Rejoicing on Gaudete Sunday

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

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

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

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:

1. No reception of the Blood of Christ
2. No Holy Water in the fonts
3. No shaking hands during the sign of peace
4. 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

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

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

***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

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

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

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!