Third-trimester abortion that failed

Their choice was freely made

In the chapter - The angels:
"The evil angels, in that first instant of their abuse of liberty, rejected God. Caught in a deliberate fascination of their own beauty, they refused to look at that beauty's source, refused to seek for happiness outside their own satisfying self; and so attempted to find in themselves what can be found only in God--the answer to the will's divinely given desire for goodness without limit. These devils can now sin all they like, and know themselves less free with every sin; the abuse of liberty mounts with each sin, the chains grow more galling, the self-imposed slavery more bitter, and the hatred more consumingly intense. Their choice was freely made, abusing liberty; and it is eternally confined to make up hell's most despairing torment."

St. Thomas Aquinas -- Summa Theologica

Merry Christmas

May you experience the love of Jesus Christ in your heart and in your soul, today and tomorrow and until forever.

Christmas in a nutshell

MPs need to be accountable to the people

Maybe it's just me, but why aren't MPs more accountable to their constituents? The fact that they seem to be accountable to anyone but their constituents, came through loud and clear for me during the recent Private Member's Bill Roxanne's Law, Bill C-510. This bill would have offered women additional protection from abortion coercion. How could any reasonable human being be against such a bill?

Let me tell you, and I'll start with my own MP, Mauril Belanger.

I sent Mr. Belanger two emails asking him to vote for the Bill because, well, he is my MP. Both emails were ignored until the day after the vote when I finally received a reply. It said in part:
"My colleague Hon. Marlene Jennings...was against this proposed legislation. Being of the same opinion I voted accordingly…Incidentally, the Prime Minister's Office has also indicated that it does not support this legislation."

Does this mean that Mr. Belanger answers to Ms. Jennings? Or does it mean he answers to Mr. Harper? Or does he answer to himself? Because I'm pretty confused. I thought MPs answered to their constituents. Ms. Belanger doesn't say anything about his constituents wanting him to vote for, or against the bill.

Then there was the new rookie MP, Bob Sopuck from Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette Manitoba, who was brought into the House of Commons for the very first time on the day of the vote. Mr. Sopuck is a Conservative MP who, from what I understand, represents a strongly pro-life riding. He also voted against the bill. Has Mr. Sopuck been assimilated into the Harper-never-discuss-abortion bunch that quickly? Uh oh, that was fast.

Then we have four stalwart so called "pro-choice" MPs, Jean Crowder, Nicole Demers, Marlene Jennings and Irene Mathyson, who were absolutely indignant during the first debate that Mr. Bruinooge dared discuss abortion in the House of Commons. What was he thinking? Oh, democracy, right.

Ms. Demers was "ashamed" to be involved in a Parliament where pro-life MPs "lie to women who need help". Lie? Strong unsubstantiated claim there, Ms. Demers. She also didn't like it that men were deciding what was good for women. If I had to choose between pro-life men and pro-abortion women, I'll go with the men, thanks.

Then Ms. Crowder referred four times during the same debate, to a radical pro-abortion group, the Abortions Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC). ARCC's pro-abortion coordinator Joyce Arthur, is the same person who praised a, need-to-have-their-mouth-washed-out-with-soap blogger who called Mr. Bruinooge names unfit to print, or repeat. Does Ms. Crowder get her marching orders from these pro-abortions? I hope not.

Let us remind ourselves what we were talking about here. This was a bill to protect women from being coerced into having an abortion she did not want or choose to have. All of these MPs voted against this bill. And by no means am I pointing fingers at just these six MPs. There were another 172 MPs who also voted against the bill.

A common criticism of Roxanne's Law was that abortion coercion is already illegal. But legal counsel for the EFC Faye Sonier dismissed that argument--and many other arguments against the bill, here and here.

The "pro-choice" people used to always say "every child a wanted child". Conversely, and I don't mean to be flippant here, but shouldn't every abortion be a wanted abortion? So why would 2/3 of our MPs vote against a bill that bans no abortions, except coerced ones? That--is not “pro-choice”.

Are MPs afraid to go against Mr. Harper's repeated mantra of not reopening the abortion debate? If so, why? Because if this is the case, democracy is very ill and hopes for its recovery are not good.

It's time to make MPs accountable to us, and not every Nicole, Marlene and Stephen.

Every human being is a unique expression of God' love

Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa's Christmas message says in part:

"...sadly the sanctity of human life is not always recognized or protected in our world. Conditions exist that make it difficult for people to receive and treasure human life. Poverty, brokenness in relationships, mental and physical illness, even selfishness, all discourage, the joyful welcome-ness of the gift of human life. Our whole world can become jaded. We can forget that each human life is a miraculous gift from God. We can lose sight of the fact that from the first moment of conception, we are much more than the mere collection of cells. From the moment of his or her conception, every human being is a unique expression of God' love and ongoing creation in the world..."

I have decided that over the Christmas season I will not post any comments that do not promote life from the moment of conception and beyond.

Adoption instead of abortion

Couples can now "reduce" a pregnancy from twins to one child (the abortion euphemisms just keep getting more creative).

And therein lies the problem with the slippery slope of no legal protection for the unborn in Canada. A child can already be aborted for any reason, so why would this shock anyone? We know that abortions occur for sex selection; because a pregnancy is inconvenient; for contraception; for eugenics (not quite a perfect baby); for...just fill in the blanks.

What I would like to know--and this is a topic the pro-abortions don't waste any ink on--why can't women put that unwanted child up for adoption? There are many couples who would love to have a child that another couple wants to abort. But these people say "oh I couldn't put my child up for adoption". Oh, but you could abort it?

Check out the new campaign that is promoting Adoption: Wow, adoption instead of abortion. What a good idea.

I will demand an accounting

"From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting" (Gen 9:5): reverence and love for every human life

- Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

Priests for Life Canada urges all Catholics to contact MPs to vote for Roxanne's law

(Urgent - Please contact your MP and ask them to vote for Roxanne's Law. The vote will take place on December 15, 2010. Find your MP here.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fr. Tom Lynch and Fr. John Lemire of Priests for Life Canada (PFLC), conducted a one-hour interview with Rod Bruinooge about Roxanne's Law, which aired on Tuesday, Dec. 7.

Priests for Life gave a strong endorsement of Roxanne's Law (Bill C-510) and referenced Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins' strong support for the bill. They urged all Catholics to support this bill.

Excerpts below from the Priests for Life Canada radio interview with MP Rod Bruinooge on Roxanne’s Law that aired December 7, 2010

……
44:18 Fr. Tom Lynch - One of the things we need to look at is, there has been some controversy within some of the prolife movement in terms of whether pro-lifers, and in terms of our own audience today, Catholics, can be able to support this bill. Speaking as a moral theologian, I would say that this bill makes very good sense. We have the situation where de facto there is a law that allows abortion in Canada even though of course there is no law, but that’s what’s happened with the Supreme Court again and again restricting any possibility of bringing in a law to directly and counter and criminalize abortion.

44:57 And so I would say categorically, as a professor of moral theology, that it is a good and right thing to be able to support this proposal, Roxanne’s Law, because it seeks to be able, in a small way, to restrict the evil that is being done in our society by allowing the killing of the preborn. We are not able at this juncture to be having a law that would criminalize abortion. And so therefore, as John Paul II said in 1995, in the Gospel of Life, it is not only legitimate, and prudent, but it is a necessary and good thing to restrict abortion or any laws that would allow abortion in any way we can, to try to be able to restrict that evil.

45:42 And he especially and particularly commended legislators to be able to try to put forward initiatives that would in any way try to restrict abortion. I think there are some mistaken commentators that have said about this, and other private members bills in the past, that because they didn’t tackle abortion head-on, they were illegitimate. And I would say categorically that’s wrong. I can’t find any, any Catholic theologian that would back up that view.

46:13 And I’m happy to be able to tell our listeners that the Archbishop of Toronto, Archbishop Tom Collins, spoke to the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus I think just last night or the night before and categorically said that Catholics could support this bill. And as a major teacher of the Church, and as I think an incredibly articulate and informed spokesperson for the Catholic Church, I think we would be wise to follow that direction and to say that this is something that we can prudently, morally, and conscientiously support and encourage. And I think that’s important to put out there because sometimes there is confusion in that regard. But we have to be very clear about it and very direct and say that anything that can work to be able to bring about a discussion on behalf of the preborn, to bring about a discussion on the situation of abortion in our country, and hopefully, God willing, to be able to bring about even a limited protection for the preborn, and especially, in this instance, particular instance, for mothers who are facing distressed pregnancies, is a good and laudable initiative.

47:22 So I think we need to be very clear on that, and it’s good to see that the key spokesperson for the English Church, the English Canadian Church, has said that pretty loud and clearly. So I think that is a very necessary thing to be able to lay there.

47:38 Fr. John Lemire - And I think in addition to that, Fr. Tom, I certainly agree with everything that you say about the understanding of Evangelium Vitae and how our late Holy Father Pope John Paul the Great certainly has given us great wisdom and guidance in this. And not only do we see support in Catholic circles for this bill with the support of Priests for Life Canada who came on very early on, the Archbishop as you said recently to the pro-life caucus. But we’ve also seen support that’s been coming from the Catholic Organization for Life and the Family (the arm of the Bishops), as well as even outside of Catholic circles from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. So there certainly is very strong support and recognition that this is an important piece of pro-life legislation that all pro-lifers need to support and to work to see that it gets enacted into law.
....
49:03 Rod Bruinooge - I just really appreciate all of the voices in the Roman Catholic Church of Canada that have been supportive of Roxanne’s Law. It was a real pleasure not only meeting yourself, Fr. Tom, but also just meeting with Archbishop Tom Collins over the years, but more recently this week and having him say that not only can Catholics support this bill but that they should. It’s just a really nice support that we received from him. And I’m hoping that people from all viewpoints, all political backgrounds in Canada can begin to understand how important it is to empower pregnant women in our country because our mothers are really the key to our future in Canada. And being a parent I know that it’s just such an important thing to be able to not only love your children, but see them grow up. And I know that the mothers that want to see through their pregnancy deserve to have this additional protection.

50:16 Fr. Tom – Now I’d like to thank you very much, Rod, for taking this initiative, to be able to put forward this bill. Having worked with Parliamentarians and having actually worked in Parliament for a short time many years ago, I’d like to impress upon our listeners what it means to be able to take this opportunity, as you said early on in the program, to put forward a private members bill.

50:40 - And we want you to know that we stand squarely behind you in this effort, and we’ll do whatever we can in the short time that’s left to encourage not just our listeners, but everyone we can to contact their MP and to ask where their MP stands on this bill, and to ask that they support it. We see no reason for anyone to oppose this bill which has as its only and definite intention to empower women against being coerced into having an abortion.

51:06 As Catholics we feel that we can support it in good conscience, and to echo Archbishop Collins which is always a good thing, that we have a moral imperative to support it as well. We’d like to encourage all pastors across Canada to speak to their congregations in the weekend that’s left to encourage them to contact their MP. We can’t express how important this legislation is. I know we are only dealing in a small way with the issue of abortion, but it is one more way that we can be able to bring about that culture of life, and it’s incredibly important to take those opportunities as they are brought before us. It’s not often we have them. So you know, carpe diem, you know. Let us seize the day.

51:45 Thank you very much for that Rod. I know you’re busy and I appreciate very much that you’ve taken the time to speak to our listeners today to really explain to them why it is so important it is that Roxanne’s Law be able to be supported. And you know, we hope and pray, God, that it will be put into legislative action as well.

52:05 Rod – thank you so much Fr. Tom for giving me this opportunity to speak to your listeners.

52:08 Fr. Tom – God bless.
…..

And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me

Matthew 18:1-14 (New International Version, ©2010)

The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

Causing to Stumble
6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

The Parable of the Wandering Sheep
10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. [11] For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.

12 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13 And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.

If you support John Paul II, you should support Roxanne's Law

On November 16, 2010, MP Andrew Kania introduced a private Member's Bill C-573, an Act to establish Pope John Paul II day.

Many fine things were said of Pope John Paul II that day, and there was broad support for the bill. Pope John Paul II's accomplishments included his influence on the fall of communism, his direct influence on bridging between the Catholic church and other religions including Jews and Muslims; and reaching out and visiting 129 countries.

One of Pope John Paul's greatest accomplishments however, was his Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae or the Gospel of Life. This is a remarkable letter that Pope John Paul II wrote to all peoples of the world.

In that Encyclical, in reference to the Second Vatican Council, which condemned crimes and attacks against human life, including abortion and euthanasia, Pope John Paul said:
"Unfortunately, this disturbing state of affairs, far from decreasing, is expanding: with the new prospects opened up by scientific and technological progress there arise new forms of attacks on the dignity of the human being. At the same time a new cultural climate is developing and taking hold, which gives crimes against life a new and-if possible-even more sinister character, giving rise to further grave concern: broad sectors of public opinion justify certain crimes against life in the name of the rights of individual freedom, and on this basis they claim not only exemption from punishment but even authorization by the State, so that these things can be done with total freedom and indeed with the free assistance of health-care systems.

All this is causing a profound change in the way in which life and relationships between people are considered. The fact that legislation in many countries, perhaps even departing from basic principles of their Constitutions, has determined not to punish these practices against life, and even to make them altogether legal, is both a disturbing symptom and a significant cause of grave moral decline. Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are gradually becoming socially acceptable. Even certain sectors of the medical profession, which by its calling is directed to the defense and care of human life, are increasingly willing to carry out these acts against the person. In this way the very nature of the medical profession is distorted and contradicted, and the dignity of those who practice it is degraded. In such a cultural and legislative situation, the serious demographic, social and family problems which weigh upon many of the world's peoples and which require responsible and effective attention from national and international bodies, are left open to false and deceptive solutions, opposed to the truth and the good of persons and nations.

The end result of this is tragic: not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life."

This Encyclical is a very powerful testament to the legacy of Pope John Paul II and what he stood for--the intrinsic value all human life from conception until natural death.

What I would like to know is this. Will the MPs who stood up in the House of Commons and supported bill C-573 in honour of Pope John Paul II--will they also stand up and support Rod Bruinooge's private member’s bill C-510, Roxanne's Law? Even though Roxanne's law does nothing to ban any abortions, it will give extra protection to women from being coerced into having an abortion.

I think Pope John Paul would approve.

Why we need a public debate on ‘Roxanne’s law’

(Published in the National Posts's blog, Holy Post yesterday.)

There has been very little coverage in the media of Rod Bruinooge’s private member’s Bill C-510 — also known as “Roxanne’s Law” — that is scheduled for a second reading Parliament vote on Dec. 15.

The bill is named after Roxanne Fernando, a young woman from Winnipeg whose boyfriend murdered her in 2007 after his repeated attempts to coerce her to have an abortion failed.

The bill would allow pregnant women to press charges when they find themselves facing coercion to abort. Such empowerment could prevent coercion from escalating to violence like it did with Roxanne. Ideally, it would act as a deterrent to coercive behaviour in the first place from boy friends, husbands and families.

Considering that this is the first bill dealing with the subject matter of abortion to be voted on in 20 years, the lack of media coverage seems odd — notwithstanding the fact that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has stated he will never reopen the abortion debate and nor will he support this bill.

One would hope that in a country where there are no restrictions on abortion there could at least be a public debate — especially about a bill whose sole purpose is to protect women from unwanted abortions. Remember that there is no consensus on abortion; polls consistently tell us show that many Canadians want some limits on abortion.

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country’s abortion law. But the court did say that Parliament has the right to legislate protection of the unborn.

Even though Mr. Harper would not support such a bill, he doesn’t have to. Bill C-510 is a private member’s bill, not a government bill. The purpose such bills is to give backbench MPs from all parties the opportunity to bring forward legislation they believe in, independent of what’s on the government’s agenda.

Mr. Harper would get one vote — just like any MP — and he could vote as his conscience dictates.

The National Post has been covering the recent events at Carleton University where the students union, CUSA, has decertified the anti-abortion group LifeLine.

There is a striking parallel between what is going on at Carleton University and what is going on in Parliament.

As the Post recently stated: “The fact that these young men and women are anti-abortion should have nothing to do with whether they are worthy of coverage. This is about certain students, CUSA, acting like petty tyrants because they do not like the views of some of their fellow students. This goes against every principle of free speech. Why is there not more outrage about this?”

And why is there not more outrage about abortion debate being shut down in our Parliament? This also goes against every principle of free speech.

Think about it: why should CUSA allow pro-life students to speak out about abortion, when our political leaders won’t allow pro-life MPs to speak out about abortion? CUSA has learned that it’s okay to shut down free speech on unpopular topics.

And where that kind of thinking ends God only knows.

God's mind

"Men mistake the mystery of the perfection of providence for the impossibilities of a contradiction if they insist on limiting God's mind by the measure of their own. We must take things as they are, use them, minister to them; for our constructive capacity does not go beyond the world of the artificial--houses, barns, clocks, cloaks. We do not make trees or cats or sunrises. Because these things are beyond our planning, we absurdly conclude that they are beyond all planning, that they need no mind behind their orderly existence. These things do not need men, so they do not need God; they are necessary, with no word of explanation of that necessity."

St. Thomas Aquinas -- Summa Theologica

CIHI is not ATIPable

My letter below was published today in the National Post. Below my letter are the numbers of abortions done in Canada in 2006.

As an interesting side note to the fact that Statistics Canada does not publish abortions statistics anymore since they transferred the responsibility to The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), is that CIHI is not subject to the same Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) rules as Statistics Canada is, since CIHI is not a government organization.

This is what CIHI told me:
"CIHI is a not-for-profit organization and is not subject to any federal or provincial access to information or privacy legislation."

Yet The Office of the Information commissioner of Canada website states:
"the right of individuals to access information held by public bodies and marks the benefits of transparent, accessible government."
"Access to information is a right of everyone
Access is the rule—secrecy is the exception
The right applies to all public bodies
Making requests should be simple, speedy, and free
Officials have a duty to assist requesters
Refusals must be justified
The public interest takes precedence over secrecy
Everyone has the right to appeal an adverse decision
Public bodies should pro-actively publish core information
The right should be guaranteed by an independent body"

So remind me again how the transfer of abortion statistics to CIHI bodes well for "transparent, accessible government"? I'm just saying.

--------------------------------------------------
A 'sensible' debate on abortion

National Post · Thursday, Nov. 25, 2010

Re: Can We Sensibly Debate Abortion?, letter to the editor, Nov. 24.

Letter-writer David Bowland says that "what passes today as argument on a critical and fundamental issue like abortion [is] emotionally charged language devoid of fact but designed to tug at one's heartstrings rather than appeal to one's rational mind."

OK, let's talk facts. Canada has no abortion law and abortion is legal up until a woman gives birth. We have about 100,000 abortions a year. According to Statistics Canada in 2006 we had 464 (reported) late-term abortions. Also in 2006, Statistics Canada reported 55,006 abortions "of unknown gestational age."

We aren't allowed to have a debate about abortion in Canada -- especially not in Parliament. The letter writer doesn't like the term "culture of death." Since abortions are the willful destruction of unborn children, which are members of the human species, we can't call this a "culture of life." He also doesn't like the phrase "widespread extermination of ... our humanity." We are exterminating pre-born humans, and 100,000 is quite a few.

Those are the facts. Disliking them doesn't change them.
Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.
--------------------------------------------------------

2006 Abortion statistics
Under 9 weeks 13,368
9 to 12 weeks 17,848
13 to 16 weeks 3,241
17 to 20 weeks 1,383
21 to 40 weeks 464
Unknown or not reported (2) 55,006 60%
Total abortions 91,310
(2) Note the large percentage of abortions with an unknown or not reported gestation age of fetus.

Source: Statistics Canada from an ATIP request, November 2010

No words needed

Life's Hard

It's wonderfully ironic that the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) is telling Carleton Lifeline that they are being de-certified for violating CUSA's anti-discrimination policy.

Hmmm, let's see...in actuality, CUSA is discriminating against Lifeline because--are you ready for this--they are pro-life AND, according to CUSA, Carleton Lifeline believes in:
"equal rights of the unborn and believe that abortion is a moral and legal wrong."

What rabbit hole did CUSA fall down anyway?

But it gets better. CUSA is saying that if Lifeline would only, you know, support abortion, why then, all would be forgiven. Say what?

The real irony here, is this. Because CUSA has issued this ridiculous discriminatory-anti-free-speech-rights-edict (DAFSRE), Lifeline gets national press on the front page of the National Post. Go Carleton Lifeline!

If I may take the liberty to quote that late great philosopher John Wayne:
'Life's hard. It's even harder when you're stupid.'

When pro-abortion MPs don't speak for us, we need to say so

During the parliamentary debate on November 1 on Bill C-510 ("Roxanne's Law"), there were five female MPs who spoke on the bill. Only one woman, Conservative MP Kelly Block, spoke in support of Rod Bruinooge's private member's bill. The other four female MPs who spoke, were all against the bill.

If passed, this bill would bring about additional legal protection for those women who don't want the abortions others are trying to impose on them. It would protect a woman's right to say "no" to abortion.

What concerns me as a Canadian woman, is when female pro-abortion MPs assume they speak for all women. They do not. MP Nicole Demers (who is against the bill) stated: "Men are trying to decide what is good for us". Well I can tell you, Ms. Demers, you will not decide what is good for me.

MP Jean Crowder (also against the bill) quoted the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada numerous times in her remarks against Bill C-510. ARCC is an extremist pro-abortion organization whose chief advocate is Joyce Arthur. Ms. Arthur is the same person whose other radical pro-abortion group, the Pro-Choice Action Network received a $27,400 government grant to write a scathing report condemning crisis pregnancy centres in BC. No, Ms. Crowder, you do not speak for me either.

In fact, Ms. Demers and Ms. Crowder and Ms. Irene Mathyson and Ms. Marlene Jennings; none of you speak for me.

Unfortunately there are almost no women in our Canadian Parliament who are prepared to stand up for pregnant women who want to keep their babies. But there are many, many female MPs who will vociferously defend women who want to have abortions, even to the extent of needlessly sacrificing the safety and security and emotional health of those women who want to continue their pregnancies.

I say "needlessly," because there is no need to oppose Roxanne's Law in order to maintain legal access to abortion for those women who want it. With C-510 in place, abortion would still be completely legal for any reason, throughout a woman's entire pregnancy.

These pro-abortion MPs say they think the abortion debate is over. They pretend to be confused as to why we would discuss anything related to abortion. The reason is simple. Democracy is always a trump card.

MP Kelly Block, on the other hand, has demonstrated courage, compassion and integrity. She stood up in our Canadian Parliament and spoke on behalf of those pregnant women who want to bring their pre-born children safely to term.

Thank you Ms. Block. You speak for me.

Objective truth

In Installment number 34, the Laws of God, Father Benedict Groeschel again talks about the natural law. He talks about reading about an "ethics" committee doing something against the natural law:
"Some ethics committees loudly supported the idea of partial birth abortion. That is hypocrisy. That is a misuse of the term."

Fr. Groeschel goes on to talk about Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Veritatis Splendor encylical (the Splendor of the Truth):
"what the pope is ultimately saying is...that there are objective, solid, basic, moral truths that do not change. I have to say that God went out of his way to make that very clear..."

Fr. Groeschel ends with:
"Objective truth can defeat evil and in fact, it is ultimately the only thing that can defeat evil. It is the truth of God."

Thank you for your courage

November 3, 2010

Dear Ms. Block,

I would like to thank you for your principled stand on Monday in the House of Commons, when you chose to stand up and support Mr. Bruinooge's Bill C-510 that would allow a woman to press charges if she is coerced into an unwanted abortion.

Even though the pro-abortions in the House such as, Ms. Nicole Demers, Ms. Irene Mathyssen, Ms. Marlene Jennings, Ms. Jean Crowder and others, would prefer to shut down our democracy by not having any debate whatsoever about abortion, I can take comfort in knowing that there is at least one woman in the House of Commons, in my Parliament, in my country, who will speak for the unborn and who will also speak for me, a woman.

It is so tragic that the pro-abortions insist on telling us that they speak for women. Because they do not. They do not speak for me, and they most certainly do not speak for the children in our country who never get the chance to become a woman; to become a man; to become a Canadian citizen.

Even though I am only one small voice, I will support you in what you are doing in this great country of ours. And I will support all MPs who stand up for what is right, for what is moral, and for what will protect the most defenseless of our citizens.

I pray that other MPs will have the courage to follow your strong leadership and will also support Roxanne's Law.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
cc Mr. Rob Nicholson, Justice Minister
Mr. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister
Mr. Rod Bruinooge, Chair of the Pro-Life Caucus

A right to speak truth

Heather Holland of Planned Parenthood doesn't think that Freedom of speech means the right to display anything, anywhere, anytime.

Typical of the pro-abortions, Ms. Holland gets all cranky pants when Carleton University students Ruth Lobo and four other students from Carleton University and Queen's University tried to educate the public on the facts around abortion.

Here is my response to Ms. Holland this past week in the Ottawa Citizen.

A right to speak truth

The Ottawa Citizen October 28, 2010

Re: Poster place provided, Oct. 22.

Letter-writer Heather Holland thinks that freedom of speech "does not mean the right to display anything, anywhere, anytime." Really?

Does Holland not like to see the truth expressed graphically? Because that is what these pictures in the Genocide Awareness Project exhibit show -- the truth about abortion and how it destroys an unborn child.

The problem is that Carleton University is allowing itself to be bullied by those who support abortions and don't want the truth to be shown out there in the world for all to see, especially on university campuses.

These photos make it hard to deny that fetuses exist. If we pretend that fetuses don't exist, then it follows that nothing actually dies during an abortion. But pictures of dead fetuses blows that pretence out of the water. Kudos to those students who stand up for the truth and refuse to be bullied. Freedom of speech is all about speaking the truth, anywhere and anytime.

Patricia Maloney,
Ottawa
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Yes Virginia, there really is a Santa Claus

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) has recommended a set of photos to be used by the media for abortion-related stories that, I am ashamed to say, actually made me laugh.

Abortion is certainly never a laughing matter, but two of the pictures are a pathetic attempt by the pro-abortions to pretend that, yes Virginia, an abortion really is only a small clump of tissue, not a real live unborn person at all.

And frankly I was puzzled by the picture of a woman holding a positive pregnancy test. Oh I get it, that woman is only a little bit pregnant. You know, unlike those dreadful pictures where a pregnant woman is a lot pregnant.

Gone fishing

For the next couple of weeks I will have limited, or no access to the Internet so I will not be signing into my blog. This means if you choose to leave a comment I probably won't see it until I have access again.

Thanks to everyone who reads and comments.

Good Infection

C. S. Lewis on Love from Mere Christianity
"All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that 'God is love'. But they seem not to notice that the words 'God is Love' have no real meaning unless God contains at least two Persons. Love is something one person has for another. If God was a single person, then before the world was made, He was not love. Of course, what these people mean when they say God is love is often something quite different: they really mean 'Love is God'. They really mean that our feelings of love, however and wherever they arise, and whatever results they produce, are to be treated with great respect. Perhaps they are: but that is something quite different from what Christians mean by the statement 'God is love'. They believe that the living, dynamic activity of love has been going on in God forever and has created anything else.

And that by the way, is perhaps the most important difference between Christianity and all other religions: that in Christianity God is not a static thing--not even a person--but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance. The union between the Father and the Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is also a person...of course, it is not a real person: it is only rather like a person. But that is just one of the differences between God and us. What grows out of the joint life of the Father and the Son is a real Person, is in fact the Third of the three Persons who are God. The third Person is called, in technical language, the Holy Ghost or the 'spirit' of God...

...And now, what does it all matter? It matters more than anything else in the world. The whole dance, or drama, or pattern of this three-Personal life is to be played out in each one of us: or (putting it the other way around) each one of us has to enter the pattern, take his place in that dance. There is no other way to the happiness for which we were made. Good things as well as bad, you know, are caught by a kind of infection. If you want to get warm you must stand near the fire: if you want to get wet you must get into the water. If you want joy, power, peace, eternal life, you must get close to, or even into, the thing that has them. They are not a sort of prize which God could, if He chose, just hand out to anyone. They are a great fountain of energy and beauty spurting up at the very centre of reality. If you are close to it, the spray will wet you: if you are not, you will remain dry. Once a man is united to God, how could he not live forever? Once a man is separated from God, what can he do but whither and die?"

Why, as a Catholic, I support Bill C-510

Why, as a Catholic, I cannot support Bill C-510 By Geoffrey F. Cauchi, LL.B. Issue: October 2010
It is disturbing that Geoffrey Cauchi has publicly come out against Bill C-510 Roxanne's law, a bill that would make it a criminal offense for anyone to coerce a woman to abort her unborn child. This is a positive pro-life bill because it will protect some babies. It will protect a woman who decides to keep her baby. It does this by allowing her to press charges against someone who tries to coerce her to abort.

(Mr. Cauchi's article also notes that: "the opinions expressed in this article are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of the pro-life organizations of which he is a member or leader." This may be so, but Mr. Cauchi is the president of Alliance for Life Ontario. Therefore the optics of his non-support for this bill will be very influential on the pro-life community, even if these are only his personal opinions.)

It does not need to be stated that Canada has no abortion law and that an abortion can be legally procured in Canada at any time during the nine month pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. All pro-lifers are extremely well aware of this fact. We also know from past experience that all attempts to enact limitations on abortion have met with zero success. It's time to make some progress.

Mr. Cauchi says that according to Catholic teaching:
"if a proposed Bill is an intrinsically unjust law, it cannot, in good conscience, be publicly supported by Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium. In the Papal Encyclical, Evangelium vitae (EV, 73.2), Pope John Paul II, citing section 22 of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith’s Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974), confirmed long-standing Church teaching when he said: “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.” (the “No Exceptions Statement”)."

Mr. Cauchi then goes on to make his case that this is an unjust law, essentially because some unborn children will not be saved. Yet saving the lives of some of our children is better than condemning all of the aborted ones. Bill C-510 will do this.

With all due respect to Mr. Cauchi, he is a banking lawyer and not a moral theologian. I must therefore defer to what the moral theologians and ethicists have to say on the subject of incrementalism in abortion. I refer the reader to an article written by William E. May, “The Misinterpretation of John Paul II’s Teaching in Evangelium vitae n.73,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Winter 2006, Vol. 6 No. 4. p. 705. Mr. May makes some key observations on incrementalism. Here are some excerpts:

On page 705:
"In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium vitae, John Paul II takes up a "particular problem of conscience" that can occur "[when] a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on" (n. 73). He then makes the following most important statement: In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil effect. (n. 73)"

On page 707:
"But John Paul II judges that the kind of political decisions which can be licit do not have as their moral objects permitting or authorizing abortions, or the intentional killing of unborn children. Rather, the object that morally specifies the legislator’s act in this situation is to extend the protection of law to the lives of unborn children who are not protected under existing legislation or under alternative proposed legislation, which this legislation is intended to replace. This is evidently a good moral object."

On Page 713:
"Ratzinger writes: According to the principles of Catholic morality, an action can be considered licit whose object and proximate effect consist in limiting an evil insofar as is possible. Thus, when one intervenes in a situation judged evil in order to correct it for the better, and when the action is not evil in itself, such an action should be considered not as the voluntary acceptance of the lesser evil but rather as the effective improvement of the existing situation, even though one remains aware that not all evil present is able to be eliminated for the moment.19"

A few months ago Cardinal Ouellette and Archbishop Prendergrast said in a CTV interview:
"I think we need to look at the issue of how many abortions there are in our country and so Cardinal Ouellet and I last week took the tact of saying, look alright we aren’t going to change the law at present anyway, so let’s do something about reducing the number. If everyone says there should be as few abortions as possible, what are we doing for that? Why are we happy that the number is staying more or less static? You know in a country like this? The Cardinal gave the statistics that with 10,000,000 people in Belgium, they have fewer abortions than they have in Quebec where they have 8,000,000 people. Why is that? Who would not be opposed to reducing the number of abortions? (emphasis added) I don't think anybody...Well we would like to change the law, I would like to change the law and at least put some restrictions on it at least something like you have in Belgium where after the first trimester there aren’t any abortions or generally there aren’t any."

We can reduce the number of abortions by supporting bill C-510. Once we have some protection for the unborn, we know the job isn't finished--we will then move on to the next bill. If we insist on waiting for the perfect bill that completely eliminates all abortions, and decide that is the only acceptable objective, our children will continue to be destroyed.

If an incremental bill can save one child of the 100,000 killed each year through abortion, this bill will have been worth it.

Dominion over all creatures

"Christ has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature."

St. Cyril of Alexandria

Spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola

The Principle and Foundation is the opening preface of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. The Exercises were composed between 1521 and 1522. The book was matured and revised through some twenty-five years until it was published in 1548.

In the commentary of the Exercises by George E. Ganss, S.J., Ganss says:
"St. Ignatius of Loyola's (1491-1556) worldview...was firmly based on five chief truths of God's revelation: God's purpose in creating human beings; their fall from grace through original sin; the Incarnation of his Son; the Redemption by which Christ restored humankind to God's grace through his life, Passion, and Resurrection; and the destiny of humankind to eternal salvation, that full satisfaction of each person's capacities and desires in the joy of the beatific vision. In other words, Ignatius' outlook was based on God's plan of creation and spiritual development for human beings who use their free wills wisely as this divine design evolves in the history of salvation. This plan is what St. Paul enthusiastically called "the mystery of Christ" (Eph. 1:7-8; 3:3-21). It had long remained hidden but was fully revealed through Christ."

PRINCIPLE AND FOUNDATION
"Human beings are created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by means of doing this to save their souls.

The other things on the face of the earth are created for the human beings, to help them in the pursuit of the end for which they are created.

From this it follows that we ought to use these things to the extent that they help us toward our end, and free ourselves from them to the extent that they hinder us from it.

To attain this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created things, in regard to everything which is left to our free will and is not forbidden. Consequently, on our own part we ought not to seek health rather than sickness, wealth rather than poverty, honor rather than dishonor, a long life rather than a short one, and so on in all other matters.

Rather, we ought to desire and choose only that which is more conducive to the end for which we are created."

An inconvenient truth

The pro-abortions get really cranky when the truth about abortion is shown out there in the world for all to see.

In particular, they don't like that the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform (CCBR) uses photos that show pictures of dead fetuses. These photos make it kind of hard to deny that fetuses exist. You see, if we just pretend that fetuses don't exist, then it follows that nothing actually dies during an abortion. But pictures of dead fetuses blows that pretense out of the water.

The solution for the pro-abortions is to come up with a new imaginary notion--that pictures of these dead fetuses in all its graphic horror somehow constitutes hate speech:
"If anti-choice activities, like those undertaken by the CCBR in co-operation with anti-choice campus clubs, are deemed to be hateful, this justifies a restriction in civil liberties. Establishing that the activities of such extreme anti-choice activities are hateful has thus been one of the primary goals of student pro-choice advocates."

How does the truth equal hate speech? Well of course, it doesn't. No matter--because the pro-abortions are on a roll. They've got a brand new bandwagon to jump on, that runs alongside their "reproductive health" and "reproductive rights" and "reproductive choice" euphemisms...now they have invented "reproductive justice."

So tell me, do the pro-abortions also want "reproductive justice" for the women who want to KEEP their babies? Nope. At the end of this new abortion manifesto, they clearly come out against the Unborn Victims of Crime Act. Why? Well, Joyce Arthur let slip the real motivation behind opposition to that bill when she told Charles Lewis of the National Post:
“If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.” (“Fetal rights stir debate on abortion,” by Charles Lewis, National Post, March 1, 2008).

We cannot under any circumstances protect those choices. As long as the choice is abortion--it's a go. Just don't let the truth of dead fetuses get in the way of "reproductive justice".

The great sin

C.S. Lewis on Pride from his book Mere Christianity:
"I now come to that part of Christian morals where they differ most from all other morals. There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which every one in the world loathes when he sees it in someone else; and of which hardly any people, except Christians, ever imagine that they are guilty themselves...the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.

The vice I am talking of is Pride or Self-Conceit: and the virtue opposite it, in Christian morals, is called Humility...According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil is Pride...it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind...

...pride always means enmity—it is enmity. And not only enmity between man and man, but enmity to God.

In God you come up against something which is in every respect immeasurably superior to yourself. Unless you know God as that--and, therefore, know yourself as nothing in comparison—you do not know God at all. As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you...

...Do not imagine that if you meet a really humble man he will be what most people call humble nowadays: he will not be a sort of greasy, smarmy person, who is always telling you that, of course, he is nobody. Probably all you will think about him is that he seemed a cheerful, intelligent chap who took a real interest in what you said to him. If you do dislike him it will be because you feel a little envious of anyone who seems to enjoy life so easily. He will not be thinking about humility: he will not be thinking about himself at all.

If anyone would like to acquire humility, I can, I think, tell him the first step. The first step is to realize that one is proud. And a biggish step too. At least, nothing whatever can be done before it. If you think you are not conceited, it means you are very conceited indeed."

A poached egg

C. S Lewis on Jesus Christ from his book Mere Christianity:
"...I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God'. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who is merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell, You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon, or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human being. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

The Natural Law: the innocent should not be attacked of killed

In this installment (#31 Laws and Virtues, 9433.mp3) of "Get a life in Christ", Father Benedict Groeschel discusses the laws: the law of Human Nature called the Natural Law:
"The Natural law is those convictions, those rules that are necessary for human life to survive. The first rule of the natural law is that we must do good and avoid evil. The natural law is absolutely essential for the survival of the society...the most important criminal trial in the twentieth century, was tried on the natural law: the Nuremberg war trial, where the Nazis were on trial. They could not be tried by the law of the German Reich, because the Nazis hadn't violated that law. Their plea was that they had done what they were told to by the law of the Reich. And in fact they were tried and convicted, and many of them were executed for violations of the natural law, specifically that the innocent should not be attacked or killed."

Fr. Groeschel also discusses Divine law and how it works with the Natural Law.

And he discusses conscience:
"We need to incorporate the law of God by a good conscience. St Thomas Aquinas says" The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding, placed is us by God so that we know what we must do, and what we must avoid. God has given us His law at our creation." Without conscience we can do very very little in life. The Vatican Council stated in GAUDIUM ET SPES:

"In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths."

Fr. Groeschel ends by saying:
"It is conscience that makes us different from animals, it is conscience that makes us noble creatures."

Interesting parallels there between the Nuremberg trials, conscience, and the current global abortion holocaust.

Canada caves to pro-abortions

Today we find out in the Ottawa Citizen that Bev Oda says Canada would support abortion infrastructure if asked but only as long as it's legal:
"As long as it is legal within the country and it's a legal procedure ... if we were asked to help in that way, we would do that."

This after our government promised Canadians we would not fund abortions in the Maternal Health initiative.

It gets worse.

In the Globe and Mail reported from Johannesburg that:
"Despite its refusal to consider abortion in its maternal-health plan, the Harper government has given financial support to an international agency that provides abortion illegally in some African countries."

The article also reported that the organization does not want to be publicly identified.

Then in this youtube video taken at the Global Safe Abortion conference held in London 2007, Paul Cornellisson, Marie Stopes Program Director for South Africa, admits that his organization promotes illegal abortion all over the world. Mr. Cornellison states:
"We do illegal abortions all over the world. In a way we could help people you know. We are just over the border from Johannesburg and Pretoria..."

What is going on? Has Canada done an about face and decided to fund legal abortions in Africa? Or has the completely unthinkable happened, and Canada will fund illegal abortions in Africa through Marie Stopes?

Either way, it's a sad sad day for the unborn children of the world.

A thought of God

"Only when we meet the living God in Christ do we know what life is. We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

- Pope Benedict XVI

Blessed Mother Teresa on Abortion

Blessed Mother Teresa on Abortion

"...But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems...Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today — abortion which brings people to such blindness...

...I will tell you something beautiful. We are fighting abortion by adoption — by care of the mother and adoption for her baby. We have saved thousands of lives. We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals and police stations: “Please don’t destroy the child; we will take the child.” So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: “Come, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your child.” And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child...

...Please don’t kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child. From our children’s home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3000 children from abortion. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents and have grown up so full of love and joy.

...Let us make that one point — that no child will be unwanted, unloved, uncared for, or killed and thrown away. And give until it hurts — with a smile...

...If we remember that God loves us, and that we can love others as He loves us, then America can become a sign of peace for the world. From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak — the unborn child — must go out to the world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. God bless you!"

The Samaritan woman

Fr. Jim Whalen was the previous National Director of Priests for Life Canada. He died on Sunday, February 24, 2008.

Here is his last talk. It begins:
"Jesus creates a crisis in His public ministry, a moment of truth, a moment of decision, to an anonymous Samaritan woman. She has to decide to say "yes" or "no" to Jesus and to what He offers her. She has to decide to reject or accept the offer of living water - the truth. If she rejects the living water and continues with well water, her life will not change. She will continue in her old ways of changing husbands and lovers every so often, running, hiding, and paying lip service to her faith. If she accepts the living water, she will be a changed woman, a new woman, a born again woman, and a new creation. She must decide to reject or accept the truth.

The ministry of Jesus continues today in our world. The woman at the well is the woman seeking lethal ser­vices at the local abortion clinic. She is running from a mistake, an error, a sin. She is running from a future with a child, trying to escape from a trouble­some relationship, abandoned by her husband or a current lover. This is the woman at the well today, a woman in need of the truth, a woman in need of the Church, a woman in need of you and me. She has been misled or misin­formed about the truth of abortion. Jesus wants us to be there for the woman at the well today, offering her support, offering her the truth, and helping her to decide to save, not to take the life, of the little one within her as well as her own immortal soul..."

Thorns and thistles

"Alas for the soul which is without Christ to cultivate it so that it will bring forth the fruits of the Spirit. When it is deserted it becomes full of thorns and thistles..."

- St. Macarius

Truth and Love

"It is necessary that each person freely accept the truth of the love of God. He is Love and Truth, and love as well as truth never imposes themselves. They knock on the door of the heart and mind, and where they enter, bring peace and joy. This is the way God reigns; this is his plan for salvation..."

Pope Benedict XVI

"I chose to be blind"

This audio file from Father Benedict Groeschel is from the third section on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from the Living in Christ series. This series looks at the commandments, at morality, and ethics and at what God demands of us. I have transcribed most of it below:

28. Our Call to Seek God 9430.mp3

"We live in a time that has forgotten the revelation of God. For centuries most of European civilization was based on the Bible. This was the foundation of that society.

About four hundred years ago, these foundations began to crumble. There was the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Some people like Machiavelli, etc., began to undermine purposefully in the name of humanism the religious and spiritual foundations of society. As time went on, a whole group of people called the rationalists began to throw out things they had accepted from the traditions of Europe. This is terribly important to know. Gradually by using their own mind, they began to reject scripture, the Old Testament, then the New Testament, then the Divinity of Christ, then the miracles of Christ, so Christ emerged to some very important people of democracy, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, etc.--Christ emerged as a moral philosopher. Now quite honestly if you read the New Testament, you can't see him as moral philosopher. He doesn't sound like Plato or Socrates. He works miracles. He heals the sick. Well they decided they didn't believe that the miracles had happened. He speaks about the last Judgement frequently in his parables. They decided there was no last Judgement. He promised eternal life. Well they didn't think there was any eternal life. None the less, they held on to an image of Christ.

About a hundred years ago a very very strange man, a man who ended his life in a psychiatric facility, a brilliant philosopher, told them all in Europe they were all being very very unrealistic. That if they had taken away the foundations of faith, if they had taken away the old testament, and the new testament, if they had taken away Moses and the prophets, John the Baptist and Paul, and most of all if they had taken away Jesus Christ, then Europe would change. Its civilization would be very different. This man's name--he was an enemy of religion, he was one of those enemies who told what it would be like without faith--was Friedrich Nietzsche. He was the favourite philosopher of among other people, Adolf Hitler. I don't blame Nietzsche for what Adolf Hitler did.

Nietzsche announced that God is dead. Ring the bells, light the candles, get the altar boys, we're going to have a funeral. God is dead and he warned European civilization that it had little or no idea what it would be like without God. They had given up God, but they held on to the moral system which belief in God had made possible. Monsignor Romano Guardini, a distinguished theologian in Germany, in his book, the End of the Modern World, published in the late 40's, was a great book, a brief book. He had worked on it during house arrest, during the Second World War. He said that Nietzsche alone had warned Europe, what it would be like when God was dead. When people would no longer be persons because they were not real to God, because there was no God, when people would be the chattel, the pawns of the state. When certain people would decide what was good for everybody else, and if anybody got in the way, they would kill them.

And Hitler and Stalin and Mao Tse-tung all did. They did this on the basis of a materialistic philosophy, a conviction that the human being is nothing more than chemicals, a creature like a white rat, or a pigeon and that they can be deprived of life simply at the will of the state if they are expendable. If they are not convenient. And all three of these men with their henchmen…like Khrushchev in Russia who had much blood on his hands, ran the Ukrainian holocaust of 1938 when 11 million people were starved to death, Mao Tse-Tung and his terrible purges, Hitler and his Holocaust, and all of his buddies--all of these people had a philosophy, they have a moral system. We're all going to make the perfect world, and if anybody gets in the way, or if anybody disagrees with us--we crush, we kill them. But that's not nice. Hitler used an expression, an ominous terrible expression, the final solution.

Nietzsche had warned people what a world without God, without commandments, would be like. And that's where we begin our discussion.

This network is on the air and is visible or hearable to you but it competes with a gigantic media which is absolutely anti-human. It wouldn't admit that. But it celebrates murder, death, it militantly teaches, abortion, euthanasia. It drags the most sacred parts of human existence through the mud in forms of cheap and revolting forms of entertainment. Sexuality, family life--it undercuts it all. Believe me--in most of the media of the United States, God is dead. The true God is not dead. But the image of God that the creature ought to have, that a human being ought to have, by reason of the fact that he is made in the image and likeness of God. By reason of the fact that every man, woman and child in the world is called to a destiny with God after this life, that is forgotten...

In the face of all this, religion in general, the Judeo Christian religion, founded on Sacred Scripture, the Christian denominations, and the Catholic church which is the largest of all of them, should be in awe to some degree, endeavouring to remind human beings that we are not badly behaved apes...Brother Felix said an animal cannot do wrong...but we can do much wrong. On the other side is something marvellous. There is the hope of everlasting life. This hope is in the human race. Some people will say that's some Christian thing. Cut it out. That's full of baloney. That it's only a Christian idea that the Christians invented life after death. The oldest ruins on the face of the Earth are tombs. They are 15 thousand years old. and you can see then in Burren in County Clare Ireland. They are made with prodigious expenditure of energy without any machinery, great stone lifted into primitive arches, to give a home for the dead. The largest and intact buildings on the face of the Earth are magnificent tributes to the human hope and expectation that this life is not the end. Those buildings of course are called the pyramids in Egypt. Incredible monuments soaring into the sky, the hope of human beings that they pass from this world to a better world where their real hopes and expectations will be fulfilled by the God who made them.

I've had people tell me that in the old testament there is no witness of eternal life. What do they mean when they say "and he was gathered to his father"--the Father of Abraham, Isaac and, Jacob they were dead. As Jesus said to the Sadducees "It's not the God of the dead it's the God of the living."

(Father Groeschel then goes through some examples of eternal life:Daniel Chapter 12, Maccabees 7, and John 14 1:4 "Let not your heart be troubled or be afraid")

If you're listening to this program and you don't know what's coming, if you don't know what life is all about, keep this in mind because everyone hopes that by obeying the commandments of God, they may have eternal life.

Unfortunately we live in a sad and sorrowful time when our public leaders, the leaders of the 20th century, politicians, they do not ask the question, what is right or wrong, but what is expedient. Or what will sell. Sometimes they refuse to see the most obvious fact in the world.

The commandment says: Thou shalt not kill. I am going to get around to all the commandments, of the natural law of revealed religions of the bible, the commandments of Christ. But just this one commandment, thou shalt not kill--have religious people killed? Of course they have. Have religious people betrayed God? Certainly.

The fact is, it is objectively wrong to kill. There may be an excuse to stop someone whose trying to kill you or an innocent person but otherwise the commandment is there: Thou shalt not kill. The commandment of justice. Unfortunately the leaders of nations in the 20th century, even the better ones, have been very expedient, about killing people. We like to think that our side, the allies, in the war didn't kill people unnecessarily but we most certainly did. Those commandments were broken. And what about those who did hideous things? What about Albert Speer, the devil's architect, Hitler's architect? He pleaded at Nuremberg when he was tried on the natural law of philosophy and theology. And he pleaded, "I didn't know what was going on. I didn't know we had slave labourers, I didn't know we were killing people arbitrarily." He got away with it. He got 20 years. When Speer was dying in a recent biography, Speer said, "I chose to be blind". What terrible terrifying words. I'm sorry to tell you this brothers and sisters, but as we begin to discuss in these 13 segments, the Law of God, I'm sorry to tell you, that religion in the United States is nothing to write home to St. Paul about.

I tell you this very sadly. But recently we had a hideous thing in public life. A partial birth abortion. A partial birth abortion! That's not abortion, that's murder. And I am horrified to tell you, that a professor at George Town University, and a member of an organization that vows to defend the teachings of the Church, a Jesuit, in the New York Times, supported the veto of the Legislation outlawing that horrible procedure.

Brothers and Sisters don't be part of the confusion of this time. Don't be part of it. In the new Catechism we have a wonderful teaching, a marvellous teaching on morality. The Catechism calls it a Catechisis. That's a religious teaching. The Holy Spirit who is the interior master of our lives according to Jesus, and the teaching about grace and how you and I can get the help, that despite our weakness, to do God's will and I can tell you in this series of people who have overcome incredible weakness. People in the 12 step program. The teaching on the Beatitudes. of blessed peace in this life. Of the Catechis of sin and forgiveness. Of virtue. Of human virtue and the great virtues that come from God alone: Faith Hope and Charity. The Catechisis of the Commandments. That prepares us to live the way Christ taught in Mathew 25. "I was hungry and you gave me to eat. I was a stranger and you took me in. I was naked and you clothed me."

Don't let anybody tell you that that is not about judgement. That is Christ's description of the Last Judgement. St Augustine tells us, "If they came to you with open hands, hungry and naked and in need and you responded you gave to Christ. And if you didn't, you call upon yourself a judgement."

This series may not be what a lot of people would like to call the Good News. It's about the moral teaching of the natural law of Sacred Scripture, of Jesus Christ, and the teacher that he left to the world, when he said to the Apostles, "he who hears you, hears me". The teaching of the Church. It may not be pleasant for a lot of people to hear it. But it is absolutely necessary if we are going to make something beautiful out of our lives. Our lives are a transition to a fuller more perfect life. Jesus says, if you love me, keep my commandments."

What would the Martians think?--(Part 7...an "unspeakable crime")

(Continued from my last post-What would the Martians think part 6)

The Vancouver Island Women’s Health Clinic says on their Making your decision page, that they support your "choice":
"We are not here to influence your decision. We support you in whatever choice you make."

But then they warn women against using crisis pregnancy centres:

"A word of caution: if you surf the net you will come across many anti-abortion websites that have frightening and inaccurate information about abortion. The resources and links page on this website has a list of pro-choice organizations that are good sources of information.

Antichoice groups sometimes set up offices, distress centres, phone lines or 'clinics' that pretend to help pregnant women with information and pregnancy tests.

Also beware of "CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTRES" (note the caps for added emphasis)

Many of these groups try to influence vulnerable women to continue their pregnancy by frightening them. Some will say anything to have you keep your pregnancy. Not all of their information about gestational development, health risks and after-effects of abortion is correct."

CPCs are support organizations that help women who choose to keep their baby or to put it up for adoption.

When people tell you they support your choice, but then warn you not to use CPCs, their bias is showing. They are "pro-choice" so long as your choice is abortion. These so-called pro-choicers are actually pro-abortion since they don’t support a woman’s "choice" to go to a CPC.

Further evidence of being pro-abortion is found in the two booklets linked to from this same page.

The first booklet is The Pregnancy Options Workbook where a section called Catholicism and abortion states:

"The official Catholic Church doctrine teaches that abortion is morally wrong."

This statement is true.

But next the booklet says:
"According to the organization, Catholics For A Free Choice, “This is not, as most Catholics think, based on the belief that the fetus is a person. The Church has no firm doctrine on when the fetus becomes a person. Thus, this teaching has never been proclaimed as infallible by the Pope. The Church is also more than the Pope and the Bishops. It includes all the people of God. Clergy, theologians and laity work together to develop church teachings. Many theologians and lay people feel that abortion can sometimes be a moral decision and that conscience is the final arbiter of any abortion decision... The Church also teaches that the conscience of the individual is supreme...If you carefully examine your conscience and then decide abortion is the most moral act you can do at this time, you are not committing a sin.” As with all religions, individuals must decide what their conscience says and their faith advises.

In fact, Catholic women choose abortion in the same proportion as non-Catholic women. Catholics for Free Choice “You Are Not Alone” 1436 U St. NW #301 Washington DC 20009 www.catholicsforchoice.org

Catholics for Choice are a contradiction in terms. As I’ve said before here and here these “Catholics” can't be Catholics. So we can immediately disregard anything they say.

Next it says:

"Pope John Paul II recognized that “in dire circumstances, some women may honestly feel trapped with no viable option or alternative but to turn to abortion. Decisions that go against life sometimes arise from difficult or even tragic situations of profound suffering, loneliness, a total lack of economic prospects, depression, and anxiety about the future. Such circumstances can mitigate, even to a notable degree, subjective responsibility and consequent culpability of those who make these choices which, in themselves, are wrong.” (as quoted by Father Roberts, speech, 1998)"

What Pope John Paul II did say in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) was:

"Decisions that go against life sometimes arise from difficult or even tragic situations of profound suffering, loneliness, a total lack of economic prospects, depression and anxiety about the future. Such circumstances can mitigate even to a notable degree subjective responsibility and the consequent culpability of those who make these choices which in themselves are evil. But today the problem goes far beyond the necessary recognition of these personal situations. It is a problem which exists at the cultural, social and political level, where it reveals its more sinister and disturbing aspect in the tendency, ever more widely shared, to interpret the above crimes against life as legitimate expressions of individual freedom, to be acknowledged and protected as actual rights."

First, the Pope did not say the first line as quoted above starting with "In dire circumstances".

Second, he used the word "evil", not "wrong".
Third, the quote above omits the remaining important part of the paragraph of the quote.

Fourth, what Pope John Paul did call abortion elsewhere in his encyclical, was an "unspeakable crime":
"...Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an "unspeakable crime".

I suggest the reader read the whole encyclical if you'd like to know Pope John Paul II’s entire guidance on abortion. It isn't ambiguous.

The second booklet on this link is the Unsure about your pregnancy? A guide to making the right decision for you"

This booklet comes courtesy of the National Abortion Federation. It states:

"If an agency tells you that abortion is unsafe or immoral, that is a clue that they are not interested in helping you make your own decision; call the National Abortion Federation’s hotline at (800) 772-9100 for the name of an agency that will give you accurate information and non-judgmental Assistance."

Let’s see. I’m not sure what I want to do. Should I keep my baby? Should I put it up for adoption? Should I abort it? Is abortion safe? What are my options? Oh I know what I’ll do...I’ll call the National Abortion Federation, the organization which represents doctors in the abortion business, for advice. Good plan.

What would the Martians think? (Part 6...What success looks like)

Dr. Konia Trouton, of the Vancouver Island Women’s Clinic, details her quest to:
"set up a woman's clinic that included abortions, and not have a clinic that focused only on abortions. "

She struggles to accomplish this because of what she calls the:
"political challenges in trying to enhance abortion care."

The doctor tells about her troubles getting doctors and other health professionals to work with her, as well as having trouble getting office space:
"I sought to find family physicians who would be excited to have me work alongside their practice, offering surgical abortions, medical abortions and IUD care. Strangely enough, there are not many of those types of clinics, or doctors. I called the local birth control clinic, and their board did not want me to work, even just a day a week, doing pre-operative abortion assessments and scheduling the abortion in the hospital. Paradoxically, they supplied many referrals for abortion and provided after care. They were much more vigorously opposed than I ever expected, and while I continued to work there once a week doing IUD insertions, I knew to look elsewhere for office space. I called some physician colleagues in the peace and justice movement, whom I knew for many years, and I called some alternative health care facilities, but the doors were shut for office space."

But Dr. Trouton's perseverance pays off. By finding nurses and midwifes who support "choice"; by winning doctors over; by getting the National Abortion Federation's stamp of approval; the doctor now has a "successful" clinic where two thirds of her work is for "women seeking termination".

She gradually increases the gestational age of her abortions:
"Moving to D&E required some gradual work, first to 16 weeks, and then six months later to 20 weeks."

(Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp, twist, and tear the baby’s body into pieces. This continues until the child’s entire body is removed from the womb. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy describes the procedure saying, “The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb.”)

In case you're curious to see what a 20 week old fetus looks like.

What strikes me as odd about the doctor's presentation, is that she seems genuinely puzzled why she encountered difficulties. She writes in a calm, composed and non strident manner. Very professional. Very matter of fact.
"There have been many challenges but when I look at why this has been a successful story, it is because it has been about establishing trust and working across disciplines. I have worked hard to get to know the hospital staff, the health authority personal and invited them into the clinic to see the work done and to convince them the clinic and hospital partnership benefits them in reducing wait lists, costs and increasing training opportunities and retention of excellent staff."

The doctor was successful. In setting up a clinic. To abort babies. Close to viability. Who feel pain.

Yes Mary. This is what we call success. In a pro-abortion world.

Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential
Part 5...Does the fetus matter?