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
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.
"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,
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.
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.
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!
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
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 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 weresoupset 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.
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!
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
Some people would call me a "Magisterial Catholic," which means that I accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church and I look to the Pope for my marching orders. I am actively involved in pro-life activities.
