Eagerly awaiting CCCB action on pro-life promises

Today, November 23, marks one month since the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) completed their plenary assembly.  At the end of this meeting, the bishops expressed their desire to be more involved in pro-life work.  Isn't that wonderful?

Bishop Ronald P. Fabbro (London) was part of a panel presentation on the topic.  He emphasized the importance for bishops to assume greater leadership in pro-life activities.

Referring to the recent debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide, as well as debates on other life issues, Bishop Fabbro noted the importance of being pro-active in framing the questions. “If Bishops don’t step up,” he said, “others will who may present a distorted view of the Church’s teaching. We need to inform our people on the foundations of our faith.”  

In his presentation, Archbishop Blanchet noted the tensions and difficulties that have emerged among individuals and groups involved in defending the right to life from conception to natural death. He stressed the importance being united in thought and action, and proposed a dialogue involving all parties in the “pro-life movement”. Such a dialogue, he said, would help lessen difficulties within the movement and also help establish common ground. 

In their reflections, the Bishops stressed there was an important link between the sacredness of human life and the quality of life. They also noted the importance of activities for life at the diocesan level.  (Source)

So just to recap, they seem to have three broad areas where they've committed to act:

1. More proactive teaching on life issues
2. Dialogue with pro-life groups
3. More activities at the diocesan level

I'm very curious to see how all this will unfold. It sounds so promising, yet we haven't seen any action during the month that has elapsed since this commitment.

The bishops need to do more than issue a letter or press release condemning euthanasia and assisted suicide.  That's a start, but it's not nearly enough.  No offense, but very very few people read the press releases issued by the CCCB.  Moreover, the mainstream media often won't provide any coverage and most parishes won't mention them.

If the bishops are serious about this, they need to take more concrete actions from a pastoral perspective.  Here are some concrete examples:

• They should reform marriage preparation courses so that the Theology of the Body becomes mandatory teaching.  They should also instruct engaged couples about the evil of contraception and abortion.  
• They should encourage their parishioners to be active in the pro-life movement by volunteering their time and by making donations to good ministries like LifeSiteNews.  
• Every bishop should participate in pro-life marches across the country each May because it isn't very difficult to book off 2 hours per year for a good cause. 
• They should take a public stand against politicians who support abortion, telling them that they cannot receive communion. 
• They should publicly rescind the Winnipeg Statement.
  

You think I'm too demanding? I don't.  Anything short of such actions will just be the same old, same old.  Anything short of such actions won't make a dent in the growing apathy among Canadian Catholics.  The CCCB made some strong statements on pro-life issues at the end of their plenary assembly and now they must follow through with some strong actions.  They've created big expectations; they shouldn't disappoint.

.

22,000 youth in a Eucharistic procession!!!

This is absolutely amazing!  You have to see the pictures!  Click here.

Praise be to Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the altar!

Dear clergy: please fulfil your calling

It's true that our Church is in bad shape. But God doesn't abandon His children. There are always some faithful shepherds who will give a good example. Today's news brings us another such instance.

LifeSiteNews reports that Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin instructed a pro-abortion politician, Patrick Kennedy (son of Ted Kennedy) not to receive communion because of his dissenting views. Now there are elements in the Church who think that such a statement by a Bishop is un-Christian, uncharitable, unloving, etc. If we had eyes to see the truth as God has revealed it, we would realize that such a statement by a Bishop is an extreme act of virtue and is of immense benefit to the Church in many ways:

1. First and foremost, this directive by the Bishop sends a clear message to the recipient that he or she is endorsing a grave sin and that their eternal salvation is in peril. It is therefore a strong call to repentance and conversion, which is what the Gospel is all about.
2. In cases where such a directive is made public, as in the current case, it also instructs the other faithful of the gravity of the sin that is being endorsed by the politician. It therefore gives them reason to pause and rethink in their own positions.
3. It protects Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament from sacrilege.  Jesus gave us a priceless gift in the Eucharist.  Do we want to repay Him with love and worship or by offering Him a dwelling place that is full of filth and corruption?
4. It prevents further sin by the politician by protecting him from the opportunity to commit sacrilege.
5. It ensures the salvation of the Bishop's soul, because it is his responsibility before God Almighty to instruct the faithful and to call sinners to repentance. If he were to shun away from this responsibility, his own salvation would be in peril.  As St. John Chrysostom once said, “the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”

I sure wish that other bishops and priests would realize the benefits of this type of fraternal correction. It need not be done in public. And in fact, Bishop Tobin kept the matter private.  It was Patrick Kennedy who made the matter public when he told the press that the Bishop had asked him to stop receiving communion back in 2007. 

So I urge all the clergy out there to pray to the Holy Spirit for the strength they need to effectively carry out their ministry. Yes, it's important to emphasize the positives of the Gospel. But you cannot ignore the importance of calling sinners to repentance.  Jesus did it. And aren't you called to imitate Jesus in a special way through the sacrament of ordination? Then get with it!

.

You are so precious

In today's Gospel, we hear a familiar story about the curing of a blind man (Luke 18:35-43)

As he approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard a crowd going by, he asked what was happening. They told him, ‘Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.’ Then he shouted, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’ Those who were in front sternly ordered him to be quiet; but he shouted even more loudly, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ 

Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him; and when he came near, he asked him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ He said, ‘Lord, let me see again.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Receive your sight; your faith has saved you.’ Immediately he regained his sight and followed him, glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, praised God.

Rather than focus on the persevering faith of the blind man or on the power of Jesus in performing the cure, I would like to highlight another feature of this passage.  Notice how the people who were traveling with Jesus felt disturbed by the cries of the blind man. They essentially told him to shut up. They were annoyed and bothered by his presence. He was a nuisance to them. Yet Jesus doesn't consider him to be an annoyance. He's very precious in Jesus' eyes.  

The same is true for us. Too often, we experience rejection or a sense of inadequacy when dealing with other people. We have the impression that we're not good enough, that we need to impress people, and we need to be more witty, more attractive, and more intelligent, more athletic, more wealthy, more powerful.  The result is that we live in fear, insecurity and distress.  Sometimes it's unconscious.  We don't even realize that we are living our lives to impress others.

In in this passage of the Gospel of Luke, we see how Jesus sees so much more than other people. He delights in you and longs to spend time with you. You are worth so much to Him. Even though He calls you to grow in perfection, He still loves you as you are today.  

"You mean he loves me despite all my sins?"  Yup.  You better believe it.

We need to remind ourselves of this truth so that we don't become insecure, depressed or dejected. Everybody wants to be loved. Fortunately, everybody is loved by Christ. 

Don't let anybody convince you of the opposite. Don't let anybody's insults make you believe that you're useless and unwanted. You are unique in an unrepeatable. And you have an exclusive role to play in this world that nobody else can fulfill. You are a key player in God's plan for the salvation of the world. 

You are someone very special and nobody can claim otherwise.

Take care.

Bishop Henry rips bill C-484 but ignores euthanasia committed under Bishop Fabbro's nose

As reported by Michael at Freedom Through Truth, Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary has sent a letter to Fr. Tim Moyle regarding bill C-484.  It is a very good letter and I applaud Bishop Henry for this strong pro-life effort.  

I am unaware if this letter has been distributed more widely through the media or throughout the Calgary diocese.  It would certainly be worthwhile.  

One paragraph of the letter caught my attention:

The legislation of aid-in-dying would pose a threat to the elderly, the infirm, handicapped newborns and to all members of society who are unable to look after their own best interests. This kind of legislation says to them: "you're not important; you're not needed; in fact, you are a burden to others.

That's an excellent point.  We need to hear this more often.  

It's funny he should mention "newborns", because one of his fellow bishops, Ronald Fabbro (London),  oversees St. Joseph Catholic Hospital in London, Ontario, where they have been deliberately euthanizing babies with birth defects for 20 years.  Here's how it works:

1. A prenatal diagnosis test reveals a baby has serious birth defects.
2. Doctors wait until the baby reaches 21 weeks of gestation, the point at which it is considered "viable", in other words that it could theoretically survive outside the womb if it were given highly specialized intensive care treatment.
3. The doctors then artificially induce labour so that the baby is born prematurely.
4. They intentionally let the baby die.  No treatment is provided.

And voilà, instant euthanasia of a little baby in a Catholic hospital.  Can you believe it?  Disgusting.  

The priest responsible for overseeing this procedure at St. Joseph's, Fr. Michael Prieur defends his Catholic euthanasia and has stated on several occasions that Bishop Fabbro approves of the situation.  Fr. Prieur, by the way, is a staunch supporter of the Winnipeg Statement (notice how it keeps popping up every time there's a moral problem in the Church?)  Fr. William McGrattan, rector of St. Peter’s Seminary, and another member of St. Joseph’s ethics committee also approves of this euthanasia. 

In some cases, expectant mothers have been pressured into having their baby euthanized by the hospital, despite the claim from Fr. Prieur that the procedure is only done when the health or life of the mother is at risk.

The bishops of the United States, on the other hand, have their heads screwed on straight on this matter.  They clearly state that such a practice is never permissible. In a 1996 document called Moral Principles Concerning Infants with Anencephaly, the US bishops explain the moral principles that makes this practice unacceptable:

"In other words, it is permitted to treat directly a pathology of the mother even when this has the unintended side-effect of causing the death of her child, if this pathology left untreated would have life-threatening effects on both mother and child, but it is not permitted to terminate or gravely risk the child's life as a means of treating or protecting the mother.

Hence, it is clear that before "viability" it is never permitted to terminate the gestation of an anencephalic child as the means of avoiding psychological or physical risks to the mother. Nor is such termination permitted after "viability" if early delivery endangers the child's life due to complications of prematurity. In such cases, it cannot reasonably be maintained that such a termination is simply a side-effect of the treatment of a pathology of the mother (as described in Directive 47). Anencephaly is not a pathology of the mother, but of the child, and terminating her pregnancy cannot be a treatment of a pathology she does not have. Only if the complications of the pregnancy result in a life-threatening pathology of the mother, may the treatment of this pathology be permitted even at a risk to the child, and then only if the child's death is not a means to treating the mother.

The fact that the life of a child suffering from anencephaly will probably be brief cannot excuse directly causing death before "viability" or gravely endangering the child's life after "viability" as a result of the complications of prematurity" (Source)

Even though they are talking about anencephaly, the principles can be generalized to other fetal abnormalities. The excerpt above is very explicit and clear, but I'd like to highlight two points:

• Notice the sentence I underlined in red: the bishops condemn any termination of pregnancy after viability if it endangers the life of the baby.  In the case of St. Joseph's, the whole point of early termination is to end the life of the baby.  
• In the sentence I underlined in green, they explain that the child's death cannot be used as a means of treating the mother.  That's exactly what they're doing at St. Joseph's.
  

Politics among bishops

Now watch how the politics works among bishops.  LifeSiteNews called the bishop's office a dozen times to get a comment from the bishop.  Now this was before the Development and Peace scandal, where the bishops officially declared war on LifeSiteNews.  A spokesperson for the diocese told them that the bishop wouldn't comment.  When asked if the bishop would make comments to the Toronto Star or another agency, the spokesperson said that if "I was contacted by a legitimate news outlet, then the diocese would have a comment on it."  Sure enough, the bishop made some comments when the National Post wrote an article about the scandal.  Talk about being snobbish.  Reminds me of James 2:1-4

"My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favouritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, ‘Have a seat here, please’, while to the one who is poor you say, ‘Stand there’, or, ‘Sit at my feet’, have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?" 

But wait, it gets better worse.  Suddenly, in March 2009, Bishop Fabbro announced that he was launching an investigation into the practice.  Why the sudden flip-flop?  Is it a coincidence that the Vatican also launched it's own review around the same time?  Notice how he said all the right things in public at the time he announced the review:  he said he "wasn't necessarily going to wait until all of this work had been done before I would be in a position to make changes to the guidelines the hospital is following now."  Sounds like a man with determination and a sense of urgency, eh?  Well guess what? That was in March 2009.  We're in November.  That's eight months.  How many more babies have been euthanized in the interim?  Is he going to wait until the Vatican forces him to shut down the racket?

Which brings me back to Bishop Henry.  Your Grace, your letter on C-484 was great. But I would exhort you to pick up the phone and call Bishop Fabbro to talk some sense into him.  You should also make a public statement against what's happening at St. Joseph's.


.

Catholic priest speaks boldly about bishops who cover up sex abuse scandals

A powerful yet simple message by Fr. Tim Moyle at Where the Rubber Hits the Road.  A reader asked him why bishops cover up sex abuse scandals by priests.  Read Fr. Tim's answer here.  Well said!

Dangers of homosexual lifestyle

The homosexual lifestyle has been gaining legitimacy in the Western world over the past 20-30 years. With the legalization of same-sex marriage and the amendment of the hate-crimes legislation, the previous Liberal government in Canada sent a powerful message that the homosexual lifestyle should be regarded as "main stream" and must be endorsed by everybody. Unfortunately, there isn't much political will in Canada to change the new status quo.

I think Canadians need to take a fresh look at this issue. Let's leave moral and religious considerations on the sidelines in order to focus on the medical evidence and research regarding the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. I will be presenting the straight facts, as reported by world-class researchers and rigorous scientific journals.

I am not seeking to condemn homosexuals. However, I recognize the fact that everybody has the power to choose their lifestyle. As such, I want Canadians to realize the risks involved with the homosexual lifestyle and the monumental mistake of trying to legitimize this lifestyle. For the sake of the common good of our country, we should not be legitimizing behaviour that is very unhealthy.

For example, Canadian society is now aware of the health risks of smoking. We have many programs to help people quit and the government runs hard-hitting ads to convince people to kick the habit. As we will see, medical research has revealed that the homosexual lifestyle is even more dangerous to health than smoking. So why are we legitimizing this behaviour?

No doubt people will accuse me of being intolerant, hateful, homophobic and closed-minded. By doing so, they will in fact prove that they are the closed-minded ones, because they are unwilling to consider solid scientific evidence and reconsider some of their beliefs.

Research

Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. Recent analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan by 24 years. These results were presented by Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23, 2007.

• According to their data for Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74 years, while the partnered gays died at an average age of 51. In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77, compared to 52 years old for the married gay men in the study.

• With respect to women, Danish heterosexual married women died at an average age of 78 years, compared to 56 years for the lesbians studied. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81, compared to 56 years for lesbians.

According to Dr. Cameron, "The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant. The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities."

This has important implications for the debate on homosexual adoption. If the parents are likely to die young, is it advisable to allow them to adopt children? Is this in the best interests of the child?

Let's be logical, folks.  Leave behind the political correctness and use your head to make a ration decision.  The legitimizing of this behaviour makes no sense whatsoever and must stop.


.

Does this repulse you?

Let me show you a couple of recent headlines from the secular media. First, from the CBC: 

Life sentence in 30-year-old Longueuil murder

A 61-year-old Longeuil woman has been sentenced to life in prison for the first-degree murder of her sister and her sister's partner in August 1979... (Source)

Do you find that headline offensive?  Does it make you feel that the Quebec authorities are too strict and grumpy?  I didn't think so.  Grave crimes require grave punishment, right?  Let's try another headline from the UK:

Ben’s law: Knife murder minimum sentence raised to 25 yrs after Kinsella campaign

Knife killers will spend up to a decade longer in jail after a successful campaign by the family of victim Ben Kinsella. Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced the tougher new penalties yesterday. It means a minimum sentence in most cases increasing from 15 to 25 years – just five below the 30-year term for gun murder... (Source)

Does that headline scare you? Does it make you feel like the authorities in the U.K. are mean or negative people?  No?  Me neither. Murder is serious business and requires a serious penalty.

So what's my point?  You might be asking yourself what I've been smoking. Let me show you a third headline:

Spanish Bishop Says Catholic Politicians Who Vote for Abortion Excommunicate Themselves

The secretary general of the Spanish bishops' conference, Auxiliary Bishop Juan Antonio Martinez Camino of Madrid, warned that Spanish Catholic legislators who vote in favor of a bill to liberalize abortion which is currently before parliament would publicly place themselves in an "objective state of sin" and therefore may not receive Communion.

Does this headline offend you?  Does it make you think that the Church is too negative?  If you answered No to the first two headlines but answered Yes to the third headline, then you need to ask yourself some serious questions.  Why is it okay for secular authorities to enforce strict penalties for serious crimes, but it is somehow "harsh" for the Church to do the same?

Here's the point. There are some people in the clergy who think that bold statements like the one from the Auxiliary Bishop of Madrid are too "negative." These spineless clergymen think that being firm about Church discipline is un-Christian and turns people off. This has been particularly obvious in recent months as pro-lifers have been outraged over the Development and Peace scandal or the Ted Kennedy funeral scandal.  

Certainly, the Catholicism is much more than a set of rules and penalties. Catholicism is fundamentally about learning to know God, love God and serve God in this life, in order to be with Him forever in the next life.  This does not exclude rules and penalties, however, which help guide our actions.  God knows our weak human nature.  Without discipline and accountability, we easily drift away. Rules and penalties help keep us honest.

So why do these spineless clergymen refuse to publicly enforce Church rules on serious crimes?  We're not talkin' about petty mischief like spitting on a sidewalk.  We're talking about serious stuff here, like abortion.  So why the hangup from the clergy?  Do they not realize that without some rules and enforcement that chaos will necessarily ensue? Do they not worry about the possible damnation of the faithful who will go astray without the proper guidance and teaching? Or have they stopped believing in the concepts of sin and hell? Are they too afraid to take a public stand? Are they too cosy with politicians to rebuke them in public?

None of these possible explanations would be a valid one. I understand that clergy need to be "pastoral," but you cannot forsake the Truth in the process, otherwise Heaven becomes and open bar and the practice of Catholicism becomes irrelevant. In fact, some of these clergyman will openly say that hell doesn't exist and that everybody is saved. Indeed, if we are free to commit any serious sin, even abortion, without any consequences, then why bother with any other of the requirements of the Gospel? Why go to Mass? Why repent from sins? Why believe in the doctrine of the Faith? Why make any sacrifices? Why obey the clergy? Why pray? Why donate to your local church?

This brand of "pastoral" Catholicism leads to self-destruction. It is being aggressively pushed by priests in Quebec, with disastrous consequences. I've seen it with my own eyes and have heard numerous reports from others. The clergy in Quebec are so eager to make Catholicism as "burden-free" as possible that everything has become optional. But in the process, people are realizing that there is no point in practicing anything the Church teaches. Hell doesn't exist so everybody gets saved regardless of what they believe and how they live. Predictably, the number of practicing Catholics keeps plummeting and churches keep closing. The priests are preaching their churches into irrelevance and oblivion.

Until the Truth is proclaimed, people will not return to the Church. These clergymen need to realize that the Gospel is endowed with the power of God. It is not a human teaching. When you preach the authentic Gospel, the power of the Word of God will change hearts. If you preach a diluted pseudo-gospel, you lose that power and enter into a merely human philosophy of life. There's no power in there.



.

Muslims somehow become the victims after Fort Hood shooting

It's the paradox of political correctness.  A Muslim man kills 13 innocent people in a shooting rampage in Fort Hood (he started shouting "God is great!" in Arabic as he opened fire) and now the media are treating Muslims as victims.  That's not a typo.  The media seem more worried about potential violence that might be committed against Muslims in retaliation for the shooting, than about the 13 real dead people. 

Read this great editorial on the topic by Father Raymond J. de Souza in today's National Post.

.

Outsource your own job!

Okay, I admit that this post is quite off topic for Catholic Dialogue.  But as an economist, I really got a kick out of this great video from The Onion.  Enjoy!

Dear ladies: would you like to share a changing room with a man?

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has struck again. Sort of.

The latest case involves a gentleman who owns a gym in St. Catherine's Ontario.

The dispute began in the summer of 2006, when a man, calling himself Lisa MacDonald, sought membership in John Fulton's fitness club for women. The man insisted not only on joining the club, but on using the women's change room and bathroom, despite Fulton's efforts to offer alternative solutions. MacDonald refused, however, to consider any other possibilities and threatened legal action. (Source)

The rest of the story is pretty much a cut and paste from most other "human rights" complaints: "Lisa" filed a complaint with the CHRC; as the complainant, "Lisa's" legal fees were entirely covered by the government; the poor owner of the gym had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. In this case, however, "Lisa" decided to drop the charges. So technically, the owner was never convicted, yet he still dished out loads of cash or during the legal proceedings.

Does the system make any sense to you?  As Ezra Levant aptly remarked, the process itself is the punishment.  It doesn't matter if you're guilty or innocent. If somebody files a complaint against you, get ready to be wiped out financially.

Let me ask a hypothetical question to all the ladies who read this blog: would you feel comfortable sharing a change room and bathroom with a man who thinks he's a woman? How could you be sure that such a man is acting in good faith?  What about the possibility that he's just an opportunist who wants to see naked women?  The possibilities for abuse are endless.

Unfortunately, don't look to Stephen Harper and to make any changes to this horribly corrupt system. Stephen Harper has less backbone than a snake that got run over by an RV.  Until we get somebody more competent to run this country, we aren't gonna get things done.

.

 

Ask yourself: are you doing enough for the Kingdom of God?

Yesterday was the feast of St. Leo the Great.  The Gospel reading was Luke 17:7-10.  It presents us with a very challenging message. At the end of this passage, Jesus says:

"So you also, when you have done all that you are ordered to do, say, 'We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!'"

That's a pretty tough message. We all have a tendency to pat ourselves on the back when we've done good work. But Christ is reminding us that we are called to do more.  We're called to heroic virtue. 

Let's be frank. The vast majority of us are not doing enough for the Kingdom of God. Whether it be feeding the poor, proclaiming the Gospel, working on pro-life matters or helping the sick, we fall short. In fact, most of us are downright lazy and apathetic. I'm just as guilty as anybody on this.  

Through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, our conscience tells us that we need to get moving, but too often we settle for mediocrity. We'll cut a cheque to our local charity so that we can appease our conscience and pretend that we've done our share. Or perhaps we'll go to the March for Life once a year so that we can put a little check mark in our minds next to the requirement of doing some good pro-life work.  Sorry, but that's not good enough. 

Another frequent temptation is to persuade ourselves that we're powerless and that we can only pray. In some cases, this is true, but are we really praying as much as we could? Are we fasting and making sacrifices?  In most cases, however, we can do something, even if it's just a little. We can write a letter. We can make a phone call. We can visit somebody. It just takes a little will power.

Christ is asking us to look in the mirror and honestly ask ourselves what more we can do. It's useless to throw our arms up in the air and complain about the state of the world if we aren't doing anything to make a change. 

So what are you going to change in your life?


.

Kudos to Bishop of Providence on Kennedy Jr.

Some Bishops really do a good job.  They need to be supported and affirmed. Here's a good example.

Patrick Kennedy, the son of the late Ted Kennedy, received a sharp public rebuke from his bishop, Thomas Tobin (Providence, Rhode Island).

Like his father, Patrick Kennedy is a politician. Also like his father, he claims to be Catholic and pro-abortion. 

A few days ago, when the House of Representatives was preparing to vote on the new health care bill, pro-life Representatives proposed an amendment that would prevent the use of federal funds for abortions. Fortunately, this amendment was passed, but Patrick Kennedy voted against it. The pro-abortion politician was quoted as saying “the fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”

Well, his local Bishop wasn't too impressed. He wrote an open letter because he felt that Kennedy's position "deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true.”

You can read the full coverage here.  Let me give you a delicious excerpt from the Bishop's letter:

[I]n confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!  Bishops are responsible for ensuring that their flock does not get misled.   Like a loving father, he tries to nudge them back on to the proper path.  they must not be afraid to take a public stand for the well-being of the faithful. It's hard, I know. But it has to be done.

Most Catholics think that it's non-Christian to reproach somebody else's behavior. That is patently false.  This passive attitude allows sin to proceed unabated and unchecked, thus wreaking havoc on the world. Fraternal correction is absolutely essential in the life of the Church. Charity, gentleness and tact are very important in this process. The approach varies depending on the circumstances. In most cases, it is sufficient to speak one-on-one with the person in private. However, there exist serious circumstances where it is vital that a public stand be made in order to counter a very public sin.

Bishop Tobin understands this.  We desperately need more bishops to follow this example.

Thank you Bishop Tobin!  Keep up the good work.


.

Rex Murphy recognizes Christian persecution

It doesn't happen too often that I get excited by an opinion piece published in the Globe and Mail.  They tend to have very liberal-leaning and anti-Christian views.  

I was pleasantly surprised by an excellent article from the pen of Rex Murphy regarding the "human rights" racket that is afflicting Europe.  Many of you have heard of the abuses inflicted by Canada's human rights commissions.  It's nice to see that we're not alone.  Misery loves company, as the saying goes.

Mr. Murphy's article focuses on two recent "human rights" rulings: the banning of crucifixes from Italian schools, which I wrote about here, and the promulgation of global warming-ism as a new religion, so to speak.  Here's an awesome quote from the article:

A case could be made that, whenever you hear of an action by a human-rights tribunal of any kind, you should mark it down that – quite likely – they are busy circumscribing the real rights or dignity of the various branches of Christianity, with a particular focus on Catholicism.

In this case, the European Court of Human Rights – in response to one complaint, from one atheist – told an entire country that has been the centre of world Christianity for 2,000 years to get rid of its most revered and cardinal symbol. It's the same old story: In the name of official tolerance, mandated intolerance.

Well done, Mr. Murphy.  Bring on the sanity.

Read the full article here.


.

Where are you, Msgr Gilles Lussier?

As recently reported by LifeSite, outspoken liberal priest Fr. Raymond Gravel has once again stirred up some controversy. This time, he appeared on a TV show claiming that people with homosexual attractions could never overcome those tendencies. This is an absurd claim, of course, made all the more ridiculous in light of the fact that he was sharing the stage with a man named Laurent Leclerc who was explaining his personal experience in successfully overcoming his own homosexual tendencies.

The most disturbing part of this incident was that Fr. Gravel dismissed the notion of homosexuality as being disordered. This is in direct contradiction of Church teaching, which is very clear on this matter:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 

(Source:  Catechism of the Catholic Church #2357-2358)

Fr. Gravel has been misleading the faithful for years, and yet his Bishop, Gilles Lussier, is so invisible that you'd think he was under the witness protection program. First of all, Canon Law forbids priests from occupying public office unless there is a grave necessity for the "protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good."  Nevertheless, Bishop Lussier allowed Fr. Gravel to enter political life in 2006 and serve as a Member of Parliament for the Bloc Québécois.  At the time, Bishop Lussier suspended his right administer the Sacraments as a priest or wear clerical garb. He also instructed Fr. Gravel not contradict Church teaching in his political life. 

Well, that warning fell on deaf earns.  For example, in 2007, Fr. Gravel appeared on TV and expressed support for abortion. In 2008, he opposed the Unborn Victim of Crime Act, which would have allowed two murder charges to be pressed on someone who killed a pregnant woman. He also publicly endorsed the awarding of the Order of Canada to Henry Morgentaler, the man who helped legalize abortion in Canada.  Even prior to becoming an MP, Fr. Gravel was outspoken against Church teaching, for example, by opposing Church teaching on same-sex unions.

So this begs the question:  Why is this priest allowed to mock Church teaching in public and not be reprimanded?  Can you think of any other organization that would operate like this?  Why is the Bishop asleep at the switch?  Pro-life leaders repeatedly tried to obtain an explanation from the bishop on this matter but they were ignored.  

When Fr. Gravel wrote an open letter in the Montreal Gazette condemning Church teaching on homsexual unions, reporters from The Gazette contacted the bishop and spoke briefly to him (notice how the bishop pays more attention to the secular media that to his own faithful?)  When asked to comment, the bishop said:  "Like all institutions, there is a professional code (...) I will meet with him and if I have reflections to communicate, I will express them to him." The next week, Fr. Gravel spoke gleefully about his discussion with the bishop: "He (Bishop Gilles Lussier) didn't judge me or muzzle me. He said my (writing) style was a bit harsh," but "he said he wouldn't stop me from writing."

What a farce. A complete abdication of episcopal responsibility. Or a sign that the bishop endorses Fr. Gravel's views.

It got so bad that the Vatican intervened and ordered Fr. Gravel to leave politics or be defrocked.  Fr. Gravel chose to leave politics, but he continues to publicly defy Church teaching and his bishop does nothing. 

This is just another example of the gross negligence of Canadian bishops that has contributed to the gradual erosion of the Catholic Church in this country. The case of Fr. Gravel is extremely disturbing because, being a priest, he holds a greater degree of credibility among the faithful. I have no doubt that thousands of Québec Catholics are being misled by this man. And yet the Bishop does nothing.

Lord save us!

.

Italians indignant at Court's attempt to ban crucifixes from schools

The European Court of Human Rights ruled today that Italian schools should remove crucifixes from classrooms, sparking uproar in Italy, where such icons are embedded in the national psyche.
(...)
The court ruling, which Italy said it would appeal, said crucifixes on school walls, a common sight that is part of every Italian's life, could disturb children who were not Christians. Italy has been in the throes of national debate on how to deal with a growing population of immigrants, mostly Muslims, and the court sentence is likely to become another battle cry for the centre-right government's policy to restrict newcomers. (Source)

In case you haven't been following European politics, this is just the latest intrusion of the "European government" into the internal affairs of individual member countries.  

As an economist, I support some of the initiatives that the European Union (EU) has brought.  I'm totally in favour of free trade and a common market.  I also can see the advantages of a monetary union and some harmonization of various economic and financial policies.  Such measures promote economic efficiency, facilitate capital and labour mobility (i.e. job opportunities) and lead to a general increase in living standards.  That was the original purpose of the EU.  

However, like any institution that acquires power and influence, it is easily hijacked by those common folks that suffer from the chronic condition called "Original Sin."  Over time, the EU has sought to expand it's reach and impose liberal policies on all member countries.  The biggest problem among the EU's intrusions is the pressure that it applies on all member countries to legalize abortion.  

The EU has its own laws and its own court to rule on them.  Italy is now facing the wrath of these liberals who want Christianity booted out.  It's abominable.

Fortunately, the Italians are not taking this lying down.  There has been an almost universal denunciation of the ruling, which the Italian government intends to appeal.  Good luck with that.  To get at the root of the problem, member countries should curtail the EU's powers and limit them to economic issues, as was originally intended.

It's not surprising that Christians are outraged by the ruling.  But is comforting to see that even more secular politicians are up in arms, recognizing the important place of Catholicism in the history and identity of Italy.  For example:

Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini said crucifixes on the walls of tens of thousands of classrooms “does not mean adherence to Catholicism” but are a symbol of Italy's heritage.  “The history of Italy is marked by symbols and if we erase symbols we erase part of ourselves,” Ms. Gelmini said.

I respect that position.  Nobody is forced to be Catholic, but they must acknowledge the reality that Catholicism has flavoured so much of Italy's history for centuries.  Even the opposition parties joined in the condemnation of the ruling:  

Pierferdinando Casini of the opposition Union of Christian Democrats party said the ruling showed that European institutions were “spineless,” noting the failure to mention the continent's Christian roots in Europe's constitution.

Do you notice the radical contrast between how Italians reacted to this ruling and the apathy of Canadians towards their religious heritage? A few years ago, when the courts were overturning marriage laws in this country, Canadians couldn't be bothered to pay attention.  They were too busy watching hockey, I guess. The way things are going, polygamy will also be the law of the land within a decade, tops.

Canadians have rolled over and given up on protecting their Christian roots. They don't care. The few politicians who speak up on these issues are marginalized as scary "fundamentalists" who have some "hidden agenda."  True to the stereotypes, Canadians are almost embarrassed about their Christian roots and feel obliged to apologize to immigrants for our customs. 

We need not be embarrassed.  We should be proud of our Christian heritage.  It has helped us become one of the most civilized countries in the world, where human rights are upheld and valued. It has helped us be a generous nation that has a positive reputation among other nations.

If only we could wake up and realize this, as the Italians have done.


.

Human Rights Commission defends pregnant woman

Finally some sanity from our embattled "human rights commissions."

In this case, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) ruled against an employer who fired a woman just because she became pregnant. Well done, OHRC.

That's the type of area where these commissions were initially designed to operate: obvious cases of blatant discrimination. Unfortunately, these commissions have strayed too far from their mandate and have become a "thought police".

I still think these commissions should be dismantled and I hope Tim Hudak does it. One good ruling by the OHRC doesn't offset the countless injustices they've perpetrated in the past and will continue to perpetrate until they're abolished.

Did Archbishop Lahey admit homosexual attractions?

The Globe and Mail published an article today on the latest developments in the accusations of child pornography against Archbishop Raymond Lahey.

I won't comment on whether he's guilty or innocent. I'll let the courts decide.  I just want to flag one sentence in the article:

He is alleged to have told one officer he is attracted to young men, aged 20 or 21, and that he had never done anything abusive to a child and would “never have any sexual interest in a person under 18.”

.

Is money all that matters to the CCCB regarding Development and Peace?

John Pacheco at SoCon or Bust just wrote another insightful article on the Development and Peace (D&P) scandal.  Click here to read it.

Media reports following the Plenary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) had some coverage of the D&P affair, although we really don't know what happened because all the important discussions were held behind closed doors.

Among the public comments that we know of, Bishop Richard Grecco (Charlottetown) presented a report that whitewashed D&P of any wrongdoing. That part isn't surprising.  What shocked me was the report's assessment of the toll that this scandal has taken:

"Among the individual and regular monthly donors to DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE, we have had 34 individuals (of our 6,110 donors) cancel their monthly contributions as a direct result of the controversy, representing 0.5% of our donor database." (Source)

The reason that donations were so little affected is partly due to the fact that most pro-life Catholics stopped donating to D&P years ago because of other scandals.  

But there is a more fundamental issue here.  Is that how Catholic bishops should assess a controversy, by its financial cost?  

What about the sufferings of thousands of faithful Catholics that have become disillusioned and disenfranchised with the lack of pro-life convictions of so many bishops? Many Catholics looked up the evidence on D&P and saw it with their own eyes.  When bishops subsequently told them "there is no evidence," that was a supremely destructive act that could compromise the faith of many. It was an extreme act of betrayal and abuse of the confidence and reverence that the faithful are to have towards the episcopacy. Yes, the faithful are required to be reverent towards the clergy.  But the clergy cannot use that as a cloak to shield themselves from wrongdoing. 

What about the plight of pro-life groups in developing countries that are crossing swords with pro-abortion advocates being funded by D&P?  Pro-lifers in those countries don't have the money to rival with the big bucks of pro-abortion advocates being funded by donors in rich countries like Canada.

What about the reputation of the Vatican, which was smeared by Archbishop Weisgerber who falsely claimed that the Holy See was funding UNICEF?  He tried to use the example of the Vatican in an attempt to justify D&P's actions.  Instead, he damaged the legacy of John Paul II, who made the principled decision to cut funding to UNICEF.

Do the bishops have nothing to say about these matters?  Is the money more important? 

Where are the pro-life bishops?  We heard the strong witness of Archbishops Prendergast and Collins during the Plenary, but what about the others?  

Let me tell you something.  Pro-life Catholics are feeling pretty lonely and abandoned these days.  It's the laity that's on the front lines going toe-to-toe with the culture of death in this country.  As Scripture says:  “We are being killed all day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter" (Psalm 44:22).  Now it appears that most bishops have forsaken us. 

Have we been sold for 30 pieces of silver?  Or, should I say, 0.5% of the donor base?


.

U.S. bishops showing exceptional leadership in abortion/health care debate

Wow, this is an impressive mobilization on the part of the U.S. bishops to prevent the new health care plan from funding abortions or forcing health care professionals to perform abortions.  

Bravo!  Well done!  I pray that their efforts will succeed.

.

Sadly, Fr. Rosica can't let it go

Fr. Rosica has again had another outburst against bloggers. He's taken his message on the road, this time to Rome, at the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications.

He made some good points about how the media tends to exhibit a moral bias. He also accurately pointed out how the media tends to "dumb down" the message and how form often becomes more important than substance.  People have lost intellectual rigor and are unwilling to pay attention for more than 15 seconds unless you flash some spectacular picture on the tube.

But he couldn't resist attacking bloggers - again.  Here's the relevant excerpt:

"On the Internet there is no accountability, no code of ethics, and no responsibility for one’s words and actions. [...]

"One of the challenges for the Church is that the Internet can destroy or confuse the hierarchy of information-providing that church agencies have worked so hard to establish. Web sites and blogs tend to concentrate on negative messages."

The result, Father Rosica contended, is that "Christians are known as the people who are against everything."

There is truth in his statements. The Internet is certainly open to everybody and accountability works only indirectly, through peer pressure and reputation.  But this freedom is also one of its great strengths, in that bloggers can't be fired or shut down if the powers that be don't agree with their message.

Honestly, I'm not too sure that "old" media has much accountability or responsibility either.  Radio, newspapers and TV stations can mislead people with relative impunity.  In fact, Salt & Light and the Catholic Register transmitted false claims made by Archbishop Weisgerber (Winnipeg) about the Vatican's support for UNICEF, and yet nobody in the Church hierarchy seemed to care.  Don't you remember?  Last summer, as Archbishop Weisgerber tried to defend Development and Peace's support for abortion advocates, he claimed that the Vatican was doing the same thing by supporting UNICEF.  Wrong!  The Vatican had stopped funding UNICEF in 1997 precisely because they were pushing abortion and contraception.  But neither Salt & Light or the Catholic Register did any fact checking, so they reported the Archbishop's statement as if it were a fact, thus leading people astray.  They are as guilty as anybody of lack of accountability, ethics and responsibility. Pope John Paul II must be rolling in his grave.  (Note that Salt & Light recently deleted Archbishop Weisgerber's statement about UNICEF from their website, so you won't find it there anymore, but the damage has been done).

As for his quote "Christians are known as the people who are against everything," that's nothing new and has nothing to do with the Internet.  The Church has had that reputation for a long time, in part due to the reality of the counter-cultural aspects of the Gospel (Christians don't just "go with the flow") but also due to deficient methods of teaching the Gospel.  Ask your parents or grandparents, and they'll tell you that this "negative" reputation of the Church has existed for decades.

It's a shame that Fr. Rosica has decided to ignore the message that bloggers are conveying and instead shoot the messenger.  Certainly, some blog posts go overboard.  I've done it on some occasions and I apologize.  I'm striving to find the right balance.  But most bloggers make very good points about the apathy in the Church and the need to return to authentic Catholicism in agreement with the Magisterium.  The solution isn't to shoot the bloggers, but to get rid of the apathy.

Painting everybody with the same brush is irresponsible.  If Fr. Rosica is accusing bloggers of sloppy reporting, he should perhaps look in the mirror sometime. 

Honestly, his rants are getting boring and old.


.

Anglican Church in West headed for self-destruction

Last week, the earth shook when the Vatican announced the vehicle through which Anglicans could be received into the Catholic Church.  For Traditional Anglicans, who had made the request to Rome, and for Catholics, this was a time of great celebration. 

Although Traditional Anglicans represent a relatively small group, there are many other conservative-minded Anglicans who are paying close attention and considering the jump to the Catholic Church.

This will have wide-spread ramifications for the Anglican Communion.  As more and more orthodox Anglicans leave for the Catholic Church, the remainder of the Anglican Church will be increasing composed of liberal-leaning Christians, drifting further and further from the essence of Christianity. These liberals will seek to increase their strangle-hold on Anglicanism by pushing for more liberal morality

We saw a first demonstration last week, as Ottawa Anglican Bishop, John Chapman, announced that a church in his diocese will be allowed to "bless" same-sex unions for the first time.  His announcement came just two days after the Vatican's announcement.  The bishops said:  "This will be Ottawa's offering to the ongoing discernment that is happening throughout the Anglican Church of Canada."  It seemed like a direct reaction to the announcement from Rome in order to appease the liberal wing in his church.

Here's a quote from the newspaper that caught my attention:

Bishop Chapman said liberal Anglicans in the diocese will likely believe the blessing protocol doesn't go far enough, while conservative-minded parishioners might think it goes too far. Chapman believes it's a healthy balance.

Strange analysis coming from a bishop.  He's looking for a "healthy balance" between two factions within the Anglican Church.  What ever happened to standing for the Truth?  Why not follow God's will instead of finding an arbitrary compromise between subjective opinions? Is that what Anglicanism in Canada has become? I'm afraid so.

The more orthodox Anglicans in Africa, which make up the bulk of the Anglican Communion, are within a hair of bolting.  To them, the idea of returning to the Catholic Church will become increasingly appealing.  The Anglicans in the West, which are but a small fraction of the total Anglican Church, have generally become so liberal as to be beyond recognition.  They support same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexual lifestyles, women priests, etc.  Their low birth rates will almost guarantee that they will disappear within a hundred years or so. 

By this time next century, the Anglican Church as we know it will probably have vanished.  That's what happens when you stray from the Truth.  Recall the wise words of Gamaliel in the Acts of the Apostles:

"So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; ³⁹but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!’ (Acts 5: 38-39)

The Anglican Church in the West is failing because it has strayed too far.

.

A lot of hot air about climate change

I'm a skeptic that humans are causing climate change.  If the climate is indeed changing, I don't think humans are to blame.  I've read the evidence quite extensively and it is far from conclusive.  Quite the contrary.

Here's a hilarious article about some of the extremes some people go to in order to minimize their "carbon footprint".

If you want to learn more about climate change, the best site is WattsUpWithThat.com.



.

Overblown fears of H1N1

I don't always agree with Margaret Wente, but I think this article was brilliant.

We certainly don't want to get complacent or careless about this flu, but let's not get into a panic either.  Stay balanced and keep your head.



.

Why are the feminists silent on polygamy?

You may have heard in the news that the B.C. government is struggling with the polygamy issue. Years ago, when same-sex marriage was being debated, pro-life leaders warned that polygamy would be the next can of worms to be opened. Liberal-leaning Canadians scoffed.  But it turns out we were right.

But the liberal-leaning Canadians don't seem to care.  They should, especially the feminists.  Polygamy is based on the idea that a man cannot be satisfied by just one woman.  That's very demeaning to the dignity of women.  In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says it quite plainly

2387  The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive." The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

Like so many teachings of the Church, they are logical.  An atheist should be able to see this logic.  Why is it, then, that we don't hear feminists being outraged by polygamy?  Doesn't polygamy seem like a direct attack to the gains that feminists have made over the years?

I think part of the answer is that lefties don't tend to fight each other.  They have a code of silence whereby they overlook each others' sins.  But I wonder how much longer that can last on polygamy.

It's quite ironic that the Church, which some people consider to be discriminatory towards women, is more vocal in opposing polygamy that feminists!  

.

CCCB covers up damning D&P evidence; Archbishop admits his apathy

LifeSiteNews.com interviewed Archbishop Martin Currie of St. John's, Newfoundland, regarding the Development and Peace (D&P) scandal. Archbishop Currie was listed as a co-author of the June 2009 report of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) that whitewashed the D&P scandal. Look what happened during the interview:

The June report sparked controversy as it stated: "we believe the allegations by Lifesite News … are not founded on the facts."  In the interview however, LSN was able to demonstrate directly to the archbishop that the allegations were indeed founded on facts.  After seeing the evidence first hand, the bishop stated apologetically, "I just should have followed up more."

Hold on a sec. The whole purpose of the CCCB's so-called investigation into D&P was to "follow up more" on the allegations. It seems that the archbishop was grossly negligent in how he conducted his "investigation". Negligent probably isn't strong enough of a word. After all, John Pacheco mailed the evidence directly to each bishop in the country.  All they had to do was open the envelope and read the contents.  It was served to them on a silver platter.  Hand-fed into their mouths with a spoon.

It makes my blood boil. We're talking about abortion! This isn't some trivial theologian debate about how many angels can stand on the head of a needle. Lives are at stake!  What does it take to get a bishop to bounce out of his chair in outrage? 

Let's read more:

He explained that the investigation was limited to the first five groups in Mexico that LSN had identified as pro-abortion.  He revealed that the investigation team questioned the five groups directly. He said that he accepted the word of the groups when they told him they in no way supported abortion.

From the outset, pro-life leaders knew that questioning the accused groups would be useless (read examples here and here).  Do you really think D&P partners would come out and say:  "Yes, we're advocating abortion so please cut our funding".  Let's get real.  In a court proceeding, the trial doesn't limit itself to questioning the accused, because most of the time he/she will claim innocence and may even lie to avoid being convicted.  That's why you have to pay attention to the other evidence.

Let's continue:

Archbishop Currie also noted that he was only aware of the groups having signed onto one problematic UN omnibus document, part of which was an endorsement of abortion. When LSN noted that that the UN document in question was only one piece of seven pieces of evidence LSN had reported, the archbishop admitted frankly he was not aware of and did not consider the other evidence.  "No, the other ones, to be honest with you, I haven't followed too closely," he said. 

Hello?  Is this how an investigation should be conducted? With eyes closed and ears stopped?  But wait, it gets worse:

The archbishop also noted that in meeting with the bishops of Mexico and one of their experts on bioethical matters, the Mexican bishops' expert, Dr. Pilar Calva, had indeed indicated serious concerns with the groups in question.  When asked why those concerns of Dr. Calva were not mentioned in the report, Archbishop Currie said he thought they were in the report.  "I think they were," he said.

WRONG.  Those concerns were never mentioned at any point by either the CCCB or D&P.  They certainly aren't in the report.  THERE WAS A COVER UP.  LifeSiteNews informed us about the concerns of Mexican pro-lifers a long time ago because they did their homework and questioned those pro-lifers to get their perspective.  But we didn't know that the CCCB had also questioned them but COVERED UP THE EVIDENCE.  

As Catholics, we are called to assume good intentions on the part of others, but Jesus didn't ask us to be stupid and naive either.  "See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." (Matt 10:16).  How can we presume that this investigation was done in good faith when one of the Archbishops involved admits that some crucial evidence was withheld while other evidence was simply ignored out of neglect?  How can we take them seriously?

I'm also dumbfounded by another aspect of the Archbishop's statement.  His name is on the CCCB report as a co-author, yet he doesn't even know what went into the report?  Are you kidding me?  Did he even read it once?  This is preposterous and unacceptable. 

In conclusion Archbishop Currie assured LSN of his own pro-life convictions, and also noted that D&P staff "now have a better awareness of the whole situation.  They're trying to be more cautious and more careful, to hook up better with the bishops" and to do more investigation of groups they are going to sponsor.

Awareness is great, but we're way beyond that.  We need action.  NOW.  And we certainly don't need "more investigations of groups" if they will be sleep-walking through the "investigation", like they did last time.

Let's not waste our time anymore.  We need a sign of good faith, because so far, very few bishops have shown that they care.

.

This priest gets it

Buy this priest some plane tickets and have him criss-cross North America with this message. May God bless you, Fr. Bill Casey!

On the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

In light of the Richard Gaillardetz scandal, some people have inquired about the infallibility of the Church's teaching on the ordination of women. You can read an in-depth dissection of the issue at Socon Or Bust. I'll offer you my abbreviated version.

The Church's teaching on women's ordination is unquestionably an infallible teaching of the Church. If one reads the words used by John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, you can see that he used very heavy and deliberate language to authoritatively define this teaching. 

In the following months, the Church realized that this document was not accepted by everybody and that some controversy remained. After all, in such a large Church, it is not surprising that a variety of interpretations could emerge for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, despite the very definitive language used. So like a good Mother, the Church wished to reassure her children by repeating this teaching in a very explicit matter with the firm intention of dispelling any controversy that may have remained. 

This document, called the Responsum ad dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was issued less than 18 months after Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. It’s quite unusual for the Vatican to repeat itself so soon. It also contains the key word “infallible”. Let’s read a juicy quote: 

“This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium”

That's very strong language!  How much more needs to be said?  But there is something else that you probably didn't notice.  All three sources of divine revelation are mentioned in that one sentence:

-Word of God
-Tradition (capital T)
-Magisterium

The three sources of divine revelation are invoked in the same sentence as “requires definitive assent” and “infallible”. The Vatican is telling us something profound: they didn't make this up, it is divinely revealed.  Let anyone with ears to hear listen!!

It doesn't matter how definitive you or I think that this teaching is. All that matters is that the Vatican intended for it to be definitive and infallible. At that point, debate and discussion must cease and gave way to humble obedience.

Now someone could argue that we don't really know how definitive the Vatican meant to be on this matter. All we have is a written document, and like any document, it is subject to diverse interpretations. So how do we really know that the Vatican meant to teach infallibly? This is essentially the position that Mr. Gaillardetz is taking. This is a very dangerous course because it would essentially nullify the wonderful gift of the Magisterium. We could never really know what the Vatican teaches and we would be open to our own personal interpretations on everything. In such a world, theologians would become the official interpreters of magisterial teaching. Even more, individual Catholics could also become their own interpreters of magisterial teaching and hence be allowed to contracept “in good conscience” despite what the church has taught for 2,000 years, and even before that going back to the earliest Old Testament texts.

Have you ever seen the skit called "Who's on first?"  It's a classic by Abbott and Costello.  Similarly, imagine if you're trying to explain something to a friend and he just doesn't get it.  No matter how many times you say it and how many different ways your word it, he still doesn't understand.  Wouldn't that be annoying?  That's exactly what Mr. Gaillardetz does with regards to the Vatican and women's ordination.  How many times does the Vatican have to say “definitive” and “infallible” before he finally accepts the teaching?

Do you see how all the pieces are coming together now? Once trust in magisterial teaching breaks down, everything else falls apart. Gaillardetz has made a living by playing on nuances and by instilling doubts about the infallibility of various Church teaching. This gives them free reign to put forward his own interpretations. 

.

Two Canadian bishops begin un-scandalizing the faithful

Two of Canada's strongest Archbishops, Terrence Prendergast (Ottawa) and Thomas Collins (Toronto), started the work of undoing some of the damage done by more liberal bishops on the Development and Peace (D&P) scandal. The manner in which they intervened is a HUGE development, unprecedented in the recent history of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB).   

First let me summarize the facts (h/t LifeSiteNews.com), then I'll tell why this is so significant.

• On October 20th, an initial report on the D&P scandal was presented at the Plenary of the CCCB by the bishop of Charlottetown, Richard Grecco.
• Among other things, the report said that D&P "came under a concerted Internet-based media attack by certain militant advocacy groups and individuals, alleging that DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE was financing and promoting abortion programs and advocacy through our partner network."
• According to the agenda, no discussion was scheduled to take place among the bishops at that time.  Debate was to occur later in the week.
• Nevertheless, Archbishop Prendergast and Archbishop Collins both raised objections at the conclusion of the presentation of the report.
• Initially, the CCCB President Archbishop Weisgerber (Winnipeg), who chaired the meeting, attempted to stop any public debate.
• Archbishop Prendergast still spoke up and said that the bishops of Ontario were very concerned with the situation. He referred to a letter circulated to bishops from D&P, saying that he felt that here the bishops were being asked to continue with "business as usual" with D&P. The Ottawa Archbishop added: "I'm not sure we can accept that." 
• Again Archbishop Weisgerber interjected to note that they were only to be discussing the current report. 
• Then Archbishop Collins spoke up.  He said that there were problems with the report as presented because it misrepresented or misunderstood the criticisms of D&P by claiming that they were accused of "financing and promoting abortion programs and advocacy." He pointed out that D&P was "not accused of that," thus suggesting revising the report. "It is important," he said, "to be accurate." He continued: "When one is criticized it is important to either admit when the criticism is just or prove that it's not." He concluded, "It's important to I think listen to what the criticism is." 
• Archbishop Weisgerber had a very brief exchange with Bishop Grecco acknowledging they would reconsider the wording in the report.

What exactly happened here?

Most obviously, the events show that there are bishops in the CCCB who are very unhappy with D&P. We already knew this, so that's not a big revelation. But it's comforting to get a reminder.  ;-)

The biggest lesson of this incident is that these two Archbishops were so upset about the scandal caused among the faithful that they felt the need to publicly break ranks with the other bishops and go on record, publicly, as disapproving of how this scandal is being managed.  This has not been witnessed in the CCCB in a long time.  

Think about it:  they could have waited until the private discussion to raise their objections.  They could have settled the issues behind closed doors.  But they felt compelled to cause a scene before the reporters so that the faithful could have a public and visible witness to the effect that some bishops are not swallowing this.  This is clearly a wink and a nudge to those faithful Catholics out there who've been floored by the CCCB's handling of the scandal so far.  The two Archbishops are essentially saying:  "My dear flock, we have not abandoned you.  Your angst has not gone unnoticed.  We're going to fight this alongside you."

Trust had been broken, so the trust had to be rebuilt.  Archbishops Prendergast and Collins took a major step in that direction and they should be praised for their courage. 


.

Divisions start to emerge among bishops over Development and Peace

This is certainly a positive sign for the future of the Church in Canada. Archbishops Collins and Prendergast have definitely stepped up to the plate and assumed some leadership. I am sincerely grateful to both of them for this strong pro-life witness.

Let's pray that God's will be done.

Wow! Vatican welcomes back Anglicans!

ROME (Catholic Online) - In an absolutely stunning announcement on the morning of October 20, 2009, the Holy See has, by Apostolic Constitution, provided the canonical vehicle for Anglican Christians to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church. Throughout the evening expectations rose throughout the world along with the fervent prayers of millions who have longed to see this day. Many Catholics have watched in prayer with hopeful, heartfelt longing for their Christian brethren in the Anglican Communion. Many Anglican Christians have suffered from the ravages of their community from within brought about by moves away from Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Now,there is a way to the safe harbor of the Catholic Church.

This morning the Vatican offered a lifeline into the Ark of Peter for Anglican Christians who wish to avail themselves of the invitation.

Read the rest here.  This is a historic day!  Let us rejoice and praise the Lord!


.

Group Co-Founded by Canada's Bishops Calls on MPs to Oppose Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

(LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF), a group co-founded by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus, sent an open letter yesterday to all of Canada's MPs, urging them to vote against Bill C-384. The private members bill, brought by Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Ile), seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. 

Read the full story here.

This is definitely good news.  COLF has done excellent work over the years. But the bishops cannot delegate their responsibility to teach about life issues to COLF.  They need to teach it themselves by their words AND ESPECIALLY by their actions.  So far, most of them aren't doing too well, judging by their handing of the Development and Peace scandal and their invitation of a dissenter to speak at their Plenary, not to mention the abortions taking place at St. Joseph's Catholic Hospital in London under the supervision and approval of a Catholic priest.

Lord help us!


.

Harry Potter and Dumbledore Used to Entice Fans into Activism for Maine Gay "Marriage" Push

In case you thought the Harry Potter books were harmless, think again.

. 

"Human Rights Commission" showing intolerance towards Church

One of Canada's Human Rights Commissions has decided to play God again. This time it's the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). It seems that nothing is beyond the reach of these kangaroo kourts. Nothing is too sacred or too logical to be questioned by these arbitrary commissions.

The latest incident involves a Catholic school teacher in Alberta that claims that she's suffering from "gender identity disorder" and that she must undergo a sex-change operation. Of course, such a rejection of the gender granted by God is a violation of Church teaching. From a purely secular standpoint, it's also a violation of plain common sense. When you have a problem of any kind, the only lasting solution comes from addressing the root of that problem. In this case, the teacher has a mental illness of some kind. Therefore, the logical and loving solution is to address the mental problem, not mutilate her body by making it look like a man.

As a result of her planned sex change, the teacher has been dismissed from the Catholic school board where she taught. She considers this to be a violation of her rights, and has filed a complaint against the school board. Unfortunately, the AHRC has accepted this complaint and will therefore hear arguments about it. The fact that they didn't reject this ridiculous complaint from the outset is very disturbing. It shows just how willing these commissions are to interfere in Church affairs.

I feel sorry for the teacher. I really do. Mental illness is not something that we should treat lightly or that we should scoff at. I have witnessed many people struggle with mental illness. It is extremely difficult to bear. Fortunately, it appears that the school board treated her kindly and respectfully when they let her go. The school board is well within its rights to decide who to employ.

The fact that the State is even considering the possibility of imposing its beliefs on the Church is extremely disturbing and intolerant. Canada is a diverse nation. It is not merely inhabited by the left wing extremists that run these commissions. These kangoroo kourts need to get in touch with reality and start being more tolerant of other peoples beliefs.

As for us Catholics, we better start moving our butts and make sure that our politicians understand that these commissions are unacceptable and violating the human rights they are supposedly intended to protect. If you don't act now, you're going to wake up someday and find out you're slave to the government's whims and fancies.

This incident also highlights the crucial fact that the true challenge for the Church in this day is to convert her own members. More damage is being inflicted on the Church in Canada today by Catholics than by any outsiders.

So before you go to bed tonight, look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself: "What concrete action will I take to propagate the true Faith within the Church?"  Don't go to bed until you've made a firm commitment.

Concerns about the vaccine for the swine flu

A lot of people are getting worked up about H1N1, often called the swine flu.  I must admit that I'm not too worried about the virus itself.  However, I am worried about the vaccine.

In normal times, a drug must undergo extensive testing, often for years, before it is allowed to be sold to the public.  The H1N1 vaccine, however, has gone through these approval stages like a "drive-thru". That's not some conspiracy theory I read in the National Enquirer.  It came out of the mouths of Canada's top health officials.

Last week, I was watching CBC NewsWorld.  There was a press conference on the vaccine being given by the federal Health Minister, Leona Aglukkaq, and Canada's Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones.  They explained that the vaccine is already in mass production with the goal of being rolled out to the public at the beginning of November.  Yet, they also admitted, on two separate occasions, that the vaccine has not been approved by Health Canada and that they are still awaiting some test results about this vaccine.

Does that strike you as odd?  To me, it sounds like the proverbial cart before the horses.  Why would you go into mass production before the vaccine is completely tested and approved?  If it turns out to be a dud, are they going to trash millions of vaccines?  That's our tax dollars.

I'm surprised at the lack of media interest for this issue.  The journalists at the press conference didn't seem too preoccupied by the lack of testing.  On the contrary, they were more interested in knowing why the vaccine wasn't made available sooner.  In the absence of proper media scrutiny, the Internet has been flooded with ridiculous conspiracy theories about how this vaccine is intentionally being designed to kill zillions of people.  Give me a break.  Proper testing protocols may have been skipped, but let's not go off the deep end either.

Given the lack of scientific evidence, I personally will not get vaccinated.  Sorry, but you won't inject me with something that hasn't been proven safe.  

I'm not giving any recommendations to anybody on this issue.  You make up your own mind and don't blame me for the consequences.  I'm just telling you about my apprehensions. 

For the record (lest I be accused of some strange backwardness), I am totally in favour of vaccination programs when a vaccine has been proven to be safe and effective.  I have no moral issues with vaccination.  I think vaccines are a great progress for mankind.  BUT, they have to be proven safe and effective.  In my humble opinion, that hasn't been done in this case. 

.  

Having a Crisis Pregnancy?

If you or someone you know is going through a crisis pregnancy, please call one of the numbers below. You will be treated with warmth, respect and care.

In Canada:  call 1-800-665-0570 or leave me a comment on this blog.

In the United States:  click here or call 1-800-395-HELP

No matter what your situation is, you are strong enough to make it through. 
 
Believe in yourself! 
You are not alone!

Help is available! 

.

Bizarre, unexplainable reflections of an abortionist.

I'm honestly shocked at this story. You've gotta read this.  It gives you an idea of who we're dealing with.

I cannot believe that this abortionist has had such a clear internal illumination and awareness of the real life of the unborn baby that she is destroying, and that she has even experienced an emotional attachment to the baby that she is ripping apart (to the point of crying as she performs an abortion!) and yet she continues to be unapologetic in her abortion advocacy.  It's unbelievable! 

In some sense, she feels pain and pity for the baby she's killing, yet she continues to do it regardless.  And she expresses this internal conflict quite openly.  

What a bizarre and unreal state of mind.  We need to pray for these people.  I think this woman is on the verge of a conversion. 

Exclusive: Development and Peace approval rating at just 10%

Due to the high interest in our previous research regarding the approval rating of Fr. Rosica, Catholic Dialogue conducted an exhaustive enumeration of online articles related to the Development and Peace scandal.

The results show that only 10.1% of articles expressing an opinion on the issue were supportive of Development and Peace (D&P).  The remaining 89.9% were critical of D&P.  That's a staggering result.  In a democracy, you can rarely get 89.9% of the people to agree on anything.

For the purposes of this enumeration, the articles published by the two main opposing parties of the debate were excluded.  That meant leaving out close to 100 articles published by LifeSiteNews.com.  It also meant excluding articles by D&P, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) or individual dioceses (note: the number of articles from LifeSiteNews far exceeds the number of articles published by D&P, the CCCB or individual dioceses).  The enumeration was also limited to articles published between March 12, 2009 (when the first story about the scandal broke) and October 11, 2009.  Finally, only Christian sources were considered, almost all of which were Catholic.  This left more than 230 articles being published by parties that were not directly involved in the dispute.  

The overwhelming disapproval rate for D&P is a serious challenge that the bishops must address at their Plenary next week in Cornwall.  The vast majority of these articles were written by educated Catholics, some of them being clergy members, who applied fundamental moral teachings of the Church to the mounds of evidence compiled about D&P's partners. These are not renegades, schismatics or "ultraconservatives" (whatever that means).  They are mainstream Catholics who care deeply about the health of their Church.

Let's pray that the CCCB rolls up their sleeves next week and makes some major reforms to D&P.


.

Development and Peace scandal causing tangible harm

Remember that letter written by a bishop from Peru asking the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) to stop funding pro-abortion groups in their country?  The Peruvian bishop was complaining that three of Development and Peace's partners were "very committed to the pro-abortion movement" in Peru.  We never got a convincing response from the CCCB on that one.  Just a gallon of bleach.


John Pacheco at Socon or Bust is now reporting that a bill has been tabled before the Congress in Peru to legalize abortion under some circumstances.  Read his article here.

So now we have a tangible illustration of how our donation dollars can be used to advance the Culture of Death.  If this bill gets passed, unborn babies will start losing their lives in Peru.  And Development and Peace will have been an accomplice.  

Lord, have mercy upon all of us!


.

Bishop Says Funding 'Pro-Choice' Groups Okay if Restricted to Good Projects

LifeSite published an excellent article about a bishop anonymously discussing Development and Peace's funding of pro-abortion groups. This is an interesting article for a number of reasons, mostly because this bishop admits that Development and Peace is funding groups that are pro-abortion. Finally somebody comes clean!!

Yet, he doesn't think it's a big deal as long as the money is "earmarked" for projects that don't contradict Church teaching.

This approach poses a number of problems, many of which are enumerated in the article. I'll add two additional problems not covered in the article.

First, funds given to pro-aborts can be misused in ways that are extremely difficult to anticipate or even measure.  Fr. Pierre Ingram, CC, who is a systematic theologian, wrote an excellent article on this matter here.  He points out, among other things, that a pro-abortion group typically has a distorted understanding of life, sexuality and other moral issues. Those distortions will likely trickle into everything they do, even the programs that are supposed to be "not morally objectionable".  He also explains that Catholics must not merely avoid committing evil, but must also avoid the appearance of cooperation with evil in order to not scandalize others.  His article is a must read if you want to understand your faith better.

Second, the Vatican -- which is our leader and guide -- decided to stop funding UNICEF way back in 1997 precisely because the organization was pushing abortion and contraception in developing countries.  UNICEF had "earmarked" programs too, by which you could theoretically target your donations to unobjectionable causes.  Yet, the Vatican, being wise and astute, realized that UNICEF was not providing sufficient accountability to ensure that donations were not being used for immoral purposes.  As a result, they pulled the plug on financing UNICEF.  Read the official Vatican announcement here.  If it's good enough for the Vatican, it's good enough for me.

Why won't our bishops just follow the Vatican's example?  That's all I'm asking.  Is that too much to ask?

.