Ignatieff supports D&P-style of pro-abortion international aid

Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has stepped up his attacks against Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the most bizarre of fronts:  he insists that Harper's initiative to help maternal and child health in developing countries must include abortion services and contraception. 

Ignatieff's position doesn't surprise me one bit, since he's always been pro-abort and pro-homosexuality.  That's what the Liberal Party is all about.  What is interesting is that this model of development is identical to the model espoused by Development and Peace and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.  As the evidence has shown, D&P and the CCCB are supporting more than 40 groups in developing countries that promote abortion and contraception.  

So D&P and our bishops are of the same mind as Ignatieff:  any time you

Contraceptives linked to bone problems

Study: Low-Dose Birth Control Pills Decrease Bone Density in Young Women

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

SEATTLE, January 21, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new study showing a link between long-term use of oral contraceptives and a decrease in bone density in women under the age of 30 has found that the modern low-dose forms of estrogen pills have the greatest risk of harming a woman's bone density.

The study, published in the January issue of Contraception Journal, measured bone mineral density (BMD) of the hip, spine, and whole body to analyze how both the duration of taking the contraceptive pill and the estrogen dose affected bone density in young women.

Researchers studied 606 women, aged 14 to 30, and found a 5.9 percent decrease in bone mineral density of the spine in young women taking birth control pills for longer than one year, as compared with those not taking oral contraceptives. BMD of the whole body was shown to be decreased by 2.3 percent in those taking the pill.

Read the rest here.

.

Fr. Prieur gets it wrong -- again

I was surfing the web and minding my own business when I came across an article by Catholic Insight that debunks another error by Father Michael Prieur.  In 2001, Fr. Prieur claimed that it was acceptable for Catholic hospitals to cooperate in a tubal ligation performed for the purpose of contraception.

Wrong -- again.

Why do we care what one priest thinks? This isn't just any priest. He's a Professor of Moral and Sacramental Theology at St. Peter's Seminary in London, Ontario. He's also Canada's foremost Catholic bioethicist. If you're angry about the rotten state of the Catholic Church in Canada, ask yourself what kind of formation our priests and ethicists are receiving with teachers like this. You can read more about Fr. Prieur's other errors here and here.

This is not a witch-hunt, but I'm tired of blind shepherds leading Christ's faithful into a spiritual ditch. If we ever hope to turn this Church around, there will need to be changes at many levels, not the least of which is in our seminaries and other areas of formation.

Let's get back to the issue of tubal ligation.  Dear reader, in case you think that you don't have enough theology degrees to address this question, please don't underestimate yourself so quickly.  Your gut instinct is correct.  This one is a no-brainer.  There's no way a Catholic can freely and directly cooperate with a tubal ligation or any other method of contraception.  Don't take my word for it. Read the Catholic Insight article here.

In the meantime, our seminary professor continues to mislead our future priests and health care practitioners.  Here's a non-exhaustive list of major errors found to date:

1. He endorsed "early inductions" before viability for 12 years, which is exactly the same thing as abortion but under a different name (by his own admission).  He only changed his tune when the US bishops dropped the hammer in 1997.
2. He continues to endorse "early inductions" on babies with severe deformities using a misguided notion of viability. The hospital where he serves as ethics advisor even performs early inductions in cases when the mother's life is not in danger, which is euthanasia, pure and simple.
3. He supports the Winnipeg Statement and believes that the decision to use contraception is up to the individual conscience.
4. He wrote an article endorsing embryonic stem cell research, in opposition to Church teaching.
5. And now we know about his support for tubal ligations, again in opposition to the Magisterium.

On virtually all the major issues in bioethics, he's at odds with Church teaching. And yet we rely on him to form our priests and health care practitioners? We're getting what we deserve.

.

CCCB pro-life promises: taking stock after 2 months

As I reported in an earlier post, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) made some commitments at the end of the Plenary Assembly, on October 23rd, to be more active in promoting a respect for life.  That's great news.  This is badly needed.

It has now been two months since that commitment.  So far, we haven't seen any action.  But there was some movement.  Kinda.  On December 9th, the Permanent Council of the CCCB appointed three bishops to an ad hoc Committee on Life and Family.  The three bishops are CCCB Vice President Archbishop Richard Smith (Edmonton), Bishop Ronald P. Fabbro (London) and Auxiliary Bishop Gérald C. Lacroix (Quebec City).  The CCCB had this to say about the Committee in a press release:

Its mandate is to develop an intermediate and long-term strategy for the promotion of a culture of life and family in Canada and to submit a proposal to the Permanent Council before the 2010 Plenary.

This is somewhat underwhelming. There are a few disturbing issues about this approach:

• Sadly, the solution requires another committee.  More bureaucracy, I'm afraid.  I can't say that I'm surprised, however. 
  
• The Committee will submit a proposal before the 2010 Plenary.  They're not implementing the strategy by the 2010 Plenary.  Just formulating a proposal.  The 2010 Plenary is likely to be held in the fall of 2010.  The bishops will likely discuss the proposal at that time, maybe make some amendments and, if we're lucky, give the go-ahead to the actual launch of the strategy, which may not be visible to ordinary

Father John Corapi's take on the Winnipeg Statement

In 2001, Father John Corapi, one of the best preachers of our time, gave a series of lectures in Winnipeg, Manitoba.  I really love Fr. Corapi.  He's right-on when it comes to Church teaching.  No wishy-washy-ness here. And he's so blunt.  He preaches the plain truth.  No sugar-coating.

During one of his lectures in Winnipeg, he spoke out boldly regarding the Winnipeg Statement, that infamous

Did "Liberating Potential" undo the dissent of the Winnipeg Statement?

In September 2008, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) issued a document called "Liberating Potential". The document was issued to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Liberating Potential is an excellent document that speaks about the greatness of the gift of sexuality and the fact that contraception and abortion are incompatible with God's plan for life. The document is very robust and doesn't contain any trace of dissent.  It is everything you would hope to see from the pen of our bishops.

I applaud the bishops for having issued this document. It was badly needed.

Given that "Liberating Potential" is in agreement with the Church's teaching on contraception, it is legitimate to ask the question as to whether this nullifies the Winnipeg Statement. In other words, did the assent in "Liberating Potential" undo the dissent of the Winnipeg Statement?  I don't think so. In my opinion, it was a good first step, but it doesn't go far enough. Let me explain why.

When the average Joe like you or me commits a sin, God requires several steps in order for us to be forgiven:

1.  We must admit our wrongdoing.
2.  We must be sorry for having offended God and others.
3.  We must change our behavior and make a firm resolve to not commit that sin again.

I think that the bishops need to be held to the same standard when it comes to the Winnipeg Statement. So let's see if Liberating Potential lives up to this standard.

1.  Admitting their wrongdoing

Have the bishops admitted the error of the Winnipeg Statement and all the erroneous pastoral actions that flowed from it over 40 years?  No.
Has there has been any admission of guilt and of the huge damage done over the last four decades?  No. 

Now someone might claim that the bishops may have privately repented of the Winnipeg Statement. That's certainly a possibility. However, bishops should know that a public sin requires a public repentance, as was

Totalitarianism is alive and well in Germany

When Catholics in Canada didn't bother opposing the advances of promiscuity in this country, they kept saying to themselves: "It won't affect me." It was most obvious when Chrétien and his gang were legalizing same-sex marriage. Most Catholics were opposed, but most didn't raise a finger to stop it, saying "if some homosexuals get married, that doesn't change my life."

Well, reality is setting in. Our school children are now being indoctrinated with contraception, casual sex and books like "My Two Dads". It's worse in other countries, but we're catching up fast. For example, read about these dads in Germany that are going to jail for the ominous crime of pulling their elementary-aged children out of sex-ed classes and for refusing to enroll them in a theatre production that informs young children on how to engage in sexual intercourse.

Can you believe it?  God helps us.

Bishop Fred Henry has spoken out bluntly regarding pro-abort politicians and communion

In an earlier post, I congratulated Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island for his strong stand on refusing communion to Patrick Kennedy.

In Canada, the only similar example that comes to mind among active bishops is Fred Henry of Calgary.  Even though Bishop Henry supports the Winnipeg Statement, he nonetheless was very vocal on the issue of denying communion to Catholic politicians engaged in grave sin. For example:

• In 2004, he said John Kerry, the presidential candidate, should be denied communion because of his anti-life positions.  
  
• In 2005, he enunciated the same principle, without referring to any specific politician, during a testimony before the Canadian Parliament regarding the bill to legalize same-sex marriage.  An NDP member grilled him about it (no surprise) but Bishop Henry held his ground admirably.  
• In fact, in 2003, Bishop Henry had been so blunt as to suggests Mr. Chrétien was jeopardizing his "eternal salvation" by trying to change the definition of marriage!

Good show!  We need to celebrate these success stories and applaud them.  At the time, I remember sending an email to Bishop Henry to thank him for his strong witness.  We need more of this.

However, all is not sunny in Calgary.  Even as Bishop Henry was denouncing same-sex marriage in 2003, he didn't appear to realize that his approval of contraception, as per the Winnipeg Statement, is inconsistent with his

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.

.

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.

.

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. 

.

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?

.

Vatican Archbishop clarifies Catholic teachings on life-issues, politicians and witnessing to Truth

Archbishop Raymond Burke is the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. This is a position analogous to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. After the Pope, Burke holds the highest judicial office in the Roman Catholic Church. His statements carry a lot of weight. We should pay attention.

Please read his thought provoking piece here.  Some interesting quotes (but you should read the whole article):

One of the ironies of the present situation is that the person who experiences scandal at the gravely sinful public actions of a fellow Catholic is accused of a lack of charity and of causing division within the unity of the Church.

 (...)

A unity which is not founded on the truth of the moral law is not the unity of the Church. The Church's unity is founded on speaking the truth with love. The person who experiences scandal at public actions of Catholics, which are gravely contrary to the moral law, not only does not destroy unity but invites the Church to repair what is clearly a serious breach in Her life. Were he not to experience scandal at the public support of attacks on human life and the family, his conscience would be uninformed or dulled about the most sacred realities.

(...)

For Christians, the acceptance of others who are not of the Christian faith is not a matter of tolerance, but of love which adheres to the truths of the faith while respecting the beliefs of those who are not Christian, as long as those beliefs are coherent with the natural moral law, that is, coherent with the respect for the "inalienable rights" with which God has endowed every man. Christian love does not have its foundation in blind tolerance of others and of what they think and say and do, but rather in the profound knowledge of others and their beliefs, and the honest acknowledgment of differences of belief, especially in what may compromise the life of the nation.

(...)

We find self-professed Catholics, for example, who sustain and support the right of a woman to procure the death of the infant in her womb, or the right of two persons of the same sex to the recognition which the State gives to a man and a woman who have entered into marriage. It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself politically in this manner.

(...)

But there is also true scandal, that is, the leading of others, by our words, actions and failures to act, into confusion and error, and, therefore, into sin. Our Lord was unequivocal in his condemnation of those who would confuse or lead others into sin by their actions. In teaching His disciples about temptations, He declared:

Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin (Lk 17:1-2).

It is clear that Our Lord taught as a primary responsibility, with the gravest of consequences, the avoidance of scandal, namely, of any act or failure to act which could lead another into sin. Our Lord's words are nothing less than vehement.

(...)

The perennial discipline of the Church, for that reason among other reasons, has prohibited the giving of Holy Communion and the granting of a Church funeral to those who persist, after admonition, in the grave violation of the moral law (Code of Canon Law, cann. 915; and 1184, § 1, 3º). It is said that these disciplines which the Church has consistently observed down the centuries presume to pass a judgment on the eternal salvation of a soul, which belongs to God alone, and, therefore, should be abandoned. On the contrary, these disciplines are not a judgment on the eternal salvation of the soul in question. They are simply the acknowledgment of an objective truth, namely, that the public actions of the soul are in violation of the moral law, to his own grave harm and to the grave harm of all who are confused or led into error by his actions. The Church confides every soul to the mercy of God, which is great beyond all our imagining, but that does not excuse her from proclaiming the truth of the moral law, also by applying her age-old disciplines, for the sake of the salvation of all.

How to get things done

As Larry Appleton used to tell his cousin Balki (in a most condescending tone):  "watch and learn."

The official charity of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (their equivalent of Development and Peace) was recently found to be funding organizations promoting abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage and prostitution.  

The big difference is that the US bishops are not denying the problem and letting the blood money flow (as in Canada) but are taking decisive action to stop this quickly. 

A great lesson for the Canadian bishops. 

Read the story here from LifeSiteNews.com.

Summary of the Development and Peace scandal

In case you missed it, Development and Peace (the official charity of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops) was caught financing organizations in developing countries that advocate for abortion and contraception.  Here is a summary of everything you need to know.

On March 12, 2009, LifeSiteNews.com (a non-profit news service focusing on life and family issues) revealed that Development and Peace was funding five groups in Mexico that were pressuring the Mexican government to legalize abortion. Less than a week later, the National Catholic Register discovered that Development and Peace was funding a pro-abortion group in Bolivia. Over the following months, further investigations into Development and Peace's partners were carried out by various pro-life groups, led by LifeSiteNews.com and Catholic blogger John Pacheco, the main author of Socon or Bust. By June 22, 2009, LifeSiteNews had identified 19 pro-abortion groups being funded by Development and Peace. On July 24, 2009, the tally from Socon or Bust reached 40 pro-abortion and anti-family groups.

During this period, several prominent pro-life groups expressed concerns about these revelations. The most authoritative statement came from the Bishops' Conference of Peru in a letter addressed to Archbishop James Weisgerber, president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). After listing three partners of Development and Peace that are promoting abortion in their country, the Peruvian bishops stated:

“In that sense, we respectfully would like to formally request that the funding for the pro-abortion groups in Peru by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace be halted. It is very disturbing to have groups which work against the Bishops of Peru by attempting to undermine legal protection for the right to life of unborn children, be funded by our brother bishops in Canada."

Other prominent groups to speak out against Development and Peace included Priests for Life Canada, Canadian Catholic author Michael O'Brien, the B.C. Catholic newspaper, American Life League, Catholic Insight magazine, the Population Research Institute, Human Life International (HLI), the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (CFAM) and the Latin American Alliance for the Family (ALAFA).

Response by Development and Peace and the CCCB

On March 13, 2009, the day after the initial evidence was revealed, the Executive Director of Development and Peace, Michael Casey, issued a note denying that the organization supported any partners or projects that violated Church teaching. However, Casey did not address or disprove any of the evidence presented by LifeSiteNews. Similar statements were published by Development and Peace in the subsequent weeks, but none ever addressed or disproved the growing body of evidence.

Archbishop Thomas Collins (Toronto) was the first Canadian bishop to publicly respond to the controversy. On March 18, 2009, he announced that no donations from his Archdiocese would be forwarded to Development and Peace until an investigation was completed. In the following days, the bishops of Peterborough, Kingston and Vancouver made similar announcements.

On March 20, the president of the CCCB, Archbishop James Weisgerber (Winnipeg) issued a letter stating the matter was being "carefully looked into". On April 8, the CCCB announced that it would conduct an investigation, with the assistance of Development and Peace, into the initial allegations regarding the five Mexican groups only. The report of this investigation was released on June 28 and concluded that the allegations made by LifeSiteNews and other pro-life groups were "not founded on the facts". Despite this sweeping statement, the CCCB's report did not address or disprove any of the evidence presented against the five Mexican groups, nor did it address any of the evidence presented against dozens of other partners of Development and Peace. The report also called for the organization to exercise greater vigilance in selecting its partners (although no specific guidance was provided) and that it foster better relations with the CCCB and with the local bishops in the countries in which it operates. Finally, the report reaffirmed the bishops' belief in the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.

Throughout the controversy, Archbishop Weisgerber argued that it was morally licit for Development and Peace to fund organizations that were in opposition to Church teaching, a point that caused much consternation among Catholics. To support his point, the Archbishop incorrectly claimed that the Vatican was providing funds to UNICEF despite disagreements over issues such as contraception and abortion. In reality, the Vatican had announced in 1996 that it would stop donating to UNICEF precisely because it was promoting abortion and contraception. This ban remains in effect today.

Distrust remains over Development and Peace

Given the lack of attention to the evidence, the CCCB's report does not appear to have reassured pro-life Catholics. On July 23, 2009, Archbishop Collins (Toronto), who had been withholding donations from his Archdiocese, announced that donations from Toronto would only be directed to partners of Development and Peace that were endorsed by the local bishop. He also called for a comprehensive review of Development and Peace during the coming year, guided by two key principles: 1) that Development and Peace only work with partners that are in harmony with the Catholic faith; 2) that Development and Peace obtain approval of the local bishops before funding any projects. Archbishop Collins also added that future donations from his Archdiocese would depend on the extent to which the issues of concern had been resolved. The same week, Archbishop Miller of Vancouver, who had also been withholding donations, announced that he strongly supports the steps taken by the Archdiocese of Toronto in order to prevent future controversies.

The editorial staff at LifeSiteNews also reacted to the CCCB's report by publishing a response in which they call the report a "whitewash". Similarly, Socon or Bust published a four-part rebuttal to the CCCB's report.

The CCCB is scheduled to discuss the matter further at their plenary assembly in October 2009.