Catholic Student-at-Law

PM Harper, Michael Ignatieff, Contraception and Abortion

2010-03-23T14:13:00.006-06:00

I just ran across this article on MSN.ca. I don't have time to do the research needed to fully flush this issue out, but I wanted to point it out to you all.

Basically, the Liberals have introduced a motion in the House of Commons requiring the Federal Government to ensure its maternal health proposal to the G8 is based on "scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths" and refrain from the "failed right-wing ideologies" of former U.S. president George W. Bush. Canada's proposal to the G8 must include "the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception," according to the motion.

It appears to me to be being pitched as a contraception motion, but I think it goes further than that. The full range of sexual and reproductive health options generally includes abortion. I suspect this is the Liberal's attempt to bring up the abortion debate again.

***Author's Note- I have done no real research on this motion, so the following commentary is just me speculating/ranting/editorializing. If you have further information on this, please post a link in the comment box***

Why are the Liberals doing this?

Well, if you follow the polls, the Conservatives, despite the Liberal's and media's attempt to stir up trouble by claiming the government unconstitutionally prorogued parliament, are beating the Liberals. They've increased their lead over the Liberals which seems to puzzle the media.

I think Michael Ignatieff & Co are desperate to do something- anything- to bring the Conservatives down. (Personally, I think the best thing Mr. Ignatieff could do to increase his parties support is step down, but why would he ever listen to me?) I think he believes that reopening the abortion debate will allow him to bring back the spectre of the "secret agenda" that Jean Chretien used so successfully for years.

I think his strategy is "lets make the government seem anti-women's rights and then people will vote for us and we won't even have to come up with a coherent plan for running this country."

But I think that strategy is going to fail.

Why?

Because recent polls are showing that young people are becoming even more pro-life. Young Adults (my generation) are the mostly likely age group to agree that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

(Yes, I know the poll was of US young adults, but based on hope, and my contacts in the pro-life world in Canada, I think the same is true here)

And I'm praying that it DOES reopen the abortion debate. I've said it many times before on this blog, and I'm sure I will say it again- an open debate on abortion is the only way things will change. We have science and the truth on our side, and when people hear the truth and see the value in the arguments, they are forced to truly examine the issue. Once that happens, it's hard to stay pro-choice.

So Mr. Ignatieff, please do reopen the debate. I just hope you are ready for the consequences of it when it backfires spectacularly!

And everyone- please contact your MP and ask them to vote against this motion. Contraception in the form of condoms and the pill will do nothing to protect women in the developing world. If you give them contraception the following will occur:

They won't be used because of cultural taboos;
The Western mindset of "sexual liberation" will lead to further violence against women including rapes, stoning and genital mutilation because their will be no respect for women who will be seen as available for no consequences sex at anytime (don't believe me? Look at our culture and see how much respect for women has advanced in the last 30 years);

There is a reason the Catholic Church teaches contraception is morally wrong. Contraception denies the human dignity of the people who use it. Sex is a beautiful, sacred act and a form of prayer- when done inside the sacrament of marriage.

Sex unites the couple and gives the the unique ability to come together and participate in the act of creation. Contraception denies the couple the ability to be open to that act of creation, and it creates a barrier to the unity of husband and wife. Sex should be a life-giving act where both partners give fully of themselves to each other. Contraception prevents the couple from giving all of themselves to each other.

There is enough suffering in this world Mr. Ignatieff. Do you really want to create more by pushing the contraceptive mentality?

UPDATE: March 24, 2010 9:20 AM MST

The motion failed by a vote of 144-138. See here for details. It appears that 3 Liberal MP's voted against the motion (even though it was a whipped vote!) and several failed to show up to vote. If your MP voted against, please give him/her a call and thank them.

It's only by taking action and letting our elected representatives know how we feel that we can succeed.

O Canada We Stand on Guard for Thee...

2010-03-05T17:06:00.003-06:00

so long as thee is politically correct apparently.

That's right- the government- the "conservative" government no less- is planning to strike a committee to decide if Canada should change the lyrics to the national anthem. (See story here)

These are the current lyrics:

O Canada!

Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

Apparently the line "in all they sons command" is offending some women, and being the oh so tolerant nation that we are, we need to change the line to something more gender neutral.

Argh!

I can't even talk about how stupid this is, because it makes me so angry. Our anthem is our anthem. We don't change it just because some misguided idiot feminist with a chip on her shoulder feels left out.

I am beyond disappointed that Prime Minister Harper's government even contemplated this, let alone struck a committee to study it. How many taxpayer dollars are we wasting on this? Hmmm?

On the plus side, they did strike a committee so this is going nowhere fast.

But to all my Canadian readers, please call/e-mail or mail your MP and tell them this is ridiculous and we don't want our anthem changed.

UPDATE: March 7, 2010 9:38 pm

Let this be a lesson to me- when I want to write a post, but get too busy to write it for a few days, I should verify that the facts haven't changed.

Because on this post they did- see here - the government heard from Canadians and decided they wouldn't change the anthem. Praise be to God! That's one of the first smart things they've done in awhile.

A thanks to Fr. Tim for giving me the heads up on this. And some wisdom from Fr. Tim's seminary days- "God so loved the world, that he did not send a committee"

God Bless!

Brad Trost Affirms Life Again!

2010-02-26T09:34:00.003-06:00

I wrote about Brad Trost, the MP for Saskatoon-Humbolt here. I told you I was proud to have him as my MP when I lived in that riding.

Well, I'd like to tell you about another great thing he is doing. As you may be aware last week Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff raised the abortion issue stating that the Conservatives were trying to defund international "women's health" (read abortion) services.

I wish. But that's besides the point.

If you want to read his hysterical ravings, go here and here and here and here.

I don't want to talk about Mr. Ignatieff in this post because that will get me angry, and the post will turn negative. Instead, I want to talk about Mr. Trost and another Saskatoon MP, Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon- Wanuskewin). Both men are staunchly pro-life.

The wrote an article titled "Abortion ideology harmful tot he health of moms, children" in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix yesterday. You can read it here.

Its worth reading. It's nothing pro-lifer's haven't heard before, but its a well reasoned, well cited article. And its published in one of Saskatchewan's two major newspapers.

The abortion debate isn't dead. And with MP's like Mr. Trost and Mr. Vellacott, hopefully the issue will be discussed in the open. And that can only help the pro-life cause.

When people think about abortion- think about what it really is- the killing of a human being- they cannot remain pro-abortion.

If you live in either of these ridings, or if you just want to congratulate these courageous MP's, please write to them.

The Hon. Brad Trost, MP (Saskatoon-Humboldt)
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6
Phone: (613) 992-8052
E-mail: trostb@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin)
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Phone: 613-992-1899
Fax: 613-992-3085
E-Mail: Vellacott.M@parl.gc.ca

And keep praying for a culture of life to take over this great country.

Uplifting Story

2010-02-24T09:56:00.000-06:00

Stop whatever you are doing and go read this.

You'll be glad you did. I know I was.

Lent 2010

2010-02-24T09:36:00.003-06:00

Lent began last Wednesday. I was re-reading my post from last Ash Wednesday (here) and realized I wrote on self-denial. I was advocating that we all adopt the practice of self-denial, and arguing that it is our lack of self-control that causes so many problems in the world.

I stand by that premise. Having entered the "real world" I'm finding it easier to say than do however. I have been very fortunate- in a year where so many people have lost jobs or had to take paycuts, my income has increased and I can pretty much do whatever I like.

And it's so easy to say "It won't hurt anything if I buy this book" or "I would really like to sleep in this morning, so I will just buy lunch instead of making it." Those little things don't hurt; I can afford to do them, but that's not what matters.

I should be asking myself if I need to do them. Do I need a couple new books every week? Do I need to go out for lunch a few days a week? No I don't. But by allowing myself to have these things, I fail to exercise my spiritual muscle of self-denial.

And in recent weeks I've been oh so gently reminded that if you don't exercise that muscle with the little temptations, it's not there to support you when you are faced with the big ones.

Which brings me to the homily I heard last Sunday. It was on temptation, fitting considering the readings. Christ was fully human, as well as fully God. As a result he faced the same temptations we all do. When the devil tempted him after his fasting in the desert, Christ was tempted to succumb to them. To be fully human, he'd have to be.

But he was able to resist the temptation, in large part because he understood the importance of self-denial. He'd been exercising that muscle for the previous 40 days.

In contrast, I have not been exercising that muscle, which makes falling into sin very very very easy. But, by the grace of God, I've realized that I need to embrace self-denial. And that's what Lent is all about.

I don't like fasting and I really don't like self-denial.

But I like having a close relationship with God. And I like being in a state of grace.

And I like being able to say to the devil "Hah! Beat you this time!" (And then castigate myself for pride, but that's another story :)

So to all my readers, I wish you a joyous Lent, full of sacrifice and fasting and I pray it brings us all closer to God.

There goes my blogging resolution...

2010-02-24T09:33:00.002-06:00

My apologies for the silence on this blog. The real world has been keeping me busy. Take a look at the picture and I'm sure you will understand. They are 4 1/2 months old, cute, adorable and bundles of energy.

But I should be back now.

Today Marks 22 Years...

2010-01-28T22:23:00.003-06:00

... Since all legal restrictions on abortion in Canada were struck down by the Supreme Court in the R. v. Morgentaler decision.

I've said it before on this blog, and I will say it again- Canada has one of the most (if not the most) permissive abortion regime on the planet.

Abortion is legal for all 9 months of pregnancy. Though its hard to find a doctor who will do it, partial birth abortion is perfectly legal in Canada.

January 22 marked the 37th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion in the United States. The US Council of Bishops announced that January 22nd was to be a day of penance and that masses that day would be dedicated to those who lost their lives to abortion.

While the Canadian Bishops have made no such pronouncement for today, I ask you all to think about doing something in penance for this grevious sin that stains our nation. Will you fast? Pray? Attend Mass?

Let's all do something, and then pray that next year won't mark the 23rd anniversary.

Too many have died already.

May God have mercy on us all.

No Words

2010-01-22T15:19:00.003-06:00

One of the things I miss most about student life is the opportunity to be involved in pro-life activism. I am sure there are opportunities here, but I have yet to find them.

What I seem to do instead is read a lot more. And it's gotten to the point where I thought I was enurred to the horror of what abortion is.

And then I read this article.

I hate looking at graphic images of abortion- they horrify me. It horrifies me that we can do this too each other.

I didn't think words could affect me the same way. But this article did.

There are no graphic images, but the descriptions were enough.

Take some time to read it. Once in a while we all need to be reminded of the truth of the evil we are facing.

Then weep for all the lies lost. (I know I did).

Then pray.

Pray for all the babies lost to abortion.

Pray for all the mother's who've had abortions.

Pray for all the father's who've lost children to abortions.

Pray for the societies that allow and encourage these atrocities to occur.

Pray for yourselves. That you will have the courage and confidence to stand up for these, the most vulnerable of us all.

May God have mercy on us all.

h/t The American Catholic

Bride Shortage of 24 Million!

2010-01-13T12:10:00.002-06:00

I blogged about China's one child policy here. Today, CNN has a report stating that China will be short 24 million brides by 2020.

This is a result of the one child policy and China's cultural preference for male heirs. It's going to cause huge social upheaval in China.

Whenever one sex outnumbers another, life is difficult. Historicly we've only seen this occur during periods of exploration- men would set out to explore, and the women would follow years or decades later. Part of why the West was wild is the lack of women. Women provide a calming influence, and give the instinctive male urge to protect an outlet. When a man has a family to raise, he channels his energies into providing for them. When he lacks that stabilizing force, crime increases.

And this isn't something humanity has grown out of. The city I work in has a HUGE immigrant population (approx 1/3 of the population has immigrated to Canada in the last 15 years). When the immigration first started happening, it was all men; coming to Canada for the jobs here. Most of them have been upstanding citizens and regularly send large portions of their paycheques home.

But there are always a few bad apples, and that's true here. Crime rates in this city skyrocketed- at one point we had the highest per capita crime rate in Canada. Fast forward a few years, and these men have obtained their permanent resident card, or even their citizenship, and their wives and children are moving here. Crime rates have been dropping for the last few years. This hasn't been studied, but I think there is enough evidence to suggest a correlation between single young men and crime rates.

And I fear that's what China has to look forward to. That will be the legacy of its one-child policy

The saddest part of this article is that the Chinese government is ignoring these dangers- they have no interest in changing their policy. It is to remain in place. They are already facing catastrophic demographic failure. Waiting won't fix anything; it will only make it worse.

Actually, I changed my mind.

The saddest part of this whole story is that the one child policy has prevented 400 million births. And knowing that China forces abortions if a women has more than one child, and that people will choose to abort a female child in hope of having a male, a large portion of those 400 million were not "prevented" they were murdered.

Morgentaler, Conscience and the Order of Canada

2010-01-12T23:32:00.003-06:00

The Canada Gazette (the official newspaper of the Government of Canada) is reporting that Governor General Michelle Jean (the Queen's representative in Canada- for my American readers, the Queen is Canada's head of state) has accepted the resignation of Fr. Lucien Larre and Renato Guiseppe from the Order of Canada (the Order is Canada's highest civilian honour).

Why are these men turning in their awards?

Because in July, 2008, the Order Selection Committee (headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada) decided to award Mr. Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada. Mr. Morgentaler is an abortionist and a pro-choice activist. It was his actions that lead to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v. Morgentaler that lead to Canada's abortion law being struck down in 1988. (See my previous post on Canada's lack of abortion laws here)

Awarding the Order to Mr. Morgentaler was controversial at best. (I was appalled, but unfortunately, not shocked by the decision.)

I want to applaud these two men for returning their Orders. Awarding it to Mr. Morgentaler tarnished the value of the award. It turns it into little more than a political tool to bestow favour upon the politically correct.

I know very little about either of these men, but anyone who will act according to their consciences is ok by me. Please pray for them, and please also pray for Mr. Morgentaler. He is no longer a young man, and one day he will have to account to God for the deaths he caused. Pray that he sees the error of his ways before that happens.

(For more info on the awarding of the Order to Mr. Morgentaler, go here and here.)

The Media

2010-01-12T23:26:00.002-06:00

As you know, media bias is a particular pet peeve of mine.

I see bias in almost all the news I read, watch or listen too. It's aggravating. (I've blogged about it here).

However, I came across this great post on bias at the Chocolate for your Brain blog today and it summarizes my thoughts and feelings- and it does a better job then I could do. So, if you have a minute, take a look.

Faith isn’t Easy

2010-01-10T23:36:00.001-06:00

One of the hardest things about leaving the university environment has been leaving the amazing Catholic community. In Saskatoon, there were so many people my age who found the faith journey to be an exciting one; one they wanted to share with others. I have many fond memories of debates about obscure parts of the faith, or discussions of the saints and martyrs occurring in coffee shops and restaurants all over Saskatoon. I have yet to find those opportunities here.

Looking back, I never truly appreciated the blessing of that strong community. While living in the world, sharing the gospel message just by how you live, can be invigorating, I miss the opportunity to recharge with other faithful Catholics.

I'm trying to find that sense of community here, but it's hard. And I know it takes time. One thing I've done is get involved in my parish. Specifically, I've volunteered with the youth ministry. My parish has a full-time youth minister, but he needs help with the program. For the most part it's been a great experience- I meet other people in the parish, and have an opportunity to share my faith; to have some of those discussions and debates I miss so much.

The parish uses the Lifeteen program. Before coming to the parish, I'd never been involved with Lifeteen- I've heard things about it, both good and bad, but never had the opportunity to evaluate the program for myself. There are some parts of it that I don't like, but mostly for aesthetic reasons. For example, it focuses on Praise and Worship music. I have no problem with P&W on its own, but I detest it when it becomes part of mass. The music at mass, in my opinion, should be reverent. Mass is not a rock concert. It should be something different from what we experience in the world. Don't get me wrong- I enjoy rock and pop music (I have to admit to knowing all the words to the Black-Eyed Peas latest song, and Nickelback is playing on the iPod right now) but not at mass. And I think it's wrong to assume we need use the music Teens like to get them to come to mass- Jesus should be enough!

But other than that, I've so far found the Lifeteen program to be orthodox and theologically sound.

Until last night.

It was the first event since before Christmas. The theme was being normal and still being Catholic. Basically, the premise was that you can be of the world and still practice your faith; that you can achieve that balance. I don't have a problem with the premise- we can live in the world and still be Catholic. And the video was really good- it talked about the Saints and the lives they lead. It was reminding the youth that we are all called to be saints, which is great.

The thing that concerned me was the emphasis on being "normal." The message I got was that it's easy to live in the world and still be Catholic.

I can't disagree more with that.

It's not easy to live in the world and be Catholic. We are called to live a radically different life than the one society says is normal. Christ didn't lead a normal life- He lived the life his father wanted. People hated Him for it. They crucified Him for it!

Life isn't easy, and it seems disingenuous to tell teenagers that faith is easy. The Christian (and especially the Catholic) faith is ridiculed and mocked everywhere. I challenge you to turn you TV onto a channel other than EWTN for 5 minutes and not find Christians portrayed as backwards or bigots.

So why were we telling the youth members of our parish that you can be normal and still be Catholic? If we truly follow Christ, we will never be "normal" in the way the world expects. We will always stand out and often it will seem like we stand alone.

It was almost as though we don't want to scare the kids away, but isn't it far better to lay out the challenges they will face so they know what they are signing up for? When Christ told His followers to "eat my flesh and drink my blood" He didn't tell them it was just a symbol when they were disgusted and left Him. How can we do anything less for the youth in our parishes?

These are teens in high school- some of them will be heading out to University in a few months. And take it from me; university is an even more difficult place to practice your faith than high school is.

Isn't honesty the best policy? Shouldn't the message have been faith isn't easy? Shouldn't we tell the youth that people will laugh at you, ridicule you and persecute you? And then shouldn't we say that the faith journey is the most amazing journey you can ever take and all the ridicule and persecution is worth it, because the reward is literally priceless?

Wouldn't that be the better message? Because these kids aren't stupid- they deal with the temptations and diametrically opposed viewpoints of the world every day. They know it's not easy. Wouldn't we reach more if we acknowledged that, and then gave them the tools to negotiate the world with? So why do we persist in lying to them?

Resolutions

2010-01-03T22:47:00.002-06:00

Tis the season to make resolutions.

So I thought I'd share my resolutions (at least the blog related ones) with you.

1) Blog at least once a week

I know that's nothing compared to the daily blogging I was doing when I started this blog, but at this point, once a week is an achievable goal.

2) Be charitable in what I post

Being charitable towards others has always been a struggle for me. Especially if I disagree with someone. Yet I know that a charitable response is far better than a sarcastic one, no matter how funny it may be.

3) Be more positive in what I post

I was reviewing some of my posts for the last year, and I realized that most of them are negative- highlighting something I disagree with, or demonstrating the culture of death that exists. I know this is important, but depressing news is still depressing. I want the blog to witness to others, but I also want it to highlight the joy that comes from being Catholic. And if I was a non-Catholic reading this blog, I might wonder if the faith is truly life giving, or just bitter.

Those are my resolutions. With God's help, I will succeed.

To all my readers- a belated Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and God Bless!

Rejoicing on Gaudete Sunday

2009-12-13T21:44:00.005-06:00

My priest announced at mass today that the H1N1 restrictions put in place in November in the Calgary diocese have been lifted! Praise God. I was able to receive on the tongue for the first time in weeks.

It was wonderful to be able to receive Christ reverently again- especially on Gaudete Sunday.

I haven't heard from any of my friends at St. Anthony's if mass has been resumed there, but I assume it should be.

Thank you all for your prayers for Bishop Henry, and this diocese.

Rejoice, rejoice!

Planned Parenthood, Brad Trost and the USSU

2009-12-09T19:06:00.003-06:00

I could start this post by asking "which one of these is not alike"- the answer is pretty easy.

Brad Trost is the MP for my old riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt, and I think its a crime that this man is still just a backbencher. I've spoken with him a couple of times, and I think he truly has the good of his country and his constituency in his mind whenever he acts. One of the (many) things I like about him is that he is a member of the multi-party Parlimentary Pro-life Caucus. And this post is really about the petition he is sponsoring in the House of Commons. You can view it here.

The petition asks the Government of Canada to stop funding the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). You see, as of 2006, the taxpayers of Canada agreed to pay IPPF $18 MILLION over 4 years. I'm not going to go into the reasons why the government did this (because I don't know, and anything I say will just be ranting speculation) but they have.

I think Mr. Trost's petition is a great idea, and I encourage you all to print a copy off and get people signing it.

That brings me to the next part of the post- the USSU (or University of Saskatchewan Students Union). I paid money to this organization for 6 years while I was a student and I'm so happy they no longer get a dime of my money. The USSU is, like all Student's Unions I'm aware of, an extreme left wing institution that seems to exist to waste its members money. (I bet you have no idea how I really feel about it.)

Anyway, one of the members of the executive (who is elected by the student body) took offense to Mr. Trost's petition and is circulating a petition of his own. It asks the government to continue funding IPPF.

Now, I have no problem with an individual disagreeing with a politician's stance (I know its often me disagreeing) but I have a real problem with a institution that is funded by members taking such a stance- because the institution should be speaking for its members.

Having attended the U of S, and been involved with the U of S Students for Life, I know there are many USSU members who support Mr. Trost's petition, and not the USSU's. Consequently, I think it is wrong for the USSU to sponsor their petition. If individual members of the USSU or its executive want to have a counter petition- that's fine- that's what a democracy is about. But I think its wrong for them to use the USSU name to do it. Read their press release. It states that the USSU "condemns a petition being circulated by Brad Trost." The USSU should be doing no such thing.

So, for those of you who are U of S students (or alumni) please contact the USSU and tell them what you think of this- in polite, charitable terms.

One final comment is on Mr. Trost's response to the USSU's petition. You can read it here. But the title of the response says it all- "Freedom of Speech is an Absolute Right." Did I mention Mr. Trost was a stand up guy? Almost makes me wonder how he ended up in politics... and explains why he's still a backbencher.

But, if I still lived in that riding, he'd have my vote in the next election.

Being an Ultra-Catholic

2009-12-07T22:48:00.003-06:00

Just a quick post tonight-

There was an interesting article posted on Inside Catholic today. The article explores the idea that a Catholic who is faithful to Church teachings is considered a fanatic.

I don't consider myself to be a fanatic, but it's a term I have been called in the past- along with hardcore and fundamentalist. These are not used as terms of endearment. Language is so important- it shapes our understanding of the world.

Think of it- the pro-aborts use the term "pro-choice" and call us "anti-choice." We do the same and call them "pro-aborts." Language has power.

We need to do a better job of fighting on the language battlefield. I've talked about it before, but this article reminded me of it.

I guess I'll have to claim my title- I'm an ultra Catholic. How about you?

Faith, the Flu and the Diocese of Calgary

2009-12-01T21:49:00.006-06:00

H1N1 hysteria has hit Canada hard. In October, the new H1N1 vaccine was the leading story for weeks. H1N1 is often still the leading news story. People are panicking trying to get their vaccine.

I've alternated positions between laughing at the gullibility of people and shaking my head at the nonsense. That was until the hysteria affected me personally. (No, I don't have the flu, nor does anyone I know). But my diocese ( the diocese of Calgary) has put into place H1N1 "precautions."

These precautions include:

No reception of the Blood of Christ
No Holy Water in the fonts
No shaking hands during the sign of peace
No reception on the tongue

That last one is the most difficult for me to swallow. About a year ago (after feeling called to it for about 6 months, but being afraid to) I decided to start receiving the Body of Christ on the tongue.

I decided to do that for one reason, and one reason only. I am receiving MY SAVIOR. Literally, the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. I began to notice that after receiving in the hand, particles of Christ were still on my hand. I tried to lick them up, but that is not dignified for me, nor do I believe it demonstrates the reverence I should have for Jesus.

So, because I felt it was necessary to protect Christ, I began to receive on the tongue. I know people who say that receiving on the tongue gave them a stronger and deeper appreciation of their faith, but I can claim no such result. But I do feel it is more reverent, and it does humble me. The bottom line is, I do not like receiving in the hand. I'm paranoid that I'm dropping pieces of Christ to the floor to be trampled on.

And now, my Bishop is requiring that I do this. These rules have been in place for the past three weeks, and every mass I want to cry because of the indignity I am performing. (I know- I could refrain from taking the Eucharist, but I need the grace it gives. I need that close communion with Christ to help withstand sin. Maybe that's a position I need to reevaluate).

But I shouldn't have to. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum 92, the people have the right to choose how to receive. In fact, reception on the tongue is supposed to be the norm- reception in the hand is only an indulgence. In a letter dated July 24, 2009 the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW) confirmed that it is not licit to deny the faithful reception on the tongue.

The edict from Bishop Henry just got worse today. He has gone one step further. Calgary has an FSSP parish- St. Anthony's. Mass there is in the Extraordinary Form, and they have been quietly ignoring the H1N1 precautions. Well, as of last Friday, Bishop Henry has shut down the parish. When someone pointed out the CDW's letter, he stated "I am well aware of what the congregation decided but quite frankly, it is not their call. It is mine. " (See the details here)

Ummm no. How can any bishop take that position? Excuse me Your Excellency, but I'm pretty sure it is the CDW's call. The Catholic Church is a hierarchy. Hierarchy's work from the top down. That means that the parish has to listen to the priest, and the priest has to listen to the bishop, and the bishop has to listen to the pope.

The reason I have been receiving in the hand for the last 3 weeks (despite the fact that it causes me great distress) is because I believe in the hierarchy, and I think the hierarchy is important. If my bishop says this is the way things are, I will do that. Unless and until the bishop is no longer obeying the hierarchy. At that point, who am I supposed to follow?

Oh, and didn't Pope Benedict issue something called Summorum Pontificum? The document that states that the laity has a right to the Extraordinary form? Yeah, he did. So not only is Bishop Henry defying the CDW (and the Magisterium), he is now directly defying THE POPE. The Vicar of Christ on Earth. The man the Holy Spirit chose to lead the Church.

Never fear, I will be writing to Bishop Henry. I request you do so as well. But be courteous. If all the letters Bishop Henry gets are rude, he will have no reason to take our concerns seriously. His e-mail address is bishopfh@rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca. If you live in the diocese, please tell him which parish you attend, and if you live out of the diocese, please state which diocese you do live in.

And please pray for this diocese, Bishop Henry, St. Anthony's parish and all the people affected by this directive.

Until very recently, I have been a big fan of Bishop Henry. I like his no holds barred style when he talks about abortion and homosexuality, and the right of a church to get involved in public life. But this decision, and a few other ones have left me wondering what has happened to him.

Oh, and on a side note, please also pray for my old diocese- the Diocese of Saskatoon which has also suspended reception on the tongue. I know it is deeply troubling to people there. The diocese is currently without a bishop, so people really don't know who to speak to about it.

I'm back

2009-12-01T21:43:00.002-06:00

Wow. Apparently I haven't posted since August. And its now December.

I really don't know where the time has gone. The Student-at-Law gig (and real life in general) have been keeping me busy.

There have been quite a few times when I've read something I wanted to post on, only to get busy and not end up posting.

My apologies. But I'm making a commitment now to all my readers (if I still have any-those of you who are still here, thanks for your faith that I would come back) that regular posts will resume now.

Know that you are all in my prayers, and I ask for your prayers as well.

God Bless!
Sarah

File this one as a head scratcher

2009-08-11T20:10:00.004-06:00

I'm thinking there has to be more to this story.

Apparently there is a new Bill being passed by the Legislature in Quebec that requires abortionaries to adhere to minimum hygiene and safety standards- essentially they have to perform abortions in sterile environments.

As a result at least one abortionary is set to close because they can't meet the standards.

So my first thought

1) Yay an abortionary has to close!

2) What?!?! They weren't operating in sterile environments before and the government had to pass a law to enforce it?

On second thought- maybe there isn't more to the story. After all abortionists don't care about the baby they are killing- why should they care about the mother?

Ethics and Faith

2009-08-05T21:47:00.003-06:00

***WARNING- THIS POST ASKS A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS VERY FEW***

I knew that the practice of law would at times put my duty as a lawyer and my duty as a Catholic at odds. I ran into one of those situations today.

I had a client come in to get some estate planning done- Will, Power of Attorney and a Personal Directive. After speaking with the client, I have no concern about capacity. The client is clearly able to make the decisions necessary for estate planning. However, this client also has some severe disabilities- none that are mentally impairing, just some severe physical disabilities. The disabilities are part of the reason the client wants to get the estate planning done. (I should make clear- this is the first estate planning I've worked on, and I was sitting in with my principal observing- not actually doing the questioning)

So far, so good- I have no issues with any of that.

What does bother me is my firm's personal directive. The wording of it specifically. The directive says essentially that no extraordinary methods should be used to save the client and if the client is in an irreversible coma or persistent vegetative state, their lives should not be prolonged.

My problem with this wording is that a) it is too open to interpretation- in this world, extraordinary means can mean food and water and irreversible comas and persistent vegetative states are not something that medical professionals agree on and b) I think such wording violates the culture of life ethic.

My other problem is that this wording is presented by the lawyers in my firm as being "normal" and "what everyone uses." When interviewing clients, my principal asks "do you want the plug to be pulled or not?" If the client says pull it (which all that I've seen so far do) my principal says that this is the wording you should use. To me, this is not doing the job we as lawyers should be doing for our clients. Everyone is not an expert in end of life issues (I'm certainly not, but I like to think I'm more aware than a lot of other people) and I'm sure this isn't something my principal has thought much about, but I don't think this explanation or the wording is good for our clients. I don't think they understand the ramifications of what they are signing and I don't know that it is consistent with their actual wishes.

When people are choosing the terms for their wills, we are very careful to make sure we ask lots of questions so we get their intentions captured properly in the will. To me this one size fits all personal directive is us as lawyers failing to take proper instructions from our client.

Don't get me wrong- I know there are a lot of people out there who may want the plug pulled. I just want to make sure that they know what they are saying when they say that. I want to give them options; I don't want them to be forced into the cookie-cutter precedent some lawyer got at a Law Society conference, and I feel that is what is happening here.

Back to my client today- I don't know that the client truly understood what the client was signing. (For that matter, I don't know that my principal knows the ramifications either) And I am concerned, especially because of the client's disability, that the medical profession will not stop to seriously consider the client's wishes if the time comes.

As a Catholic, it hurt me to watch someone sign a document that condemns them to the culture of death. Yet, as a lawyer it’s my job to make sure the client’s wishes are followed. I guess my real concern is- when the day comes (and it is coming soon) that I take instructions and draft the personal directive myself, what do I do if the client wants to make a decision that I disagree with? As a lawyer, I know that I have to abide by the client's wishes, but as a Catholic, can I do that? Am I not then complicit in an act that violates my faith? And if I do so with full knowledge, does that not make it a mortal sin? And if I know that I will do it again if another client wants it, does that mean I can't repent of the sin at confession? Where does that leave my soul?

My clients may not know any better- they after all live in a society consumed by the culture of death. God is merciful, and I know He will have mercy on them. But what about me? I do know better. After all, "to those to whom much is given, much will be expected."

I'm only 1 month into a career that should last over 40 years. How do I protect my client’s dignity, and how do I promote the culture of life when my profession has such a large role in the culture of death?

My intention is to create some other precedents in time that are more life affirming, but what do I do with people who are adamant that they want the plug pulled or to be deprived of nutrition and hydration?

The Healthcare Debate

2009-07-22T20:39:00.003-06:00

I've been following with great interest the current debate over healthcare in the United States. I don't claim to have read the bill (1000+ pages of legislation is daunting to say the least), but I'm going to comment on the situation anyway.

What I've read (from mainstream and fringe media, right, left and center) suggests that the system Obama is proposing is very, very similar to the current Canadian model. And that scares me. Americans deserve much, much better. I'm not even going to comment on the concerns that the proposed plan will fund abortions (as already happens in Canada) or that it will lead to rationing of healthcare (it does in Canada) or that it will lead to a utilitarian system where the disabled and elderly are not cared for because its too expensive (also a problem in Canada) because I think you all know where I stand on that issue.

Instead, I want to comment on this notion that free government healthcare is a good idea. I live the Canadian experience, and all I can say is thank God I'm healthy. The whole time I was going to university, I didn't have a doctor- I wasn't sick and didn't think I needed one. Now that I've settled into my career, I thought I'd find a doctor (my family and friends think that yearly physicals are a good idea, and apparently going 10 years without one is too long). So, I called every clinic in the area I'm now living in, and not one of them is accepting new patients.

Huh. I thought that under our universal medical care system, I could recieve medical care anywhere in the country. Apparently not. When I asked the clinics what I should do, they suggested I go to the ER for any problems.

Yeah, right.

I'm going to go to the ER for a physical.

And even if I did, and they would do it (which I'm sure they won't) what a waste of a) taxpayer money and b) ER resources. If the ER is busy dealing with people who should be seeing their GP, how can they help those who really need ER care? Our ER has essentially turned into a glorified walk- in clinic. Its a little ridiculous.

I also came across this story the other day. Apparently, this hospital has closed its maternity ward because there are no doctors to deliver babies in the city. Instead, expectant mothers are being told to go an hour away to deliver. This was supposed to be a temporary measure, but its been 6 months! Two women have already delivered en route to the hospital in the ambulance.

I don't know what the best solution is- the city can't seem to attract any doctors, but the patients are suffering. What happens when a women has a difficult or dangerous pregnancy/labour? Does a mother or child have to die before this situation is remedied? (I don't even want to think about the liability issues in this situation).

Anyway, my point is that the Canadian system is far from perfect. It is not something that other countries should try to emulate. Improve upon? Learn from? Sure- that's great, but this is not the route Americans want to take. Trust me.

The only "good" thing about Canadian healthcare is that its equal- rich or poor if you want treatment under the universal healthcare system, you will have wait equal lengths of time.

All I can say is, thank God for my health.

Pray for our neighbors to the south.

The Difference with Differences

2009-07-15T21:08:00.004-06:00

A few things have happened in the past few days that have reminded me how important it is that we all be witnesses in our everyday lives to our Catholic and Christian faith.

I was speaking to a person I consider to be a very strong, moral and ethical person today, but then he said something that caught me off guard. We were speaking about another person I'd just met, and he was giving me some background. He told me the person's daughter had Down's Syndrome and then said "and that's a bigger burden than anyone should have to carry. Poor guy."

I was so shocked, I didn't say anything. And by the time I recovered, we'd moved on in the conversation and I didn't feel up to bringing it back up. So now I'm blogging about it. Don't get me wrong- I know that the attitude society promotes is that people with disabilities are somehow less human or less worthy of life, but I'm shocked when people I respect say things like that.

Why is it "poor guy"? Why is it such a "burden"? Why is it a burden no one should have to carry? Doesn't he see the implication in his speech- that the daughter would be better off dead? I don't understand. I know that raising a child with a disability is not easy, but I don't think raising any child is easy. A disability might create more challenges, but it also has the potential for great blessings. I don't have a lot of experience with people who have Down's, but what I've seen is people who are more human, loving and caring than the vast majority of this world (myself included.) What do you say when people say things like that?

This brings me to the other recent experience- the area I am living and working in has a lot of immigrants, and these immigrants are visible minorities. Before I moved here I was aware that there are tensions as a result, but I can't help but wonder in the last few days if those tensions are excacberated by people's conduct.

I've noticed that when these immigrants (many of whom are now Canadian citizens, or at least permanent residents) deal with others, they are looked down upon as being unintelligent. I don't think they are- they don't always speak English well, but that doesn't make them stupid. And yet, people assume that because they don't speak English, they must be idiots, and they speak down to them, role their eyes or avoid dealing with them all together. And I see the frustration on the faces of these immigrants who are just trying to get though each day.

I can't imagine how scary and difficult it would be to leave my country and move to another one where, not only do I not speak the language, but I look like an outsider. I got a small taste of that in Italy this summer-I don't speak Italian and I'm so pale that I just screamed tourist and it was hard- and most people there wanted to help me.

Here, people seem to go out of their way to make things difficult for these immigrants. For example, I've seen people be denied appointments, or forced to come back 3 or 4 times because they didn't understand, yet if they spoke better English, someone would take the time to explain it for them.

Maybe the worst was a comment I heard today- "yeah he's Chinese, but his English is pretty good, so there's no reason to not help him."

To me this is the same attitude as the attitude towards people with disabilities. We are all human- equal in dignity and deserving of respect by virture of that inate dignity. Yes, some people are more work to deal with than others, but if we are all children of God, we should do the extra work, and be happy to do it.

If we call ourselves Christians, should our lives not be a witness of His gospel? We need to be Christ to each other, and we need to stop seeing everyone as other and start seeing everyone as our neighbor.

And maybe if we can do that, we can reverse this culture of death we seem to be spiraling further and further into.

Changes

2009-07-09T21:35:00.002-06:00

You may have noticed a few changes around the blog- especially the title. I've changed it from Catholic Law Student to Catholic Student-at-Law, not because I'm trying to be funny but to represent my new status.

I officially finished law school back in April, and I've now embarked on the final year before I become a lawyer- I am a student-at-law which essentially means I'm an apprentice. God willing, in a year I can call myself a Catholic Lawyer.

Anyway, the purpose of this blog remains the same, and I'm hoping to get back to more regular blogging, especially since I've settled down into one place with a solid internet connection. The content should be the same (although there will no longer be posts starting with "I heard in class today")

I'm glad you've stuck around to read the blog this long, and I hope you continue to read.

God Bless!

Troubling...

2009-07-09T21:25:00.005-06:00

When I blog (or actually, when I do anything in life) I like to do it with the facts in hand so they can all be analyzed and examined. I don't want to spread false rumors or engender animosity, and that's what (I have learned) speaking without all the facts can do.

That said, I have been hearing something about the new diocese I have moved to (for work) that troubles me greatly. However, I have no facts, no evidence and no proof. I am attempting to get those things, but until I do, I'm not going to speak about it.

The rumors trouble me greatly though and are weighing heavily on my conscience and my soul. I'm not even sure if I should post this much, but I do want to ask everyone for prayers for the diocese, especially the leadership of the diocese.

I am praying there is no truth to these rumors and if there isn't, I will never mention them again. Until that point, your prayers are appreciated.

Actually, this has hit home to me that I hardly ever pray for those in authority in the Church, and I really should- we all should.

In advance, I thank you for your prayers

CCCB report on Lifesite’s allegations against Development and Peace re: abortion

2009-07-01T10:01:00.003-06:00

As I have hoped (and urged the bishops to do) the CCCB's report into Lifesite's allegations has been made public. You can read the report here . The report concludes:

"We believe the allegations by Lifesite News – that financial assistance by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP) aided projects related to the promotion of abortion – are not founded on the facts."

Before I comment, I want to note a few things about the report especially as they are things I was concerned about in earlier posts. First, the investigation was lead by Archbishop Martin William Currie of St. John's and Bishop of Grand Falls and Bishop Francois Lapierre of Saint-Hyacinthe. The investigatory commission also included Msgr. Carlos Quintana, C.S.S., Executive Director of the National Collection for the Church in Latin America of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Msgr. Mario Paquette, P.H., General Secretary of the CCCB and Development and Peace officials; Michael Casey, Executive Director, Paul Cliche, Deputy Director of the International Programs Department, and André Charlebois, Program Officer for Latin America. The report states that the D&P officials were involved to see to "travel arrangements and other organizing." I 'm noting this because my concern has been from the beginning that D&P officials might try to hinder and bias the investigation.

Another note- The CCCB commission did speak with the Mexican Catholic Bishops during the investigation. The report does not comment on what the bishops said, except to state that: "We regret that the Mexican organizations have so little or no relation with the Episcopal Conference of their country." I'm noting this because I find it interesting that the Mexican Bishops aren't involved with these groups, and I wonder why.

Analysis

Summary

This could get to be a very long post, so I am going to quickly summarize my thoughts on the investigation here. The detailed analysis follows

The investigation was a wasted effort because it did not investigate the allegations made by Lifesite, it investigated the allegations D&P claimed Lifesite made, which are two very different things.
The investigation must have found something wrong with D&P because they did have some strong words for D&P (couched in the type of language Bishop's use) though they do not elaborate on what that may be.
The Bishop's do not seem to have had all the information before they did this investigation because they claim Lifesite has avoided contacting the CCCB and establishing dialogue on this issue, yet Lifesite has been in contact with the bishop's from the start
The only comment on any of the evidence gathered by Lifesite was directed to the piece of evidence showing that the 5 groups signed a report that advocated several positions in contradiction with the teachings of the Church (including abortion and contraception). The bishops merely stated that signing this was "imprudent" and concluded it was ok because they were merely showing solidarity with the other groups working for human rights.

My position on funding D&P has not been changed by this report. The report does not address Lifesite's allegations, nor does it address the very clear and very damning evidence Lifesite has produced which leads me to believe that D&P will continue to fund organizations that I believe support abortion. As I have stated from the beginning, if an organization I fund gives money to an organization that supports abortion- even if my money isn't directly used to support abortion- I am morally complicit in those abortions and therefore in a state of mortal sin if I know or suspect that is what the groups are doing. With all due respect to D&P and the CCCB, my soul is too important to leave to the hope that D&P is not involved, especially when I have seen clear evidence otherwise.

Detailed Analysis

Point 1

As I quoted above, the CCCB found that D&P did not aid projects related to the promotion of abortion. That is all well and good, and I'm glad that D&P isn't doing that, because that would be an even greater scandal than the one facing them. The allegations against D&P are that they are funding groups who support abortion- i.e. money D&P gives goes to worthy endeavors, but the groups are also involved in abortion related advocacy.

This is a very big difference. Essentially the allegation is that D&P is giving money to groups who use that money to build homes or dig wells for fresh water, but those same groups also support abortion. This is the problem- even if the D&P money isn't being used for abortions, the money D&P gives frees up other money to be used for abortion. Hence, those donating to D&P are still complicit in the abortions.

And, just to ensure that no one thinks I'm splitting hairs now because the CCCB investigation didn't come to the same conclusion as me, I point you to the very first post I wrote on this issue back in March where I made this exact distinction. Lifesite has been very clear from the start as to what the allegations are- it is D&P who has worked to distort those allegations. It appears to me that D&P succeeded in framing this debate the way they wanted it to go. Of course the CCCB finds no truth to these allegations- they are not the allegations Lifesite was making!

Point 2

While the investigation doesn't find any basis for the allegations against D&P they did express the hope that:

"The present circumstances encourage Development and Peace to be more vigilant in analysing requests for financial assistance and more demanding about receiving information from possible partners. While recognizing the good relations and communications that already exist between CCODP and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, we would encourage Development and Peace to ensure more thorough consultations with the Bishops of Canada, particularly the two Bishops who are appointed as members of the Development and Peace National Council, especially when there are questions involving moral issues such as abortion and contraception." (Italics mine)

My question is, why did the bishops feel the need to make this statement? I can only see two possible reasons 1) they found something wrong, but don't feel they have enough evidence to make it public or 2) they are attempting to make those who find the evidence compelling feel better. I can't see the bishops just providing a sop for our consciences, so I think they must have found something. I base this on the fact that the report doesn't comment on what the Mexican Bishops have to say and that it doesn't deal with all the evidence against D&P. I hope that I'm wrong on this- not because I don't think there is wrongdoing, but because the bishops are then playing a very dangerous game with the souls entrusted to their care.

Point 3

The report also rebukes Lifesite for not opening dialogue with the CCCB on this issue. I'm wondering why the bishops say this- I think it has been very clear from the coverage Lifesite has given that they have been in dialogue- if they hadn't why would 4 bishops have spoken up and withheld funding from D&P? They have to have based a decision like that on more than one report from Lifesite. In their analysis of the report, Lifesite explains how it has tried to dialogue with the bishops on this, but that the CCCB was not willing to meet with them. To me, that makes the bishop's rebuke a little hypocritical and jeopardizes any trust I might have put into the report.

Point 4

Finally, the report deals with only one of the many pieces of evidence amassed against D&P's 5 Mexican partners. The piece it does deal with- the report signed by the 5 partners along with 45 other Mexican human rights organizations that expresses support for several things that violate Church teachings (including abortion and contraception)- DOES express support for abortion by those partners; the very thing Lifesite alleged the partners were doing. The bishop's response to this is that it was merely an "imprudent" decision, and, as if it makes it all better, they note that several religious groups, including Dominicans and Jesuits signed the same document because it merely expresses a desire for greater human rights in Mexico.

WHAT!?!?!?!?

Two quick points here- first, if Dominicans and Jesuits are signing documents that violate Church teachings, the heads of their orders should be contacted, as should the Vatican, and an immediate investigation should begin. The CCCB should not be using that as an excuse for D&P's partners. That's like a kid saying it was ok to shoplift a candy bar because his two good friends did it to. What parent would accept that explanation? So why is the CCCB? Second, the bishops say it's ok because the 5 partners were just expressing their solidarity with other human rights groups. Uh huh. Isn't that the problem? If they are expressing solidarity with other groups, and that solidarity means they violate Church teachings, then aren't they a group no Catholic should support? Isn't that a little like a kid lying to his parents about going to a party he's not supposed to attend and then when he's caught just saying "oh well Jim and Joey and Mark and Sam were saying the same thing and I wanted to support them." Again, what parent would accept that? Mine certainly wouldn't.

Lifesite, in their response, claims that this piece of evidence (the report signed) was the "least significant." I don't know, it seems pretty significant to me. So if the CCCB just waves this piece away, why didn't they deal with all the other pieces. If this report is supposed to put to rest this controversy, then why didn't the CCCB deal with all the evidence? Why go all the way to Mexico if you aren't going to deal with all the evidence and allegations? What's the purpose of the investigation then.

Conclusion

I'm sorry- I still stand by my original conclusion. This report raises, in my mind, more questions than it answers. To be honest, I'd really like to know why the Mexican bishops have no involvement with these groups. If they are such worthy organizations, why don't the Mexican bishops deal with them? We can speculate until the cows come home, and it may be perfectly innocent but I want to know why, and I think the CCCB should have included in the report the testimony from the Mexican bishops they met with.

Since the CCCB didn't deal with all the evidence, how can I trust their conclusion? Even more importantly, they didn't address the right allegations, so how can I trust that D&P isn't complicit in abortion- they never investigated that! Not only that, this report only deals with the first 5 partners Lifesite made allegations against. As far as I know, the CCCB has no intention of investigating the other 14 partners Lifesite made allegations against. How can I possibly trust D&P with my funds when questions like this remain?

The bishops, at the end of the report state:

"The dignity of each human life is to be protected and promoted from conception to natural death. Thus there is an urgency to all that threatens the dignity and sacredness of human life"

If the dignity of each life is to be promoted (and it should be I think) why aren't the bishops being more careful to ensure that faithful Catholic's donations are not being used by groups who support abortion. Why are they resting on their laurels and producing short useless reports when there is the potential that human lives are being ended? How does that promote the sanctity of life? It doesn't and until they deal with this D&P will get no funding from me, and I will do everything I can to ensure that my family and friends don't donate to D&P either. Donations will still be made, but they will be made to organizations that I trust and know to follow Church teachings. Unfortunately, D&P no longer falls into that category.

Update of Legal Analysis on D&P Situation

2009-06-24T13:56:00.003-06:00

I was asked in the comments section of this post to update the legal analysis I'd done on March 20 of the D&P situation in light of the new evidence that has come to light recently. (Read the original post here.)

Essentially, in the original post I used my legal training to outline the facts of the case and analyze it. The conclusion I came to in that post was "Lifesite has met the burden of proof to show D&P partners with groups who support abortion." I said at the end of the post that I would be willing to revisit that conclusion if other evidence came to light, and that is what I intend to do in this post.

I am assuming that the evidence the commenter wanted me to deal with is Archbishop Weisberger's announcement that the CCCB finds no wrong doing by D&P. (If there is other evidence I'm supposed to be considering, please point me in the right direction and I will analyze it as well.)

Analysis

As I stated on March 20, in a civil case (which is what this would be) the burden on proof is on the persona making the allegations to prove on the balance of probabilities that their allegations are true. The civil standard of balance of probabilities means 51%; it does not mean beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant side (D&P because the allegations were made against them) has to show an equally plausible alternative argument to win the case.

My point on March 20 was that D&P had not done that- they had not refuted the allegations, just denied them, so Lifesite won the civil case.

The report of the investigation carried out by the CCCB has not become public yet, and as far as I can determine, the CCCB does not plan to release it to the public. Without reading that report, and analyzing its evidentiary value, D&P has not refuted the allegations. Bishop Weisberger has simply made a statement that the investigation finds no wrongdoing by D&P. He is entitled to make that statement, but no court in the common law system would accept that pronouncement as evidence. In fact, an unsubstantiated statement would never be admitted to be heard in a court case at all. The court would need to see the report, and would not likely even allow the Archbishop to testify; they would tell him to submit the report. Without the report, his statement is simply a hollow denial.

The purpose of my March 20 post was to analyze the situation from a legal perspective- the law does not take into account the Church hierarchy and authority- it simply looks at the facts and evidence and analyzes them. Without the key piece of evidence (the report) the situation has not changed since my post of March 20, so neither can my conclusion.

In fact, more allegations have been made since that post- a total of 19 D&P partners are alleged to support abortion. The Peruvian Bishops Commission on the Family has released a public letter (here) asking the CCCB to withdraw support to 3 groups in Peru because of their support of abortion. This story has been picked up by Vatican Radio (here). These developments, along with others I've posted about in the last months, give more credence to Lifesite than they do to D&P.

Conclusion

Remember that this is an exercise in analyzing this situation under Canadian law as if it were an actual civil case, I am compelled to stand by my conclusion of March 20. D&P has not produced any evidence that refutes the allegations.

Lifesite's allegations were all cited- you could examine the evidence for yourself. D&P and the CCCB have not produced any evidence against which to test their assertions. That's why Lifesite wins this if it's treated as a civil case.

I am more than willing to revisit this again if more evidence comes to light, but it needs to be evidence- like the CCCB's report. Until I find that evidence, this is the conclusion I have to draw. If you think there is evidence that I've forgotten about, please let me know- either in the comments section or by e-mail to catholiclawstudent@gmail.com.

Development and Peace

2009-06-23T14:49:00.004-06:00

I said I would only post on D&P if new, major developments occurred, and there are two I want to bring your attention to.

First, the Family Issues arm of Catholic Council of Bishops in Peru has written a letter to the CCCB asking them why they (through D&P) are financially supporting the very groups that the Peruvian bishops are fighting against because of their support of abortion. You can read the letter here. The letter is very direct, and formally asks the CCCB to halt funding to the organizations. The letter states:

"It is very disturbing to have groups which work against the Bishops of Peru by attempting to undermine legal protection for the right to life of unborn children, be funded by our brother bishops in Canada"

I don't know how more direct the bishops can be. This is no longer a case of "some internet groups rabblerousing" as some bishops in Canada have suggested. There is a direct call by another council of Bishops asking the CCCB to halt the funding. I hope that this letter is the wake up call the CCCB needs.

Unfortunately, I don't think it is. The second development I want to share with you is the news that the investigation conducted by the CCCB into 5 of D&P's Mexican partners found absolutely no evidence of abortion or abortion related activity. Archbishop Weisberger of Winnipeg (the head of the CCCB) in an interview with Salt and Light Television stated:

"But I can assure you that in the report, the bishops found very clearly that there was no evidence that Development and Peace in any way funded abortion-related activities."

He also (in my opinion) questioned the credibility of LSN for making the allegations. He essentially said that we now have a choice- to believe LSN or to believe the Bishops:

"It seems that there is a tendency on the part of some people to trust allegations on websites more than they trust the bishops. That’s the role of the bishops in the Church and when the bishops investigate something, when the bishops look at things and when the bishops teach, according to our theology, we should have confidence in that."

You can read the transcript of the interview here.

I don't like Archbishop Weisberger telling me that I have to accept what the CCCB says because they are the ones with the authority on moral teachings. As anyone who has been reading this blog for awhile knows, I am a very ardent supporter of the Church and her Bishops and I believe strongly in the authority of the Magisterium. However, I think Archbishop Weisberger is being disingenuous by claiming that now that the investigation is done, we just have to trust what the Bishops have said.

We have yet to actually read the report done by the CCCB. I want to know exactly what was said by whom, and who the CCCB talked to, and how involved D&P was in the investigation itself. I believe the bishops can run a thorough investigation, but this was not one- the set up of the committee going was heavily loaded with D&P members- that's not unbiased. In law, when picking a jury, potential jurors are screened for biases they can't put aside- that didn't happen here, and it should have.

Also, the Bishops have yet to address the other 14 allegations made, and based on the transcript of the Salt and Light interview, I don't think they are going to. Maybe I am splitting hairs, but if the investigation into all the allegations is not done, how can the bishops speak authoritatively on it?

There is something rotten in the D&P organization. The proof Lifesite has offered is, in my opinion, very strong, and the CCCB has ignored it.

Lifesite has summarized the allegations and following events into a short 5 minute video- I suggest you all watch it, and ask you to pass it along to your friends.

And please, write your bishops again and ask them to do three things- 1) release the D&P report 2) investigate the other allegations 3) respond publicly to the Peruvian Bishops letter. Of course, be respectful, but make sure they understand that you are concerned about being complicit in the deaths of unborn children.

Mortal Sin

2009-06-05T10:08:00.002-06:00

This post isn't my usual fare for this blog, but I got so excited when I read this, I had to share it.

I've always had a really hard time putting into words the distinction between mortal and venial sin, but this blog post did an amazing job. (The link is to the Domine, da mihi hanc aquam blog- the author is a Dominican priest and is very well written and thought out- check it out.)

Thine Eyes Documentary

2009-06-01T21:35:00.004-06:00

There is a wonderful documentary that has just been released called Thine Eyes. It's about this years March for Life in Washington DC. If you ever feel like you are alone in this fight to end abortion- watch the video. It's truly uplifting. For the next week, you can watch it free on this site.

Pass the word along to others who might enjoy the video.

UN states that criminalizing abortion is torture

2009-06-01T15:07:00.005-06:00

I can't believe this. The committee in charge of overseeing the Convention Against Torture (CAT) has declared that Nicaragua's law that forbids abortion violates the Torture Convention. (See the story here )

I've read a lot of allegations against the pro-life movement, and I am rarely outraged anymore, but this is outrageous! Last year, as part of my international law training, I spent a lot of time looking at what torture is, how we define it etc. I read some truly heinous accounts of what we do to our fellow humans- quite often it turned my stomach and gave me nightmares.

I can't even believe that someone would say that preventing the murder of unborn children is torture to the mothers. And yet, this is what the committee is saying. I don't understand it. They have to have read the same court cases and first hand accounts that I did- of people being starved, beaten and broken, and yet they can equate that with the murder of an unborn child? I don't understand.

Internationally there is no one accepted definition of torture (this causes problems, but that's international law for you) The CAT has the most widely accepted definition and defines torture in Article 1 as:

...the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Please tell me how any of that equates to preventing women from having abortions, because I just don't see how that works. I expect silly statements like this from Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations, but not from the UN committee who's sole purpose is to find and prosecute instances of torture around the globe.

There are men, women and children being tortured in many countries around the world as we speak. The UN is doing nothing to stop it, mostly for political reasons. But a country that tries to protect life? Well that must be torture. Because its politically expedient and because the UN is trying to push a population control agenda, we will go after that.

This is disgusting and a betrayal of the values the UN was founded on. I've long thought that the UN is irrelevant, and with decisions like this, they are merely proving my point.

The Grand Tour

2009-05-08T13:48:00.001-06:00

Sorry for the lack of posting lately. I just wanted to say there will be no posting in the month of May as I am in Europe for my version of a Grand Tour.

God Bless, and keep fighting for Life!

Development and Peace

2009-04-21T21:48:00.001-06:00

Lately there have been a few more developments in the D&P story. I haven't been covering them all, but Lifesite launched a new website that contains all their info on D&P and everything that's been published elsewhere on this story. You can see it here.

I have been reflecting and praying about this story, and while my position has not changed- I think D&P needs to be investigated and reorganized- I am not going to cover any more stories on the blog about it. I am afraid that I am falling into the trap of reporting every new development not because I want to inform people, but because I want to see D&P fail, which is not a charitable reason, nor is it the reason I started this blog.

If there are major developments, I will of course write about them, but if it is just more partners being connected with abortion, I won't post. I have been wondering how to still ensure people who want the information get it, and then I found the new Lifesite website. They will keep you up to date on any developments.

God Bless!

Catholic Register on Development and Peace

2009-04-14T21:34:00.001-06:00

The Catholic Register published an editorial about the Development and Peace allegations. You can read it here. Essentially they are saying that the CCCB's investigation into D&P is not going to be effective because it is too partisan.

I hope they are wrong, but I fear that they may be correct. The fact that the investigation is being done by people involved in D&P is worrisome, but I hope that everyone involved can get beyond that and do an honest and unbiased investigation into the allegations. I do support the Register's call for the final report to be released in its entirety. I think we all deserve that, especially if we are supposed to base our contribution decisions on the outcome of this report.

To ensure this does happen, make sure you keep contacting your Bishops, and ask when the report will be released. The worst thing we can do at this point is let this issue drop so the CCCB can avoid dealing with the allegations. If we want the truth, we can't let this just go away.

Missing Girls

2009-04-13T16:19:00.003-06:00

Just read this article in the NY Times. As I imagine most people are aware, China has a huge problem with sex selected abortion. As a result of the enforced one child policy, the cultural preference for boys, and recent developments in technology, baby girls are often aborted.

A recent study shows that in the 0-20 age range, China has 32 million more boys than girls.

32 million!

People are talking about the huge social ramifications this will have on the country- potential for increased violence without the "calming and settling" influence of women, increasing demographic decline but no one is talking about the psychological impact this will have on the country.

I can't imagine the trauma the mothers and fathers who've been forced to abort their daughters are going through. We know abortion has long range traumatic effect- post abortion syndrome for example. Generally that impacts on the individual level, but when the country's policy is to abort children, that impact has to expand the the national level. How does an entire country heal from those scars?

And the other part that saddens me (which the NY Times article never talked about) is the loss of all those lives. Those little girls were killed as a result of official government policy! And more and more are being killed every day.

The study says that China is trying some "imaginative and extreme scenarios" to fix the gender imbalance. Here's one they should consider: CANCEL THE ONE CHILD POLICY, and CRIMINALIZE ABORTION.

Is that innovative and extreme enough?

And, as a side note- if there is nothing wrong with abortion, why are we concerned that the Chinese are aborting themselves into extinction and self imposing genocide on themselves? The hypocrisy of the pro-choice mentality shows itself once again.

CCCB will investigate Development and Peace

2009-04-08T17:34:00.003-06:00

In a statement ( found here ) today, the CCCB announced they were forming a committee to investigate the allegations against D&P's Mexican partners accused of supporting abortion.

From the article:

"The two Canadian Bishops on the committee which will be going to Mexico later this month, 15-18 April, are Archbishop Martin W. Currie of St. John’s, Newfoundland, and Bishop François Lapierre, P.M.É., of Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec. They will be assisted by Msgr. Mario Paquette, P.H., General Secretary of the CCCB, and by Msgr. Carlos Quintana from the offices of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where he is Executive Director of its Secretariat for the Church in Latin America. The committee of inquiry will report to the CCCB on its findings."

I want to thank the CCCB for stepping up and calling for an investigation. When they finish with the Mexican partners, I hope they will look at the partners in the 8 other countries.

Everyone keep praying for this situation, and if you wrote to you bishop, please thank him for the CCCB's commitment to investigate.

I hope this investigation will bear fruit.

Another Allegation against a Development and Peace partner

2009-04-07T21:40:00.002-06:00

Lifesite has found evidence that another D&P partner supports abortion. The NGO Fokupers in East Timor is currently in a battle with Catholic Bishops in East Timor over the NGO's support of abortion. And the Canadian Bishops, through D&P are supporting this group. Read the story here.

This is another short post (I have another exam this week) but I encourage you all to read the report, and follow the links provided to verify the veracity of Lifesites claim.

I don't know what else to say. D&P clearly has ties with groups that support abortion. And it's not just one partner- this seems to be a cancer infesting the whole D&P organization. We need a thorough, independent investigation to be carried out on D&P.

Again, speak with your bishops. And beyond that, speak with your friends and fellow parishioners. I don't know why this is happening, but it can be a teaching moment; on the need to help out with development, but also the need to carefully inquire into the organizations you give money to, to ensure they comply with Church teachings. Apparently even agencies supported by the CCCB are not immune from the culture of death.

Clear Evidence of Development and Peace Partner supporting abortion

2009-04-06T21:44:00.003-06:00

Lifesite has found another Mexican D&P partner supporting abortion. Read the story here.

This group compares legislation preventing abortion to "torture" and "cruel and inhuman punishment." Wow.

I really wish I had time to comment on this- I spent 8 month last year investigating what constitutes torture and cruel and inhuman punishment, but this has to be a short post- I have an exam in a the morning and will try to comment when the chaos of exams is over.

Please read the story- it's horrifying and gives, I think, some of the best direct evidence against and D&P partner that we have seen.

And, I cannot believe that Catholics are supporting an organization that compares a CHILD to the agonies inflicted by torturers around the world. It is bad enough that a group that would claim something like that exists, and horrific that Catholic money is funding them- to the tune of $35,000 so far, and $175,000 if D&P isn't stopped.

Keep contacting your bishops. Please.

The 10 Electoral Commandments

2009-04-06T13:47:00.003-06:00

In keeping with the recent theme of thanking bishops who take courageous stands for life and Church teachings, I thought I'd share this link with you.

Bishop Olvera of Cuernvaca, Mexico distributed a pamphlet to all the parishes in his diocese which contained "electoral commandments" and principles to use in choosing who to vote for. The pamphlet does not specify political party, but states that "Catholics should not vote for parties favoring the legalization of abortion, homosexual unions, euthanasia, and pornography, among other policies."

I tried to find an English copy of the pamphlet, but was unable to, and my Spanish is non-existent, so we're stuck with news reports.

All I can say is thank you Bishop Olvera. We need more of our bishops and priests to stand up for the Church. If our bishops and priests won't educate the faithful on Church teachings, who will?

Archbishop denounces Lifesite

2009-04-01T22:16:00.002-06:00

It has just come to my attention (via this Lifesite article) that Archbishop Bohan of Regina has called the allegations against Development and Peace false. He did this in a statement dated March 25. He and Archbishop Weisgerber of Winnipeg are the only two bishops to publicly claim Lifesite's allegations are untrue. Archbishop Bohan asked parishioners to continue to donate money to D&P because of "the excellent work that Development and Peace does in the world to mitigate poverty and thus save countless lives of children and vulnerable people." Speaking specifically as the "chief Shepherd of our diocesan Church" he finds the allegations to be "a malicious attack on this important and sacred work that the Catholic people in Canada do for the poor in the world through Development and Peace."

I am sure that no one is going to be surprised that I disagree strongly with Archbishop Bohan. As I have said before, the allegations against D&P are serious, and good evidence has been offered to substantiate the claims. The mission of Lifesite is to provide coverage on life and family issues occurring around the world. They are not a malicious organization out to get anyone. Instead, they are dedicated to the promotion of life. They do good investigative work, and publish their findings. Just because the investigations uncover something unpleasant doesn't mean they are malicious.

With all due respect to the two Archbishops, I think they are wrong. I think they are ignoring evidence because for some reason I won't speculate on, they do not want to admit that D&P could do anything wrong. Both men speak of the good work D&P does. Lifesite is not denying that they do good work. They are simply saying that work is all for nothing if D&P's partners are also complicit in abortion. Let's not forget what abortion is. It is the intentional killing of a human being. If D&P's money goes to organizations that support abortion, any lives they save through their other programs are negated by the evil of abortion. I do not think the Archbishops understand that.

Unlike me, Lifesite has never called for people to stop funding D&P. They are simply asking for an investigation to take place. I also want to see an investigation, but I'm also asking everyone to stop donating until we know exactly what is going on. I've heard from others who think that now that investigations are occurring, we should still donate because the money won't go to D&P until the investigation is done. I understand that position, but I disagree with it for the following reasons:

Not all diocese are investigating the allegations. If your diocese is not, your money might go to D&P without investigation
D&P has only promised to investigate their Mexican partners, not the other partners in 7 other countries. This means that even if they fix any problems in Mexico, there are still other problems with other partners.
D&P is conducting their own internal investigation. With all due respect, based on the denials D&P first issued, I don't think they can conduct a truly unbiased investigation.

Until a full, complete and arms reach investigation is completed, I don't think anyone should donate money to D&P, because the evidence of complicity in abortion is strong. Instead, take the money you would have donated to D&P and give it to another development organization that is not in any way involved with organizations supporting abortion.

With all due respect to Archbishops Bohan and Weisgerber, I think they are ignoring the strength of the evidence and as a result are giving poor advice to parishioners.

Priests for Life on D&P

2009-03-31T22:33:00.002-06:00

Today, Fr. Thomas Lynch, the Director of Priests for Life released a press release on the Development and Peace situation titled "To whom much is given much will be demanded." Read the story here. In the letter, Fr. Lynch commended the Bishops who've called for a full investigation of D&P, and asked all the Canadian Bishops to do the same. His final words need to be carefully considered by everyone following this story:

"The development work of the Catholic Church is an integral part of our constant teaching and call. The furtherance of this work in full and uncompromising accord with well known and immutable Catholic principles of social justice for all - especially the pre-born, defenseless and vulnerable - is essential."

Let's keep praying for a good end to this situation, and for our bishops and priests to continue to stand up for life always.

More allegations against D&P Partners

2009-03-31T00:38:00.002-06:00

Lifesite has found two more D&P partners that allegedly support abortion. See the story here. The groups are Kay Fanm and Fanm Deside, both located in Haiti. These two new allegations bring the total number of partners allegedly involved in abortion to 12 in 6 different countries. I would like to be shocked by this, but I am finding that I just expect new allegations to be made every day. The evidence against these two parties is as compelling as the evidence against the rest.

Lifesite has also published a good summary of all the allegations to date in a new editorial found here. The final point at the end of the editorial is that the time has come for the CCCB to launch an independent investigation into D&P's partners before any more money goes to them. I hope the CCCB takes that suggestion to heart.

Each new allegation is simply confirming the feeling I've had since this story broke- there is something rotten in the Development and Peace organization. I want to believe that D&P is unaware of these groups practice of supporting abortion and contraception, but I'm starting to wonder if they actually knew about these connections and have failed to do their job of ensuring that Catholic teachings are followed. I know there are many Catholics who do not follow the Church's teaching, but I really hope that an organization as intimately connected to the CCCB would not fall into that category. Each new revelation makes me question this however.

All I can say is keep writing your bishops and priests, and keep the pressure on D&P to do a thorough investigation and not simply brush this all under the rug. I'm presently trying to compose my own new response to D&P. Once I send it, I will post it here, and if I get a response, I will post that here too.

Let's keep praying for this organization, and God's will will be done.

It has also come to my attention that some of you are interested in commenting/passing things along to me that you are not comfortable sharing in the very public comment box. As a result, I've created an e-mail account you can send messages to: catholiclawstudent@gmail.com

D&P Responds, More Allegations

2009-03-30T13:22:00.002-06:00

It was a busy weekend in the D&P story. I'm going to list off and link the developments first, and then comment.

Developments:

On Thursday, Lifesite reported that its continuing investigations of D&P had turned up partners in Africa that advocate abortion and contraception. See story here. The partners are Women
Advocates Research and Documentation Centre (Nigeria), Coalition Nationale des Femmes - Droits et Citoyenneté (Guinea) and Forces en action pour le mieux-être de la mère et de l'enfant (Togo).
On Friday, Lifesite reported that it had uncovered two D&P partners in Brazil who support abortion. See the story here. The partners are Rural Women's Movement and Federation of Organs for Social and Educational Assistance.
Two more Canadian Bishops, Archbishop Miller of Vancouver and Archbishop O'Brien of Kingston, announced that their diocese will investigate D&P's partners before turning over any money to them. See the story here.
On Friday, D&P's new President, Pat Hogan, published this response to the original allegations against the Mexican partners. In it D&P agrees to "temporarily suspend funding to all five Mexican partners."
I finally received a response on Friday to my questions. Sort of. I asked five distinct questions, and the response was a form letter giving me the link to the above mentioned response. Mr. Hogan's entire response to me was this:

"Dear Sarah,
Thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
I am writing to you today as the new President of Development and Peace to share some reflections on the events of the last two weeks. It has been alleged on some internet sites recently that Development and Peace has been funding pro-abortion groups in Mexico. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Please read my latest statement about these events at the following link: http://www.devp.org/devpme/eng/pressroom/2009/comm2009-03-26-eng.html
Yours in Christ,
Pat Hogan
President of National Council
Development and Peace"
According to both the National Catholic Registrar and Lifesite, D&P has refused to respond to allegations that some of its Bolivian partners also support abortion. The Registrar sent a series of questions to D&P and was told by D&P's communication manager Eleanore Fournier-Tombs that, "We don't have anything to add on the article that was published about Bolivia." Interestingly, the CCCB has also refused to respond to these allegations stating they do not have the information to answer the questions.

So, to summarize, another 5 of D&P's 200 partners have been accused of promoting abortion. Two of the groups even define abortion as a "right" on their websites. Two more Canadian Bishops have declared that these allegations are serious enough to require an investigation. D&P has finally made a response that takes the allegations seriously and is attempting to deal with them. D&P has failed to address any of the new allegations.

Commentary

Wow. I am still shocked by how large this story is getting, and shocked by D&P's inability or unwillingness to take this story seriously.

I am impressed by the (now) four bishops who've taken action and are launching an investigation into D&P. That's all I've been asking the bishops to do. As shepherds of their flock, it is their duty to ensure that the time, talent and treasure of their flock is used in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

I am disheartened by D&P's response. In many ways, to me at least, it seems like too little too late. This story first broke on 13 March 2009. It took D&P two weeks to respond with anything but denials. Only now (I'm assuming because bishops are asking questions and the flow of money has slowed) are they actually doing anything to investigate these partners. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are doing it, but shouldn't these investigations have been something they did before partnering with these groups in the first place?

And, if they actually take this seriously, why are they not commenting on the other allegations made? I know it takes time to identify the appropriate course of action, but then they should respond with "we are looking into this" not "we have anything to say."

Also, why the scurrilous attacks against the people who've brought this story to light? Why is the national president responding to inquiries by concerned Catholics saying "alleged on some internet sites recently" and not noting who is making the allegations? Lifesite is much more than an internet source- it has credible journalists who back up their stories with facts. They aren't just bloggers who can get away with saying anything they want.

To be quite honest, I am disappointed that they responded to my e-mail with a form letter that didn't address the questions I asked (I posted those questions on a previous post.) The link the president gave me didn't answer my questions, which were about the process D&P uses to select partners. I know I don't have a lot of money to make donations with, but one day I might, and anyway, the size of the donation should not impact the quality of the response given.

I hope D&P follows through with its commitments to investigate all its partners. I hope they are willing to do a proper, unbiased investigation, because the evidence Lifesite has gathered is compelling to say the least. I also hope they agree to investigate the other partners allegations have been made against. In light of this whole situation, I think the entire D&P council needs to open investigations into all their partners, and make some changes to how they decide who they will partner with. In short, I think D&P needs to do some major spring cleaning before we, as Catholics, can support them again.

As always, feel free to comment, and I will let you know more as soon as it develops.

Oh, and in response to questions about where else to donate money instead of D&P, Lifesite has compiled a list of pro-life groups working in the developing world. You can see the list here.

D&P and Diocese of Peterborough

2009-03-25T23:49:00.002-06:00

Bishop De Angelis of the Diocese of Peterborough announced in a letter to his diocese today that D&P will not receive any funding until from his diocese until a thorough investigation into the allegations of supporting abortion is conducted. See story here.

In making this move, Bishop De Angelis joins with Archbishop Collins of Toronto. Neither bishop is denying funds to D&P, they are just refusing to release any funds until someone gets to the bottom of this story.

I want to commend both bishops for taking such a strong stand for the unborn, and I hope that other bishops will do the same. When you write to your bishop about this topic, mention that other bishops are refusing to give funds to D&P until this is investigated and ask them why they aren't doing the same thing.

The Share Lent collection goes this weekend, so we need to make sure our priests and bishops are aware, and thinking about this issue before they permit the collection to be taken.

In Defence of Lifesite

2009-03-25T12:19:00.005-06:00

Based on responses I've been hearing from friends, family and some strangers, I feel a need to defend Lifesite. Before I do that, I want to link to the editorial Steve Jalsevac and John-Henry Westen, the managing director and editor-in-chief of Lifesite respectively, published yesterday on the D&P saga. You can read it here.

I don't blame them for publishing the editorial, and I think they do a good job of reiterating their position. I have to compliment them on their reasonableness and charity in their frank discussion of the events of the past 10 days. (I know if it was me, I'd be hard pressed to not be snarky and sarcastic.)

I think the line that made me saddest and proudest of Lifesite is this one from the very bottom of the article "The Development and Peace response has caused many, especially persons who are not regular readers of LSN, to question the credibility of LifeSiteNews.com. That has forced us to continue to provide additional evidence of the facts until the facts overwhelm, which we are committed to doing in the coming days."

First, I think its sad that people would rather assume Lifesite is not credible than really look into the allegations against D&P. I have been following Lifesite news for the last year and I find them to be an invaluable resource in learning about what is going on in the world because the mainstream media rarely delves deeply into life issues. Every time I have done external research to their reports, I have found their reports to be accurate and credible. In some cases, I find that they have actually pulled punches that I would have landed much harder. (Again, its that charity thing I struggle with :) They do good work, and for anyone who isn't familiar with their work, stay with them.

Second, I am proud of them. It is when people are tested that we see their true colors come out. I can imagine that the feedback they are receiving right now is not always pleasant. And yet, they have not stooped to the level of ad hominum attacks or lashed out with angry, hurtful comments. Instead, they've made a commitment to investigate this issue until "the facts overwhelm." That's true journalism. They want you to be convinced, because of the facts, not because they say it.

In many ways its the opposite of what D&P has been doing. D&P tells you their position, but gives no explanation for it. Lifesite on the other hand cites and backs up all the statements they make. Who is the most believable? I think you all know my position.

I'm also waiting with great interest to see what they have to say about further allegations against D&P partners. I don't think this story is over, not by a long shot.

Please pray for everyone involved in this process- D&P, Lifesite, D&P's partners, the bishops, the laity who contribute, and watch and wait. The truth will come out. I can only hope we will all act on that truth.

Luxembourg Becomes 3rd Country to Legalize Euthanasia

2009-03-24T12:04:00.005-06:00

You may remember that last year I blogged about the euthanasia situation in Luxembourg. (See posts here.) The Parliament passed the bill, but because Luxembourg is a constitutional monarchy, it needed the royal assent of Grand Duke Ferdinand. The Grand Duke refused to sign the bill because he finds euthanasia morally wrong.

The only thing for the Parliament to do was change the constitution so it no longer needed the Grand Duke's assent. That is what they did. And now, as a result, euthanasia is legal in Luxembourg. (See story here.)

As I did before, I want to express my admiration for the Grand Duke. He is living his faith the way all politicians and leaders should- that is, he is following it, no matter what it means. He is now just a figurehead in his country, but his courage in standing up against this atrocity must be commended. If the world only had more leaders like him, life would be a lot different.

And I just want to note that Europe is setting a scary example for the rest of the world. In the US, Washington and Oregon only went so far as to legalize assisted suicide (which is bad enough) but the European countries are skipping that minor step and jumping right to full fledged euthanasia! Although, maybe that is better- none of this , well its only for the terminally ill junk we get in North America, when we all know it really isn't limited to that. In Europe, they aren't limiting themselves at all- it's just full steam ahead on the Good Ship Death. (taking snarky hat off now)

I pray God blesses you, Grand Duke (sorry I don't know the proper form of address) and that other leaders will take courage from you position and also stand by their convictions. We all need to pray hard people, pray hard!

Update: Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has a great post on the Grand Duke here.

D&P's Partners and the Mexico City Policy

2009-03-24T11:32:00.004-06:00

Lifesite has released another well documented article on further actions taken by D&P's Mexican partners (2 of the same partners from the first e-mail) regarding abortion. Read it here.

As this story seems to show no sign of ending because D&P is exhibiting no willingness to respond or take action to investigate (I still have no response to my e-mail of a week ago) I am going to encourage everyone to write their bishop and ask him to take action.

Mention to them that you've read the CCCB's response (linked to in the previous post) but that you don't think it takes the allegations seriously enough. Also mention that Archbishop Collins of Toronto is taking steps to investigate the allegations, and ask them what they are doing. I'm hoping that if the Bishop's hear enough about this, they will take action, and hopefully their action will convince D&P to end their partnerships, because at least one of these abortion supporting partners will remain a partner until 2011.

The contact information for every bishop in Canada can be found here. My Bishop (Legatt of Saskatoon) has indicated he is going with what the CCCB says, so I ask all members of the Saskatoon diocese to flood his office. I've also heard rumors that my other Bishop (Henry of Calgary) is doing nothing. (Once I can substantiate these rumors I will- at that point please flood his office as well.) And for those of you fortunate enough to be in Archbishop Collins diocese, please write him letters of support.

If your bishop has taken a stand (one way or the other) please comment in this post so we all know where our Bishops stand. If you don't know what to say, or how to give the bishop's the evidence, feel free to take anything off of this site that you think is valuable. I have permissions from everyone who's contributed to share their thoughts, and as long as you provide the links to Lifesite, Catholic Registrar and Development and Peace, they can have no copyright issues with you.

The Share Lent campaign is picking up steam, and do not want any children aborted because of money from Catholics in Canada, however indirect the connection might be.

Development and Peace Responds

2009-03-20T23:27:00.004-06:00

At some point today, the CCCB released a response to the D&P issue. I received this statement, along with 2 others to my email as a pdf. It was forwarded to me by a friend who had asked his Bishop about the allegations. Lifesite has published a copy of the CCCB's letter, so I'm linking to it. It is the exact same letter as the one I received via e-mail. The link is here. D&P also published the same letter. If you want to see it on their website, it can be found here.

The other 2 letters I received are from D&P themselves. One is a letter, a summary of which is found on their website, explaining D&P's position. The link is here. The other letter is a description by D&P of their partners in Mexico. I can't find the same letter online, so I have cut and paste it at the end of this post.

Lifesite has now published the interview that led to their first story. It can be found here.

Lifesite has also published the response of several other Catholic organizations to the allegation. The link is here.

They have also published the response of a pro-life leader in Mexico who has first hand experience of these groups. It can be found here.

In many ways this case seems like a he said/she said case in court. Neither side agrees on what is going on. Lifesite has direct testimony from a D&P employee stating that D&P works with groups involved in abortion. D&P's president has denied that and claimed that those partners don't support abortion but instead signed their name to a document dealing with abortion but don't support it.

To be quite honest, I'm not sure what to think, so I'm going to try to break it down by treating it like a legal case (because thats what I've been trained to do). That means looking at the allegations and evidence offered to support or deny them.

Facts and Evidence

1) Lifesite raised the issue. In a civil case (which is what this would be) that places the burden on proof on them to prove on the balance of probabilities that their allegations are true. The civil standard of balance of probabilities means 51%, it does not mean beyond a reasonable doubt.

2) Lifesite in it's first article raised a prima facie case. That means there was enough evidence in the article to establish the allegations. Lifesite had the transcript from Brunelli stating that some of D&P's partners were involved in abortion. Lifesite cited all their claims, and gave evidence showing that a) money went to specific organizations and b) those organizations support abortion in some way.

3) D&P has responded by denying these partners are involved in abortoin supporting activities. As evidence of their assertion, they offer the description of each of their partners found at the bottom of this e-mail.

4) The CCCB has spoken and said that D&P follows the church's teaching on life. They offer no evidence beyond their statement.

5) Mexican pro-life groups (who deal with these partners regularily) have stated they promote abortion. The only evidence offered is their testimony.

6) Catholic pro-life groups have stated that D&P should no longer be funded because of these activities. They offer no evidence to back up their claims and seem to be relying on Lifesites coverage.

7) D&P has been further accused by the National Catholic Registrar of funding pro-abortion groups in Bolivia. The evidence offered is the description of the group on its website, and links to the funding they have recieved from D&P.

Analysis

The testimony offered by the Mexican pro-life leader is unsubstantiated. I cannot properly consider it to draw my conclusion.

The testimony of Catholic pro-life groups is hearsay and cannot be properly considered as they do not seem to have done any research themselves, but are relying on the Lifesite article.

The CCCB's statement is a wordy statement that says almost nothing about the allegations. It states D&P follows the teachings on the sanctity of life. They offer no proof, so their statement has little weight.

The Lifesite and Catholic Registrar report are properly cited. You can follow the links (as my friend Robin did) to learn more about the groups in question and their activities.

D&P response offers no citations or proof to back up their response.

Conclusion

As stated at the beginning, because Lifesite made the allegations, they are required to show on the balance of probablities that their allegations are true. Once they have done that, D&P merely needs to show that they have a plausible, alternate scenario supported by the facts and evidence to refute the allegations.

I think Lifesite has done a good job in establishing the facts supporting their allegations. D&P has not addressed these in any substantial manner. Their response has simply been a denial. Their alternate theory is not supported by any citations or evidence, and is directly contradicted by Lifesite's properly cited evidence.

In my opinion, on these facts, Lifesite has met the burden of proof to show D&P partners with groups who support abortion. The conversation with Brunelli is very revealing, especially this statement: "For us, the criterion is not pro-life or pro-abortion, it is 'do the piece of work that they propose to us is something we want to support and something within our parameters?" If it is yes, we support them and if not, we don't."

In my mind, I think it is likely that D&P has partners who support abortion. That means D&P supports abortion indirectly and I cannot in good conscience support them without supporting abortion myself. Until D&P pulls its support from these organizations (which it does not intend to do, based on its statements) I cannot and will not give funds to them. I will also tell others they should not donate as well.

If other evidence comes to light, I am more than willing to revisit the issue, but I am very dissapointed with D&P's response. I have never received a response to my e-mail, and their denials do not show them taking this issue seriously. They do not cite any sources they give and seem to expect us to believe them just because they say so. These are serious allegations and need to be addressed properly. D&P has failed to do this and should not be supported.

Feel free to comment in the comment box- I am open to being convinced that I am wrong, but based on the evidence, I don't see any other option. If you would like me to send you the originals of any of the 3 documents, just leave me a message stating so and I will e-mail them to you.

D&P's description of its Mexican partners is here:

A PROFILE OF FIVE (5) DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE PARTNERS IN MEXICO

Background
Commitment to human rights has always been and remains an important focus for DEVELOPMENT ANDPEACE. Our work is devoted to social justice in solidarity with the poor and oppressed, promoting a globalculture of peace and justice based on our profound belief in the sacredness of all life and the dignity ofthe human person. As a Catholic organization, we are in full communion with the Catholic Church inCanada and the Bishops of Canada on all moral and ethical issues governed by the teachings of theCatholic Church.

Human rights are an important and topical issue in Mexico in every sense of the term. Mexico is
periodically reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Council (based in Geneva), most recently inFebruary 2009. Official government institutions as well as civil society organizations (NGOs) areconsulted in this process.Our partners and some grassroots Catholic groups who are not partners of DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE (religious orders, parishes and Catholic laity) also participate in these national consultations, with a widevariety of other groups who report on human rights issues in their respective sectors.

The Report of Organizations of Civil Society on Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights inMexico is the summary input of all of these various submissions into the final UN document Report ofthe Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review ‐ Mexico, which is then reviewed at the UnitedNations and with the Government of Mexico.It is this Report of Organizations of Civil Society on Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights
in Mexico that is cited in the article recently posted on a pro‐life Website, alleging that five of our
partners in Mexico (out of 11) are actively promoting abortion. A brief profile of these partners follows.

1. Red “Todos los derechos para todas y todos” (“All Rights for Everyone” Network)

A social network of 54 organizations—including many Catholic organizations and the Justice, Peace andLife Commission sponsored by religious organizations—that works for human rights throughout Mexico. D&P funding is institutional, to help the network structure civil society, and organize meetings andtraining courses. The organization participates in the periodic review of human rights in Mexicoconducted under the auspices of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The Network’s areas of workare: human rights for women; the collective rights of indigenous peoples; economic, social, cultural and environmental rights; security and administration of justice; working with formal structures of human rights; and the protection and training of “defenders” of human rights. The organization takes positions on women's rights. Their work is well respected both in Mexico and internationally.

2. RMALC (Mexican Action Network on Free Trade)

As its name indicates, this network of NGOs was founded in response to the Free Trade Agreement ofthe Americas (FTAA) and the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The issues they address concern the impact of free trade (and its current rules) on the poor and workers. Like many other Mexican civil society organizations (105), they signed the document submitted to the UN Human Rights Council in the context of the periodic review of human rights in Mexico.

3. Center PRODH (Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center)

An organization founded by the Jesuits to promote human rights, participation and social justice.
Development and Peace provides them with institutional support, particularly to increase their
capacities to defend victims of human rights violations. For example, a member of their staff was
assassinated, and they worked with our Education Department to bring the perpetrators to justice. The recognition of the seriousness and quality of their work is great: they have consultative status with the UN’s ECOSOC and are accredited as observers to the Organization of American States. They receive funding from several Catholic organizations, including the Italian Conference of Catholic Bishops and several Caritas organizations in Europe.

4. CENCO (National Centre for Social Communication)

Founded in 1964 by the Mexican Catholic bishops and independent since 1969, CENCOS maintains links with the Church. Its area of activity is civil communication, community radio, freedom of speech and press, etc. CENCOS develops communication tools to assist in the development of democracy, justice, equality and human dignity in Mexico. CENCOS receives funding from, among other sources, the World Association of Christian Communication.

5. CIEPAC (Centre for Economic and Policy Research and Community Action)

A group based in Chiapas that focuses on developing more just economic and social models and respect for human rights, particularly for the indigenous peoples and farmers of Chiapas. They work in research and education. We have worked with CIEPAC in our campaigns on water and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Our funding provides core institutional support.

In all these cases, the organizations supported by DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE do not advocate or promote legalizing abortion. They work in many diverse areas of social justice according to their mandate and, on the occasion of the periodic UN human rights review, they participate in major national coalitions—along with many Catholic and non‐Catholic organizations—who advocate that human rights berespected in Mexico.

(Note- The last 9 paragraphs of this post are not mine; they are the text of D&P's description of their Mexican partners. I have included the full text here because I could not find an online source to link to. They in no way represent my position, which can be found at the top of this post)

Another Abortion Partner with Development and Peace

2009-03-19T01:44:00.003-06:00

In what seems to be an ever deepening tide of evidence, the National Catholic Register is now reporting that Development and Peace has partnered with a pro-abortion group in Bolivia. Read the story here.

The group, CEPROSI, is called a "feminist woman's health NGO" and acording to sources cited in the article has been one of the most "militant and radical" groups attempting to lobby the Bolivian government to pass pro-abortions laws.

My thoughts on D&P are clear in the earlier posts on the subject, so I'm not going to repeat them or editorialize in this post. I'm just passing along this story.

Development and Peace Update

2009-03-18T15:59:00.003-06:00

As promised, here is another update on the D&P Story. Archbishop Thomas Collins of the diocese of Toronto has reportedly (in a letter to the priests of his diocese) called for an investigation into D&P. Read the story here. He has stated that if money is going to pro-abortion groups, funding will be denied to D&P from the archdiocese of Toronto.

In case anyone is wondering, Archbishop Collins has strongly and vocally suported D&P in the past when he was Bishop of Edmonton. (See here) There is no way he can be (in my opinion) accused of having an agenda against D&P.

I had the privilege of hearing Archbishop Collins speak last September and he is an amazing speaker. From what I've seen, he's also a great shepherd of his flock. I want to thank him for speaking out about this- as far as I'm aware, he's the first Bishop to address the allegations.

He hasn't forbidden funding- he's simply asking that an investigation be conducted to ensure that abortion is not being supported. I think that's a very prudent decision and I hope other diocese look into this further.

Making issues like this public is important- so very important because that's how change is made. I certainly don't think D&P purposely chose to partner with pro-choice organizations, but it seems to be clear that they are. A public investigation, and open and frank discussion by the D&P leadership is what we need so everyone can be confident that their donations do not support abortion. And D&P may need to find new Mexican partners, but if that's what it takes to save lives, then that's what needs to be done.

More updates as I find them.

Further Development and Peace Developments

2009-03-17T13:28:00.003-06:00

Shortly after sending out the e-mail and posting a story on the blog last week alleging that Development and Peace (D&P) are funding/partnering with groups who support abortion, I received a response from a friend whom I'd sent the e-mail to. She had passed it along to other friends, who were involved with D&P and they'd asked D&P for their response. D&P's executive director, Michael Casey posted a response to the article at here and asked D&P members to forward all inquiries to him. In his response, he states that D&P follow the teachings of the Church, and stated that some journalists deliberately misinterpret D&P's work. In my opinion, this response did not go far enough to address the issue, because serious allegations were made, so I wrote to Mr. Casey asking him 5 specific questions (after explaining my interest in the issue). My questions were:

1) What is Development and Peace's position on abortion?
2) Do you carefully examine all groups you give funds to/partner with to ensure they do not in any way support abortion or pro-choice activities in general? How thorough are your background checks on these organizations?
3) Did you give or partner with:
a) Augustin Pro Juarez Center for Human Rights
b) Mexican Network for Action Regarding Free Trade
c) Center for Economic and Political Research for Community Action"
d) National Center for Social Communication
e) Network for All Rights for Everyone
4) If you did partner or grant funds to any of the above groups, are you certain they do not in any way support abortion? If so, why are you certain of that?
5) A local Development and Peace member told a friend of mine that "Lifesite has been trying to discredit D&P for some time"; Is this the position of Development and Peace, and if so what proof can you offer of that?

I have heard no response to my questions. Other people I've spoken to who also contacted D&P after the response were posted have also heard nothing.

I was asked to pass the Mr. Casey's posted response along to everyone I'd sent the first e-mail to so that they could have both sides of the story. I think that is a fair request, and that's what I'm doing now. The reason I didn't post it when first requested is I wanted to get more facts straight, because I realized in my zeal to protect life I may have jumped the gun. I should have contacted D&P before making the first post, so I do apologize to all of you

Further developments have occurred.

Yesterday, Lifesite responded to the controversy around their first article (Read it here). In my blog post, I asked you not to donate to D&P because of the abortion connections. I want to make it clear that was my request, not something Lifesite was advocating. They were just trying to pass the information along. Despite Mr. Casey's response, I am still asking you to not donate to D&P. Another friend was curious about the allegations, so she did a little bit of investigation to see what was really going on. Below are her findings. (I have not changed them in any way except for some formatting because the copy and paste didn't work so well):

Life Site News on Development and Peace

Well, here it goes! This is a crazy problem.

I have spent the last 2 ½ hours reading about all of this. I'll try to lay this out systematically.

Firstly: here is the link to the LifeSiteNews.com article, where they accuse Development and Peace of funding pro-abortion groups in Mexico. Read it!:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031210.html

Secondly: here is the response of D & P to the article. Read it!:

http://www.devp.org/devpme/eng/pressroom/2009/comm2009_03_13eng.html

Thirdly: Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about abortion, just to refresh ourselves: (See CCC paragraphs 2270-2275)
"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception."
"Formal co-operation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life […] The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society."

I would like to say that I have not approved of some of Life Site News' tactics, and find them to be at times reactionary and emotional. Take for example their recent push for donations, wherein the donor's name is sent to Henry Morgentaler…. saying that the donor gave to the site in Morgentaler's name. Yes: ask for donations. Yes: send the list of names to Morgentaler and the government of Canada. No: to mud-slinging, almost ad hominem tactics, getting more money out of people through the incentive of making Morgentaler squirm. The focus becomes weighted on the people in both camps, and not as weighted on our unborn brothers and sisters (http://lsn1securesites.net/lifesitenews/donate/informationmcc.html).

I say all this because I have to admit I was going to the reading prejudiced against Life Site News. Not that I believed they were lying, I just wanted to make absolutely sure of everything that was said in the article.

Breakdown of claims in the article:
• I was unable to find some of the numbers on the internet: such as the statement of how only $50,000 of the $438,000 went to Caritas, the organization that actually helps the poor with food and medical help (I'm not saying it will never be found anywhere)

• The recipients of money are confirmed here, on D & P's plan for Latin America, 2006-2011 (see p. 128, especially 131-132): http://www.devp.org/devpme/documents/eng/pdf/ProgramLatinAmerica2011_Eng.pdf.

• The number $438,000 is confirmed on the mini report: http://www.devp.org/devpme/eng/publications/documents/Mini_RapportAnnuel_2008.pdf.

• I went to all the sites of the partners to D & P in Mexico. I either used Google to translate the site from Spanish, or put portions of pdf's through an online translator.

• I couldn't find all the quotes, but now I don't doubt they were there. I couldn't find all of them only because I could not copy and paste entire legal documents into the translator, for time's sake. BUT I FOUND ENOUGH TO CONVINCE ME THAT MATTHEW CULLINAN HOFFMAN IS TELLING THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE. This conclusion is a bit startling, considering I was slightly prejudiced against Life Site.

o Whenever he states that a group's name was on such-and-such a bill / document, I was able to confirm it every time

o See Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Mexico, etc., clauses 34-40, the link is in the Life Site article. These clauses do indeed make the claims Hoffman is speaking of, namely, advocating abortion on demand, standardizing Mexican abortion laws, and a woman's right to "emergency" contraceptives, in other words, abortificients (ie: "the morning after pill")

o "The National Center for Social Communication also acts as a mouthpiece for pro-abortion groups such as 'Catholics for the Right to Decide'…." I also found connections to a group called "Catholics For a Free Choice," I don't know if they are the same group or not. In one part of their site, they complain about the lack of legal attention to abortion in a recent document, "specifically the legal interruption of pregnancy was the missing item."

o So conclusion 1: D & P IS giving money to the groups mentioned in the article, called by them "partners" in Mexico. The groups ARE advocating pro-choice or pro-abortion stands.

• So then I came back to point Life Site makes about funds being "fungible." Even if D & P makes it clear to these organizations that they do not wish their funds to go towards "pro-abortion activities," the fact remains that money is fluid and not concrete; D & P's donations could help those organizations free up other assets so those assets can go towards pro-abortion activities

My "in-between" thoughts
• D & P and the organizations they partner with in Mexico are doing many other activities that any Catholic should support (hence the reason why Michael Casey of D & P accuses Hoffman of misconstruing the intentions of these organizations. You see, the pro-abortion mandate is not the only mandate, and many of their mandates are good)

• A lot of the main issues were admirable: gender equality, free trade, sustainable development, teaching people how to take care of themselves, tougher sentencing in rape and domestic abuse cases

• It occurred to me that D & P has seen that help will come to Mexicans sooner if they work through established organizations. HOWEVER, if this admirable desire requires compromise on life and death matters, it needs to be reoriented towards the Gospel of Love, even if it means starting smaller in 3rd world countries

So then I came back to Michael Casey's reply to the Life Site article:
• "We do not, in any way, support projects that would contravene these fundamental principles, most certainly not projects related to abortion."

o True, they don't support these projects, but

o They ARE supporting the organizations, which is all the Life Site article is claiming

o I sense a distinct lack of citation, especially after reading Hoffman's cited article

• "It is dangerously irresponsible and slanderous on the part of some journalists, through ill-conceived conjecture and hypothesis, to deliberately misinterpret the social justice initiatives of our southern partners in this light."

o I see now that it is not "conjecture" and "hypothesis," because the organizations are open and honest on the internet

o Moreover, Hoffman has cited EVERY claim (except the $50, 000 one) so that anyone can verify what he's saying. If it's merely a reactionary article, he would not have done this

o (Also see above: I think what Casey is saying here is that the organizations do a whole lot more than advocate for abortion. He's right, but they STILL are advocates for abortion)

• He then spends a long paragraph telling us all what we already know: about D & P's admirable work in various areas of social justice around the world

And so my thought right now (I'm willing to be shown other information, etc) is that as a Catholic Christian it is my responsibility to work for social justice, both domestically and internationally. I most likely will not be funding D & P, unless other information turns up, but will continue to fund organizations that I have checked out. There are countless numbers of small Catholic organizations who are working for sustainable living and long-term solutions.

Respectfully submitted ☺,

Robin

First, I want to thank Robin for her amazing investigative work. It is something I should have done but I didn't. She has done an amazing job.

Second, I am disheartened by her findings. I think it is a tragedy that a Catholic group supported by the CCCB would partner with groups who support abortion. I understand that abortion is only one part of their mandate, but that doesn't make it better. Even if D&P asks them not to use their funds for abortion related purposes, their funds free up other funds that can be used for abortion. In my mind, that makes any donation I might make to D&P complicit in abortion, and that makes me complicit in abortion. For that reason, I cannot and will not support D&P until they withdraw from their partnerships with these groups.

I am more than willing to consider other information in this area, but I am very disappointed with D&P's response. They have failed to address some serious allegations, and have instead resorted to impugning the journalistic integrity of Lifesite. If you hear more on this from D&P, especially where they respond to specific allegations please comment in the comment box.

For the person who asked me to pass along both sides of the story I am trying to pass along both sides, and I would love to talk to you about D&P so I can learn more. You are right that both sides should have been heard from the start, and I apologize to you specifically for not doing that. My goal is not to upset anyone, and I know this is a deeply distressing subject, and I thank-you for reminding me of the duty to share both sides.

As I find out about further developments, I will post them. And I ask you all to add the executive and membership of D&P to your prayers.

Development and Peace and Abortion

2009-03-13T14:37:00.002-06:00

As you are all undoubtedly aware, abortion is an issue that lies close to my heart. When I read this article, I was mad, and so I am posting this because I want the information to get out to as many people as possible. I am also asking that you read the following post with the charity in which it was intended, because I am not trying to upset or anger anyone. I am simply, as always, concerned about the lives of the least of us; that is, the unborn who are completely voiceless.

As you may be aware, Development and Peace holds a Share Lent campaign to raise funds every Lent. They have a campaign underway again this year. Development and Peace is a Canadian Catholic organization that raises money and awareness of third world issues. For example, one year they focused on the problems of clean drinking water. Another year they focused on exploitative mining practices in the Global South.

While Development and Peace does a lot of good work, they also support groups that support and promote abortion. For more information on how and where this is happening, please see this link.

It concerns me greatly that a Catholic organization gives money to groups that promote abortion. It concerns me even further that when asked, they state "The criterion is not pro-life or pro-abortion...If the piece of work they propose to us is something we want to support it is something that is within our parameters, if yes we support them, if not we don't. "We don't have a policy for or against abortion." As a Catholic organization, they must, to be in line with the Church, be against abortion.

The leadership of Development and Peace does not appear to be willing to investigate where they spend their funds. Since those funds come from Catholics like you and me, we need to be concerned. Even $1 donated to an aid organization that promotes abortion is too much because it makes us all complicit in the abortion. The Catholic Church is against abortion in all circumstances, and I think it is reprehensible that an organization that won't take steps to ensure the money it raises doesn't go to abortion groups gets to speak and raise funds inside the Church, often at the end of or during mass.

I certainly don't think that the individual members of Development and Peace are anti-life, but I am afraid that they don't know enough about what their group does. I am asking all of you to not donate to Development and Peace until they put an end to this practice (which has been ongoing since at least 2000). There are many other worthwhile aid organizations that follow Catholic teachings that would love to receive your donations. Please choose one of them instead, and please inform you local Development and Peace committee about why you are not supporting them, so they can pass your comments onto their leadership.

If you want to contact the leadership directly, the information is below:

Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace
Gilio Brunelli, Director of International Programs
Phone: 514-257-8711
Email: info@devp.org
Development and Peace Website

Address in Toronto:
10 St. Mary Street, Suite#420
Toronto, Ontario
Canada, M4Y 1P9
Phone: (416) 922-1592
Fax: (416) 922-0957
Toll Free: 1-800-494-1401

Address in Montreal:
1425, René-Lévesque bld. West, 3rd Floor
Montréal, Québec
Canada, H3G 1T7
Phone: (514) 257-8711
Fax: (514) 257-8497
Toll Free: 1-888-234-8533

Please also pass this information onto your priests and other Catholics you know. All the good work Development and Peace does is undone by their complicity in abortion. They need to know that Catholics will not support that.

God Bless,
Sarah

Fighting for the Church

2009-03-11T14:07:00.000-06:00

I don’t often take the time to actually write letters to the editor or reply to columnists, but an article I read in yesterday’s Edmonton Sun annoyed me so much I felt compelled to respond. (Read the article here)The article was titled “Vatican Lives in a Vacuum” and essentially went after the Church because of its response to the excommunication of the parents and doctor of a 9 year old girl in Brazil. The girl was pregnant with twins (the stepfather is accused of rape) and the doctor and mother decided that abortion was the only option. For their part in the abortion, the mother and doctors were excommunicated. (Read that story here)

Here was my response to the article:

I would just like illuminate a few teachings of Catholic doctrine that Ms. Jacob's column "Vatican lives in a Vacuum" misunderstood. The archbishop speaking out did not excommunicate the mother and the doctors; they were automatically excommunicated as soon as they made the decision to force the child to have an abortion because such action is considered a mortal sin by the Church. Anyone involved in procuring an abortion is immediately excommunicated, whether they are informed so by their bishop or not. While the statement didn't specifically mention the step-father, you can be assured that if he is guilty of rape, he has also been excommunicated for the same reasons.

The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always wrong. They do that because they believe that the unborn fetus is a human being, and to abort the child is murder. Church law does not change on a case by case basis; it is law because it applies in every case. While this is an incredibly tragic case, the abortion simply compounds the crime of rape. If you read the doctor's reports further, they conclude that a vaginal birth could have killed the girl, not the pregnancy itself. That means the children could have been safely brought to term, and a C section performed. This choice would have saved all 3 lives, instead of killing 2. Not only that, there are potential long term complications from the abortion itself, which could include infertility later in life if the girl wants to have a family.

And finally, the tongue in cheek statement "you naughty Catholics shouldn't have sex unless you are planning to procreate" is actually true. Pregnancy is the natural end result of sex; why else do you think people spend thousands every year to try to avoid it with birth control that is never 100% effective. If you have sex, there is a possibility that you will get pregnant. The condom, even if used properly, is only 99% effective. That means 1 in 100 couples who have sex and use the condom correctly will end up pregnant. If you are not prepared to have a child, you should not be having sex; it's not that difficult to understand.

When writing a column on a statement made by the Catholic Church, please do a little bit of research first so you understand where the church is coming from rather than demonizing it because you disagree. The teachings of the church come from a large body of research spanning 2000 years and are based in theology, philosophy and science, and the church articulates reasons for every doctrine it has. If you'd like to know more, please don't hesitate to ask.

Yours,
Sarah

If the article upsets you as well, please send a letter to the editor to mailbag@edmsun.com or reply directly to the columnist at mindy.jacobs@sunmedia.ca. Please keep in mind that they only publish letters that are 100 words or less.

I really wish people would stop condemning the Church based on what they believe her to be saying, not what she actually teaches. It’s frustrating. And, when dealing with abortion, we need to keep in mind that the real issue is what are the unborn. This columnist (and many others) don’t believe the unborn children to be human. They are very concerned about the health and welfare of the child who was raped, and I commend them for it, but what about the health and welfare of the children she was carrying? If they are all human, how can the unborn be any less worthy of life?

Apologies

2009-03-08T17:36:00.001-06:00

Many apologies for not posting in the last few weeks. My only excuse (and I truly hate this excuse, but it is true in this case) is I've been busy.

My schooling will come to an end in less than a month (finals included!) so I've been busy trying to get everything done.

I've also been making preparations for my life post law school, and while incredibly exciting it also eats up a lot of time.

Finally, I've realized that I will be leaving this city and the many friends I've made over the last 6 years in just over a month, and I've been trying to spend all the free time I have with them.

Add all this together and it equals neglect of this blog, and for that I apologize.

There have been a ton of things going on in the world that I'd love to blog about, but rather than writing a post on all of them, I thought I'd list and link to them.

London's St Joseph's Hospital- A few months ago I blogged about the practice of early induction abortion at St. Joseph's Catholic hospital in London, ON. The National Post has written a story, basically denying everything the Lifesitenews article alleged. Despite that, the Bishop of the Diocese has asked the Vatican to weigh in on the practice and indicated he will do a thorough investigation and many not wait for the Vatican's response to make corrections if he finds something wrong. (We can only pray he does)
In the Baby Shanice story (the child born alive after a late term abortion and thrown out as medical waste) the abortion worker involved has been charged with "unlicensed practice of a health care profession resulting in serious bodily injury, a second degree felony, and with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, a third degree felony." (I pray she is found guilty)
I have no link to give you, but after speaking with a contact in the campus pro-life world, it appears that the 6 University of Calgary students charged with trespass because of their GAP display had their first appearance in court last week, and will plead next week. (Again, please keep them in your prayers)
In the euthanasia arena, a new (or at least new to me group) called the Final Exit Network has emerged. Their sole purpose is to aid people in committing suicide. I haven't kept up with the stories in this area, but the Secondhand Smoke and Disability Matters blog have extensive coverage on this emerging and incredibly dangerous threat to human life.
Since the birth of the octopulets to a single mom on welfare with 6 other children, there has been a lot of talk about regulating IVF. Unfortunately, not one seems to have made this absolutely simple (in my opinion) suggestion that rather than regulating, we should STOP the practice altogether so we can a) stop denying the dignity of human life and b) stop killing children.
And a new story out of Connecticut this week. Someone in the government there has decided that the state should impose changes on the structure of the Roman Catholic Church to take power away from the bishops. (This would in no way be related to the recent outspokenness of bishops on life issues would it? The government reps involved wouldn't be trying to muzzle the bishops would they? No, they wouldn't do that). See the proposed legislation here. All I can say is that the bishops are doing something right to have this much hatred spewed against them. Pray hard people.

There is a lot more going on, but there is a short list of things I would have blogged on if I had time. I think it's a reasonably balanced list of positive and negatives going on in the world. I will try to post more regularly than I have been (it would be hard to post less regularly) but I can't guarantee it will be daily like before. As life calms down, blogging will increase. Until then, God Bless and continue to pray and fast through the season of Lent.

Self Denial

2009-02-25T20:26:00.003-06:00

The Ash Wednesday homily I heard today focused on self denial (appropriate given that today marks the beginning of Lent, but that's besides the point). It got me thinking, and it ties in nicely with yesterday's post about entitlement.

I believe that Western society is very much an entitlement based society. We are also a society that very rarely denies ourselves anything (as the current state of the economy demonstrates all too well.) And I think those two things go hand in hand; I don't think we would feel entitled if we practiced some self denial. We are so used to getting everything we want, as soon as we want, and we rarely wait for anything, and I think that attitude is hurting us all.

So many problems would be avoided if we just practiced a little self denial: the credit "crisis", the obesity epidemic, the genocide of the unborn etc. All of these problems have arisen in our society because we are never told no. If we lived within our means, people wouldn't be having their homes foreclosed upon and our major corporations wouldn't be collapsing. If we said no to that piece of chocolate cake (or my own personal craving, iced tea) we wouldn't be endangering our health by overindulging. If we practiced self denial and saved sex for a committed married relationship, we wouldn't be murdering our children. There are many other examples, but I don't want to belabor the point.

Self denial is a good thing. It's not an easy thing, and I know it's something I can never accomplish without God's grace, but it is important. If we learn to practice self-denial with the little things, we will have the ability to say no to the big things, but it does take practice.

The season of Lent is a penitential one, preparing ourselves for Easter and seeking to deepen our relationship with God. My earnest prayer for us all is that we will practice self-denial in some way this Lenten season, and use that self denial to allow God to move deeper into our lives, because that's the only way the major problems of our world will be solved.

Welcome to Lent, and God Bless.

Personhood Amendments

2009-02-24T22:23:00.002-06:00

Good news today. 7 American States have introduced personhood amendments. (See story here) A personhood amendment would establish conception as the point where life begins and when human beings become persons under the law. If passed these amendments would make the abortion of the unborn a murder under the law. North Dakota, Alabama, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Oregon and South Carolina all have the amendment drives under way. A similar initiative failed on the Colorado ballot this year.

I think it's awesome that the pro-life movements in those states have managed to keep life issues on the political radar, and I hope and pray that these amendments will pass. Its issues like this that remind me why I went into law in the first place. I went into law because I think law has power. If these amendments pass, it wipes out the effect of pro-abortion decisions like Roe v. Wade and R v. Morgentaler in an instant. Abortion, instead of being legal, becomes illegal; it becomes murder. That would change everything; and that's power, real power. To protect the unborn we need the law.

Though I know these amendments face an uphill battle and have very little likelihood of passing, the fact that they are even up is a huge step forward for the rights of the unborn. The more that we keep life issues in the news and in our legislatures, the better our chances to protect the unborn. While the law doesn't currently protect the unborn, it is the most powerful tool we have to protect them, if we can only get our legislatures and judges to use it.

Personhood amendments go a long way in this area because they identify the unborn, not as a clump of cells, but as a person, equal in rights to any born human being. As we enter Lent tomorrow, let's keep the unborn and our politicians, lawmakers and judges in our prayers, and maybe some of these amendments will pass.

Entitlement

2009-02-23T23:57:00.002-06:00

Another sad story demonstrating the culture of death that permeates our world can be found here. A Japanese woman was successfully implanted with a fertilized egg following IVF. However, the clinic made a mistake and implanted her with the egg of another woman. When she found out, she aborted the pregnancy and sued the clinic. By all accounts, she was delighted with the pregnancy, but finding out it was another woman's egg was too much. There is some suggestion that there is a cultural taboo against having another person's child, but that is beside the point.

The woman wanted to become pregnant.

She did.

She was happy about it.

She found out it was another women's and was upset.

She aborted.

That's the bottom line. There is a problem with society when a woman who is desperate to have a child aborts it because the child is not genetically hers. It points to an entitlement mentality and it points out that people view children not as a responsibility, but a right. It also points out that children are simply objects to be created and disposed of at a whim.

Let's change the scenario slightly. If the woman had purchased a dog, and later found out it wasn't the purebred she expected and put it down, people would be outraged at her action. Because it was just a child, no one bats an eye.

Even without going to that comparison, this incident points out some of the dangers of IVF. People lose respect for life when it is created and destroyed on a whim in a petrie dish. In this case, only on child was aborted. Often, women are implanted with 4 or 5 embryos. If they all implant, "seletive reductions" (aka abortions) are performed and the woman has one or two children. How does she explain that to her children later on in life- you had 3 other brothers and sisters, but I aborted them. By sheer luck you weren't the child that the abortionist dismembered and sucked out. But don't worry, I lvoe you very much.

There have been many stories about IVF in the news lately- the 8 children born to a single mom and the twins born to a 60 year old woman and people are talking about needing legal restrictions on IVF. They are partially correct. We need legal restrictions against IVF- it shouldn't be permitted in any case, ever. IVF kills children every day. The sooner we all realize that, the better for everyone, especially the children.

Happy Reading!

2009-02-12T23:52:00.003-06:00

I want to thank all my readers for reading this blog. I hope you find it informative, helpful and thought provoking. My Reading Week begins tonight, and as a result, I am heading to my parents for the next week.

This unfortunately puts me back in the land of dial-up internet, so no new posts until Monday, February 23. I hope you all enjoy this break as much as I am going to. And, in case you are wondering, I will be doing reading; some school and some for fun. I hope you have a chance to do some reading too.

Until later, God bless you all.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

2009-02-11T21:48:00.002-06:00

It took the University of Calgary Students Union just 10 minutes today to remove official club status from the U of C Pro-life Club. They removed the status in a "hearing" on the club's future today. (See story here) Their reason? The club violated university policy.

Hold on.

This is the group that hosted a Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) last November. Last week 3 members of the club were charged with trespass for that display. Note that- they were charged, not convicted. In Canada, that is a huge difference. In Canada, the Charter guarantees that you are innocent until proven guilty.

The members of Campus Pro-life have not been convicted of anything. The U of C administration has so far refused to tell the club what policy they have violated. The Student's Union has also refused tell them what policy was violated.

Ok, let's look at this.

Their club status was revoked because they broke university policy.

The university has not told them what policy they broke.

The only action taken against them is a charge of trespass which has yet to be proven.

As far as I can see, club status was only removed because the Student's Union has decided they are guilty of trespass.

That is a violation of their s. 11(d) Charter right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Huh.

Way to go U of C Student's Union! Thank you for violating your student's rights when you should have been helping them. If the situation was opposite and the university had charges laid against members of the Women's Center for showing graphic pictures of what happens to women who try to self abort, would the Student's Union be pulling their status? I doubt it. I'm sure they would be fighting for them not hanging them out to dry.

And I haven't even gotten into the apparent conflict of interest by the chairman of the hearing who served for three years as the head of the feminist organization that opposes the Campus Pro-life. I hope the club appeals the ruling as high as they can, because if they ever get out of the university and to a real court, this decision will be thrown out so fast your head will spin. The obvious bias in this case is mind boggling, and unfortunately all too prevalent on university campuses in Canada. God help us all.

A Wonderful First Step

2009-02-10T23:04:00.002-06:00

The Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) announced today that they are giving the Canadian March for Life their full support. This is the first time in the 11 year history of the March that the CCCB has given it a nod of approval. (See story here)

I am very, very happy that the CCCB has officially noted, and supported the March for Life. Last year when the American Bishop's were speaking out for life during the election campaign, I admired them. I couldn't help but wonder where the CCCB was. As far as I am aware, they have NEVER, as a council, stated their unequivocal support for life. This surprises me, especially considering the Church's extremely pro-life position. It is the duty of each Bishop to ensure that their diocese teaches the truth to every Catholic in the diocese. There are far too many Catholics who are pro-choice today. Some are pro-choice because they don't know any better, and some are pro-choice despite knowing the Church's position. The CCCB has never addressed this issue.

I'm not naïve enough to think that this one pronouncement is indicative of a change in the CCCB's policy, but I do think it is a great first step. The CCCB has now recognized the importance of combating the culture of death. That is huge and fills me with great hope for the future of Canadian Catholics. It has been too long since the CCCB has given good, orthodox direction to Canada's Catholics. Canada has drifted to the left in terms of where it stands on life issues, and the CCCB has done nothing to stop it. Don't get me wrong; I in no way am condemning the Bishops; just trying to show my appreciation for their position today.

I believe the only way to save the unborn and the vulnerable is for Canadian society to fundamentally change how it perceives pregnancy and suffering. We do view pregnancy as a punishment or a disease instead of the joyful creation of a new life. Until we manage to shift our understanding, we will not beat the culture of death. The clergy have a huge role to play in this. Today, I am very proud of the CCCB because this announcement signals that they understand how important combating the culture of death is. God bless them and all clergy and religious.

Mob Rule

2009-02-09T19:31:00.003-06:00

Last Friday night, St. Mary's University (Halifax, Nova Scotia) pro-life club hosted pro-life speaker Jojo Ruba from the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform. Just after his presentation began, a mob of angry abortion activists disrupted his lecture. You can see video footage from the event in the above video. (They enter about 1 minute in).

Mr. Ruba kept his cool and tried to dialogue with the mob, but instead of answering his questions, they fell back on chants like "not the church, not the state, women must decide their fate," "women's bodies, women's lives, women won't be terrorized" and "Pro-life men have got to go! When you get pregnant, let us know!" According to media coverage, (here, and here) it looks like campus security showed up half an hour after the protestors, followed by Halifax police. The protesters were told to disband or face possible charges or arrest. At this point, coverage of the incident becomes unclear (I'm piecing it together from about a dozen blog posts, and some of them contradict each other)- I'm not sure if the protestors did disband, or if they remained outside the presentation shouting their rhetoric, but we do know that the speaker was ordered off campus by St. Mary's officials. He went to a nearby Catholic Church and finished his presentation.

This is absolutely ridiculous- the presentation had all the appropriate permissions, and did nothing wrong, but it was thrown off campus because a mob didn't like what it had to say? Huh? How does that make any sense? It seems there were fears that the mob might turn violent- an e-mail allegedly circulated earlier that day to pro-abortion supporters said they had to do whatever was necessary to prevent the presentation from going forward- but that is no excuse for shutting down the presentation.

What is happening on universities across Canada? What is happening to free speech? Are we no longer going to even pretend to claim we have free speech, because that's what seems to be happening. If the presentation had permission to occur (which it did) why was it forced to leave? The protesters should have been arrested. I believe strongly that everyone has a right to present their opinion, but that does not include the right to act as part of a violent mob. Had those protesters sat down to hear the presentation and then asked questions, I would have no problem with their behavior. However, instead of being respectful and engaging in meaningful dialogue, they engaged in mob activity and tried to suppress someone else's right to express their own opinion.

I hope St. Mary's administration realizes what they did was wrong and apologizes for it. Not only did they censor a valid academic debate, they gave into the will of a mob which sets a dangerous precedent. They should apologize to Mr. Ruba and take action against the members of the mob. At the very least, they should invite Mr. Ruba back, and pay all his expenses to have him give his talk again- this time without interruptions.

A quote from Gandhi has been going around the campus pro-life world lately- I thought I'd share it with all of you. "First they ignore us, then they ridicule us, then they fight us, then we win."

Update: To see the rest of the presentation, go here.

Baby Shanice

2009-02-06T23:22:00.002-06:00

A story broke yesterday about a baby born alive just prior to the baby being aborted. The baby's mother was 23 weeks pregnant and went for a late term abortion just outside of Miami. After she'd been given drugs to dilate her cervix and while she was waiting for the doctor to arrive, she went into labor and delivered a healthy baby girl. The baby's umbilical cord was cut, the baby placed in a biohazard bag and tossed out into the garbage. Her remains were found a week later by police after receiving anonymous tips. An autopsy determined that the baby girl breathed after birth. Legally this means she was born alive, which mean prosecutors can file murder charges. Today, the doctor who was performing the abortion had his license to practice medicine revoked.

Many people, both pro-life and pro-choice have declared their outrage over this. State Rep. Anitere Flores (equivalent of a MLA) has declared that murder charges should be filed. What I find terribly ironic about this whole situation is that had the abortion been properly performed, no one would have made a fuss about this. Its cases like this that reveal the hypocrisy of the pro-abortion position. The unborn are human beings deserving of full legal protections. I hope that the Miami DA decides to pursue a murder indictment for this. I wish the DA could for every abortion, but I'll take what we can get.

I'd be interested in hearing from President Obama about this. After all, while in the Illinois State Senate he voted against a bill that would protect infants born alive in the same way as this baby girl. I'd assume that means he thinks nothing wrong happened here.

Huh.

Gotta love the world we live in.

The only good thing to come out of this tragedy is that the baby's mother- an 18 year-old named Sycloria Williams- came face to face with her baby and she says that changed everything for her. I'm sorry it took this tragedy for her to see the true horror of abortion, but that is the fault of the society in which we live. She didn't realize baby Shanice (as she named the baby girl) was human because that's what society has taught her. And unfortunately, many other women have been duped into believing the same thing.

Rest in peace Shanice. I'm sorry your life was so short, but I pray that it can be a powerful witness to the world.

My apologies

2009-02-05T20:58:00.002-06:00

No substantive post tonight. We had our "resolution" meeting for the pro-life club tonight, and I'm in no state to say anything respectfully, rationally or charitably, so I won't.

Don't worry- it went fine; we weren't obliged to concede anything. The problem is that they are not happy with it and I think it means we will go to a formal complaint process.

Please pray.

Framing the debate

2009-02-04T21:55:00.002-06:00

Reading the paper today (The Sheaf), I had a bit of a revelation. The crux of the abortion debate seems to be in ensuring that we know where all parties to the debate stand. The reason our discussion seems so fruitless at times, I think, is because pro-lifers and pro-choicers are arguing from completely different perspectives. Pro-choicers presuppose that there is nothing wrong with abortion, and pro-lifers presuppose that there is everything wrong with abortion. I know- that doesn't seem like a big revelation, but when you think it through, it becomes much more.

There is no way we can dialogue with pro-choicers unless we recognize where they are coming from. If law has taught me anything, it's taught me that we need to use precise language and we need to frame the debate clearly before it even begins. I don't think we do a good job of that when we start conversations with pro-choicers. It's not easy to frame the debate, but if we are going to succeed in our debate and change hearts and minds, we MUST frame the debate.

This is especially important now, because historically the pro-choice movement has done a better job than pro-lifers in framing the debate- they have convinced the majority (the people who've never really thought about the issue) that abortion is perfectly acceptable. When most people start discussing their opinion on abortion they don't even realize that they've already accepted, subconsciously, that abortion is a valid option. Before we can ever convince them to be pro-life, we have to make them see that they are presupposing the acceptability of abortion.

It's not easy- I can't give you a step by step method to do it because every person is different and will respond differently to different questions. All I can advise is to ask short, simple yes or no questions. Make them realize that they are assuming abortion is correct. Once you've established that is their perspective, you can begin the dialogue- and you have to begin the dialogue around that issue. You have to convince them first that abortion is never acceptable. We do that by proving the humanity and personhood of the unborn child.

I am convinced that this is the only way we can win this debate. Abortion has been legal for so long people (generally) don't stop to question it. And to succeed that's what we need to do- we need to make people question what they have been fed for so long. The pro-choicers have framed the debate in terms of women's rights, and reproductive choice for so long. We need to change that in order to win.

And win we must. Lives depend on it.

Praise God!

2009-02-03T23:46:00.002-06:00

I just got home from a pro-life fundraiser, and all I can say is God is absolutely amazing. Our club put on the fundraiser to raise funds to continue our work on campus- to pay club fees, buy materials and supplies to distribute, make posters, host speakers and other events etc. The club was worried that we wouldn't sell (well, maybe not the club- I was worried) the minimum tickets needed to pay for the event. I shouldn't have worried- we sold double the minimum tickets!!! (In other words the fundraising was a smashing success) Not only that, but everyone had (or at least seemed to have) a great time. (In other words the social aspect of the evening was a smashing success)

It's things like this that remind me that I shouldn't worry- I should trust in God, because He will supply whatever we need and more. He provides abundantly for all- we just need to ask. The same thing happened over 4 years ago when the club started- we had no money, no resources, just a few people committed to educating our fellow university students about life. As soon as we committed to starting the club, resources, money, an entire fetal model set essentially fell into our laps. Things like this tell me a couple of things. First, and foremost, this is work God obviously wants us to be doing, since he supplied everything in abundance. Secondly, I should have faith and remember that minor things like finances shouldn't prevent me from doing the work I feel called to do. We should follow our calls and do whatever it is God is calling us to do. The concerns we have don't matter- God will provide. (I feel like I should repeat that mantra over and over so I don't forget it.)

This also reminded me that the work we do on campus is not our work. We cannot take credit for the good that is being done- the credit, glory and praise all belong to God, without whom we are nothing. All good that I accomplish in my life is a direct result of God's actions in my life, and my joyful obedience to His will.

I will close this post just by saying a great big Thank-you again to all those who supported the fundraiser tonight (I think some of you read this blog). Your generosity enables the club to continue the work it does on campus to educate on life issues, and hopefully save a few lives as well. The work we do is directed at building the Kingdom of God up here on earth. We don't say that in the work we do, but we do say it in our prayers. Rather than just praise God in my prayers tonight (which I will do) I wanted to praise him in as public a manner as I can. He is amazing and he does provide abundantly.

Thank-you God for your involvement in my life, for the gifts you have blessed me with, for the family and friends I have and for the ability I have to publicly express my faith. You are good, and I am so very grateful.

Freedom isn’t Free

2009-02-02T21:28:00.002-06:00

And I was worried about attacks on my pro-life club! If you remember, I blogged (here and here) about the controversy at the University of Calgary when their pro-life club decided to hold a GAP (Genocide Awareness Project). Well, today 3 members of the club were served with summons to appear in court to speak to the charge of trespass.

That's right; the U of C has formally charged 3 of their students with the crime of trespass. 3 others are expecting to be charged. Read the story here or here. I have a few questions, so here they are in no particular order.

How can students who've paid their tuition and been invited to attend the university be trespassing? (Oh right, because they don't like their opinion)
Why do all of the headlines on this story use anti-choice instead of pro-life (especially when the club is called prolife)? (Oh wait, I know because we've all bought the semantic arguments)
Where does a public institution, funded with tax dollars, get off claiming that the University is not a public institution? (Seriously, study some 1^st year Constitutional Law people)
Why did the U of C take 2 months to lay charges? (I have no snarky comment to make here- I would genuinely like to know)
Is the U of C charging them because they truly believed they trespassed illegally or because they don't like the message- would they charge Falun Gong protestors? (I think we all know the answer to that one)

I spent all day following this story and reading people's responses to it. The negative responses all seem to argue one of the following things:

They assume the club is religiously based and criticize the club for "pushing their beliefs on others"- This is a silly argument and demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the part of the person arguing. They are assuming that because the club members are pro-life, they are also religious. While the members might be religious, it does not change the scientific and intellectual nature of their arguments. Calling them religious and dismissing them is an ad hominum (personal) attack and ignores the merits of their arguments.
They take exception to comparing abortion to the Holocaust or Rwanda- again, they misunderstand the point of the protest. Abortion is compared to genocide because it IS genocide. Pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception. That means that every abortion is a murder, and that systematic, government funded abortion is genocide.
They complain about the graphic nature of the images- Yes, the images are graphic. I hate seeing them, and almost inevitably cry after seeing a number of them. But that reaction doesn't mean showing the pictures is wrong. Historically, disturbing graphic images are almost always the impetus that drives change. For example, it was the diagram showing how crammed into the hold of a ship slaves were that drove the first abolitionists to act. It was images of black people being shot with high pressure fire hoses, and the pictures of Emmett Till's beaten and broken body that gave Rosa Parks and other civil rights activists the courage to act. It was the pictures of thin, emaciated Jews in concentration camps after liberation by Allies that made people truly believe genocide had occurred. At the time all these pictures were shown they were called graphic, and denounced in the same way that GAP is denounced. That doesn't make it wrong, it makes it important. Especially today, we live in a very visual culture. Pictures can change hearts and minds. After all, a "picture is worth a thousand words."
They also argue that all the students had to do was turn the signs inward and the U of C would have allowed them to be displayed- This argument ignores the fact that the request by the university amounts to discrimination. The U of C Pro-life club is a club like every other club, and yet no other club is forced to turn their displays inward. Why should the U of C club submit to discrimination?
The other argument is that the students were warned they would be charged with trespass- That cannot be denied. But the students aren't complaining that they were charged; they are complaining that people are trying to censor them. Censorship is wrong. The students knew exactly what they were getting themselves into and they did it anyway because they knew what they were doing was right. Instead of condemning them, we should be congratulating them for their courage. People who stand up for liberty against tyranny should be hailed as heroes. Where would we be if the suffragettes had refused to speak out? If the abolitionists had been cowed by slave owner's threats? If civil rights activists had agreed jail was too high a price to pay? The world would be a much different place.

The U of C students were not violent; they merely put up some signs outside. Those pictures showed graphic images- of that there can be no doubt, but these students deserve our praise. Not only have they brought attention to abortion (which people try to ignore if they can) but they have brought attention to lack of tolerance at Canadian Universities. Freedom isn't free people. It comes at a cost, as these young Canadians are showing us all. God Bless them.

They will all be in my prayers; and I hope in yours too. But beyond prayers, please take a minute to right a polite, respectful letter to the U of C. Contact information is below. Send a copy of your letter to the two Calgary papers- the Sun and the Herald.

Dr. Harvey P. Weingarten, President
Administration Building, Room 100
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
Phone: (403) 220-5460
Fax: (403) 289-6800
Email: president@ucalgary.ca

NBC reveals its anti-life agenda

2009-01-30T23:28:00.001-06:00

Last week, I blogged about this commercial and stated that I wasn't sure how I felt about it. I'm still not sure how I feel about it, but the commercial is back in the news. The makers of the commercial, catholicvote.com tried to buy a 30 second commercial spot for this weekend's Super Bowl. The cost of the commercial is $3 million, but they had the money to buy the spot.

NBC originally told them they could buy the commercial spot, but has since refused to air the commercial claiming that they won't run political advocacy ads.

Yeah.

That's right.

A pro-life commercial is now political advocacy.

How can they call it political advocacy? It doesn't mention one political party, and actual seems to congratulate their hero, Barak Obama. All I can say is at least NBC's bias is now out in the open. Pro-life commercials are bad. I would think (in this time of economic crisis) that they would be glad to air whatever ads they could- especially at that price. And, apparently they have yet to sell out all the Super bowl commercial spots. Hmm. Interesting isn't it?

While I'm still not sure that I like the ad, there is no denying that it is tastefully done. It's not graphic; it never even mentions the word abortion. It just asks you to imagine the potential of life. NBC has certainly aired more daring commercials before. But, as we have all known, NBC is a left wing organization that is going to force its views on everyone.

My response is going to be to boycott the Super Bowl this year. Feel free to join me.

(Course, that really isn't a big sacrifice to me since I don't watch football anyway. Still, the sentiment is there. I'll pray for the NBC organization as well. Only prayer will make them into a pro-life organization.)

Oh Happy Day!

2009-01-29T18:34:00.002-06:00

Happy News! I often feel bad about how negative the tone of this blog tends to be. It's not intentional, but I want to keep people informed on important things that are happening in the world around law and life, and unfortunately, it seems like the negative stories get featured most prominently. Not today though!

There are still people fighting for a culture of life- even in politics it appears. Wyoming is in the news right now, about assisted suicide- but not for the reason you might expect. House Bill 120, initiated by Right to Life of Wyoming would criminalize assisted suicide in the state of Wyoming. (Currently Wyoming is one of five states that have no laws on the books dealing with assisted suicide.) I don't know if the Bill has the votes needed to pass, but I pray that it does. It looks like the bill has made clear provisions for palliative care, so the pro-death argument that anti-assisted suicide legislation will render doctors unable to deal with patient's pain is invalid.

All I can say is way to go Wyoming Right to Life! It's initiatives like this that the pro-life movement needs to get behind and lobby for. (Really, that's all I can say. Maybe this is why there aren't a lot of positive stories on the blog- I agree, and so don't have much to say.) Anyway, I will be praying and cheering for House Bill 120 and I ask all of you to do the same. If you have family or friends in Wyoming (or you are in Wyoming) please urge them to contact their local representative and encourage them to vote for the bill.

If/As soon as this bill passes, I will let you know!

Media Bias Hits Home

2009-01-28T19:45:00.003-06:00

Apparently the media cheerleading for the left has hit campus newspapers as well. On Monday, the pro-life group at my university hosted a Silent No More Awareness Campaign. The group invited the campus paper, The Sheaf, to cover the story, which they did. You can read their article here.

*** IMPORTANT NOTE FROM BLOG AUTHOR: Before I go any further, I suppose I should make it clear that I am a member of the campus pro-life group, but I will do my best to give fair, unbiased coverage about the facts. Also note that this post is going to be something of a rant because I am seriously annoyed. My apologies in advance. ***

(See, at least I'm honest about my bias upfront. The rest of the media could learn something from that.)

Despite giving half a page to the story, the coverage of the actual presentation is one sentence. "They [Silent No More] have a group of women who have had abortions tell their stories and explain why they regret that decision." So, here is my (relatively) unbiased news coverage of the event.

On January 26, 2009 the U of S Students for Life (USSL) hosted a group called Silent No More on campus. This group spent the day with a table set up in the Arts Tunnel. The display featured large signs which read "I regret my abortion." A group of 6 women from Silent No More presented their personal story and experience of abortion at 12pm and 4pm that day in a classroom in the Arts building. These testimonies included the women giving the reason they had their abortion, the physical, mental and spiritual harm they suffered as a result of that abortion. Before the women began giving their testimony, the spokeswoman for the group outlined the history of Silent No More and its chief goals and aims; the most important being that women who suffer from Post Abortion Syndrome can find help. At the end of the presentation, the spokeswoman offered the names and contact information for groups that help women to heal from abortion. Several of the women who gave their story testified to the help they found at a retreat known as Rachel's Vineyard. Attendance at the 12pm presentation was approximately 12 individuals. At 4pm, upwards of 40 individuals filled the classroom to hear the presentation.

There, is it so hard to give an unbiased version of events? When you are putting the story on page 2, in the news section, I would expect it to be a news story, not an editorial. Of course papers are free to editorialize; in fact the editorial pages of newspapers tend to be my favorite pages, but you need to make it clear to others when you are editorializing and when you are setting out the facts of an event that happened.

*** IMPORTANT NOTE FROM BLOG AUTHOR: I will now begin to editorialize and do not claim to be unbiased in the following paragraphs ***

The rest of the Sheaf's article rehashes a story they ran a few weeks ago, and not surprisingly gets the facts wrong. For example they state that those who attended the noon presentation were either pro-choice women from the Women's Centre or "directly involved with Silent No More or related to the presenters." I was at the noon presentation, and my recollection is that there were 2 people from the USSL, 2 women not involved with Silent No More or the USSL, the daughter of one presenter, the 4 women from the Women's Centre, 2 people from the Sheaf and 3 other people I did not know, plus the 6 women involved in the presentation.

But, more to the point, why does who attended matter? And, if counting attendees was so important to the story, why did they not come back to the 4pm presentation; the one that occurred after classes were over for the day, and note that over 40 people attended, none of whom were involved in the presentation or related to those giving the presentation? Oh, I know, because that would take away from the spin they are trying to subtly put on the article.

They also manage to work in the fact that Silent No More is affiliated with Anglicans for Life. What purpose is served by noting that? I'm surprised actually that they didn't note that it is also affiliated with Priests for Life, which is, at least in the politically correct world a far more damning connection. Who cares who they are affiliated with unless you are trying to connect them with that radical and dangerous group known as Christians- After all, as everyone knows, all pro-lifers are motivated by religious ideals and couldn't possibly be speaking from a scientific or intellectual perspective.

And, the "fact" that annoys me most is the assertion that the USSL failed to attend a meeting set up on December 5. That makes the USSL look like they have something to hide now doesn't it. I agree it would merit publication, except for the fact that it isn't true. No meeting was set up for December 5 that the USSL had any knowledge of (and I have the e-mails to prove that statement if anyone cares to read them). While I may not be a lawyer yet, I did study the tort of libel in first year law. The Sheaf is getting awfully close with some of the stuff they are publishing. (I keep decrying the lack of practical hands on experience in law school; maybe I should take this on…)

I also find it interesting that a formal harassment complaint has been made against the USSL. Again, to my knowledge no one has made a formal complaint; in fact, just yesterday I was told on the record that no formal process had yet begun. Again, getting very close to libel.

My point in this rant, which may have escaped you due to it's length, is that once again the "free press" has proven itself to be neither unbiased nor too concerned with actually reporting the news. Spinning things to go your way is much more fun apparently. At least other papers have the excuse (such as it is) that they are trying to sell papers, and sensationalization sells. The Sheaf has no such excuse- all U of S students pay a fee that goes directly to The Sheaf, and the paper is freely distributed on campus. That's right- I'm paying to have this publication publish facts that they spin and outright lie about. Doesn't that just take the cake.

(I will likely be blogging more on this topic as it develops. Comment if you don't want to hear more, otherwise you will hear more.)

The Destruction of our Future

2009-01-27T22:46:00.002-06:00

Scary, scary stuff today. At the close of the March for Life last week, columnist Don Feder gave a presentation on the coming "Demographic Winter." To read the full text of his talk, go here. While some people like to talk about the overpopulation of the world, Mr. Feder paints the opposite picture. As a result of abortion, contraception and the general culture of death, the West is in the process of collective suicide.

2.1 That's the important number. In 1979, the number was 6. Today, it is 2.9. What is 2.1 you ask? It's the replacement birthrate- the number of children an average woman needs to have to ensure the population stays the same size. Globally, the average number of children women have is 2.9. That's dangerously close to falling below the replacement birthrate level of 2.1- only 30 years ago, the average woman had 6. In the so-called "advanced" societies of the world, the birthrate has fallen well below 2.1. In Russia, the number is 1.17; Italy and Spain are at 1.5. Canada is at 1.53. That's scary. As Mr. Feder put it, with below replacement level birthrates our "Schools will be turned into nursing homes. Playgrounds will become graveyards."

And, as he also pointed out, euthanasia will become a way of life. How can it not? If we have fewer and fewer young people, we have fewer and fewer taxpayers to support the pension systems. What better way to save money that to kill the elderly? (I'm joking of course)

In many ways, what we are doing right now is the same thing the Black Death did in Europe in the 14^th century. We are depopulating the world at an extreme rate. We've built a society that depends on people, and yet we are not reproducing the people needed to fill those positions. When the Black Death killed off 1/3 of the population of Europe, it set in play massive social changes that unleashed great upheaval on the world and in many ways set development back for generations.

Yet, when the Black Death abated, more children were born to replace those who were killed. Here, we are not having children, so there are no children for them to have to replace those who die. In Russia today, more pregnancies end in abortion than end in birth. More people die every year in Russia than are born. At the very basic level, eventually, everyone will take on more and more work. There is a maximum output that anyone can produce, and eventually things will fall by the wayside in an attempt to just keep the basics functioning. Can you imagine a world where we no longer have technology advancing, where we no longer have cars or computers because there is no one left to build them? Humans have basic needs- food, water and shelter. If the population keeps dropping, we will eventually have to stop working in luxury areas and focus simply on production of food for survival. What happens to us then?

Scary, scary thoughts indeed.

The Swiss Example

2009-01-26T21:05:00.002-06:00

Switzerland is an interesting country. Historically, they have followed the beat of their own drummer; managing to stay neutral in two world wars and most wars prior to those; giving a home to the early protestant reformers and having all citizens join the military so they can enforce their neutrality. Unfortunately, they have not stayed neutral in the culture of life vs. death war. Switzerland is the home of Dignitas, the "death with dignity" agency. For a fee, they will help those who want to die, die. The law doesn't provide any procedures for assisted suicide; you simply need to show up at their door, pay the fee and two hours later you can be dead. This has made Switzerland a tourist destination for people around the world who want to die, or are being pressured to die so they aren't a burden on their families.

I've never bought the death with dignity argument, but this article from the Daily Mail horrified me. I thought I'd heard all the horrors around assisted suicide, but the stuff described in the article is beyond comprehension. I don't know how anyone can claim Dignitas provides a dignified death- if even half of what this article alleges is true Dignitas is the biggest fraud around. A former Dignitas employee alleges that Dignitas is all about profit; they pawn the property of those who come to die, and they've convinced wealthy patrons to leave large amounts of money to them. The deaths are far from dignified; one woman who was in a wheelchair was manhandled up the stairs, screaming in agony because she didn't fit into the elevator, they prescribe and have patients administer lethal drugs in less than two hours and left a man in agony for 70h after the suicide machine failed to kill him and the only concern was that patients were backing up waiting for the room to empty so they could die.

Dignitas' response to these allegations is that the employee is merely disgruntled and they now enforce a privacy agreement over all employees to keep their mouths shut. I felt queasy just reading this article. That said, I thank God that I can still be horrified. I haven't been so desensitized by this culture of death that articles like this fail to shock and appall me. We need to keep assisted suicide illegal in Canada so that things like this can't legally happen in Canada. If we find out that people are participating in so called death with dignity, we need to prosecute them and we need judges to enforce strict sentences on the perpetrators of these crimes. We need politicians with a backbone who will legislate laws that criminalize and punish those who aid in suicide and we need a media that doesn't parrot the culture of death's lines that people with disabilities, mental illness or terminal illness have a duty to die. To have all that, we need a population that is pro life and not afraid to speak out.

Let Switzerland be an example to us. If we don't speak out, it could be Canada that is a death-tourism hotspot and it could be our parents, children, family or friends that are dying on the floor of a dirty room, convulsing in comatose pain because someone figures they can profit more from their death than in helping them to live.

Not Sure…

2009-01-22T23:59:00.004-06:00

I don't know what to think about this video. I see the point they are trying to get across, but I don't know that they made it in the best way. They are obviously trying to comment on the common point of view that a child who will grow up poor is better off never being born, but I don't know that Barak Obama was the best choice. After all he is a man who supports abortion very vocally.

I've watched this video a few times now, and my initial reaction really hasn't changed; I felt uncomfortable with it, and it left a bad taste in my mouth. I like the idea, but I'm not sure they made their point in a very concrete way. The organization who made the video is Catholic Vote, but when their logo flashed up at the end, I wondered if they were trying to say Catholics should vote Obama, or, well I'm not sure what. The idea of the video is good, but in the end its presentation seems off and unclear. At the end of the video I'm left wondering exactly what their message is. And I know this organization is pro-life, but I've been to their website before. I'm not sure that the average person seeing that video is going to go to their webpage after watching the video, so I don't know that they are really getting their point across.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

I'm sorry for the short post tonight- it's been a crazy day. Also, I'm going to be on the road this weekend dealing with some family stuff, so I may not post tomorrow. Fresh posts on Monday at the latest though! Have a great weekend.

An Open Letter to Tolerance

2009-01-21T20:47:00.002-06:00

My Dear Friend Tolerance:

I don't know where you have gone, but I'm asking, nay, begging you to please come back to this world. I fear something terrible must have happened to you because I know that you would never let such atrocities be committed in your name if you were able to speak out. Your name has been co-opted by your most evil cousin Intolerance. He is using your proud name to push down and aside all those laboring to share conservative values with the world. For example, if someone dares to suggest that killing children while they grow inside their mother's womb, Intolerance cries out your name and says those people are not Tolerating the different viewpoints this modern world needs to allow for. He also smacks down anyone who dares to suggest that perhaps all this "progress" is dangerous for the entire world. Many times these voices crying out for the unborn are timid, quiet voices, just gaining the courage to speak. And in your name Intolerance shouts them down and drowns them out.

You may be wondering what if I can give you examples, but there are so many, I almost don't know where to start. However, today I learned exactly where I need to start. I need to start on a university campus in Saskatchewan. It may be small and insignificant in the grand order of things, but it is my campus and my home. At a University Student's Council meeting (a perfidious, dangerous place) a friend of Intolerance (who happens to work for one of Intolerance's chief disciples, the Woman's Center) got up to speak in your name. She asked the council to deny the campus pro-life group the right to host a Silent No More Awareness Campaign because such an event is "systemized harassment that should not be tolerated." In her mind, such an event displays a level of discrimination akin to intolerant White Supremacist groups. She then went on to accuse the pro-life group of refusing to show up at meetings to discuss previous harassment complaints for intolerant behavior. The worst part of all this my friend? It's that the pro-life group had no idea such a motion was even going to come before the Council, so they were not there to defend themselves. They had to find out when they read the campus newspaper. Such terrible allegations were printed for all the campus community to read, with the pro-life group given no change to respond.

Had they been given a chance, you can be assured they would have explained that first and foremost, a university campus is to be a tolerant place where different ideas and viewpoints can be discussed in a calm reasoned matter, without calling groups names and casting aspersions on their character. They then would have stated that they were aware of the complaints, and that they made every effort to set up a mutually agreeable meeting time, but that their e-mails were sometimes not responded to, and that as far as they know, no meeting was ever set, so how could they possibly have failed to show up? And finally, they would have said that they are guaranteed freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You see where this is going don't you my friend? This group is being accused of intolerant behavior, when really, it is the people who are trying to shut them down that are intolerant. In their world, people with dissenting opinions have no place speaking out. Instead of dealing directly with the arguments, the forces that oppose them cry out in your name that these groups are intolerant, bigoted and even racist. What happened to the marketplace of ideas?

Oh Tolerance, I fear that until you return to claim your rightful place back, Intolerance will rule and dissenters will be shut down. Please come back soon; I realize now that growing up, I didn't realize how lucky I was to have you protecting me. I miss you.

Most sincerely yours,

Sarah, a Catholic Law Student

P.S.- When you come, please ask Honesty, Dignity and Respect to return with you. You have no idea how much we need all of you.

And so it begins

2009-01-20T22:30:00.002-06:00

Today the United States inaugurated its 44^th President. Barak Obama was sworn in as President accompanied by much fanfare. While I am not American, I can't help but follow the story of Obama that has just begun to unfold in the US. The US is the only superpower in the world right now, so the man who leads it will come under much scrutiny. Had I been American, I would not have voted for Obama, for a variety of reasons, chief among them being that Obama seems to be the most anti-life leader ever elected in North America. He has promised to pass FOCA (the Freedom of Choice Act) as soon as he can, and his views on life scare me. He can do a lot of damage in 4 years, and even more if he is re-elected.

I don't think Obama will live up to everyone's expectations. No one can live up to the hype that currently surrounds Obama. He is being hailed by some almost as if they believe he is the second coming of Christ. He is not. He is only human, as weak and sinful as any of us. He's already backing off from some of the promises he made in the election campaign; for example the Guantanamo Bay situation. For whatever reason, he has realized that the situation in Gitmo is not as simple as he thought. We can only hope that he will realize that with many of his extreme positions, because a lot of people could die if he maintains them.

I choose to believe that the worst won't happen. Why? Because if we fear Obama as much as we should (and I think we do) we will all spend more time in prayer, lifting up life issues to God. With prayer all things are possible, and so we need to pray. The novena against FOCA which ends today is just the start. We need to be praying for Obama's conversion and change of heart, and we need to be praying for the unborn, the weak and the vulnerable more now than ever before. I hope you will all join me in adding an intention for the United States, and its leaders especially to your daily prayers.

Tonight, as the United States comes under a new administration, I hope you will all join me in praying, "God Bless the U.S.A."

Of Left and of Right

2009-01-19T13:54:00.002-06:00

It struck me today as I was reading through my various news sources that we have become a world that politicizes everything. Maybe this is just the way the world has always been, but today is the first day that I really thought about it. What I mean is, we take every story and idea and look at it and report on it through the lens of politics, the lens of left and right, rather than just looking at the facts and coming to our own conclusions about what those facts mean.

For example, let's look at global warming, or climate change, as we are to call it now. Our governments spend billions on attempting to reduce CO2 emissions with the hope that it will somehow stop global warming. However if anyone stops to ask if we can actually link CO2 emissions to rising temperatures, or, heaven forbid if global warming is even happening, people jump down their throat quicker than you can say "Ice Age." Invariably such people, regardless of their credentials are attacked for being right wing whackos in the pocket of mega-corporations. The same things happen when a scientist publishes or tries to publish any research that might deny the climate change theory. Why? Because people stand to make money off of the global warming fear mongering.

Another example is the ongoing embryonic stem cell debate. Some scientists claim that embryonic stem cells and embryonic stem cells alone are the only way to find a cure for things like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. And yet, in the decade or so that we've been working with stem cells, embryonic ones have given humanity exactly 0 treatments or potential treatments, while adult and cord stem cells have helped in the creation of numerous therapies; including the potential to regrow teeth. A recent report says that scientists have concluded that embryonic stem cells are of no use in fighting Alzheimer's, but that report is not making it out into the public sphere. Why? Because the embryonic stem cell community likes the advocacy and public opinion that goes with having Nancy Regan as a spokeswomen. That kind of advocacy draws in funding dollars. So what if it won't ever cure Alzheimer's, people will donate money that will help find other cures.

Recent press releases by the Vatican have been the victim of this politicization as well. Take Pope Benedict's 2008 year end address where he was accused of being homophobic and stroking the fires of homophobia. The actual text of his words received very little airtime; the reporting was on the shock, outrage and betrayal that the homosexual community felt as a result of his remarks. People spoke of the church needing to get with the times.

Take the current love-fest with the upcoming Obama inauguration. From the hype everyone is making about it, you'd think the Savior was returning. From the media coverage, I almost expect Obama to heal the sick and give sight to the blind. It's as though the man is singlehandedly going to fix every single problem the world has- and he's going to do it all on the day he's inaugurated.

I could go on with examples, but I think this is sufficient to make my point. Take any current event, and look at the coverage of that event by various new sources. I guarantee that you will find some form of spin in it; spin designed with the purpose of politicizing events so that, I think, we all take sides against each other. The media has a big role to play in this. They no longer report the news; they report opinion and slant the facts to fit their editorial bent. I have no problem with that, done in the context of the Opinion pages of the newspaper; we know that what is published there is not passing itself off on news, but when it's done (as it is regularly) in the news section, the media does us all a disservice. Why does everything have to be filtered and placed along the left/right spectrum? With a few rare exceptions, the media is left wing. Their coverage of everything is slanted to the left. Humans are smart; we are more than capable of reading something and drawing our own conclusions. And yet the media insists on making everything on the left sound like its heaven sent and everything on the right is going to destroy the world?

Before I go much further, I want to recognize that some in the right are just as guilty as some in the left, myself included. As soon as I hear a report that says the polar ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising, or that embryonic stem cells are the miracle cure for all our ailments, or that the pope has revealed himself to be a homophobe, or that Obama is going to raise the US back to the level of respect it had pre-Bush, or anything along those lines, my immediate thought is to dismiss it as "lefty crap." It's as though the first thing I do when reading something is identify the author's particular slant, decide the article is left wing crap, or God's honest truth and then I read the article, with those biases firmly in place.

Even as I write this, a part of me (the non-law side) wants to just say it must be lefty crap and leave it at that. Yet, after almost 3 years in law, I find I can't just do that, much as I might like to. The common law model of law (which Canada, the US, Britain, Australia and some other countries use) is an adversarial model. We are taught that each side will advocate for its own position as zealously as possible, and the trier of fact (either the jury or the judge) will look at the evidence on both sides and come to a conclusion about what really happened; what the truth is. Justice is supposed to be blind (trust me, it's not) but that is the ideal that we want to live up to.

However, I don't believe anyone can ever fully put their biases aside when making decisions. Anyone who tells you they can is lying, naïve or a lefty. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it does mean that we have to recognize our biases, and we should candidly admit to them, so that our audience knows where we are coming from. I really realized this when listening to my little sister (she's 13) talk about politics the other night. She spoke eloquently about her political beliefs, but she couldn't defend them. She had no arguments to back them up. And I think that's partially my fault. I spend a lot of time talking about how the left is destroying this country, but I don't give her the background. She loves and trusts me, and as a result, my political beliefs have become her political beliefs, without her really understanding what they mean. I think the same thing happened to me as a child; my dad talked politics, and I love and trust him, so I adopted what he said. It wasn't until I came to university and I really had to defend them that I learned what they meant; what the values behind them actually stand for. I think that is just a part of growing up; just like an infant learning to talk- we learn by repeating what we hear, and over time we come to understand what we have been repeating, and then we either accept it, or we don't.

In some ways I think the media is still the child parroting back what it has heard at home. Until you are secure in, and understand the reasons for, your beliefs, you can't step up and say, "I am a social conservative, a Catholic and an advocate of small government; what most people would term right wing" (fill in your own political persuasions here) and I believe x because…" For a real discussion or dialogue to occur, you have to be able to identify yourself in terms that the rest of the world can relate to. Those terms may not be as precise as you would like, but they give others a frame of reference to understand your point of view. The media is still a child because they can't, or won't do this yet. They still claim to be unbiased when they are really a cheerleading squad for their beliefs. And until they grow up, we will be stuck with this left wing/right wing lens being placed on all events they cover.

I guess what I'm saying is question everything anyone says; break it down; identify biases (including your own) and then come to your own conclusion and be prepared to back them up. If you know why you believe what you do, no one can beat you in a debate. They will be reduced to name calling to try to make your point go away, because you are secure in who you are, and they don't know what to do with that.

Of Broken Hearts and Shattered Dreams

2009-01-16T21:16:00.002-06:00

This week in the tunnel (the place where campus clubs can set up displays) SHIP (the student health initiative program) set up its display on how to keep you life balanced while at school. This group does many laudable things including giving students tips on de-stressing, eating properly and cheaply, and staying fit. However, their biggest focus (from what I can see; I've never used their services) is on "sexual health" and that bothers me, especially since my tuition dollars go to fund this organization (and I have no choice but to pay these fees.)

The goal of their sexual health services is to keep university students healthy by teaching them "safe sex" methods, giving STD information and helping students find the "right contraception for you." Obviously as a Catholic I have serious moral issues with that, but that's not what I want to talk about with this post. I recently ran across this article talking about the "Hook-up Culture" on campuses. The premise of the article is that scientific evidence can demonstrate the severe psychological impact of "no-strings sex" on college age people. The article suggests that rising infidelity among young couples can be directly traced to the years of casual sex that occur for many people in the college years. From the article:

"There are many possible explanations for that shift, but the habits of heart cultivated by today's hook-up culture qualify as a leading culprit. It's hard to imagine better preparation for adultery than years of emotionally detached, random sexual couplings. And the "marriage-lite" solution embraced by growing numbers of cohabiting young couples -- many of whom are refugees from the hook-up culture and too skittish for marriage -- may exacerbate the problem, as the temporary mindset they learn in their live-in romances transfers to their marriages."

I've been on a university campus for the last 6 years and I can attest to the hook-up culture that permeates college life. From what I've seen in law, and from what I've heard from friends in other professional colleges (med, vet med, etc) that hook-up culture gets worse the longer you spend at university. It also seems to be correlated with the amount of alcohol consumed- the more you drink, the more casual sex you have. I fear for my generation every time I attend a law school event. It's a small college, and on Monday gossiping about who hooked up with who is the thing to do. I've also seen the physical and mental harm this behavior causes. Friends nurse broken hearts when they find out their boyfriend cheated on them Friday night because they were here and he got drunk and didn't realize what he was doing. I've seen friends cry because they guy they hooked up with never called them back and ignores them whenever they try to talk to him. I have no idea what the long term effect of this will be on their psyche, but as the article says "emerging consensus among experts that today's anything-goes campus sexual mores carry lasting consequences we only have begun to understand. And those consequences extend well beyond unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases." I don't want that to be true for my friends, but I think it might be.

And yet, as this article mentions at the very bottom, there is hope. Some of my generation are rebelling against this culture of hook-up sex and booty calls by creating campus groups that pledge chastity. The founders and members of those groups are decidedly countercultural, but they bring great hope and joy to me. I don't want to see my friends and family ruin their lives and marriages because society tells them that casual sex is harmless fun. In some ways, the rebels of my generation are formed directly out of the rebels of my parents generation (the sexual revolution generation). We have seen the results of the free-love ways of our parents, and we don't like them. Many grew up with parents who fought then finally divorced, or parents who committed adultery or parents who just weren't there. Consciously or unconsciously we've recognized that sex for the sake of sex doesn't make you happy, and so we refuse to buy into society's "safe sex" message. And just as we have to fight the pro-life revolution and be witnesses and examples, we need to do the same in our personal lives.

I thank God that we have that chance, and I pray we will be successful, for our sake and the sake of our children.

Autism and the Culture of Death

2009-01-15T19:13:00.002-06:00

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

I’m stunned; I really don’t know what to say after reading this article in the Daily Mail (UK) today. The title of the article says it all: “Why can't we face the truth? Having an autistic child wrecks your life”

The author of the article, Carol Sarler recounts the story of her friends, Cath and John and their son Tom, who is autistic. According to Sarler everyone who comes in contact with Tom, including Tom himself has their life destroyed. She outlines how Tom’s autism affects his parents, grandparents and friends and comes to the conclusion that everyone, including Tom would be better off if Tom had never been born. Don’t take it from me; read her final words:

“But looking on, as a relatively dispassionate observer; looking at the damage done, the absence of hope and the anguish of the poor child himself, do I think that everyone concerned would have been better off if Tom's had been a life unlived?
Unequivocally, yes”

Why does this sound so familiar? Oh yeah, because it’s the same argument that is used to advocate for euthanasia, assisted suicide, sex-selected and eugenic abortions. I probably shouldn’t be surprised by this. Autism is yet another condition that makes some people “different” and because they are different and don’t fit our preconceived notions of how humans should function, we are all better off if they don’t exist.

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t want to trivialize the difficulties that parents with autistic children face; I am sure it is hard, but just because something is hard doesn’t mean that we need to destroy it. What I find even more disturbing about the article is that the author is advocating for a pre-natal test for autism that would allow children suspected of having autism to be aborted. We already have a test like that for Down’s syndrome. The result is that 90% of fetus’s suspected of having Down’s are aborted. But then, what can you expect when people like Ms. Sarler think children with autism are better of never having been born.

I’ve always thought that before you can debate someone, you need to understand their perspective and try to see where they are coming from, but try as I might I cannot wrap my head around the idea that any person is better off never having lived. How can you say that? To say that is to say that existence is unimportant and to deny beauty of life in all its forms.
What perhaps worries me the most is the comments found at the end of the article. Most are supportive of the article. Those who were not supportive generally liked the idea of a genetic test for autism. The comments that speak about the sacredness of life and how every life is worth living are few and far between, and the voting system on the comments generally shows those comments to be viewed negatively by other readers.

It’s so very sad that this is the level our society has come down to. God have mercy on us all.

And the Truth is Revealed

2009-01-14T23:33:00.002-06:00

Very interesting news out of the US today. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is suing the US government because it gave federal dollars to the US Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to aid in their effort to end human trafficking around the world. (See the story here and here.) Why are they getting upset with a charity that does a lot of good work around the world to aid women and children who are sold into sexual slavery? Oh, for the obvious reasons; because the USCCB is imposing its religious views and that outweighs any good that they can be doing.

The ACLU's specific complaint is that because the USCCB doesn't provide contraception or abortion support, they should not be given any federal money for what they are doing. Apparently when helping women who are victims of sex trafficking, an organization should provide a "full range of services." Oh, but wait- the ACLU doesn't think these women should be given spiritual counseling because that might impose religious views on them. So much for a full range of services. The ACLU's other complaint is that by giving funds to a group that has a religious background, the government is violating the rules on separation of church and state.

Let's break this down.

First, the ACLU is upset because of the violation of the separation of church and state. I am not an American legal scholar, but I don't see how this is a violation of church and state. The Catholic Church is not imposing its views on the US government- to be doing that, they'd have to say they wouldn't accept the money unless the government changed its laws on abortion and contraception. That's not what they are doing. The government allocates a certain number of dollars to fight human trafficking, and because they can't do everything themselves (nor should they try to) they give the money to organizations who can best help the victims. Where is state sovereignty violated by the church in this?

Second, they want a full range of services offered. I know the ACLU is a left wing radical organization and I can't expect much logic from them, but studies have demonstrated that women who have abortions suffer higher levels of depression and mental illness than women who do not. Add to that the physical trauma of abortion on top of the mental and physical trauma they have already suffered as sex slaves, why should abortion be offered? What possible benefit can it have to these women? They have already been victimized; there is no need to victimize them again in the name of helping them.

Third, why should the Catholic Church have to change her beliefs to do the work (helping those in need) they have been doing for millennia? I think the church has the whole offering comfort and security thing down now. It has been offering aid and comfort for far longer than the ACLU or even the US has been around.

We all know why they are doing this. They want to force their radical agenda of abortion on everyone at all costs; even the health of the women they are supposedly trying to protect. I know the tone of this post has been sarcastic (I'm sorry) but I just don't understand organizations like the ACLU. The USCCB is doing good; it's taking care of women. There are many organizations I can think of that combat AIDS in Africa who think condoms are the way to go. I disagree with them, but you don't see me suing the government.

Throughout the world, the Catholic Church is one of the largest aid and relief organizations there is. Does the ACLU really care about these women so little that they would rather see the Church step out of giving aid? Because that's what will happen. It's happened in Massachusetts already; when Catholic adoption agencies were told they had to place children with homosexual couples, they closed their doors rather than violate the teachings of Christ. But I guess relativists can't understand anyone or any organization that places principles and morality above everything else.

Sadly, I think the ACLU (and organizations like it) would rather see the Church stop helping and let people die than turn and look critically at their reasoning. And that's what frustrates me the most about stories like this. Churches are perfectly positioned to help victims, but a society led by moral relativists won't let them help. God have mercy on us all.

92% of Canadians Don’t Know the Law

2009-01-13T23:26:00.002-06:00

… on abortion that is. According to a recent Angus Reid poll, 92% of Canadians don't know that abortion is legal over the whole 9 months of pregnancy in Canada. (Read the story here.)Unfortunately, this doesn't surprise me in the least. Most people I've spoken to about abortion don't believe me when I say there is no law on abortion in Canada, and that Canada is the only country in world that has no law on abortion. The pro-choicers I'm speaking with generally come back with a story about a woman they know who couldn't get an abortion because the doctor said he/she couldn't after 20/22/24 weeks. While those stories may be true (a lot of doctors refuse to do abortions after 20 weeks and especially after the child is viable), they don't change the fact that there is no law on abortion in Canada.

This poll also confirmed another suspicion I've had for some time- that Canadians don't want abortion to be available on demand for the entire 9 months of pregnancy. For example, only 6% of the poll's respondents believed a woman should be able to have an abortion of the child is of the sex they don't want (generally female children are targeted by sex-selected abortion). 95% of respondents felt women should be given full disclosure on all options available to them. And 95% said information about physical side effects of abortion should be given. 96% said information about the psychological effects of abortion should be given.

And yet, in Canada, sex selected abortions are legal. There is no law saying that a woman has to be informed of all her options. No law says information on physical and psychological effects of abortion need to be given. Many women who ask about side effects are told that abortion is completely harmless and that there will be no long lasting effects. They aren't told of the possible increased risk of breast cancer, or the danger to their future fertility. They aren't told that they can suffer significant psychological harm- such that they are at increased risk of suicide, depression and addiction.

And yet, a June 2008 poll by Angus Reid showed that 46% of Canadians are in favour of the legal status quo on abortion. What does this mean then? It seems to fly in the face of the results of this poll. I think it means a couple of things. First, Canadians are uniformed about abortion. We get so much of our news and entertainment from the US that in many cases we assume what's going on in the US must be what's going on in Canada. Second, it means that the pro-life movement in Canada needs to step it up. We need to get information out there so people know what the law is. An uniformed public is the greatest danger unborn children face because the uninformed will vote based on what they think is the law, not what is the law. Misinformation is a huge danger. 46% of Canadians favour the law on abortion (meaning no law) staying the same, and yet 92% don't know what the law is.

We can win the battle for the hearts and minds of our fellow Canadians if we simply inform them. The pro-life movement has science on its side- we can prove that the unborn is a human being. As a human being, the child is entitled to full human rights protections. The fact that the law currently allows for indiscriminate killing of human life is a violation of human rights. If we simply present the facts, we can, at the very least, get people thinking. If they start thinking, they will start talking to others, and in that way, lives can be saved.

In Canada 300 children are aborted per day (Stats Can figures). 92% of Canadians don't know the law around why they are aborted. It's time to start speaking out everyone. I challenge you- every time you talk to someone about abortion, ask them if they know the law. If they say they do, ask them what they think it is. If they are wrong, (politely) inform them of the truth. Here's a quick summary of the legal status of abortion in Canada:

Until 1969 abortion was illegal in Canada; then the Criminal Code was changed to allow abortion when it threatened the health of the mother, but a legislative scheme was enacted to require any woman wanting an abortion to see a panel of doctors who would determine if the pregnancy threatened her health
In 1988, R. v. Morgentaler was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada; in this 5-4 decision the court struck down the 1969 Criminal Code provision on abortion as unconstitutional because it violated the mother's s. 7 Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person
This decision wiped out the only law in Canada on abortion, making it so that there is no law in Canada on abortion
There have been no laws enacted on abortion since the 1969 provision was struck down; there is no law on abortion in Canada.

An Op-ed by Liberal Catholics

2009-01-12T21:50:00.002-06:00

I ran across an article that was published in The Seattle Times last week, and just about screamed in anger and frustration when it was done. Read the article here. Granted, it is an opinion piece, and I believe that everyone has a right to their opinion, but I do not approve of the way it was presented. It was written by two Seattle "Catholics" (in quotations because while they may have been baptized into the church, they clearly don't know what the church stands for) who use the article to complain about Catholic priests and bishops who spoke out against Prop 8 and I-1000 in the last US election.

From the article:

Yet some church leaders use their positions of ecclesiastical authority to threaten members of their faith community if they do not vote the way the leaders assert is the morally right way. In notable instances, the threat is that Catholics will be denied access to the sacraments, typically the Holy Eucharist. We think these are nothing more than raw attempts at bullying. The result is that many Catholics simply ignore the bishops who, in turn, complain they have lost influence.

*** *** ***

Instead of threats, Catholic bishops should encourage dialogue. Instead of pontificating moral certitudes, Catholic bishops ought to encourage conversations among the wide spectrum of views that populate their parish pews — or would populate them were the church known for its tolerance rather than for its rigid adherence to questionable dogma.

*** *** ***

We understand the Church has been administered like a monarchy for centuries. But, if the American bishops expect their fellow Catholics to accept their leadership on matters of public policy, then they must respect those among the faithful who, in good conscience, have formed their own differing views.

*** *** ***

Why? Are any of us so certain of the truth of our position on political questions that we cannot tolerate the input from our brothers and sisters of faith?

Or, do bishops and church leaders fear dialogue and discussion as posing a risk to unchecked authority?

Retired Superior Court Judge Terrence Carroll, left, served as chair of the Seattle Archdiocese panel on clergy abuse. Sam Sperry served as an editor at the Seattle P-I and on the Washington State Catholic Conference Board. Both are lifelong Catholics educated here in Catholic schools.

I really don't know where to begin to take this op-ed apart. It has so many falsehoods and misunderstandings it it's a wonder that the paper published it. Let's deal with the bullying allegation first. For Catholics, they have a very poor understanding of the theology behind the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, and as we say before we receive it "we are not worthy to receive You, but only say the word and we shall be healed." No Catholic in a state of mortal sin should receive the Eucharist. This isn't limited to politicians- it's true of any Catholic in a state of mortal sin. It's not bullying, it's teaching the faithful the way they are supposed to. When parents tell their children no and state they will take away TV privileges or ground the child if the child persists in the behavior, it's not bullying, it teaching. Same thing with the bishops.

To deal with the allegation that the pews would be filled if the church was "tolerant" I'm going to use a quote a quote I took from Fr. Phillip's blog some months ago. "The Catholic Church owes no one a revision of her doctrine or dogma. She didn't change to save most of Europe from becoming Protestant, why would you imagine that she would change just to get you in one of her parishes?" The truth can't be changed just because it isn't popular. And last time I looked, it's the orthodox Catholic parishes and seminaries that are bursting at the seams and the flaky, don't preach the truth parishes that are empty.

I love how the authors pick and chose terms from Catholic theology, then warp them to suit their purposes. Case in point- "good conscience." Yes, Catholics are to develop a good conscience, but that conscience can only be formed by learning from the teachings of the Church and the scriptures. No good conscience can form views that differ from the truth.

The bishops don't "fear" anything- why would they- their Redeemer died over 2000 years ago on a cross. The only thing they have to do- the only thing anyone has to do- to achieve eternal life in heaven is preach the Truth. That's why they speak out- not from fear, but from concern for the souls of all the faithful. They would endanger their souls by NOT speaking up. Priests are only human and all the priests I know are more than happy to have a dialogue and discuss issues with their parishioners. Most of them wish their parishioners would dialogue with them on moral issues so they can discuss the Truth with them. The authors of the article seem to assume that discussion necessarily means that the priests will turn their back on the Truth they have based their lives on. And yet, the clergy are the intolerant ones. Huh.

The Catholic Church teaches Truth, plain and simple. It may disturb the relativists to no end, but that's all there is. The Church was established by Christ, and has steadfastly taught what he preached for over 2000 years. Just because you don't like the truth, doesn't make it any less the truth.

I'm so sick of these liberal Catholics trying to change the church to suit them. If you don't like it, leave. We don't force you to stay, and I can't understand why someone who doesn't believe what the Church teaches would want to stay. And, since the rest of the world is all to ready to accept criticisms of the church, you shouldn't call yourself Catholic if you really aren't.

I will leave you with one final thought from my patron saint, Joan of Arc. "One life is all we have and we live it as we believe in living it. But to sacrifice what you are and to live without belief, that is a fate far more terrible than dying."

Judicial Activism Strikes a Second Time in Montana

2009-01-09T20:40:00.002-06:00

Last December, a Montana District Court judge legalized assisted suicide in the state of Montana. (See my post on that here.) On Wednesday, the same judge refused to issue a stay of the decision pending the outcome of an appeal to the Montana Supreme Court. (A stay would prevent the decision from coming into effect until the appeal was decided on.) The Attorney General for Montana requested that the decision be suspended pending appeal. (See story here.)

However, traditionally in the court system, controversial decisions are stayed until the higher court makes a decision on it. By ignoring that, Judge Dorothy McCarter is deciding that she has the right to force on Montanan's whatever she wants, irrespective of precedent or the rule of law. The people of Montana have not voted to legalize assisted suicide, and the elected legislature has not passed a law permitting assisted suicide- this one woman had made that decision for the entire state! If that doesn't smack of judicial activism, what does?

So, as of last Wednesday, the people of Montana have a "right" to assisted suicide. These are dark, dark days for Montana. Unlike Oregon and Washington who can at least claim to have some safeguards to protect vulnerable people (though we know how well those work) this decision by Judge McCarter provides for no safeguards, no process by which they can even claim to attempt to protect vulnerable people. Until and unless the Montana Supreme court throws out this decision, the elderly and persons with disabilities in Montana are in great danger from their doctors and even their families. If you are tired of dealing with Mom's dementia, and convince her doctor (or, her doctor convinces you) Mom can be put down like a dog, thanks to Judge McCarter. No one can ask any questions about why it happened, or if Mom even requested it, because according to Baxter v. Montana, physician assisted suicide is legal. Feeling the pinch of the recession, and tired of waiting for your inheritance and Dad lives in Montana? No problem, just have the doctor do away with Dad and that inheritance is yours, courtesy of Judge McCarter and Baxter v. Montana. Maybe you don't have a desire to see the vulnerable members of your family killed, but are you sure about your doctor?

I am sure that some of you who just read that paragraph are now thinking I am, at the very least exaggerating and very possibly just trying to stir up the pot. Nothing could be farther from the truth. These sorts of things happen routinely in jurisdictions that have legalized assisted suicide (and even in jurisdictions that haven't.) It was reported yesterday that Martin Ryan was starved to death over 26 days while staying in a hospital. Oh, and he had Down's syndrome. In the UK a few weeks ago, two paramedics responded to the equivalent of a 911 call from Barry Baker having a heart attack. Mr. Baker was also disabled. He collapsed before they arrived, but the line to the 911 service was still recording. That tape picked up the paramedics saying that he was "not worth saving." They decided (and remember, this was recorded) that they would just tell the hospital he was dead when they arrived.

We in the Western world live in a society where the culture of death reigns supreme. Judge McCarter's actions show that she is a member of the culture of death and will do whatever is necessary, even defying tradition and precedent to ensure her ideology wins out. That is not the role of the judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law made by the duly elected legislature/parliament/commons/congress of the land. They are not to make law, and yet that is exactly what Judge McCarter has done.

The deaths that will come in Montana as a result of her decision are directly attributable to her, but she will face no consequences here on Earth for it. Instead she will be, and is being, lauded for her bold and courageous decision.

What a sick, sick world.

H/t to Disability Matters and Secondhand Smoke

Novena to Stop FOCA

2009-01-08T23:58:00.002-06:00

Our friends in the United States will begin this year by inaugurating a new president, Barak Obama. Based on Mr. Obama's previous record, it seems certain that he will be the most anti-life president the US has ever seen. Before his election, he promised a Planned Parenthood group that the first thing he would do as president is pass the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). He will be inaugurated January 20, 2009. This act will result in the cancellation of all laws regarding abortion- essentially the US law on abortion will become the same as Canada; abortion on demand for the entire 9 months of pregnancy. I received an e-mail today which stated that FOCA will also:

Require all hospitals (including Catholic or faith based ones) to perform abortion on request. The US Bishops have vowed to close all Catholic hospitals if this occurs, rather than participate in abortion. Currently, Catholic hospitals make up more than 30% of all hospitals in the US.
Allow partial birth abortions
All abortions would be taxpayer funded
Parental notification laws (which require parents to be informed that their minor daughters are having abortions) would be abolished
It is expected that the number of abortions in the US will increase by at least 100,000 annually as a result of the passage of FOCA
The government will control the issue of abortion, which could lead to future amendments forcing women by law to have abortions in certain situations (rape, Down syndrome babies, etc.) and could even regulate how many children women are allowed to have.

This bill is horrifying, and could potentially go further than even Canada's loose laws have with abortion. To read the full text of FOCA, go here.

However, we must not lose hope. The e-mail is part of a campaign encouraging people to pray to prevent FOCA, and a novena is going to be said to prevent its passage.

From the email:

The Plan:

To say a novena (9 days of prayer) along with fasting starting on January 11th. For Catholics, the prayer of choice will be the rosary with intentions to stop the FOCA. For non-Catholics I encourage you to pray your strongest prayers with the same intentions, also for nine consecutive days. The hope is that this will branch and blossom as to become a global effort with maximum impact. We have very little time so we all must act fast. Just do three things:

1. Pass this letter to 5 or more people.
2. Do it in three days or less.
3. Start the novena on January 11th and pray for nine consecutive days. (Please also fast for at least two days during the novena.)

Remember that with God all things are possible and the power of prayer is undeniable. If you are against the senseless killing of defenseless children then the time is now to do something about it! Please, if you are a Christian, I pray you will see the light to help stop all this evil! May God bless you all!

I ask you to all take part in this novena. For more information on FOCA, check out these links:
http://www.nrlc.org/foca/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act
http://www.fightfoca.com/
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/FOCA/index2z.shtml
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/FOCA/FOCA_FactSheet08.pdf

And please, keep praying!

The “Pill”

2009-01-07T22:32:00.004-06:00

According to a report published in L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican newspaper) earlier this week, the pill is rendering men infertile.

Since the introduction of the "pill" millions of women around the world have begun to take artificial hormones to prevent pregnancy (estimated at 100 million women). As a result, Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, President of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations says the pill releases tones of hormones into nature through the urine of women taking the pill. The result is environmental pollution leading to male infertility. (See the story here.) Immediately after the story was released, several organizations (including contraceptive research groups) denied it stating that once metabolized, the hormones lose their female characteristics.

But this isn't the first time that the pill has been accused of having detrimental effects on men. The Aberdeen Fertility Center (not Catholic) found female hormones lowered sperm count in British men, and another study showed that men have developed mammary breast tissue usually found only in women. (See story here.) There are also studies showing that hormones released in female urine from the pill are adversely affecting aquatic life in Canadian rivers and lakes. Other studies show that the pill causes early onset puberty in girls.

While I titled this post rather facetiously, I want to ask a serious question. If, as our society claims, we want to do thing naturally so we don't harm planet earth, why are we telling women they need to get on the pill? If these levels of estrogen are seriously harming aquatic life (to the extent that some rivers have trans-gendered fish) what are they doing to the women who are directly ingesting the pill? The list of potential side effects of the pill are absolutely horrifying. We don't accept some of the side effects in life saving medications, and yet the pill- which has no medical benefit whatsoever- is handed out to women like candy. Very few women are made aware of the potentially dangerous side effects of the pill; sure they are told they might gain weight and that their acne might clear up, but few are told they could be rendered infertile, or even die as a result of blood clots from the pill.

Even fewer women are told that the pill is actually an abortifacent- it causes chemical abortions. Watch the video at the top of this post- it explains how the pill works, and how it causes abortions. Fortunately for the medical community, they don't need to tell women it causes abortions because according to their definition of pregnancy, a woman is not pregnant until the embryo implants in the womb. (Conveniently they changed the definition of pregnancy in the 1980's from conception to implantation to allow the pill to be approved- seriously, check out a medical textbook from the 1960's and today and compare the definitions of pregnancy).

Make no mistake- the pill is a form of abortion. A child that is conceived will be prevented from implanting in the womb, and as a result, it will be expelled in the menstrual process and die, with the mother never aware that she was pregnant.

But with this new report, it's clear that we aren't just aborting children and hurting women with the pill; we are also harming men, children and the environment. Why is such a dangerous pill allowed? Oh right, because it frees women. I forgot. All is forgiven then. As long as men and women can fornicate freely with no thought to the consequences, who cares what harm is caused? Silly me.

In all seriousness though, please send you friends and family the link to this video, and check out the science behind it. There are a lot of women who are on the pill who would be horrified to know that they could be aborting their own children. This is not an easy topic to broach with people (they tend to get defensive) but when raised in charity with no hint of judgment (after all many women are so misinformed by their doctors they don't know what they are doing) lives can be saved- and that is what's really important.

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen, what are you doing?

2009-01-06T22:58:00.002-06:00

Actually, I know what he's doing, but he's wrong to do it. On December 29, 2008 Conservative MP Rob Bruinooge wrote an opinion piece titled "Why I am pro-life" in the National Post. Bruinooge is the newly elected chair of the multi-party Parliamentary Pro-Life caucus in the Canadian Parliament. The piece is very simple- it outlines why he is pro-life. This article prompted Prime Minister Stephen Harper (the leader of the Conservative Party) to again state that his government would not introduce or support legislation on abortion.

I'm so disappointed in him. When the Harper conservatives were first elected, I was so excited. I thought it meant a real change for Canada; a return to traditional values.

I was naïve.

And I'm not anymore. While I still follow politics (mostly because I can't help it) I no longer love it, but I recognize the extreme influence and control politics has on society, so I stay involved. However, I have come to realize that there is no party in Canada that truly fits my values. The Conservatives are the closest, but they aren't perfect. But, back on topic.

Regardless of where Mr. Harper stands on abortion (and I honestly don't know where that is) he is taking the position he thinks is politically safest. He doesn't want to rock the boat and lose votes because he's still trying to get a majority government. He is willing to muzzle his MP's if he thinks their actions will do anything to cost him votes.

That is wrong, and for that reason I don't think he deserves to be Prime Minister. (Not that I think any of the other options are great.)

If you want to accomplish anything, let alone lead the country, you need to be willing to stand up for your beliefs. If you can't stand up for your beliefs (whatever they are) you can't have credibility or respect. However, politicians everywhere seem to think they can vacillate with popular opinion (and that seems to be working for them unfortunately) but we the people deserve better.

And what makes absolutely no sense to me is that poll after poll demonstrates that people DO NOT want unrestricted access to abortion. Even hard core pro-choicers I've spoken to mock the women who use abortions as a form of birth control. A poll was just done in the States that said 4 in 5 wanted at least some restrictions on abortion. Canada has no restrictions on abortion at all, and apparently Mr. Harper doesn't care at all.

Mr. Harper, please search your conscience and take a strong stance for life. Or, at the very least allow your MP's the freedom to do what their conscience tells them to do. I don't even know that it will cost you votes (it probably will) but maybe it will be such an innovation people will vote for you because you would be THE FIRST POLITITCIAN EVER to take a stand and hold to it no matter the cost, simply because it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO!!!

I wonder what the world would be like if we all did the right thing? Mmm, just imagine- and then pray, because that's the only way it will ever happen in reality.

PS- As a complete and total offside, it looks like I'm writing another 50 page paper this semester (long story) in Employment Law, and I need to come up with a topic. If you have any suggestions on how to incorporate life issues into Employment Law, send them my way! Thanks!

Wrapping up 2008

2009-01-05T13:04:00.003-06:00

We are now 5 days into the new year, and I have returned to the land of high speed. Before moving into new issues for 2009, I thought I'd update and wrap up a few issues I posted on in 2008.

Snowflake Children

Shortly after I wrote this post the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released Dignitas Personae which answers several vexing bioethical questions. One of those questions is the issue of embryo adoption. I stated in the post that until we had a clear answer from the Vatican, we were free to make a decision based on an informed conscience. Well, we now have an answer from the Vatican.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of "prenatal adoption". This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an "appeal to the conscience of the world's scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of 'frozen' embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons".39

As you might remember, my opinion was that snowflake adoption was a beautiful option that should be pursued. Obviously that position conflicts with the Church, and is therefore an untenable position to hold for any Catholic. As St. Augustine said "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" (Rome has spoken, the case is closed). It bothers me that there is a situation of injustice that can't be resolved. I am a problem solver; I like answers, but apparently this situation is a Catch-22. I certainly acknowledge that the theologians and bio-ethicists whose research and teachings have lead to this decision are far wiser than I, and I acknowledge their authority.

As a Catholic, it is my duty and my joy to accept the teachings of the church- all of them, whether or not I fully understand them. As the document acknowledges, I took my position with the intent to respect and defend human life. However, that position has serious moral problems, as the document articulates. I can understand those problems, and in all honesty, and recognized them before. However, my zeal to protect life meant I ignored the moral problems. I don't like that those children will be left in limbo, but we have to trust that God, in His infinite wisdom, will have mercy on them.

Euthanasia and Luxembourg

This post talks about Grand Duke Henri's courageous stance against euthanasia in his country. As a result of this stance, his constitutional right of veto has been stripped from him, leaving him a monarchical figurehead. It doesn't surprise me, but it does sadden me. However, I am very proud of the Duke for standing up for his beliefs. His example is one we should follow. Fighting for life is not an easy task, and we may all lose a lot. While the rest of us may not lose a country, we may face the loss of our jobs, the anger of our families and potentially lawsuits. But that doesn't mean that we should give up the fight. Quite the contrary.

If you remember you Catholic Teachings, the church is divided into three groups- the Church Penitent (those in purgatory) the Church Triumphant (those in heaven) and the Church Militant (those on earth). We are the Church Militant, and we have a duty to courageously defend life against all who would threaten it no matter the cost. Grand Duke Henri has reminded us, in a very poignant way that we are the Church Militant and we must fight. God Bless him for that stand.

While the law has not yet been enacted, by taking away the right of veto, it seems that Luxembourg is poised to become the 3^rd country to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Petition to the UN against Abortion

In October I asked you all to sign the petition that asks the UN to interpret the Declaration of Human Rights as protecting the unborn child. In December I noted that they had received 330,000 signatures. Well, it turns out that by the time they presented it to the UN, they had over 450,000 signatures. The petition asking the Declaration to be interpreted to guarantee abortion rights only had a few hundred signatures. C-FAM (who sponsored the petition) hopes to raise that total to one million signatures by next year. So, if you haven't signed, or if you know others who would sign it, you can do so here.

That's all for the updates. Beginning tomorrow the posts should all be on new issues in the legal and life spheres. God Bless and I hope you all had a holy Christmas season, and I hope you have a blessed New Year. Keep praying, because that's what we need to save the lives of the unborn, the disabled, the elderly and you and me!

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-15T22:37:00.002-06:00

I know, I know, it's not Christmas yet.

However, Christmas holidays are about to begin for me, and that means I will be returning home to the land of dial-up internet *shudder* I love my family very much, and I love being home with them even more, but they have yet to hop onto the "newfangled high speed internet train you city folks seem to like so much." I refuse to use dial-up; the wait drives me crazy.

So, this is the last post until I am back at school on January 5, 2009. I hope you will all start checking the blog again at that time.

As much as I wish it wouldn't, I know life and legal issues will be in the news over the next few weeks, so I invite you to check out lifesitenews.com daily for the latest happenings all over the world.

God Bless you all and have a holy and blessed Christmas season (and remaining Advent season too), and I will speak to you again in the new year.

My Mind is Still Reeling

2008-12-12T10:12:00.002-06:00

I woke up this morning to an e-mail laying out the practice of a London, ON Catholic hospital perform "early induction" abortions, and I just had to post it right away.

Early induction is used when a child in utero is determined to have a severe disability of some kind. The doctor induces labor at 21 weeks (when even a healthy child would have a very hard time surviving) and the child is allowed to die when it is born.

This is eugenics.

And there is credible evidence that it is occurring at at least 1 Catholic hospital.

This procedure goes directly against Catholic teachings on life, but Fr. Michael Prieur, the chief bio-ethicist at the hospital (and also a professor of Moral and Sacramental Theology at St. Peter's Seminary) claims the action is actually pro-life. Fr. Prieur stated that it's been going on at the hospital for 20 years. When asked, the Bishop of London refused to comment.

Obviously, unless I have all the details, I don't want to condemn anyone, but the evidence that Lifesite news has collected is very damning. Several people I respect, including Jim Hughes of Campaign Life Coalition, and Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, have spoken out against this. Don't take my word for it. Read the special report here.

If it's true, something needs to be done now to save the lives of children. I am asking all of you to take the time (I know it's busy right now) to write a letter to the Bishop of London, and the Cardinal Prefect for Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith (in Rome) asking them to investigate this allegation, and expressing your horror at the action if it proves to be true.

Also, please tell everyone you about this, and ask them to write a letter as well. (Snail mail tends to get more response than then e-mail, but do whatever you have time for)

Addresses:

Bishop Ronald Fabbro
Diocese of London
1070 Waterloo Street, London, Ontario N6A 3Y2
Phone: 519-433-0658 Fax: 519-433-0011
E-mail: info@rcec.london.on.ca

His Eminence William Cardinal Levada, S.T.D.
Cardinal Prefect Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith
Piazza del S. Uffizio 11
00193 Rome
Italy
email: cdf@cfaith.va
011 39 06 6988 3357
011-39-0696100596 FAX

Sadly, while I don't approve, I expect this from a secular hospital. I DO NOT expect it from a Catholic Hospital. I guess this just proves there are bad apples everywhere. When Catholic priests are practicing eugenics, and their Bishops have "no comment at this time" we are in trouble.

Mother Mary, pray for us, and pray for Fr. Prieur.

Just For Fun

2008-12-11T21:58:00.003-06:00

I've noticed that the tone of this blog has been rather depressing for the last little while. Also, I'm in the middle of finals right now, so I thought we could all use something to lighten the mood. This link is to a clip from The Daily Show with John Stewart from Monday, December 8. It's his take on the recent Parliamentary Crisis and I think it's absolutely hilarious.

Trust me; it will make you laugh so hard you cry.

Enjoy!

(As for me, it's back to studying… only 3 more finals to go! Enough procrastination!)

Fighting for the lives of our children

2008-12-10T18:31:00.002-06:00

As many of you know, I first became interested in researching euthanasia and assisted suicide as a result of my Disability and the Law class; specifically the paper I wrote on the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands that allows doctors to euthanize infants because of their disability. At the time, the Netherlands was the only country to allow the euthanization of children.

There is now disturbing news from Scotland that they want to join in the fun by allowing children the right to choose assisted suicide. Read the story here. Obviously they are not targeting directly, but the MSP (equivalent to a Canadian MP) proposing the assisted suicide legislation feels that since we allow children (at 12 years of age) in family law a say in which parent they want to live with after a divorce, children should also be allowed to choose assisted suicide.

What?

Yeah, that analogy made no sense to me either.

And, she goes further; since children with capacity who are under 12 are allowed a say in which parent they live with, we should extend the right to assisted suicide to those younger than 12 as well, if they are mentally competent to make that decision.

The bill begins by allowing terminally ill people the right to assisted suicide, but it goes farther by saying that "Assisted suicide would also be possible for patients who unexpectedly became incapacitated to an "intolerable" degree, or who simply find their life "intolerable" - although the latter case would require the doctor to seek a second opinion from another health professional."

Wait a minute.

You mean the terminally ill don't have to get a second opinion? As soon as they say "kill me" (with a mandatory 15 day cooling down period, but we've seen how well that's worked in other countries) they can die? No, no, no! Studies prove there is a link between depression and requesting/committing suicide. EVERYONE who requests suicide should not just get another medical opinion, but also psychiatric help to see if a) they are depressed and b) help them with their depression. Anything else is laziness on the part of medical professionals.

Scotland is a beautiful country (ranks at #1 for me) with a proud history and deserves much better than this from its politicians. (Much like every other country that has or is contemplating assisted suicide) The people of Scotland are wonderful, generous people who have bravely fought off evil doers in the past. I hope and pray there are still some brave souls in that country who will fight this new evil with the same courage that their ancestors fought off every invading force from the Romans to the British.

And I will leave you with a thought, from the Declaration of Abroath signed in 1320, which acted as a Declaration of Independence for the Scottish people in their fight against the British. It states "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." Yes my friends, that is what we are still fighting for; the freedom to live our lives.

Thanks for your signatures!

2008-12-09T23:25:00.002-06:00

About six weeks ago I blogged about the petition by C-FAM to have the UN interpret the Declaration of Human Rights as protecting unborn children from abortion. Lifesite news reports that they are presenting that petition tomorrow with 330,000 signatures. They think they will be presenting far more signatures than the pro-choice group who is hoping to enshrine abortion as a human right.

I want to thank everyone who signed the petition and who passed it onto others. This is what happens when we speak out. I truly believe that those who oppose abortion on demand are the majority, but far too often we are a silent majority. Petitions' like this are an easy way for us all to get involved in the protection of life. Keep your eyes out for opportunities and keep praying!

God Bless.

Montana Becomes 3rd State to Legalize Assisted Suicide

2008-12-08T22:42:00.004-06:00

Very bad news out of Montana this weekend- courtesy of an activist judge, Montana became the 3^rd state and the 6^th jurisdiction to legalize assisted suicide. Unlike Washington and Oregon however, Montana's legalization was done, not by the elected legislature (or the American equivalent) but by a judge deciding to reinterpret the law.

While my understanding of the American jurisprudential chain is limited at best, it is certain that this case will be appealed. Already there are groups preparing amicus briefs to start the appeal. I have been unable to find a copy of the decision to read for myself, but the decision was made by District Court Judge Dorothy McCarter. (As far as I understand the American legal system, the District Court is similar to our Federal Court Trial Division; they answer questions based on federal statutes.)

The action was brought on behalf of Richard Baxter, a terminally ill 75- year old man, 4 physicians and Compassion and Choices (formerly the Hemlock society). The ruling held that any mentally competent terminally ill residents of Montana have a right to "die with dignity." This includes the right to "obtain a prescription for a lethal dose of medication that the patient may take on his own if and when he decides to terminate his life."

Baxter actually compared himself to pets. "I've just watched people suffer so badly when they died, and it goes on every day. You can just see it in their eyes: 'Why am I having to go through this terrible part of my life, when we do it for animals? We put them out of their misery. I just feel if we can do it for animals, we can do it for human beings."

Obviously this man is suffering, but helping him to kill himself is not the answer. He says he is unbearable pain, but that is no reason to kill him. Instead of killing someone, let's try helping them; giving them good palliative care. Why are there 4 doctors fighting to help him kill himself instead of trying to treat him?

Today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Lets ask Mary to intercede for this world, because the news every week seems to be bleaker and bleaker.

UPDATE: (Tues 1:20pm) Richard Baxter died of leukemia before learning that the court had found in his favour See story here

Abandoned Children

2008-12-05T20:25:00.002-06:00

In our backwards society, people create embryos in Petri dishes for many reasons. One reason is a misguided effort to have children- parents who are unable to conceive naturally turn to In Vitro Fertilization. In this process, several children are conceived by uniting the egg and sperm. Some of those embryos are then implanted in the mother's womb, in the hope that one will implant and be carried to term. Make no mistake, conception is occurring in this process. I could speak about the fact that several embryos might implant and then the mother undergoes selective reduction abortion so she only carries one child to term, but I want to reflect on another part of the in vitro process- the extra embryos that are created and then frozen and stored in case the parents want to make use of them.

These embryos are children; but they are left in suspended animation, sometimes for years, while their parents decide what to do with them. Today, a report came out showing that the parents of these children are torn with what to do with the remaining embryos. In the survey of 1000 parents, 20% of the respondents indicated they were likely to keep their children frozen "forever." Other options for "disposal" (such a clinical term for ending a life) include donating the embryos to research, thawing them and then destroying, reproductive donation, implanting in the mother at an infertile time and a ritual disposal ceremony. One of the most horrific lines (to me) from the report is this "others [embryos are] cultured in a lab dish to let it flourish for a few moments before death."

This is one of the reasons the Catholic Church disapproves of in vitro- children are killed in the process; IVF is not a moral option for procreation. In the United States alone, almost half a million children are currently frozen as unwanted embryos. Many of these children will never have a chance at life, and some of them will be destroyed by their parents because they are no longer wanted. I don't understand how anyone can go through the IVF process knowing that some of their children will die. I wonder how many people who chose IVF actually understand what it means. I wonder how many people realize they are creating children- not potential children- but children, completely genetically different from the parents, that they will then kill, or leave suspended forever.

I have never been in the position of being unable to bear children, but should I ever face that, I think I would recognize how incredible selfish the IVF process is. With so many children who need loving homes, why can't parents just adopt? I know the adoption process is long and expensive, but then, so is IVF, and there is no moral issue with adoption.

One option that has been developed to deal with leftover embryos is a snowflake adoption. Through this, parents of embryonic children can donate their embryos to infertile couples who adopt them- the embryos are implanted into the adoptive mother who carries the child to term; giving life to a child who would either have been destroyed, donated to science or left frozen indefinitely. The embryos used in this process are known as "snowflakes"

The law in this area has yet to really catch up to the technology. In the few instances where it has dealt with embryonic adoption, it tends to look at it through human tissue laws, or property law because the law does not recognize these embryos as children. In my quick search of Canadian law, I found no cases dealing with snowflake children.

The Church has not articulated a clear position on this. The understanding that the three competing views are all founded on is that the creation of these embryos was immoral because it separated the sexual act from reproduction. They diverge based on what should be done with them:

The embryos should never have been created. Implanting them in an adoptive mother results in treating them like property (they are bought and sold on the open market) and further separates sex from reproduction. Leaving them frozen violates their inherent human dignity, so they should be destroyed and left to God's infinite mercy.
Implanting the embryo's further separates sex from reproduction, but destroying them keeps is murder and cannot be countenanced; therefore they should be left frozen until they die naturally from deterioration or disaster.
Destroying them and leaving them frozen both violate their human dignity, so they should be available for adoption.

Until the church takes a clear position on the issue, it is open to every Catholic to come to their own conclusion on the basis of due consideration. I personally think a snowflake adoption is the correct way to go. The families who adopt these children are giving them a chance at life, and I don't think there can be anything more beautiful than that. I do however detest the buying and selling of these children- they are humans and should be treated with all the respect and dignity that implies. I worry that the law (in areas where this has been dealt with) treats the embryos as property that can be bought and sold, and even disposed of in a will. Until our society comes to recognize the value of life, this problem will continue, and we will have increasing numbers of children left frozen.

May God have mercy on the souls of all involved in the evil practice of IVF and bless abundantly those who adopt these abandoned children.

Royalty I approve of

2008-12-04T20:14:00.003-06:00

I want to commend Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg on his stand against euthanasia. His country is trying to follow the example of its neighbors Belgium and the Netherlands by legalizing euthanasia. The Grand Duke has the constitutional power to veto laws, and he has pledged to use his veto to prevent the law from coming into force. The veto has not been used since 1912.

To get around this, the Luxembourg Parliament is going to strip him of his veto power, which will render him a complete figurehead. While they may have the power to do this, the Grand Duke is following his conscience, and will not allow himself to be complicit in the murder of his people. This is a very principle stand, and I applaud him and ask that God bless him abundantly, and I pray that this stand will change the hearts and minds of his people so they withdraw their support for euthanasia.

Thank-you Grand Duke for demonstrating the courage of convictions we all need to have in this fight. It might cost us our jobs, or our prestige, but what does that matter compared to saving lives? We cannot be silent. God Bless!

UPDATE (Fri 12:07pm): While I doubt the Grand Duke has facebook, there is a facebook group supporting his actions. Please join it at http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=37870554817

Do no harm

2008-12-04T00:00:00.002-06:00

With the success of I-1000 on the Washington state ballot, two states have now legalized assisted suicide, but both of those states recognize doctor assisted suicide. In these systems a doctor either prescribes a lethal dose of medication, or helps to administer the medication. This fact chills me almost more than the whole concept of euthanasia and assisted suicide in general, because I believe it irreparably damages the doctor's relationship with their patients.

The Hippocratic Oath, which pre-dates the birth of Christ, tells doctors and physicians to "do no harm." The oath says "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect." So, any doctor who prescribes assisted suicide is violating that oath, or, as is more common, they are simply not taking the oath in the first place. But this worries me, because it seems we are taking a step back to the dark ages; the pre-Hippocrates times. Hippocrates created the oath in recognition of the fact that going to a doctor was dangerous business- you had to hope you paid the doctor more to heal you than you enemy paid him to kill you. Hippocrates didn't like this- he thought people should be free to seek treatment and know that the physician ministering to them would do everything he could to help them. Thus, the Hippocratic Oath- an oath taken by doctors for over 2000 years was born. It was created so people could feel safe visiting a doctor.

Physician assisted suicide threatens this, because you don't know that your doctor will actually work in your best interest. You don't know that he or she won't give you a deadly drug, or make subtle and not so subtle suggestions that you take it. You don't know that your doctor won't have spoken to your children or caregivers and have been convinced by them that you are "better off dead." If doctors continue to administer lethal prescriptions, patients cannot trust their doctors.

For this reason, it is so important that everyone talk with their doctors; just like you would a lawyer. Find out where they stand on palliative care and assisted suicide, or other medical ethical questions, and make sure they know you position as well. Communication is key, and if your doctor doesn't have the same pro-life values as you do, it is time to find another doctor. Another thing you should ask is if they took the Hippocratic Oath; increasingly medical schools are not requiring grads to take the Oath.

It's a scary world when we can't trust the people who are supposed to heal us to actually do no harm.

Ahhh Secularism

2008-12-02T22:50:00.002-06:00

I ran across a very interesting article in the paper the other day, and I find myself very amused by it. Not the topic of the article at all; that I find beautiful, but the fact that it is news at all. It's a short article about a man and women who shared their first kiss ever at the altar last Saturday. The couple both teach abstinence in the Chicago Public School System.

I did some searches on the article, and on many news websites, the article is posted in the "News of the Weird" section. Really? Has our society gone so far down the path of secularism that a couple who saves physical intimacy for marriage is viewed as "weird"?

I know the idea of not kissing before marriage may seem a trifle "out there" but it's more common (at least in Catholic relationships) than you might think. Without trying hard, I can think of three couples who've married in the last few years who shared their first kiss at the altar. I think it's beautiful. It's all part of the idea of courtship. Courtship is the idea of getting to know someone with marriage in mind. It begins with the understanding that sex is something special and sacred that should be shared only between a married couple. I can't speak for the couple in the article, but I can say that the courtship model is one that all Catholic's should follow in searching for a spouse. It saves a lot of the hurt and pain the current dating model produces.

I just wish that the secular world could see the beauty in the Catholic teachings on sex and marriage. They are there to keep everyone happy and healthy, in mind, body and soul. If the world could see that, women wouldn't be degraded through pornography, and children wouldn't be viewed as a punishment. But that perfect world is a long ways away. However, as long as there are couples out there who live their faith, we will do ok. And if it has to end up in the "News of the Weird" at least people are hearing that people do live the counter-cultural life we are called to. Congrats Mr. and Mrs. Fabien! Many prayers for your long and happy marriage!