PM Harper, Michael Ignatieff, Contraception and Abortion

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:

1. They won't be used because of cultural taboos;
2. 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...

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!

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

Stop whatever you are doing and go read this.

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

Lent 2010

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...

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...

... 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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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?