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!

Troubling...

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

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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

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

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

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.)