Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Posts Tagged ‘Abortion’

Caring about the Most Vulnerable

March 23rd, 2013, Promulgated by Diane Harris

On February 4th, I did a post which railed against the actions of the Diocesan Public Policy Committee in prioritizing that NYS should annually spend about $300 million for what is essentially baby sitting money to low income families, when the lives of babies were being threatened by Cuomo’s so-called “Reproductive Health Act,” (misleading naming as is the case for much legislative activity which should never see the light of day).  The following weekend (Feb. 9-10) those signatures were collected during Masses, and many people dutifully signed what they were handed.

However, the Festival for Freedom Committee (chaired by Deacon Claude Lester), which held a 2-week  USCCB-requested Fortnight for Freedom event last summer,  wanted to go further.   So, on the weekend of Feb. 16-17th, and for two weeks thereafter, signatures were collected in opposition to Gov. Cuomo’s attempts to recklessly expand abortion in NYS.   About 2.5x as many signatures were collected in that petitioning as had been collected for the “baby-sitting” money issue; i.e. a welcome contrast to recognizing that intrinsic evils are a much greater cause for timely opposition than merely distributing taxpayers’ monies on issues of prudential judgment.

In order that people could see they are not working in isolation, or become discouraged, the 879 names on the petition against Cuomo’s “Reproductive Health Act,”  have been posted inside St. Mary’s and St. Bridget’s Churches (i.e. St. Benedict’s Parish.)  Here is a picture of the display:

 

petitions NYS 001 bright

We do not stand alone in the Body of Christ; we stand together.  And there is no place for toleration of intrinsic evils, or for permitting Cuomo’s pending legislation to destroy life.  I do believe that Catholics need to see more of this kind of mutual support (including from their pastors and bishops) that we all stand together in support of Catholic Teaching.  Kudos to Bishop Cunningham who, it was reported, joined a recent trip to Albany!

It is good to know which of our brothers and sisters in the faith we can count on, and that is why such a display of names is important.  Committee members are hoping more of our churches will make this kind of effort.  There is no issue which should have more spiritual solidarity than the faithful speaking out and acting on behalf of the weakest and most vulnerable, the infant in the womb.  When the governor of a state (or the president of a country) threatens to enact more laws that will further lead to destruction of the most vulnerable human beings, it will not be surprising to see future legislation extended to such abominations as infanticide up to 2 years old, forced abortions especially of ‘less than perfect’ humans, forced sterilization, forced euthanasia, refusal of necessary medical treatment to avoid premature death, and worse.  Much worse.  And, make no mistake, anyone who can permit the killing of a baby in the womb most assuredly is capable of doing much worse.

We are blessed to still have opportunities to ACT.  The sooner people stand together in opposition to atrocities, the more likely they can postpone or avoid having to deal with the next atrocity bound to come.  The next action is a CandleLight Vigil in Albany on April 15th to oppose legislators who

  • so devalue life that they are willing to extend abortion right up to the time of delivery!
  • are so lacking in respect for the mother carrying the child that they are willing to let any old “health care provider” do the dirty work (as more doctors, remembering their oath, decline to do so.)
  • who are so disrespectful of parental rights that children who can’t go on a school bustrip without parental permission can nevertheless have an abortion without a parent’s knowledge or consent!
  • And who willingly undermine the conscience rights of everyone and erode the very essence of the Bill of Rights!

NYS under Andrew Cuomo, is already the Abortion Capital of the U.S.   Abortion up until delivery would make it the Infanticide Capital as well!

Deacon Claude Lester is coordinating the diocesan-wide bus convoy to Albany.  Buses will leave Monday morning, April 15th,   from various points in the 12-county Rochester Diocese, and return that evening.  Cost is $25 for adults, $15 for students.  At about 2:30 PM there will be a visit to legislators, delivering  petitions, showing widespread resistance to the Cuomo catastrophic legislation, followed by CandleLight Vigil and prayer.  Contacts: Albanyvigil@dor.org or phone 585-750-7524.   Reservations and  payment  (Visa or Mastercard or checks sent to Festival for Freedom, PO Box 196, Canandaigua, NY 14424) must be received by Thursday, April 11, 2013.  See also http://www.nyscatholic.org/

It is better to light one candle at the Albany Vigil

than to curse the darkness when the lights of life go out.

candles cropped

 

Courier Commentary #1: Intrinsic Evil Trumps Prudential Judgment

March 5th, 2013, Promulgated by Diane Harris

My experience with the Diocesan Courier has been that my comments have not been accepted for several years, no matter the subject, and no matter that they conform in all ways to the guidelines.  So I am going to stop submitting comments to the on-line stories, and begin offering the commentary here, adding a good deal of what I would have edited out were the comments to have been posted on the DoR site.  But perhaps it is better this way, as a full response can be given. 

To make the commentary more “usable” I will put all the Courier’s excerpted words in blue, and major concerns or rebuttal points in red.  It is offered as the start of a series, so others can number future commentary on the Courier (especially if their comments on the DoR site are rejected) as part of this series, if they choose to do so.  A very good place to begin the Commentary Series is with this week’s story:

Advocates will lobby in Albany March 20

By Mike Latona/Catholic Courier

…several dozen from the Diocese of Rochester… will meet with their legislators to discuss five priorities that have been selected by the state’s bishops….

  • oppose the Women’s Equality Act, an outgrowth of the Reproductive Health Act, which would significantly expand abortion rights;
  • preserve Catholic schools and offer adequate resources for all school children;
  • provide affordable housing for low-income and vulnerable populations;
  • support humane treatment for people who are incarcerated; and
  • ensure that reform of Medicaid benefits consumers and maintains quality of care.

“We have been hearing each year to be prepared to fight this bill, but it never came forward (in the legislature). With the governor’s enthusiastic push of it in his State of the State address, it may actually come to a vote this year,” said Marvin Mich, director of social-policy research at Rochester’s Catholic Family Center….

While acknowledging that the Women’s Equality Act will take top priority because it involves the protection of innocent human life, Mich stressed that “all of our issues are linked in the consistent ethic of life. We cannot choose just one issue and ignore the rest.”

Sculpture of  "Post-Abortion Pain, Mercy, Forgiveness"  by Martin Houdacek

Sculpture of “Post-Abortion Pain, Mercy, Forgiveness”
by Martin Houdacek

WAIT!  Stop right there!  At least this time we are seeing the pro-Abortion act on top of the list, but there is NO comparison between the #1 item, which is directed to the fight against intrinsic evil and the following four items which are prudential judgment issues, about which reasonable people can disagree, especially on “how” a particular good or benefit is achieved.  It is precisely this lumping together of prudential judgement issues with action against intrinsic evils which has so weakened the mobilization of the Faithful to fight evil, and to be a consistent voice at the ballot box.  It is exactly what makes the Catholic Church look fragmented and immobilized.

And what about the other intrinsic evils that should be addressed?  Where is repeal of same-sex marriage?  Why shouldn’t that precede the prudential judgment issues?  What ARE the priorities of those assembling this list?

Just READ the list.  The first item is clear — oppose a bill threatened to come to the floor for vote.  But there are no specifics about the remaining four items.  They mean whatever someone wants them to mean!  This loading on of general statements and ambiguities serves to dilute the most meaningful actions, those against intrinsic evil.  And for what purpose?  The interesting thing about the four Prudential Judgment issues is that they are not specific, they are never “satisfied.”  They can stay on DoR’s list forever.

The so-called “Consistent Life Ethic” is a very shredded fabric, and lacks credibility in the public square.  Marv Mich states:  “We cannot choose just one issue and ignore the rest.”  I strongly disagree. 

Certainly we cannot perpetrate one intrinsic evil and yet fight against another.  We must be consistently aligned and supportive of all Church Teaching.  But ambiguous, poorly articulated “nice” goals are not worthy of mobilizing our energy, time and efforts when intrinsic evils are basking in public.  I most certainly CAN and MAY choose one of the intrinsic evils (#1 on the list above) and work with all my energy to fight that one, without diluting my effort by spreading too thin over someone else’s prudential judgment priorities.  Of course I am, for example, in favor of humane treatment of prisoners.  But while babies are being killed in the womb, don’t ask me to divert my available time and related abilities to an issue which proposes not even a specific of what it means!  If  it means no torture, of course I agree.  If it means letting people out of jail early so they can shoot more firefighters, of course I oppose it! 

Then, buried in the Courier article, is a comment that “expressed hope that participants in the March 20 event ‘do not leave our legislative appointments without some comment on gun control.'” 

Well, I hope so too!  I hope they make the point that the so-called and mis-named “SAFE” act was illegally promulgated against the rights of the public to comment, that it will not make people any safer, and that it is a distraction from the main issue of having suitable protections in schools for the children.  I hope the comments will ask for repeal of a meaningless, sham act.  But I rather doubt that is what the comment means.   Yes, it is a prudential issue too, but one that risks coveting the rights of others, interfering with a person’s ability to defend themselves and their families, and undermines and sabotages the law of the land — the Second Amendment.  It borders on sin against people’s rights, and may even cross the line.  More on that another time.  But notice how the diocesan newspaper manages to squeeze in a quote on an issue not even on the list!  That is also how personal opinions on prudential issues from the pulpit or in a diocesan newspaper serve to be divisive in the Church. 

In the Courier story posted on March 4 (updated March 5) it states regarding the Mass to be held during the lobbying in Albany: “Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is the scheduled celebrant and homilist. He will be joined by the state’s bishops.”  

HELLO–Cardinal Dolan is in Rome!  FYI–the Pope resigned and there is a Conclave of Cardinals meeting there!  Does anyone look up from their list of prudential judgments to see what is really going on in the world?  I hope so. 

 

Karen Handel to speak in Rochester

February 13th, 2013, Promulgated by Monk

The Women’s Care Center is sponsoring a talk by Karen Handel, author of the bestselling book Planned Bullyhood.
The Center has served thousands of Rochester women involved in unplanned pregnancies since 1990.

Karen_Handel_Planned_Bullyhood_CNA_US_Catholic_News_9_10_12

For Immediate Release:

Author and Former Susan G. Komen Executive to Speak Feb. 21
Karen Handel to discuss the controversy between Komen and Planned Parenthood

ROCHESTER, N.Y.—Karen Handel, former senior vice president of public policy at Susan G. Komen for the Cure and author of the book Planned Bullyhood, will speak at 7 pm on Thursday, Feb. 21 in the Coleman Chapel inside Murphy Hall at St. John Fisher College.

Handel will discuss her experiences surrounding the controversy between Komen and Planned Parenthood. In Planned Bullyhood, Handel provides an inside look at the politics behind the decision of the two organizations to part ways, those closely involved with the decision, and how Komen eventually folded—giving in to Planned Parenthood. She details how Komen—an organization known for supporting women’s health and being at the forefront of the battle against breast cancer—has been nearly destroyed, with its brand in grave peril. Handel will also address the tactics that she believes Planned Parenthood used to attempt to subert the pro-life movement in today’s society.

Tickets are $15 for the general public, $10 for senior citizens, and free for college students who present a college ID.
All proceeds will go towards supporting the work of the Women’s Care Center.

For more information, contact:
Women’s Care Center
(585) 865-0360

The Dire Dis-service of the DoR Public Policy Committee

February 4th, 2013, Promulgated by Diane Harris

A lead story on the NYS Catholic Conference website  is the call for faithful Catholics to strongly oppose Gov. Cuomo’s NYS Abortion Expansion Bill, S-438.  And the timing is urgent, as it could come out of committee within days.  The Public Policy Day in Albany is not until March, and the track record of passing bills behind closed doors, sometimes in the dead of night, and without public input, is special cause for concern. 

So what is the Diocese of Rochester’s public policy priority now?  You will see it next weekend, on February 9-10th when pew petitions will ignore the threat of a seriously expanded intrinsic evil, and instead advocate for money, to subsidize some families’ child-care, which DoR reports can cost “up to $14,000 per year.”  Myriad questions are left unanswered, including who would be eligible and for how much and if this would simply route income to parents and grandparents who already take care of those children.  But there are much greater matters than the details of the pew petition.  There has seemed to be an attitude for years that the people in the pew get handed a petition to sign, whether they know the details or not, and they will simply pay, pray and obey.  After the Fortnight for Freedom last year, hopefully we won’t ever be quite the same again in not questioning how so much emphasis is put on matters of prudential judgment (often equated to tax dollars), when intrinsic evils flourish unchallenged.

The intrinsic evil flourishing right now is the ever-deepening intrinsic evil of abortion, right up to the moment of birth.  And, unless we deceive ourselves, we should already know that there are movements afoot in Europe to allow murder of children up to two years after birth.  Can anyone seriously believe that atrocity won’t be next down the slippery slope?

The Diocese of Rochester’s Public Policy Committee isn’t putting a petition in the pew to prevent Cuomo’s bullying his way into the killing of more babies; it is rather using the petitioning opportunity to call for funds for baby sitting rather than to defeat S-438.  Child care is important, but such subsidies are not nearly as important as keeping babies alive in the first place.  To read the full call from The NYS Catholic Conference to oppose S-438, go here.  Or simply consider the contrast of the excerpt from the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Syracuse to excerpts from the DoR website and from a DoR church (Resurrection in Fairport): 

From Syracuse Cathedral Bulletin 2-3-13

From the Syracuse Cathedral Bulletin
2-3-13

 

This guidance in Syracuse is against an intrinsic evil (thus, is a morally binding teaching).  The DoR’s public policy is regarding  a matter of “prudential judgment” (i.e. validly open to lay, well-formed opinion).  There is no real comparison.

DoR Public Policy February, 2013

DoR Public Policy
February, 2013

New York State Catholic Conference calls itself the “Official Voice of the Catholic Church in the Empire State” and a unified Voice for all New York State Catholics.  How can the Rochester Diocese’s priorities be so different from the statewide priority?   The New York State Catholic Conference represents the Bishops of the state in working with government to shape laws and policies that pursue social justice, respect for life and the common good.  

What message will the governor and his legislators get when subsidizing day care is the matter for petitions, but S-438 is not?  What message do Catholics get? 

As the conference states:  “This bill does not simply “update” New York law or codify Roe vs. Wade. It would usher in extreme and sweeping changes to abortion policy in New York State.  The bill would permit unlimited late-term abortion on demand.

Current state law says abortions are legal in New York through 24 weeks of pregnancy (Article 125 Penal Law), but outlawed after that unless they are necessary to save a woman’s life.  This bill would repeal that law and insert a “health” exception, broadly interpreted by the courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors. It is an exception that will allow more third-trimester abortions in New York State, a policy which the public strongly disapproves.

This ignores the state’s legitimate interest in protecting the lives of fully formed children in the womb, and ignores the will of a majority of New Yorkers who oppose late-term abortion.   

The bill would endanger the lives of women by allowing non-physicians to perform abortions.  While current law states that only a “duly licensed physician” may perform an abortion, this bill would allow any “licensed health care practitioner” to perform the procedure prior to viability. This dangerous and extreme change clearly puts women’s health at risk, and mirrors a national abortion strategy to permit non-doctors to perform abortions due to the declining number of physicians willing to do so. 

The bill would preclude any future reasonable regulations of abortion. It would establish a “fundamental right of privacy” within New York State law, encompassing the right “to terminate a pregnancy,” even though the Supreme Court has rejected, numerous times, classifying abortion as a “fundamental right.”  Therefore, it is impossible to say that this legislation simply “codifies Roe vs. Wade” in New York law. It goes well beyond Roe.

The Court has said that states may regulate abortion, as long as those regulations do not place an “undue burden” on the right to an abortion.  This bill says that abortion is fundamental and thus untouchable – no regulations on abortion, ever.  No parental notification for minors’ abortions, no limits on taxpayer funding of abortion, no limits on late-term abortions, no informed consent for pregnant women seeking abortion.  None of the common sense regulations enacted by the vast majority of states and supported by large majorities of the public would be allowed in New York.   

The bill endangers the religious liberty of Catholic hospitals and other institutions. While the bill contains limited conscience protection, that protection is ambiguous and inadequate and is extended only to individual health providers who do not wish to “provide” abortions (protection that is already guaranteed by Civil Rights law.) What is not provided in the bill are protections for institutional providers, such as religious hospitals and other agencies that do not wish to be involved with abortion.

The bill declares that “the state shall not discriminate” against the exercise of the fundamental right to abortion in the “provision of benefits, facilities, services or information.”  In other words, it would permit state regulators, such as the State Health Department or State Insurance Department, to require support for abortion from any agency or institution licensed or funded by the state.  The bill could be used to undermine the state’s maternity programs. In a similar way, these beneficial programs, which are working well to reduce infant mortality, could be ruled “discriminatory” for favoring childbirth over abortion, and be denied state benefits if this bill were to become law.

The abortion expansion bill is uncompromising in its terms and extremely sweeping in scope. The bill goes against the increasingly pro-life sentiment in this country, as evidenced by the most recent Marist poll (December 2012) which found that more than 8 in 10 Americans favor significant restrictions on abortion. The Gallup Organization (May 2011)  found that only 27% of Americans believe abortion should be legal under all circumstances. The majority of American adults (61%) believe abortion should either be more strictly limited than current law or not permitted at all. Not only does the bill defy public opinion, but it also defies common sense.

New York State remains the abortion capital of the nation with the highest abortion rate of any state. New York City’s abortion rate remains at 40%, with some geographic regions within the city at 60%. The reality is that no woman is without ample opportunity for an abortion in New York State. Rather than voting on a bill that will increase the tragedy of abortion, we urge policy makers to look at constructive ways to reduce abortion and truly make abortion “rare.” We strongly urge you to oppose the abortion expansion bill.”  

Resurrection Church Bulletin 2-3-13

Resurrection Church Bulletin
2-3-13

Contrast the well-thought out, explict arguments from the Catholic Conference, above,  to the bulletin letter from Sr. Joan Cawley, the Pastoral Administrator who is  head of Resurrection Parish:

Resurrection Church Bulletin 2-3-13

Resurrection Church Bulletin 2-3-13

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next weekend (February 9th and 10th) we will be asked to sign a petition at Mass, not to stop the killing of babies, but to dole out money on nebulous and unspecified terms for child care.  It is not merely a matter of disordered priorities, but it is a matter of truly misleading the people in the pews who reasonably may rely that a diocesan committee of dedicated souls has examined all the issues and made a reasoned and holy choice.  Such a priority impairs the very trust that should exist among the people  of God.

What should we do?  Certainly contacting our legislators to oppose S-438 is called for, lest our silence become endorsement.  Certainly spreading the word to others is crucial too.  But to let the misdirection of the DoR Public Policy Committee go unchallenged is wrong.  At a minimum, it seems reasonable to take the petition in the pew and mark it up to fit our convictions.  How about “Kill S-438; NOT BABIES!”

 

ScreenShot226

 

Added since original posting:   Here are two links for more information in opposition to S-438: 

Here is a good article from the Ithaca Journal:

http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20130201/NEWS10/302010059/-Women-s-equality-abortion-expansion-Groups-debate-bill-s-effects

Here is a good letter to the editor from Syracuse:

http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2013/01/reproductive_health_act_will_h.html

In contrast to the above links from the secular papers, we have the Catholic Courier on-line yesterday (2/4/13) with its article entitled “Petition calls for quality child care” by Mike Latona, completely ignoring the expansion of abortion through S-438.  It begins: “In an era when good investment returns are increasingly hard to attain….” and that shows the whole orientation—urging Cuomo et al to invest our (taxpayers’) money of $300 million annually in child care subsidies, while other children are being murdered in the womb.  And we are expected to believe in the relevance of THAT public policy?  I think not.  What is the purpose?  Give up on S-438 for a financial incentive?  I hope not.  Support a diversion of attention away from fighting intrinsic evil?  I dare not.

It is interesting that the DoR “argument” states that  “a full-time worker earning the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour makes only $15,080 annually”, ignoring that if there isn’t someone home to take care of children, shouldn’t (in many, not all, cases) TWO WAGE EARNERS salaries be used?  A convenient oversight.  Also, the child care cost has been down-pedalled a bit from the DoR website  to  “$8,000 for preschool child care and up to $12,000 for infants.” Some fact checking after the fact?   No references were given to the other so-called claims, either, so we don’t have the information to either verify or to dispute. 

Oh, DoR did mention 2 other initiatives as well.  Neither one was to defeat S-438.   The link is http://www.catholiccourier.com/news/local-news/petition-calls-for-quality-child-care/  if you can stomach it.

Pray for an end to abortion

January 22nd, 2013, Promulgated by Dr. K

There will be a peaceful gathering outside of the Planned Parenthood facility at the corner of Ridge & Harvest in Greece to mourn the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. This event will begin at 5 PM today. Please park in the Wegmans parking lot across from the facility.

When and Why Holy Communion is Refused

January 14th, 2013, Promulgated by Hopefull

Christifidelis is the publication of the St. Joseph Foundation in San Antonio, TX, which is committed to assisting the faithful, clergy and laity, in their vindication of rights in the Catholic Church.  In my opinion, the Foundation does an outstanding service in providing such assistance, is credible and worthy of support.  In their publication, they often take on difficult and complex questions which need Canon Law interpretation, and a browse through their archives shows much of value. 

In their first issue of 2013, the cover story and major article is by Dr. Edward Peters on “Participation in Holy Communion by unworthy Catholics” and he separates the questions of the obligation to receive worthily from the obligations of administering the Sacrament.  Toward the conclusion, Dr. Peters comments on the discipline against Kathleen Sebelius and Andrew Cuomo, who have both apparently complied and are said not to be now receiving Communion.  But the case is different with “The Nancy Pelosi Scandal,” he reports.

Dr. Peters writes: “In sum, Catholic ecclesiastical leadership must address four areas of confusion in regard to Communion access by Catholics: first, Church leaders must re-educate Catholics against the irreverent reception of Communion; second, they must resist pressure by some Catholics to enforce in the public forum what are private obligations concerning reception of Communion; third, they must be on guard against improperly withholding the Eucharist from Catholics whose offensive conduct does not qualify canonically as “obstinate” “perseverance in” “manifest” “grave” “sin”‘; and fourth, Church leadership must accept the possibility that , in some concrete cases, the public bad conduct of some Catholics requires Church ministers to withhold Communion from them for the sake of ecclesiastical common good.” 

The full article, the nuances of each condition, and expansion of some points he previously published in First Things, can be found here.

A Rochester Priest Who Gets It

December 4th, 2012, Promulgated by Dr. K

Here is an excellent letter to the editor in the Catholic Courier penned by Fr. Jim Hewes, parochial vicar of the Holy Ghost/St. Helen/St. Jude cluster and local director of Project Rachel:

Have voters chided victor?

Once again over 50 percent of Catholic voters voted for President Obama. This means that probably 50 percent of Catholic voters in our diocese voted for President Obama. So I ask those Catholics who voted for President Obama:

Have you sent your letter already to the president as his supporter asking him to change his position of unrestricted access to abortions — including allowing abortions for gender selection or without parental consent or partial-birth abortions — and to stop supporting the government’s paying for abortions through Medicaid?

Have you written your letter to him asking him to stop governmental funding of Planned Parenthood, which performed over 329,445 abortions in 2010? By the way Planned Parenthood has been involved in most of the major cases, which have struck down any legal protection of the pre-born. This is why the April 14, 1993, New York Times pointed out, “in simple equation of public image, Planned Parenthood equals abortion rights.” The December 11, 1989, issue of Time magazine described Planned Parenthood as “the premiere institution of performing abortion in the country.”

Have you included in your letter a request to President Obama to rescind his Executive Order that removed any barriers to scientific research including embryonic stem cell research)?

In your letter have you urged President Obama to stop supporting the death penalty?

Finally, as Catholics committed to the non-violent teaching of Jesus, have you pleaded with President Obama to stop supporting U.S. violence in other countries including Libya and Afghanistan, where he ordered a surge of 30,000 troops and has increased significantly the number of drone attacks?

It is because of the Catholic vision of life that I didn’t vote for President Obama. It is the same reason I didn’t vote for Governor Romney, but that would be another whole letter.

Father Jim Hewes
Rochester

Thank you for defending life, Father!

Stand Up For Freedom June 8, 2012 in Canandaigua

June 6th, 2012, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Once again, a silent procession is planned, walking the two blocks from St. Mary Canandaigua (corner of Rte. 332 at Rte 21) to the Ontario County Courthouse.  Once again, there will be signage of famous pro-Religious Freedom quotations from many faiths.  Once again, the procession will have no political signage, no chanting, shouts or confrontation.  The gathering will begin around 11:30 and by 11:45, after registration, getting information and a button to wear, the group will begin to move toward the courthouse.  Last time (March 23, 2012) over 500 people showed up.  Read the results here.

It appears that parents have been particularly comfortable bringing their children, and older folks are happy with the short procession, which is not too difficult.  There will again be parking at St. Mary, and also at 3 neighboring churches (watch for signage.)  There will be no speeches, but plenty of chance to meet others with the same concerns, from various churches.

 

Very soon we will  post information on the USCCB’s call for a Fortnight For Freedom.  St. Mary Canandaigua is leading the effort for an entire two weeks of activity, all held at Notre Dame Retreat House.  Outstanding speakers will be on hand, Theater of the Word will have 3 productions, there will be movies, worship and much more.  See website www.FestivalforFreedom.com for evolving details.  Meanwhile, see you in Canandaigua on June 8th!  While you are in Canandaigua, if you are unfamiliar with the Notre Dame Retreat Center, you might take a short 6 mile trip up the hill to see the beautiful location overlooking Canandaigua Lake.

Who is Your Conscience Boycotting?

February 12th, 2012, Promulgated by Hopefull

Besides activities within the Church which don’t seem faithful to magisterial teaching (like the Catholic Campaign for Human Development) who else are you boycotting?

I’ve stopped going to Starbucks because of their gay rights fervor.  And I’ve been boycotting Susan Komen for several years because of the Planned Parenthood connection.  Now I’ll have to boycott them as well for their sheer stupidity and lack of conscience, deciding matters of conscience by counting tweets.

I don’t buy Girl Scout cookies either because of the PP connection.  Crate & Barrel is now on the list; it has same sex attraction floor displays, and American Airlines advertises explicity for “his and his beach towels.”  Recently a Kindle ad also pushed same sex attraction in a beach ad. 

So who are you boycotting, and why?  Hope some readers will share their thoughts.  I may add onto this post as others come to mind.  And I’ll post some boycott links here too:

To sign a boycott petition against gay-friendly (gay-pushy) Home Depot:  www.BoycottTheHomeDepot.com.

Don’t Be Fooled

February 10th, 2012, Promulgated by Nerina

As you may have already heard, President Obama is expected to announce a “compromise” regarding the contraception mandate. From everything I’ve heard and read, this is no compromise, but another way of forcing Catholic institutions into providing coverage for services they find inherently evil.

As the mandate currently stands, employers would be required to cover all “FDA approved” methods of sterilization and contraception including those methods that can act as an abortifacient. While a very narrow exemption exists (Archbishop Dolan says that Jesus and his disciples wouldn’t qualify) for religious groups, most have recognized this mandate for the attack on religious liberty that it is.

The proposed accommodation does not change anything. It will still require employers to provide for these services, just not directly if they have an “objection.” Employers will still be required to have their respective insurers offer these services to women. Yuval Levin, from National Review states it this way:

The only difference is that the access to those contraceptive and abortifacient drugs would not technically be listed as one of the benefits the employer was paying for directly but would be listed as a benefit the insurer was paying for (with the money the employer paid for the broader insurance policy, of course).

President Obama is clearly placating his base of ardent feminists who recently flexed their collective muscle against the Komen Foundation. Komen made the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood stating that it had decided giving money to organizations under Congressional investigation was not ideal. It also noted that it would rather fund groups in the business of directly providing breast care. PP does not, despite Cecile Richards claims to the contrary. Once PP and NARAL got done with their attacks on Komen (e.g. hijacking Komen’s website, spamming the Facebook page, and vilifying it in the press), the breast cancer foundation apologized and appeared to be reconsidering its initial decision. That’s politics, Chicago-style, as they say.

All I need to know about this “accommodation” is that Planned Parenthood supports it. The aforementioned Richards released the following:

“In the face of a misleading and outrageous assault on women’s health, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work.

“We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman’s ability to access these critical birth control benefits.

I’d say it’s analagous to the Executive Order compromise offered in the final days of Obamacare. I hope Catholics won’t get fooled again.

Warping the Meaning of “Pastoral”

September 23rd, 2011, Promulgated by Hopefull

Tonight’s Lifesite News has the following disturbing story:

Elderly priest suspended for denouncing abortion, homosexual behavior 

By Patrick Craine

 Fr. Donat Gionet, C.J.M

BATHURST, New Brunswick, September 22, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Catholic Diocese of Bathurst, New Brunswick has removed an elderly priest from active ministry after he caused a storm of controversy by denouncing homosexuality, cohabitation, and abortion in an August homily.

 85-year-old Fr. Donat Gionet had retired to his home town of Caraquet in June to serve palliative care patients, and now laments that in his declining years he is being forced to celebrate Mass “in secret.”

 Fr. Wesley Wade, the diocese’s vicar general, told Radio-Canada that Fr. Gionet’s comments were consistent with Church teaching, but lacked the proper “pastoral” sensitivity.

 “It was mainly the pastoral approach that was lacking,” Fr. Wade said.  “A lack of respect, perhaps, for the people identified, for the groups of people as well, which caused a division in the community.  It was a difficult decision.”

Fr. Wade did not return numerous calls from LifeSiteNews over two days.

 A member of the Eudist Fathers, Fr. Gionet had been accused by parishioners of “homophobia” in media reports last week after he criticized a homosexual parade in Moncton in an August 20-21 homily.  His loudest critic was the mayor of Saint-Leolin, Joseph Lanteigne, an open homosexual and member of the parish council, who demanded the priest’s suspension.

 In an open letter Thursday, Fr. Gionet laments that the diocese did not give him an opportunity to explain himself before suspending him.

 “To you, the diocesan authorities: did you ask me what I said exactly during the homily in question?” the priest asks.  “They did not, but only listened to people who are frustrated.”

 When asked if he would continue making similar comments, he says he can only respond “yes.”  “And if they asked me about the homily, in its entirety, I could not say ‘no’ because for me it is important to speak the truth,” he insists.

 He explained that in the August homily he noted that while “the gates of hell” seek to destroy the Church, it is, in fact, Catholics who “destroy our Church” today.  He pointed to the high number of abortions among Catholics and the presence of homosexuality in the Church.  He emphasized that cohabitating couples and homosexuals ought not to receive the Eucharist, but are still welcome to join the Church at Mass.

 “After these reflections, there were no other allusions whatsoever,” he says, adding that in the homily he went on to speak of the power of forgiveness offered through the Church.

The priest said that he is now living “like the first Christians did at the beginning of the Church: they had to hide in the catacombs to pray or celebrate the Eucharist.”

 The Diocese has released a letter to the faithful explaining the suspension, according to French-language media reports.  Bishop Valery Vienneau explains that the priest had refused to alter his statements, and the bishop expressed regret that the comments had upset the faithful.

 Contact Information:

 

Most Rev. Valéry Vienneau, Bishop of Bathurst
645, avenue Murray
C.P. 460
Bathurst, NB E2A 3Z4Tel: (506) 546-1420
Fax: (506) 548-5565
E-mail: valeryv@nb.aibn.com

Most Rev. Valéry VIENNEAU
Bishop of Bathurst

 

Slavery, Abortion, and Our Lady of the Confederacy

September 21st, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

This has to be one of the most interesting articles I have read recently. It comes from the December 2001 issue of the New Oxford Review, and discusses the similarity in mindsets regarding slavery (when it was held as acceptable) and abortion (which, we can only pray, will be deemed unacceptable in coming years).

In the Confederate Museum at New Orleans is a crown of thorns made by Pope Pius IX expressly for Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. In a side chapel at the Catholic cathedral in Charleston, S.C., is a statue of Our Lady of the Confederacy sent to the people of the South by the same pope. In many Southern homes to this day is the volume of verse by the “Poet Laureate of the Confederacy” — Fr. Abram Ryan, a Catholic priest of Nashville, whose brother, a Confederate soldier, was killed in combat with Union troops. The state song of Maryland, “Maryland, My Maryland!” which decries the “tyrant” Abraham Lincoln and calls upon Marylanders to rise to arms against the “Vandal invader,” was composed by the Catholic poet James Ryder Randall. And one of the most courageous and eloquent exponents of the justness of Southern civilization, and of the principles and purposes of secession and of the formation of the Confederate States of America, was the renowned missionary priest, Bishop of Savannah Augustin Verot.

So much for the suggestion of John L. Botti that “no explanation is needed” for his entirely fictional narrative “The ‘Catholic’ Politician of 2001 & the Southern ‘Gentleman’ of 1860.” To address even the issues that led, sadly enough for all concerned, to the War Between the States, requires a great deal of explanation, indeed. Further, to his query “Is there any difference?” between the Southerner of 1860 and the advocate or practitioner of abortion in 2001, the answer is yes — wholly, utterly, and completely — as a huge body of literature attests. Again, because Botti does not cite a single historical personage or a single historical text, the entirely fictional nature of his text cannot be overemphasized.

About 15 years ago, in an essay published in both National Review and Crisis, Lewis Lehrman also attempted to equate slavery in the Old South and abortion today. Among the respondents who attempted to correct that grievous misconception was Sheldon Vanauken, the late lamented Contributing Editor of the NOR, whose name well remains on your magazine’s masthead. Van contributed many articles to the NOR that made a similar case for Southern civilization and principles as the sole example available for Americans of our time who wish to redress any number of the ills of our society, abortion foremost among them. It is astonishing that the NOR has so soon forgotten his brave and eloquent reflections.

Significant works that explore for Catholics the theme reintroduced so ineptly by Botti, however admirable his intentions, include American Catholic Opinion in the Slavery Controversy by Madeleine Hooke Rice; Catholics and the Civil War by the Rev. Benjamin J. Blied of St. Francis Seminary; Rebel Bishop: A Life of Augustin Verot by Michael Gannon; and — most especially — The Slaveholders’ Dilemma and A Consuming Fire: The Fall of the Confederacy in the Mind of the White Christian South, both by the eminent historian Eugene Genovese, now a Catholic. Several biographies of the Catholic jurist Roger Taney, who, as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, strove in vain to inaugurate Northern support for compensated emancipation rather than inflammatory abolitionism, and who penned the hugely misunderstood Dred Scott decision, have appeared in recent years. Readers of The Wanderer have recently been given a learned series of columns on actual Southern history generally and the realpolitik of Abraham Lincoln specifically by Joseph Sobran, who in his own newsletter has expanded on the subject.

Southerners have for generations faced the necessary challenge of fending off simplistic condemnations of slavery while striving to call attention to the larger enveloping issues that led to secession, war, and defeat, and of which slavery was of course an inextricable part, but by no means the whole matter. As the foregoing studies demonstrate, most emphatically in the case of the Catholic bishops of both American and Europe, hugely important questions of the very nature of a Christian moral order in the fledgling modern era were the context in which the South resisted by arms the purported “coming of the Lord” announced in the Battle Hymn of the Republic. These questions included the very viability of a specifically Christian order in American society, of the increasing secularization and industrialization and therefore the explicit materialism of the states of the North, and of the proper means of ameliorating in the South the admitted shortcomings of slavery — while avoiding the revolutionary unrest that was arising everywhere in Western civilization, including in the American Northeast, in response to Enlightenment ideologies and the vast dislocations of peoples caused by the “modernization” of capitalistic economies.

Accordingly, the issue of the American War Between the States generally, and specifically the practice of slavery as it actually evolved in the U.S. between 1619 and 1861, is to be judged within a centuries-old tradition which, for reasons once held sound by the Church, affirmed the propriety of the ownership of one person by another, provided, of course, as St. Paul stressed to Philemon of Onesimus, the relationship affirmed the eternal moral worth of the bonded servant and fulfilled the obligations of Christian charity.

In a contrast to slavery in the American South as total as it is stark, abortion-on-demand today is the practice of a people bereft of tradition, disinterested in even social — let alone biblical — constraint, and committed to the very notion of unrestrained individualism made inevitable by the political and social consequences of the Yankee conquest in 1865.

Ironically for Botti, then, it was the very principle of Federal power in the name of “Union,” which in 1861-1865 destroyed Southern civilization and overwhelmed the sovereignty of the states, that more recently, in Roe v. Wade, struck down states’ laws against abortion. Contrary to his glib assertions, those who resisted Federal force in 1861, however imperfect their quest of Christian civilization, waged with arms the war he espouses only with words. Thus it was that, in 1866, a year after Appomattox, the eminent English historian Lord Acton wrote to Robert E. Lee, the defeated former commander of the Confederate armies of Virginia: “I believed that the example of that great [Confederate] reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.” Lord Acton, as so many “Southern sympathizers,” was a Catholic.

Not ’til Christians of all sections, whether Catholic or Protestant, and whether white or black — or Hispanic or Asian — rediscover the virtues of Southern life and conviction as they actually, historically, existed will there be possible the unity of historical understanding and Christian brotherhood necessary for adequately addressing the grave questions of a proper moral order in our national life. For only in this unity would it be possible to discredit the ideologies to which Botti no doubt means to allude, ideologies that, victorious in 1865 and triumphant through all realms of American life in the decades since, are nowhere more manifest — as the might of a national regime that will countenance no dissent on the part of the people or the states — than in the various abortion-related rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.
David A. Bovenizer
Lynchburg, Virginia

Apostatizing in Place: A Book Review

August 19th, 2011, Promulgated by Bernie

Catholic and Feminist: The Surprising History of the American Catholic Feminist Movement. By Mary J. Henold. University of North Carolina Press. 291 pages. $32.

The following is from a book review by Anne Barbeau Gardiner, a Contributing Editor of the New Oxford Review, is Professor Emerita of English at John Jay College of the City University of New York. She has published on Dryden, Milton, and Swift, as well as on Catholics of the seventeenth century.

 

… When Catholic feminists speak of their commitment to the Church, they equivocate; it turns out they mean the “people,” not the “institution.” Indeed, Catholic feminists constantly reduce the Magisterium to an “institution.” They have their own understanding of Catholicism and see themselves as free to choose what to “believe” and what to “abandon.” This is not cafeteria Catholicism, but something different, for they are guided in their choices by a primary loyalty to feminism. Donna Quinn, one of the leading feminist nuns in the 1970s, represents many of them when she declares, “This is my church, this is my tradition. I love this church. I want to change it.” Then she adds, “I have never rejected anything in the feminist movement…. I love the word ‘feminism,’ I have put that first.” Yes, first. This is the idol to which Catholic feminists have been willing to sacrifice the Church.

At the 1975 Detroit Women’s Ordination Conference (WOC), the “pivotal event” of the Catholic feminist movement in the 1970s, theologian Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza spoke of our Church needing “a radical conversion.” Feminists like her choose to remain Catholic as a means to an end. Their strategy is called defecting in place, but it may more fittingly be called apostatizing in place.

Throughout Catholic and Feminist: The Surprising History of the American Catholic Feminist Movement, Henold reveals how Catholic feminists have taken a utilitarian approach to religion, using the Church’s sacred language, symbols, and traditions as a “means of understanding and structuring their feminism.” Yes, a means to an end. To begin with, they wanted women priests, Henold says, because they needed …

 

To read more: This is from an article in the current issue of the New Oxford Review. You will probably need to subscribe in order to read the rest of the column. Do subscribe. The NOR has excellent articles every month. In addition you will get terrific news feeds every morning with excellent links to featured articles from its past issues.

And Two Shall Become One

August 16th, 2011, Promulgated by Nerina

No, I’m not talking about marriage, here, but about the practice of “selective reduction” especially in regards to twin pregnancies.  I found an incredibly disturbing article at the New York Times discussing this morally problematic practice which has seen an increase in use.  It is a lengthy article, but it raises many of the moral and ethical points that the Church, in Her wisdom, cautions the faithful about regarding reproductive technologies.

The article begins by sharing the story of “Jenny,” (all of the subjects requested anonymity in the article) a 45 year old woman 14 weeks pregnant with twins who chose pregnancy reduction.  She spent 6 years pursuing various fertility options and says:

Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn’t had children already or if we were more financially secure, (keep in mind that Jenny pursued fertility treatment for years which I’m sure stressed the family finances mightily, she already has two children and she is 45 years old.  What motivated her to pursue this pregnancy given these conditions?)

She goes on to add:

If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with(emphasis mine), and this became yet another thing we could control. (At least with this comment she is being honest about how children are now viewed as a commodity – to be obtained on a person’s schedule, at his or her convenience and according to his or her plan.  Also note that she is, in essence, killing another person’s baby, not her own, since an egg donor was used).

In 2004, the Pontifical Academy for Life published a final communique summarizing the symposium  “The Dignity of Human Procreation and Reproductive Technologies.  Anthropological and Ethical Aspects.”  In it, the Academy noted the following points:

  • over 1 million children are believed to have been conceived through IVF technology since the birth of the first IVF baby in 1978;
  • despite the economic and medical resources committed to increasing the effectiveness rates of ART (assisted reproductive technology), little progress has been made.  The Academy further suggests that if the same rates of success were applied to other medical technologies, they would be deemed “technical failures.”
  • many couples, placing their hope in such technologies, despite the low success rates, often suffer greatly when ART fails (not to mention the moral dilemmas faced and the financial impact of pursuing ART)
  • many human lives are lost to ART because of the excessive numbers of embryos created and ultimately lost in pursuit of a successful implantation
  • ART does nothing to address the underlying issue of sterility among western couples but rather touts itself as a the answer to infertility
  • a new mentality has developed leading some to believe that  ” ART constitutes a preferential route – compared to the “natural” route – to bring a child into this world, because it is possible through these techniques to exercise a more effective “control” over the quality of the conceived child in line with the wishes of those who ask for such a child.”  The Academy further noted: ” All this works in favour of seeing the child obtained through the use of ART as being on the same level as a “product” whose value in reality depends in large measure on its “good quality”, which for its part is subjected to severe controls and careful selection.(which brings us back to the NYT article)

Returning to Jenny’s story:

Jenny’s decision to reduce twins to a single fetus was never really in doubt. The idea of managing two infants at this point in her life terrified her. (Got that?  Terrified her.  Was she really so naive to have thought twins was not a possible outcome given the increased incidence of multiples with ART and IVF?  Or did she anticipate pursuing reduction as part of the pregnancy plan?  Did the fact that she was carrying another woman’s children make it an easier decision?  Now, as a 44 year old woman myself with 5 children, I can definitely appreciate how daunting raising twins at this time in my life would be but I also know that I am not in control of this situation.  God is.  Children are a gift.  We have to view them this way or we end up casting off the inconvenient or imperfect ones.)

Jenny basically goes on to justify killing one of the babies because she wants to make sure she has enough energy, attention and material things for her existing children and the remaining child in the pregnancy.   The author of the article writes:

Even the twins would be robbed, because, at best, she could give each one only half of her attention and, she feared, only half of her love. Jenny desperately wanted another child, but not at the risk of becoming a second-rate parent. (Since Jenny is already a parent I don’t know how she deceived herself with this reasoning.  As any parent I’ve ever talked to will say, love doesn’t divide, it multiplies.  I know I was amazed each time a new child was welcomed into our home by how much love I had not only for the new baby, but for my other children as well.)

Shockingly, Jenny says “This is bad (referring to the reduction), but it’s not anywhere as bad as neglecting your child or not giving everything you can to the children you have,”  (Again, the human brain can do amazing things to justify any behavior.  As my 14 year old daughter concluded: “so she’s saying that being dead is better than having to wear hand-me downs?)

Interestingly, Jenny and her husband told no one about their decision and plan to keep it that way and this approach is quite common in those couples that pursue pregnancy reduction.  One couple in this article were very divided about the procedure but ended up compromising when the husband said he didn’t want to see ultrasounds of the twins and he didn’t want to be in the room during the reduction procedure.  As long as he didn’t have to “see it” he felt he could handle the intentional death of one of his children.  His wife was happy with his absence because she didn’t “want to have to deal with this feelings.”  (Yikes.  How is that marriage going to weather?)

Several doctors who perform the procedure note that there is a certain stigma attached to it.  Though society seems to be more willing to accept a straightforward abortion, it views couples who pursue reduction as more “selfish.”  Further, women often suffer greatly after reduction with “what if” questions and wondering if they chose the right baby (often times doctors are the ones to choose which baby to kill since couples don’t want the responsibility.  It will be interesting to see if recovery groups like “Silent No More” develop in a few years to help couples deal with the guilt and regret that is likely to come.)

There is a detailed discussion of why some physicians recommend reduction with twin pregnancies and several other anecdotes involving the procedure.    The author also explores some of the ethical quandaries (e.g. sex selection, birth defects, Downs Syndrome) faced by a society that now views pregnancy and parenthood as just another consumer choice.  I’ll finish this  post with this final example of A. and her partner, a lesbian couple, looking to have children.  The author shares their story:

Because both women were 45, they tried to double their already slim chances by both being inseminated. They each tried it three times; nothing took. At their doctor’s suggestion, they chose an egg donor in her mid-20s. Both women went through I.V.F., each with two embryos transferred. Both women got pregnant, but A. quickly miscarried. Her partner (who did not want to be identified, even by an initial) gave birth to a healthy boy, whom they adore. A. did another round of I.V.F. with frozen embryos, hoping to provide their son with a sibling. It didn’t work. So when their boy was nearly a year old, both women underwent I.V.F. again. Given A.’s fertility history, the doctor predicted she had just a 5 percent chance of getting pregnant.

Eventually, both women ended up pregnant with twins.  They debated about pregnancy reduction and concluded that A. would reduce so as to increase the likeliness she would carry the remaining baby to term.  After her reduction procedure, A’s partner miscarried.  Now A. is expecting her baby in December.  When asked about fearing a miscarriage, she reflects on the whole situation in this ironic way:

I’ve come to realize there’s only so much we can control. There’s a point where you just have to let nature take its course.

Upcoming Lecture

June 6th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

Dr. Janet E. Smith will deliver a pro-life lecture at Our Lady of Mercy high school entitled “The Right to Privacy?” The presentation will take place Thursday, June 16th at 7 PM.

Here is a description:

“Based on her new book, Dr. Smith’s talk will address the way in which a distorted view of freedom dominates various U.S. Supreme Court decisions on life issues under the guise of “the right to privacy.” Pope John Paul II, in The Gospel of Life, identified how this distorted view is one of the roots of the “Culture of Death.” Learn about some surprising connections between contraception, abortion, assisted suicide and same-sex unions.”

Admission is $25 per family, $10 per person, or $5 per student. All money raised will benefit St. John Bosco schools.

Please let the organizers know if you plan to attend by e-mailing them at: channa@johnboscoschools.org

or calling 585-678-4655.

Click here to view the flyer.

Reproductive Rights Bill Threatens Again

May 29th, 2011, Promulgated by Hopefull

In at least some churches this weekend, and on very short notice, people were told that the Reproductive Rights Bill will be rearing its ugly head again THIS WEEK, on Ascension Thursday to be exact.  June 2 is the day for the Committee vote in the Assembly to bring this to the floor for vote, and now is the time to call / fax / email our Assembly representatives with our objections.  We signed petitions at church this morning, and that is good, but hopefully those who can do even more will do so.  This  info was confirmed in an email from Rochester Area Right-to-Life. 

Why is it important to oppose this bill?  Because it would make abortion a “fundamental right” up to and through the 9th month of pregnancy.  It is essentially permission for murder at birth.  It also will put even more of a sinful burden on Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors.

Please contact your NYS Assembly Representative at his/her Albany or local office and say:  “Please oppose the Reproductive Health Act.  It is harmful to women.”    Remember that not all the representatives are pro-abortion, and courtesy as well as clarity matter.  If it does come out of committee, we will need to go back to those same people to ask them to oppose it on the Assembly floor.  Credibility and persistence are key.   We need to convince them that there is considerable opposition to the bill.  God bless you for anything you can do!

 

 

New South Dakota Law Aims to Reduce Abortions

March 23rd, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

From the Associated Press, with some emphasis:

“PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a law Tuesday requiring women to wait three days after meeting with a doctor to have an abortion, the longest waiting period in the nation.

Abortion rights groups immediately said they plan to file a lawsuit challenging the measure, which also requires women to undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortions.

Daugaard, who gave no interviews after signing the bill, said in a written statement that he has conferred with state attorneys who will defend the law in court and a sponsor who has pledged private money to finance the state’s legal costs.

“I think everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of other alternatives,” the Republican governor said the statement. “I hope that women who are considering an abortion will use this three-day period to make good choices.”

About half the states, including South Dakota, now have 24-hour waiting periods, but the state’s new law is the first of its kind in having a three-day waiting period and requiring women to seek counseling at pregnancy help centers, said Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.”

The Third Rail

February 8th, 2011, Promulgated by Mike

I recently was prompted to recall a couple of 2 1/2 year-old comments on Rich Leonardi’s Ten Reasons.  I’ll get to what prompted me in a bit, but first those comments …

Kit, a frequent visitor to Ten Reasons, posted the following comment in October, 2008.

Readers should know that diocesan priests are treated like mid-level employees at the DOR. They are at the mercy of a number of lay administrators, financial auditors, and HR types who run the show. It is the latter who show up unannounced at rectories and Masses, and who report to the Bishop on the supposed “wrongdoings” of the more conservative priests.

As employees of a religious organization, priests (and other “renegade” conservative employees) are not subject to the same protections afforded most of us under State and Federal anti-discrimination laws. So yes, the DOR can fire these “at-will” employee priests for the iniquitous infraction of being, well, more Catholic than the Bishop.

Pray for us, that we are rewarded in 4 years with a successor who will undo the damage and heal the sucking chest wound that has been inflicted by the shepherd of Sacred Heart.

When another reader asked for “examples of what sorts of things a conservative priest might do which would be considered inappropriate by DOR,” Kit added these details.

… without causing trouble for or invading the privacy of those involved:

My first-hand sources advise that generally, any homily that forcefully sets forth traditional Church teachings on homosexuality (i.e., the idea of loving the sinner but acknowleding and calling the acts involved “sin” vs. total inclusion up to and including marriage), morality, modesty in behavior and Sunday dress, explaining why there will be no nuptial Masses for “mixed” (Catholic/non-Catholic or second (non-annulled) marriages, supporting the Church’s stance on female ordinations are inherently suspect. These topics can cause one to be privately counseled, particularly when a parishioner kicks up a fuss or is offended by it and calls Buffalo Road – such callers usually involve parents of gay adult children (who don’t like hearing that their actively homosexual child is living in a state of mortal sin), or people who are angry and blame the Church and/or the individual “hardliner” or “old fashioned” priest for refusing to marry them/a family member to a non-annulled or non-Catholic person.

Unfortunately, I can’t divulge further or be more specific than these rather commonplace occurrences – trust me, what I could tell you would be deeply shocking to most reading this – but I hope this gives you a sense, anyway.

Essentially, because the Diocese and its Bishop have been putting out the message that rules are meant to be broken, and have ratified and condoned the public statements and actions of [F]r. Joan, Charles Curran, and others of that ilk, anyone who tries to be a bulwark of the Truth is seen as an obstacle that must be disdained, humiliated, and ultimately removed. Worse, this Diocese’s laxity has led to a dilution of the “Brand” and an expectation that the person’s, and not the Lord’s, will shall be done here – that the Church must conform to the erosion of the culture in order to survive, and not the other way around. Embracing that disordered way of thinking has led to the mess the DOR is in today, whether those in charge deign to acknowledge it or not.

(The organ’s great, though, isn’t it? Heh.)

What prompted this trip down Memory Lane was one of Michael Voris’ most recent Vortx pieces.  In this episode he presents a report sent to him outlining the reception received by a transitional deacon who dared to preach a homily against contraception.

This response took place in what Voris’ correspondent termed a “good” diocese.  I shudder to imagine what might have happened had the diocese been DOR.

%CODE1%

By the way, the “recent Vortex episodes about contraception and its link to abortion” mentioned by Voris would appear to be this one and this one.

A Reading From Hell’s Bible to the Progressives

January 27th, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

Various excerpts from a New York Times editorial written by Nicholas  D. Kristof about the Catholic hospital and nun who recommended a woman get an abortion, with commentary:

“Yet the person giving Jesus the heave-ho in this case was not a Bethlehem innkeeper. Nor was it an overzealous mayor angering conservatives by pulling down Christmas decorations. Rather, it was a prominent bishop, Thomas Olmsted, stripping St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix of its affiliation with the Roman Catholic diocese.

The hospital’s offense? It had terminated a pregnancy to save the life of the mother. The hospital says the 27-year-old woman, a mother of four children, would almost certainly have died otherwise.”

In this passage, the writer is trivializing the seriousness of abortion. Regardless of the reasons for engaging in this evil action, a willful act of infanticide is always infanticide. The Church’s teaching on this matter is clear, and has been reaffirmed throughout the centuries, from the Lord’s commandment not to kill, to the writings of the early Church Fathers, to the words of the modern Holy Fathers and bishops of today.  Obviously this was a very delicate and difficult situation for anyone to be faced with. However, it is not for us to play God and take it upon ourselves to decide whether the life of the mother or the child is more important. Every effort should be made to save both, but we must ultimately put our faith in God when all options have been exhausted, and not take the place of God by killing one life because we think one or both may be in danger. When there are no other options, we must rely upon the divine mercy of God as to what will transpire. A difficult situation like this does not give one free reign to murder.

“Now the bishop, in effect, is excommunicating the entire hospital — all because it saved a woman’s life.”

This is not correct. The bishop has stripped the hospital of its Catholic title and no longer permits Mass to be celebrated on its premises not because it “saved a woman’s life,” but because the hospital was an accomplice to murder. I don’t believe the “entire hospital” was excommunicated, as this writer suggests, but only those who had a significant hand in the abortion. Additionally, the excommunication was incurred latae sententiae, which means that it happened automatically when the event took place. This is detailed in Canon 1398. It was not by the bishop’s hand that the excommunication took place, but by the hands of the parties involved with the abortion.

“The main consequence is that Mass can no longer be said in the hospital chapel. Thomas C. Fox, the editor of National Catholic Reporter, noted regretfully that a hospital with deep Catholic roots like St. Joseph’s now cannot celebrate Mass, while airport chapels can.”

I am not aware of airports procuring abortions.

“To me, this battle illuminates two rival religious approaches, within the Catholic church and any spiritual tradition. One approach focuses upon dogma, sanctity, rules and the punishment of sinners. The other exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners — and, perhaps, above all, inclusiveness.”

I hardly consider it compassionate for a person to put anther’s immortal soul in danger by encouraging them to commit murder. Where is the compassion in that? We too often think about making others feel good in this life that we neglect what affect this desire to placate may have on our neighbor’s eternal life. If we have a friend who is engaging in sodomy and wishes to enter into a homosexual “marriage”, do we remain silent or even support these actions in the spirit of inclusion and wanting the other person to be happy? Rather, shouldn’t we demonstrate true compassion, and inform the person that they are putting their soul in peril by engaging in sinful behavior?

“The thought that keeps nagging at me is this: If you look at Bishop Olmsted and Sister Margaret as the protagonists in this battle, one of them truly seems to me to have emulated the life of Jesus. And it’s not the bishop, who has spent much of his adult life as a Vatican bureaucrat climbing the career ladder. It’s Sister Margaret, who like so many nuns has toiled for decades on behalf of the neediest and sickest among us.

Then along comes Bishop Olmsted to excommunicate the Christ-like figure in our story. If Jesus were around today, he might sue the bishop for defamation.”

If Jesus were around today, he might sue this New York Times writer for defamation! The progressives (Catholic or otherwise) are constantly manipulating the true Jesus Christ so as to make Him into who they want Him to be; an amalgamation of Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, and Martin Luther King. The fact of the matter is that this is/was not Christ! A careful reading of the Bible will reveal that our Lord was a fiery preacher who admonished sinners, called all peoples to repentance regardless of how much they had sinned and to what nation they belonged, and reproved hypocrites who manipulated the law and failed to follow their own manipulations. Jesus was warm, fuzzy, and loving, make no mistake, but He was also firm, truthful, and faithful.

Sr. Margaret deserves no comparison to Christ because Christ did not, and would not condone murder. I am also struck by how the author seems to suggest that the Sister has done good for others while the bishop has done nothing but enforce Church laws. Does this writer know every detail of the bishop’s life which would enable him to prove that Bishop Olmstead never cared for the “neediest and sickest among us”? Let us not be so quick to exalt those who flaunt their good works (think Callan) while condemning those who chose to help others quietly (think Pope Pius XII).

Feel free to read the entire article. There is plenty of nonsense to be found.

New York City – 41% of Pregnancies End in Abortion

January 25th, 2011, Promulgated by Gen

A masterful piece by Fr. Barron: