the “culture war” in Canada the sooner will we govern ourselves personally in fidelity to the Truth—and the sooner will we acquire the right and duty to demand more from them—and the sooner will our society recover itself.

In the meanwhile, Mssrs. Levant and Steyn, lead us onward! Champion our cause! And God be with you!

[image source]

Catholic Priest Agrees That Abortion Is the Only Way Out

I’m reading Saving Those Damned Catholics. It’s a recent book by Judie Brown, President and co-founder of American Life League. The following excerpt is a sample of the contents.

**********

My Pastor Said the Abortion Was My Only Way Out!

Fifteen years ago I got pregnant; I wasn't married at the time. I was in college. 1 knew a terrific priest at the local parish church. His name was Father X. I went to him after I found out that I was pregnant, and we talked about how this pregnancy would affect my life. I had slept with a friend, and I never intended to get pregnant. I only had one year to go before graduation; I was engaged to a very fine man from my hometown; and I knew that if i did not have an abortion, my fiancé would leave me, my degree would be put on hold, and my life would be ruined. Father X listened to all I had to say and immediately reached out to me and said, "Pat, you have to do what is right for you in this situation. God loves you, and he will be with you regardless. Just be careful and be sure to get plenty of rest after the surgery."

For years after my abortion, I wept every time I saw a baby. I had nightmares every year when what would have been my baby’s birthday approached. I did not graduate because I felt so depressed after the abortion that I turned to alcohol. I got a job in a local bar and had more one-night stands than I can remember. I did not marry the man to whom I was engaged because I felt dirty and evil; I knew I just wasn't good enough for him. I knew that I had murdered my own baby and that a Catholic priest said I was doing what was best. My pain was so severe that I often felt that death would be superior to life.

And then one day I heard about a retreat that was dedicated to helping men and women experience healing after an abortion. So I signed up. On the second day of the retreat, I had the opportunity to go to confession. I had not been back inside a Catholic church since that day when the priest encouraged me to kill my baby. But somehow I knew that God wanted me to surrender this tragic sin to Him and tell Him how broken I was, how sorrowful I was, how much I needed my Father to forgive me.

Father Murphy, the retreat priest, was the most awesome priest I have ever met in my entire life. He shared with me the wonderful nature of Christ's forgiveness when the sinner is truly repentant. He assured me that over time I would feel not only the sense of relief but the assurance that I could also forgive myself and move on with my life. He shared his sorrow with me that Father X had not explained to me that I was a mother and that my baby would bring me joy, not pain.

For the first time in years, I felt the beginning of closure. I understood my own sin and the tragic nature of that sin. I also understood the sin of that priest, who had the chance to at least tell me why I should not murder my baby and chose instead to be an accomplice in my baby's execution. At the end of the confession, Father Murphy told me that I must forgive Father X.

Now my life is back on track; I am practicing my faith, and I pray for Father X every day. But I still wonder why any priest would do such an awful thing.

The true villain in this mother's story is the priest, not the abortionist. It is true that the abortionist used the instruments to kill the baby, but the fact is that the priest facilitated the abortion by doing absolutely nothing to stand in the way of this young woman's ultimate decision. The question in a case like this one, which is all too common, is why-why would any Catholic priest be so blasé about an act so criminal, so vile, so wrong?

Why didn't he use the opportunity to affirm this young woman's motherhood? Why didn't he explain to her that her baby's life was worth more than all the degrees in the world? Why didn't he let her know that he would visit her fiancé with her and do what he could to help this young man see the courage of her decision to carry this baby to term? There are so many positive things this priest could have done-yet he chose to commiserate with the young mother and support her decision to have an abortion.

**********

[Available from Amazon as well]

Bishop Vasa—Heartless Ogre or Humble Servant of God?

The Bulletin, the daily newspaper of Bend, Oregon, in the Catholic diocese of Baker, is carrying a detailed glimpse into the life of diocesan Bishop Robert Vasa. He’s one of the very few Catholic Bishops in North America who faithfully and successfully reflects the true, uncorrupted teachings of the Catholic Church.

Bishop Vasa has been a controversial figure in many ways. The Bulletin article tells why but it also provides an unusual look into a Bishop’s vision for his diocese.

If you have an interest in courageous Christian leadership, this story is for you.

Here’s an introduction:

Vasa, 56, is the spiritual leader for Catholics in the diocese, which covers all of Central and Eastern Oregon and is headquartered in Bend. He acknowledges that his decisions in the diocese since his ordination as bishop in 2000 have stirred controversy. He has been a tireless voice on the pro-life front, both religiously and politically. He has denounced groups such as Call To Action, which wants to reform the Catholic church to allow female clergy, let local parishes have a voice in appointing bishops and revise the church’s teachings on sexuality, among other changes. And, Vasa has required church leaders in his diocese to affirm certain tenets of the Catholic doctrine, or they are not allowed to hold their leadership positions.

A Welcome Sign: Bishop Hot Under the Collar

Passion overflows in this news report.

Archbishop of York cuts up his dog collar in astonishing live TV
The Archbishop of York today cut up his dog collar on live television in a protest over the rule of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Dr John Sentamu said he will refuse to wear the clergyman's badge of identity until Mugabe is out of office.

I’ve got to say that this is a sure fire way though to get some publicity.

Can we please have one of our Canadian Bishops do the same thing, being outraged by the ongoing child-killing in Canada?

What’s worse: dictatorial rule in Zimbabwe or dismembering 100,000+ human beings yearly in Canada? Maybe that’s a poor way to frame the case, especially if you live in Zimbabwe, but I think the reader will see the point.

But alas, the Bishops of Canada are more outraged over Harper’s recent decision regarding capital punishment for convicted criminals. Perhaps not enraged enough to cut up their collars, but then again, who knows? Surely there must be something that gets them really riled up.

Canadian bishops call on government to oppose capital punishment internationally
OTTAWA, Dec 12, 2007 (CNA) .- The president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has asked the Prime Minister of Canada to “strenuously” intervene when Canadians face a death sentence in other countries.

What about when tiny defenseless Canadians face a death sentence in their own country? When in recent history have the Bishops ever made such a statement and a plea for the Unborn? Also take particular note how quickly the Bishops were able to get together an official statement—even an official letter.

Archbishop Weisgerber said the Permanent Council was “most concerned” that the Canadian government was prepared to accept the execution of Canadians in other countries. But come to think of it, weren’t the Bishops supposed to reach a decision in that same Permanent Council Meeting on the question of Amnesty International?

AI is already involved in plans to pave the way for countless more worldwide abortions. Aren’t the Bishops “most concerned” about that? No press release has yet been issued on the AI matter and it’s been about one year and a half since the news broke.

Press Release: Vote Life, Canada! Decries Honours Heaped by Montreal’s Cardinal Turcotte on Chief Justice Antonio Lamer

Distributed to the media and posted today to the Vote Life, Canada! website:

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vote Life, Canada! Decries Honours Heaped by Montreal’s Cardinal Turcotte on Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, One of Chief Architects of Canada’s Culture of Death

Contact: Eric Alcock, President, Vote Life, Canada! 709-773-0700

Toronto, ON December 11/Christian Newswire—The recent funeral of Canada’s former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer was presided over in Montreal’s Cathedral by Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte who described Lamer as "a giant of the law," claiming that his passion for justice would make the whole world more peaceful and serene and intimating that his style of justice pleased God.

“What scandalous and absurd remarks were these and others made by the Cardinal,” protests Eric Alcock, President of Vote Life, Canada! “This event illustrates well the case made in our “Open Letter” that the Catholic Bishops of Canada are sustaining and fostering a pseudo-catholicism which has overtaken Canada and fatally blinded the vast majority of Catholics to the true tenets of Catholicism.”

The truth says Alcock, is that “Lamer practically denied the concept of Common Good, as set forth by Church teaching, and pursued his own perverse notion of individual liberty and autonomy as a democratic right, thereby denying God’s true justice.”

“Incredibly, by his own testimony at times, he sought to divorce legal considerations from morality, the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the absolute law of God, urging Canadians to accept the secular nature of Canadian society demanded by the Charter of Rights. This is the secularization link to which Catholic Bishops like Marc Ouellet appear blind; a link which starts in every Bishop’s own diocese through a failure to adopt a faithful (to official teachings), comprehensive and determined approach to Catholic catechesis and exacerbated by a serious neglect of Catholic discipline mandated by Holy Scripture and Tradition. Both failures make it impossible to prevent—and rout—the radical anti-life and anti-family politics or ‘democracy’ espoused by renegade Catholics like Lamer.”

“A solid orthodox Catholic faith would have uniquely positioned Lamer to guide Canada safely through the choppy complex waters of Charter interpretations for the greater Common Good of Canada,” observed Alcock. “But his pseudo-catholic faith, imbibed and lived out approvingly under the tutelage of Canada’s pseudo-catholic Bishops, led rather to the dismemberment of millions of unborn children and also the intense assault on family and marriage.”

Alcock maintains that Lamer’s spurious Catholicism and the nation-wide scandal it spawned ought to have provoked the firm rebuke and correction of some Canadian Bishop aiming to preserve the Common Good, protect the innocent and defenseless and save faithful Catholics and other Christians from devastating confusion. According to Catholic teaching, scandal is defined as “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.”

“The fact that not one Canadian Bishop is on record addressing this long term national scandal testifies to the pervasive and spiritually corrupting effect of pseudo-catholicism. The lukewarmness, heresy or in some cases outright rebellion towards official Church teachings by Canada’s Bishops has clearly left them susceptible to gross deception and manipulation by the devil.

“What a grievous time in our nation’s history when the most urgent and charitable work in Canada is to summon Catholic Bishops, the God given shepherds of our nation, to flee the wrath of God and return to the true faith.”

Light Blogging These Days—Visit Some of These Links

Blogging has been light lately and may continue so for a few more weeks. I’ve been working on some important projects to ensure the survival and success of the Vote Life, Canada! campaign. Any prayers would of course be welcome.

Here are some stories that I have been following. Maybe you’ll find them interesting and helpful as well so I’m posting the links.

**********

Rick Warren recently hosted Hillary Clinton at his AIDS conference. Here’s one report of the event: Clinton gets standing ovations from evangelicals

And here’s good commentary from today’s Christian Post:
Saddleback's Conference on AIDS Gave Hillary Evangelical Cover
Because Rick Warren is a fellow evangelical and has rightly earned the respect and trust of many in the evangelical community (myself included) I am reluctant and yet compelled to question the judgment of including people on the program who do not support the Bible’s teaching concerning the sanctity of life and the protection of the family.

Mark Pickup has a post up that’s worth reading
Ronald Reagan's Clarion Call to America
According to the US Bureau of Vital Statistics, the year before Roe Versus Wade (1972) there were 39 women who died from illegal abortions in America.[4] Suffice to say that abortion advocates SLIGHTLY inflated the numbers…

You’re probably well informed about the Golden Compass controversy with reporting like this from LifeSiteNews
US Bishops asked to Fire Chief Film Critic over Glowing Reviews for "Brokeback" and "Compass"

Here’s a rather detailed posting from John Borst who publishes Tomorrows Trust, a “web based journal of news and opinion on Catholic education.”
Golden Compass 'review' causes media firestorm
Quite frankly I have never seen an educational issue so intense or concentrated in my years of monitoring education issues. The recent Ontario election debate over faith-based schools did not even come close. It was more drawn out. It never did reach the intensity that ‘censoring’ The Golden Compass has achieved.

And finally, Dr. Albert Mohler adds his perspective. [Great job, Dr. Mohler!]
The Golden Compass -- A Briefing for Concerned Christians

More on the US Catholic Bishops’ recent voting guidelines, approved November 14 in Baltimore during the semiannual assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Here’s a pretty standard report
Bishops aim to shape political consciences

But here’s the best analysis I’ve read on the Bishops’ guidelines. There’s quite a lot of commentary floating around on the subject but Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture has made an excellent and very useful summary in my opinion.
How Not to Form Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
I’ve finally plowed through what we might call the U.S. Bishops’ quadrennial voting manifesto, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”, released at their November 2007 meeting. Never has a document been so technically correct yet so utterly confusing. As a piece of practical voting advice, it is a disaster.

Family activist says studies show damaging effects of porn use
A pro-family attorney says a recent study confirms that pornography has devastating consequences.

Christian Divorce Trends Fuel Debates

Catholic Bishops of Canada Permit Killing of Elderly in Their Own Catholic Hospitals?

The Catholic Register, “Canada’s Catholic News Service,” reported on Friday, 16 November 2007 that Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, challenged the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) to “confront Catholic hospitals where he alleged patients are increasingly being denied food and fluids by doctors.”

Perhaps I’m missing the obvious here but aside from being shocked to hear such an accusation, isn’t there a clear-cut responsibility of Catholic Bishops to ensure that Catholic hospitals are not killing their patients in blatant defiance of Catholic teaching? Why should Alex Schadenberg have to call on the CCRL to confront Catholic hospitals on this grave injustice? Shouldn’t he be screaming bloody murder to the Catholic Bishops?

I’m sorry but I’m confused. Why hasn’t this matter come before the Bishops? It’s one thing for them to wiggle every which-way to avoid dealing with the Amnesty International scandal which might appear to them remote and indefinite but it’s an entirely different matter when Catholic hospitals under their supervision and in their own dioceses are killing the elderly through dehydration, like the awful travesty committed against Terri Schiavo! Why wasn’t this an item on the agenda of the recent Plenary Assembly?

Has everyone in Canada lost their sense of outrage at the killing of the most vulnerable and innocent? Where are the news headlines?

**********

Politics, cutting costs threaten sanctity of life

TORONTO - A pro-life advocate, Alex Schadenberg, has warned that one of the Catholic faith’s foremost goals, to preserve life, is under threat from the political and medical fronts in Canada.

Giving a keynote address at the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) annual general meeting on Nov. 8, Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), said the sanctity of life is increasingly being sacrificed for political gains and cutting medical care costs.

Schadenberg was answering questions on whether it is morally wrong to deny food and fluids to a patient in a vegetative state where the food would only sustain the status of the patient but will not improve their condition.

He said Catholic teachings consider any patient with life in them, no matter how minimal, as worthy of all the comfort that can be provided and nobody, other than God, has a right to deprive them of food and fluids.

“Denying them is killing them through dehydration like in the Terri Schiavo case and that is not allowed in our Catholic faith,” he said.

“Unfortunately, this very principle is under threat because the minority Conservative government will not be able to block any bill seeking to legalize all forms of euthanasia because all the opposition parties are pro-euthanasia.”

On the medical front, he challenged the CCRL to confront Catholic hospitals where he alleged patients are increasingly being denied food and fluids by doctors.

“We would hope that in Catholic hospitals where this practice exists, it will be eliminated,” he said.

Schadenberg explained that there is a difference between someone whose system is completely shutting down and has hours or a few days to live and someone who may have lost certain bodily functions but is still very much alive, as was the case with Schiavo, the American woman in a vegetative state whose family battled in the courts to keep her on life-support despite efforts of her husband to pull the plug. The husband eventually won out.

“A person in a permanent vegetative state is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food, even by artificial means,” he said.

CCRL’s executive director, Joanne McGarry, would not specifically say whether the league would confront administrators at Catholic hospitals but she appealed to CCRL members and all Catholics in general to discourage the practice.

“We have always encouraged members who are employed in medical professions to share their concerns with us about anti-life pressures in their workplaces. More precise involvement on this question would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis,” said McGarry.

She said overall, the challenge for the league and for Catholics is to stand up for “our own rights” in a social climate where it seems to be assumed that those with no religion have an automatic right to prevail over believers.

McGarry added that the league’s general mandate is the “defence of church teaching in the public square.”

Meanwhile, the entire CCRL leadership was retained at the meeting. Phil Horgan remains president, Bill French is vice president and John Sidle is treasurer. Michael Connell, former education director of the league, has joined the board as a director.

[Source]

Attention: LifeSiteNews Readers

LifeSiteNews.com has linked to the latest Vote Life, Canada! press release which concerns Cardinal Ouellet.

If you have been directed here by LifeSite, the press release is entitled "Vote Life, Canada! Calls on Cardinal Marc Ouellet to Stop Whimpering to Caesar..." and can be found here or here.

Readers are strongly urged to also read the Open Letter to the Catholic Bishops of Canada written by Vote Life, Canada!

More on Cardinal Ouellet as an Apologist for Pseudo-Catholicism in Canada

The Vote Life, Canada! press release issued this morning has fired up a number of angry parties. Some of those parties simply ruled out the message of the press release owing to the fact that Cardinal Marc Ouellet was being criticized. Apparently, as far as these people are concerned, some things simply may not ever be said, regardless of whether true or not, and regardless of whether related to the killing of thousands—no, millions—of innocent human beings.

I suppose it’s just too overwhelming. Indeed it is.

Thus far, I have heard only emotional reactions to the press release. Nobody has offered a counterargument to the statements made about the Cardinal. Some have jumped to extreme conclusions without doing any homework, without even following through on the links referenced and without making the effort to keep the remarks of the press release in context.

For those who are struggling with this press release, I urge you at a minimum to read carefully the Open Letter to the Catholic Bishops of Canada written in June past. Also, since I signed off on the press release, I remind readers that my own personal profession of faith appears online and I stand by it.

I welcome comments and discussion and if warranted, I am ready to provide more evidence to corroborate the criticisms of Cardinal Ouellet.

Press Release: Vote Life, Canada! Calls on Cardinal Ouellet to Lead Like a True Apostle of Christ

Distributed to the media and posted today to the Vote Life, Canada! website:

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vote Life, Canada! Calls on Cardinal Marc Ouellet to Stop Whimpering to Caesar—Lead Like a True Apostle Not an Apologist for Canada’s Deadly Pseudo Catholicism

Contact: Eric Alcock, President, Vote Life, Canada! 709-773-0700

Toronto, ON November 13/Christian Newswire— “Nothing sustains the killing of unborn children in Canada like the widespread practice of a false and corrupted Catholic faith,” says Eric Alcock, President of Vote Life, Canada! “and Cardinal Ouellet’s recent remarks have only obfuscated the true nature of the Catholic crisis.

“In a disgraceful capitulation to the worldly powers represented by the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on Oct. 30, Cardinal Marc Ouellet pleaded for respect for religion and begged the secular fundamentalists to ease up because they were to blame for destroying the soul of Quebec,” observed Alcock.

Alcock insists the evidence shows the secularization of Quebec society has essentially been a reaction rooted in a profound distrust of the Catholic faith which for decades has been shockingly perverted by the Bishops as described in the recent Open Letter by Vote Life, Canada! “Longstanding worldly compromise by Canada’s Catholic Bishops has so dulled their spiritual senses that, like Cardinal Ouellet, they no longer recognize their own role in society.”

Alcock explained that where the three-fold role of a Bishop to teach, to sanctify and to rule is carried out faithfully, a society cannot but advance from paganism into Christianity and from imperfect expressions of Christian living to more perfect expressions of God’s will for society. He notes the history of Western civilization has testified to this reality. “Where (Christian) societies have regressed into paganism or atheism—otherwise known as secularization—the failure and corruption of Bishops is traceable. Quebec society is no different nor is Canadian society.”

"In a tragic display of swallowing camels and straining out gnats, rather than hammering renegade ‘Catholic’ and priest politicians—whose secularist mindset devastates Canada’s common good—the Cardinal disciplines only little old women praying their rosaries and rebellious deluded priests who, while deserving excommunication, pose no ‘secular’ threat whatever.

“Cardinal Ouellet is looking everywhere for answers except in the mirror. In his desperate attempt to blame ‘secular fundamentalists,’ the Cardinal has indicted himself and his colleagues. A true Catholic faith generates authentic Christian living and sanctifies the surrounding community while earning its respect. The pseudo-catholic religion portrayed by the Cardinal is a victim of ‘anti-Catholic’ forces and the media and needs to be recognized, respected and propped up by the State for its continued existence.

“The Cardinal intimates that God’s promises are insufficient to preserve society, even the Church. But it’s really the Cardinal who must learn respect for religion—respect for a true Catholic faith which has power to purify and displace the most diabolical secularism, from the degenerate culture of the Roman Empire to the very gates of hell. But hell is another unmentionable reality in pseudo-catholic rhetoric—even to society in grave need of warning.

“Rather than calling for national fasting and repentance the Cardinal is counting on a magic cure—the International Eucharistic Congress—where he hopes revival will ensue. But the Cardinal ought to look once more to history to learn that great national revivals are always preceded by bold preaching and profound repentance. Bishops, please lead the way.”

Press Release: Vote Life, Canada! Finds Catholic Bishops Still Place Low Priority on Amnesty’s Threat to Unborn Children

Distributed to the media and posted today to the Vote Life, Canada! website:

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vote Life, Canada! Reviews Annual Plenary Report of Canada’s Catholic Bishops—Threat to Unborn Children by Amnesty International Still Rates Low on Priority List

Contact: Eric Alcock, President, Vote Life, Canada! 709-773-0700

Toronto, ON November 7/Christian Newswire—“Tragically, news reports confirm Amnesty International (AI) has commenced abortion advocacy internationally,” laments Eric Alcock, President of Vote Life, Canada! “but Canada’s Bishops maintain their laissez-faire attitude.”

In an August press release, Vote Life, Canada! complained that ominous indicators of AI’s plans, like threatening letters from terrorists, surfaced early in 2006. Yet this new global threat elicited simply a ho-hum “We’ll be disappointed” comment posted on the CCCB website in July 2006.

A short three months after posting this comment the Bishops held their 2006 Plenary Assembly which, insists Alcock, “should have been a beehive of strategic thinking for the Bishops to spearhead a powerful and effective mobilization of Catholics against the Amnesty move.

Yet official documents released after the 2006 Plenary Assembly indicate no discussion whatever of the Amnesty threat. Alcock is at a loss to explain “the tragic blindness and indifference of the Bishops to this worldwide threat to unborn children.” He notes this astounding failure was further compounded by the prolonged silence of the Bishops throughout 2007.

Incredibly, reports Alcock, “even since AI announced its official new policy in Mexico City in August past—while Bishops elsewhere in the world have been severing connections with AI—the Bishops of Canada have been silent on the matter.”

“Their silence still prevails, as it did in Canada nearly forty years ago when the abortion door cracked open in Canada.” Alcock claims the persistent call from Vote Life, Canada! has been the only voice on record in Canada holding Bishops accountable for their negligence in the AI affair.

Finally, last month’s 2007 Plenary Assembly announced the AI issue as an agenda item. Yet, exclaims Alcock, “The Bishops seem to be allergic to action when it comes to defending the Unborn. The item did not garner sufficient concern and consensus from the totality of Bishops at the Plenary and was referred to the Permanent Council for later decision!”

Referring to Amnesty International, the CCCB President was quoted as saying, “What a paradox that the smallest of human beings – unborn children – are now being put at risk by those who should be their defenders.”

“Paradox indeed but the irony of this statement obviously escaped the Bishop,” exclaims Alcock. “Who more than the Bishops of Christ’s Church are called to defend human life with all their might and influence? And what of those who take no action—or ineffective action—to stop the killers?”