Friday, March 07, 2008

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.


Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

What Part of Pro-Life Don’t You Understand?

Continuing with some recent postings and the very urgent business of maintaining the integrity of the concept “pro-life,” I bring to the reader’s attention a recent column by Mark Crutcher. For those readers unfamiliar with Mark, here’s an introductory paragraph from his biography.

For many years, Mark Crutcher has been an outspoken and uncompromised opponent of abortion. In 1986, he created the Life Activist Seminar and trained more than 15,000 pro-life activists all across the United States and Canada. Then, in 1992, he founded Life Dynamics which has since become widely recognized as one of the most innovative and professional pro-life organizations in America.

If anyone knows what the word “pro-life” stands for, I believe Mark Crutcher does. He’s an aggressive, principled fighter for the Unborn.

**********

Pro-Life: What Does it Mean?

Today, there seems to be a lot of debate about what it means when someone says they are pro-life. This is especially true for politicians. For clarity’s sake, let’s define the term. The pro-life position is that a new human life is created at the moment of fertilization and is, thus, entitled to the same legal protections as any other human being.

Given that, some abortion positions are pretty cut and dried. For example, someone who supports a universal human life amendment to the constitution is pro-life, while someone who supports the Roe vs. Wade decision is not.

Then there is the person who says that they are personally opposed to abortion and would never participate in one, but pro-choice when it comes to legality. As amazing as it may seem, I have actually heard pro-lifers describe people who say this as pro-life.

In reality, this is the most insidious and despicable of all positions on abortion. After all, there is no reason to oppose abortion other than the belief that it takes the life of a living human being. So what the “personally opposed” crowd is saying is, "I agree that abortion is the intentional killing of a baby, but if other people want to do it I support their legal right to do so and it’s not my place to interfere." That is not a pro-life position. It’s like someone in 1860 saying, “I am personally opposed to slavery and I would never own one, but if someone else wants to own a few that’s their business.”

Another stance often mischaracterized as pro-life is the “pro-life with exceptions” position. You’ll hear people say things like, “I am pro-life, but I think there should be an exception when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest” or “I am pro-life, but abortion should be legal when the baby is handicapped.”

It is a complete abandonment of the pro-life principle to say it should be permissible to kill selected categories of children. When someone says they are pro-life but that abortion should be allowed in some circumstances, the question is whether they would support killing a five-year-old in those same circumstances. If not, then it is clear that they don’t see born and unborn children as morally equal. In other words, they do not subscribe to the most fundamental tenet of the pro-life position.

In the grimy world of politics, a new position is emerging to test the boundaries of what it means to be pro-life. We are now hearing presidential candidates say that they are pro-life but that each individual state should be allowed to set its own policies regarding abortion. Of course, the problem with that thinking is that the right to life is specifically listed in the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of his or her life without due process of law. Even Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court justice who wrote Roe vs. Wade, said that if the personhood of the unborn was ever established the right to abortion evaporated.

When a politician claims to be pro-life, he or she is asserting that the born and the unborn are both persons. So the question becomes, how can they logically claim that only the born have a constitutional right to life? And the answer is, they can’t.

To understand how preposterous this is, imagine that a state legislature passed a law allowing parents of newborn children to take a few days to decide whether they are really prepared to start a family. Under this new statute, if they decided they were not ready for this responsibility, they would be legally allowed to have a physician slit their child’s throat. In that situation, how many of these “pro-life” politicians who are now saying that the federal government has no constitutional right to intervene on behalf of unborn children, would say that the federal government has no constitutional right to intervene on behalf of these born children? Of course, the universal consensus would be that they not only have that right, they have the duty to do so.

The point is, when someone claims to be pro-life but says that abortion is a state matter, that is an unmistakable indicator that either (a) they do not truly believe that the born and unborn are both persons or (b) they are unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution.

It may also be indicative of something the pro-life movement has done. For 35 years we have hammered away at legalized abortion when, technically speaking, abortion is not the root problem. In reality, it is only a symptom. The disease is the absence of legal protection for the unborn.

After all, if a woman who is not pregnant wanted to submit to abortion, we might find it bizarre and we would probably question her sanity, but in the final analysis it would probably not concern us any more than it would if she were getting a tattoo or body piercing.

So the problem is not that women have abortions, but that children die. And that only occurs because our nation took away their right to life. So maybe we need to talk a little less about stopping abortion and a little more about returning legal protection to the unborn. Perhaps then, all these people claiming to be pro-life would know what being pro-life actually means.

[Source]


Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Canada Silent No More to Meet Thursday at Supreme Court to Renounce Canada's Day of Infamy

Press Release
CANADA SILENT NO MORE
January 17, 2008

Contact:
Denise Mountenay-780.939.5774 (home/office)
780.267.5714 (cell)
Founder/President of CANADA SILENT NO MORE
www.canadasilentnomore.com
Author of Forgiven…a true story


We do not celebrate, but mourn the loss of our aborted children

What:
Canada Silent No More-women who’ve had legal abortions gather to expose pain and damage of abortion…

When: Thursday January 24th from 10-11AM

Where: In front of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa

Why: Memorial to renounce the 20th anniversary of abortion on demand

Who: Women from across Canada who are silent no more, voices for our aborted children

Background: Canada Silent No More is a growing movement of women and men, hurt and damaged by legal abortion physically, emotionally and spiritually. We are collecting affidavit testimonies for possible lawsuits against abortion doctors and cancer societies for not informing women about ALL of the risk factors to abortion.

See www.afterabortion.org and www.abortionbreastcancer.com for stats/research

One of our Canada Silent No More women had an abortion by Dr. Morgentaler:

I was sued by him for a million dollars to keep quiet and go away…it is time to speak out!


**********

RELATED NEWS

In St. John’s NL the Right to Life Association of Newfoundland & Labrador will be holding a similar protest. From the email of today sent out by Patrick Hanlon, President of the Association:

Abortion Anniversary Protest

In January 1988 a Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling allowed abortion on demand for any reason and at anytime during the nine months of pregnancy. To mark this anniversary, the Right to Life Association will be holding a protest in front of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland on Duckworth Street on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 12:30-1:30 PM. This protest will encourage the public to ask themselves "Abortion. Have we gone too far?" For information visit www.AbortionInCanada.ca or call 579-1500.

I was interviewed by CBC TV today about our ads. It may be on the 6:00 CBC News today (Tuesday). Please pray for a fair representation of the issue and that the report will touch hearts.

Patrick also reminded the pro-lifers in the province of the Facebook Campaign being promoted by Theresa Matters of the National Campus Life Network. Theresa’s email appears below:

Abortion. Have we gone too far?

Help create another abortion buzz on Facebook by participating in this online campaign.

Details:
January 28th marks the 20th year of unrestricted access to abortion in Canada. With this campaign we hope to help Canadians (and others on Facebook) question the good of this for our country.
*Please note: we are NOT asking you to get a Facebook account if you do not already. If you are not on Facebook, please consider sending this to friends who are.

How to Participate: Starting now,
1. Change your profile picture to one of the attached ads. (Save the attachment and upload as your profile picture.) Also be sure to adjust the “thumbnail” version of the picture as needed.

2. Post a note on your profile about the significance of January 28th . You can use this one, or the press release from LifeCanada or write up your own:

Did you know?
Canadian law allows abortion to take place anytime during pregnancy. Even after the baby’s heart starts beating. Even after the arms and legs are formed. Even after the baby can suck its thumb, feel pain, and survive outside the womb. No medical reason needed. Abortion. Have we gone too far? Visit www.AbortionInCanada.ca

3. Join the Facebook group "abortion. Have we gone too far?" (press release is posted here) & check out www.abortionincanada.ca . This is the site that was made for the campaign by LifeCanada. There are also billboards and bus ads across the country thanks to various Right to Life groups with the same message: abortion. Have we gone too far?

4. Encourage your friends to do the same!

Thank you for your participation! Be sure to also be active offline with friends, family, co-workers etc. There are always opportunities to teach our fellow Canadians about this injustice towards unborn children and their mothers.

For Life,
Theresa
Executive Director
National Campus Life Network
Phone: 416.483.7869
Email: director@ncln.ca


Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, January 17, 2008

ProWomanProLife.org Personally Opposed But Will Not Force Morality

I held some hope when I wrote my posting yesterday that the women at ProWomanProLife.org might respond by simply removing what appeared to be ambiguity and say, “Yes, without hesitation we totally believe abortion ought to be illegal—even though our group will not be directly involved in trying to change the law.”

But today a different picture is emerging. In a blog posting today Andrea Mrozek, as well as Brigitte Pellerin, offered a shallow and twisted [respectively] response to my concern and both women purposefully avoided making such a simple pro-life statement as suggested. Their comments seem to indicate that [to some extent, not sure what extent] they are personally opposed to abortion but they will not deny a woman the choice to make that decision. They certainly don’t think the law should be interposed between a woman and her decision to abort.

So let’s see if I have this right. They are personally opposed but they don’t want to impose their morality [through the law or otherwise] on any woman. Women, they maintain, should be free to choose [the cruel killing of their unborn children] and in the meanwhile, until women are convinced [by their group and other “pro-lifers”] to make better choices, the killing of these children ought to be permitted under the law. Have I got that right?

That seems to be what Mrozek meant when she stated today,

I may well be Canada’s first pro-choice pro-lifer.

Perhaps to some people this sounds like a “moderate” position.

But what moderate or middle ground can there be between pro-life and pro-choice? Anything less than pro-life, i.e. EVERY life, always results in a dead child—somewhere, sometime, under certain circumstances. A pro-choice pro-lifer is an oxymoron, just as contradictory as the term “a cruel kindness” and, if accepted, provides cover for just another “pro-choice” apologist—one wearing a ‘pro-life” mask this time.

Regarding the name ProWomanProLife.org….

I strongly object to their use of the name ProWoman. On the basis purely of the tragic testimony of women in the CanadaSilentNoMore campaign, Mrozek’s ProWoman group ought to unabashedly endorse laws which in every way possible prevent a woman from suffering the lifelong trauma and scarring of abortion. On the basis alone that 50% of all abortions end the lives of fellow women, Mrozek’s ProWoman group ought to unabashedly endorse laws which in every way possible prevent the violent “termination” of an unborn child of the female sex.

I strongly object to their use of the name ProLife. If human life has intrinsic worth then EVERY life deserves protection. If pro-life doesn’t mean that, it means nothing. Words must mean something or they mean nothing. If human life is intrinsically valuable then we have a duty as a society to preserve and protect human life at ALL stages, including preborn stages. If law means anything and protects anything, it must first and foremost protect the most vulnerable human lives from willful destruction by others. Mrozek’s ProLife group, by definition, ought to unabashedly endorse such laws.

I have emphasized that ProWomanProLife.org ought to unabashedly endorse laws which protect unborn children from being killed and which protect women from the horror of an abortion choice. Note that I did not say the group ought to divert their energies into political activism to change current laws or even to otherwise change their approach. I am simply making the claim that for the sake of the integrity of the pro-life movement in Canada, ProWomanProLife.org ought to stand on the bedrock principle of endorsing such laws. In my opinion anything less than that disqualifies them from the title “Pro-Life.”

Wouldn’t it make sense for ProWomanProLife.org to simply go on record saying they believe the killing of unborn children ought to be illegal and then go about their business of convincing women of the wrong headedness of such a decision? After all, the current laws are indeed forcing somebody’s version of morality on Canadians and it’s a deathly, devastating version at that. Why then would they refuse to make the most basic pro-woman, pro-life, pro-child and pro-human rights statement of all?


Labels: , , ,

Monday, January 14, 2008

ProWomanProLife.org Launches in Canada

Earlier this week I noted that poor-choice leaders in Canada were conceding the growing opposition to abortion in Canada.

Here’s more evidence.

The human rights movement of the 21st century is moving.

**********

PRESS RELEASE

ProWomanProLife.org

Canada without abortion. By choice.

For immediate release

January 14, 2008 (Ottawa)— Today marks the launch of Canada’s first pro-woman pro-life group, ProWomanProLife, which can be found online at www.prowomanprolife.org

ProWomanProLife celebrates women, life and freedom and is being launched to mark the Morgentaler decision of January 28, 1988, which removed all restrictions on abortion in Canada at any stage of a pregnancy.

The founding director of ProWomanProLife, Andrea Mrozek, says it is time women took a non-partisan, non-religious stand against the idea that abortion is good for women and furthermore, not just a choice, but a “right.” “We have no hidden agenda here but a very open one: To eradicate abortion in Canada, not by legislation or force, but because that is what women choose. Women should band together to remove abortion from our cultural landscape,” she says. Mrozek is joined by a board of five professional women: Brigitte Pellerin in Ottawa, Raji Shankar in Toronto, Rebecca Walberg in Winnipeg and Dr. Sheryl Alger and psychologist Teresa Fraser in Calgary.

Mrozek notes that abortion has become a pressing issue of freedom of speech. “Pro-lifers are told what they can and can’t say in politics, and pro-life clubs are currently being banned on our university campuses. No Canadian should be comfortable with this suppression of dialogue, irrespective of how they feel about abortion,” Mrozek said.

To address the freedom of speech issue as well as the harm that abortion does to women, children and families, ProWomanProLife will blog with abandon. Our long-term goal is to become a charity that offers women better choices. But the first step is to raise our voices against the conventional, harmful wisdom that a willingness to kill her unborn child liberates a woman.

For further information please contact founding director Andrea Mrozek at 613-875-5888 or at andrea@prowomanprolife.org


Labels: , ,

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Mark Pickup Reports That He Has Closed Down Human Life Matters

In yesterday’s edition of Robert Jason’s newsletter it was reported that Mark Pickup has closed down the HumanLifeMatters website, although his blog is still operational at this point.

This is a sad development, particularly in light of the circumstances cited by Mark in his letter which appears below. What is most disturbing is Mark’s experience which in his own words indicates the extreme difficulty of “evangelical and Catholic Christians being able to work together, arm in arm, to resist the culture of death rising in Canada.”

Please pray that God will provide guidance for Mark in his decisions for the future.

**********

The End of Human Life Matters

It is with sadness that I write this note. HumanLifeMatters has failed.

I envisioned evangelical and Catholic Christians being able to work together, arm in arm, to resist the culture of death rising in Canada. I was naive. Although Edmonton's former Archbishop Tom Collins liked the idea and encouraged the Archdiocese to work at a board level, through its life office representative, the evangelical side of the vision was less forthcoming.

My personal conversion to Catholicism was like a nail in the coffin for my idea. The Baptist General Conference withdrew financial support, the Alberta BGC Executive Minister resigned with a flare of anti-Catholic rhetoric.

I felt sick for my Lord's prayer for unity in John 17. His comment in John 10.16. What of Saint Paul's call for unity in Romans 12..5, or Galatians 3.28 or Ephesians 2.16, or 4:4-6? Does 1 Corinthians 12.13 have no application? Was it me who misunderstood the Scriptural principle of unity amongst those who stand at the foot of the cross and claim allegiance to Christ as our first love? Could we not look past denominational differences, historical grievances, and work together in the cause of Life? Apparently not.

To be fair, not all evangelical representation left immediately, but eventually, other evangelicals on the board resigned. We sputtered along, and I was eventually left with one evangelical and one Catholic. That was it.

I approached the Edmonton Archdiocese to see if they would take HLM under their wing. However, Archbishop Collins was transferred to Toronto. His replacement understandably does not want to take on anything new until he is comfortable in his new post.

And so after five years, I end where I began. Either I misunderstood what I believed God was asking or I failed Him.

I will close HumanLifeMatters' federal registration number, the website is already closed. I have not decided whether to close the HLM blog.

Mark Pickup


Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

The Pro-Life Movement In Canada Thanks Bishop Frederick Henry Of Calgary


When the baby-killers start using the statements of Catholic Bishops to rebuke pro-lifers and to squelch dissent from their holocaust agendas, it’s time for more Canadians to speak up and let their voices be heard.

Of all the news stories coming out of the Canadian media this week in response to the CCBR’s latest campaign, most, if not all of them have used Bishop Henry’s statements as a counterargument to and ammunition against that campaign and thereby against the cause of the Unborn.

Bishop Henry may have saved himself some embarrassment from the squeamish “moderate” [even pro-choice] Catholics in his diocese and from too many of his fellow Bishops but at what price?

A very sad element of this story is that pro-life leaders in Canada are afraid to speak the truth about Bishop Henry’s actions.

Who are the real losers in this tragedy?

Again, it’s innocent, vulnerable children who have no voices of their own.


Labels: , ,

Friday, July 20, 2007

Archbishop Burke's Brigade Will Defend Unborn Children From Catholic Politicians

What would you think of an association of Catholic clergy whose goal is to support all Bishops who
  • ban Communion to Catholic politicians and voters who publicly and obstinately promote or support abortion
  • support legislation to protect and defend sanctity of human life (from conception to natural death),
  • support legislation to protect and defend traditional marriage (between a man & a woman), and the family (mother & father who are also husband & wife, with their children).

Such a group does exist. The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, a national association of 600 priests and deacons, held its annual workshop for priests, deacons and seminarians in St. Louis July 16-19 and Archbishop Raymond Burke was keynote speaker. Yesterday they issued their annual resolutions.

Yes, it would appear they are genuinely and boldly Catholic, taking the teachings of their Church seriously. Is there an equivalent group in Canada?


Archbishop Burke Speaks to Confraternity; Clergy Voice Their Full Support

SAINT LOUIS, July 20 /Christian Newswire/ -- Archbishop Raymond Burke was keynote speaker for the 32nd annual convocation of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, a national association of 600 priests and deacons. This year's conference was held in Saint Louis and included other speakers such as Dr. James and Helen Hitchcock, Msgr. Kevin McMahon and Fr. Fred Miller. The following resolutions were issued at the conclusion of the four day gathering on July 19th

We express our deep gratitude and respect for church leaders like Archbishop Raymond Burke of Saint Louis who courageously, consistently and faithfully defend Holy Mother Church and all her official teachings and disciplines. We strongly support his stand on denying Holy Communion to any Catholic candidate or politician who openly and notoriously supports abortion and/or euthanasia.

We embrace the magisterial teaching of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in its recent document on the unicity and necessity of Catholic Church, in which the one, true Church of Jesus Christ, fully subsists. When understood in the full context and accurate context of papal and conciliar decrees ('Dominus Iesus' and 'Lumen Gentium'), this doctrine is not a hindrance to ecumenical endeavors nor does it deviate from previous and perennially taught dogmas on the ecclesiological nature of the church.

We thank Pope Benedict XVI for his recent motu proprio 'Summorum Pontificum' and hope it will be fully, freely and universally implemented in every diocese throughout the world. We see the invaluable treasure of preserving the old Latin "Tridentine" Mass, (extraordinary form of the Roman Rite), for the spiritual benefit of all the faithful who request it. We furthermore affirm the necessity of reverently and properly celebrating the vernacular Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI, (ordinary form of the same Roman Rite). Our prayer is that this will bring back many of the clergy and lay faithful who have gravitated to schismatic groups in reaction to serious abuses committed by some priests who have irreverently celebrated the new Mass in English since the Vatican II.

We urge the bishops of the English speaking nations to quickly endorse a totally accurate translation of the Roman Missal which would be completely faithful to the typical Latin text. As celebrants of the Holy Mass, we see the necessity of and urgency of restoring sacred language and replacing all pedestrian verbiage in Divine worship since the Holy Eucharist is the 'source and summit of Christian life.'

As we prepare for the 40th anniversary of 'Humanae Vitae' next year, we encourage our brother priests and deacons to reacquaint themselves with this prophetic papal encyclical of Paul VI and we commend our American bishops for the recent USCCB document on Natural Family Planning, 'Married Love and the Gift of Life' (November, 2006).

We pledge as faithful sons of the Church our continued prayers and complete obedience to the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI, and eagerly await his first pastoral visit to the United States.

Approved July 19
Rev. John Trigilio, Jr.
President
www.catholic-clergy.org


Labels: , ,

/body>