It shouldn't be news, but it is: Church of England bishop says gays should 'repent'

LONDON (AP) — A senior Church of England bishop has angered gay-rights campaigners by saying homosexuals should repent.

Archbishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper that the Bible defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. He said the church welcomed gay people, "but we want them to repent and be changed."

(...)

Gay groups condemned the bishop's remarks. Campaigner Peter Tatchell said Nazir-Ali's view "goes against Christ's gospel of love and compassion."

Christ's Gospel did not put a stamp of approval on homosexual behaviour. It is clear from Scripture and Tradition that homosexual behaviour is condemned.

Tradition is important, because unlike "Bible-Only" Christians, Catholics and other churches that subscribe to apostolic succession believe in the inerrancy of Sacred Tradition. (Anglicanism less so, but it still holds an important function.) In other words, what was taught by the Apostles and handed down, but not formally taught in Scripture, is considered to be equal to Scripture.

That is why the Catholic Church and other churches that believe in apostolic succession will never renounce its opposition to homosexual acts.

As far as we're concerned, Jesus rejects homosexual behaviour, as well.

Love is not just sentiments. It's not just intentions. It must correspond to objective standards of behaviour. God made human beings a certain way. We must respect that logic of his creation, as God made all creation "good".

Homosexual behaviour does not do that.

And Derek Munn of gay-rights group Stonewall accused the bishop of promoting inequality and intolerance.

Unlike gay rights activists who promote intolerance of conservative Christians.

VIDEO: Dick Retta Sidewalk Counselor - 6 people saved today!

Saving babies. It's beautiful.

Man Who Dropped Off Girlfriend for Abortion Pulls Gun on Pro-Life Advocate

Phoenix, AZ (LifeNews.com) -- An Arizona man who dropped off his girlfriend at a Phoenix Planned Parenthood abortion center pulled out a gun on a pro-life advocate after she handed him a brochure with information on alternatives. Police say the incident occurred on Wednesday morning.

Phoenix police Lt. Larry T. Jacobs told 3TV that the man had just dropped off his girlfriend for an abortion at the Planned Parenthood near Seventh and Campbell avenues.

When the pro-life advocate handed the man the brochure, that's when he pulled out a gun and pointed it at the woman for a few seconds before getting in his vehicle and driving off.

Cue pro-abort excuses.

This kind of rhetoric supposedly endangers lives but AP publishes it

First of all, I'd like to say to Scott Roeder: Just shut up.

You killed a man and lost just about all of your credibility. Quit while you're ahead. Please!

Now: I wonder-- how did AP break this story?

And why is this a story? Think about it. He sent some pamphlets to a pro-life activist.

That's news?

And isn't this type of language supposed to be potentially fatal. Shouldn't AP take the heat for spreading Roeder's message.

Something tells me they won't be getting any.

This just smells like an opportunity to beat up on the pro-life movement. They didn't even get ANY reaction from pro-life OR pro-abortion forces (not that they would really NEED the latter).

And people still deny that the media is biased.

Bishop says disobedience is harming the Church

Yeah, this should go over well in the Year of the Priest.

Bishops who have deep theological differences with the Pope are undermining the unity of the Catholic Church, a prominent English bishop has claimed.

Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue said that such differences prompted parish priests to ignore the authority of their bishops.

Why stop there, Your Grace? If unity is at stake, start naming names.

The bishop said this disunity created a "conspiracy of silence" in the Church.

He said: "This cocktail of dissent, disobedience and disloyalty has resulted in what I call 'a conspiracy of silence' amongst groups in the Church. There is no real dialogue or willingness to talk openly and honestly about our differences.

Of course not. Because once the dissenters spill the beans about their dissent, they're finished. No promotions for you!

Now if the liberal clergy in the Church had the courage of their convictions, they would have an open discussion. That would be intellectually honest. People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.

But of course they have lots to hide. They must know, at some level, that they are not in line with the Magisterium. Sure, they are often formally orthodox-- never contradicting the words of the Catechism. But in substance, they do. That's the nature of modernism-- to accept the wording, but not the doctrine as the Magisterium understands it.

"For example, we have witnessed a wholesale rejection of the Church's perennial teaching against contraception. This is the litmus test of the acceptance of the obedience in the Church. How many priests support Gaudium et Spes's crystal-clear rejection of contraception, upheld by successive popes - Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI? If we reject their teaching on this matter we are saying as priests that we know better than the successor of Peter! Is this tenable in a priest?"

A bishop who speaks plainly. God, I love you. We need more bishops like him.

Bishop O'Donoghue not only criticised liberal dissent but also had sharp words for traditionalists who he said were in danger of falling into "liturgism".

He said: "By this I mean the tendency among clergy and some laity to solely focus on the liturgy and sacramental life, ignoring our mission to go out of the church building into the world where suffering humanity lives. For a century the Church has been saying that social justice should be a concern of Catholics equal to attending Mass on Sunday. How many believe this? How many priests encourage this?"

He has a point.

And I would welcome more social justice activism in the Church.

The problem is that I, as an orthodox Catholic, do not want to be a stooge for socialists and dissenters. If I engage in some form of charity, I want it to be on an orthodox footing. I do not want some dissenter in the higher echelons of the bureaucracy using my labour as a PR exercise to advance some form of liberalism.

I share John Pacheco's cynicism about the bishops. I try not to be too cynical, because a Catholic should try to understand people's words and intentions in the best light. But here we are, Catholic pro-lifers in Canada, asking for bread, when for the most part, we get stones. Sure, there are some bishops who understand the value of human life, and who really believe in the equality of the unborn child. But we mostly get stones.

On Judgment Day, God is going to demand an account of the Bishops. That statement must seem so quaint and naive to such theologically sophisticated people. Judgement Day? What the heck is that? You mean people still believe in that? Isn't it just some metaphor for a larger truth? The eyes of the aborted children will be on the Bishops. The theological niceties that justify late-term abortion and not criminalizing abortion are all going to seem so hollow.

See, we seem to forget that it is faith that saves. Not principals. Not consciences. Not being nice. FAITH. And faith is the relationship with God that develops from the fact that what God reveals is true, and what he reveals, he reveals out of love.

We've lost all these fundamentals. In fact, that's where the term "fundamentalist" comes from. Fundamentalists were Protestants believers in the early twentieth century who revolted against the relativism that arose in theology. Now it's a term applied to any group who want to return to a form of religion that considers itself immutable and divinely revealed. Although Catholicism is not entirely immutable (because we have a belief in the development of doctrine) the Truth is considered to be so.

I want to go back to a faith-based Church. Not an ideological Church. Not a social program Church. Not a psychological healing Church.

A faith-based one.

One where the leaders and the laity all believe in Faith-- the Catholic Faith, as taught by the Magisterium of the Church.

Oh, that is all so naive to the bishops. So simple, so Catholic, but so naive.

Abortionist explains why she provides 2nd trimester abortions

Radha Lewis says,

I chose to be an abortion provider to prevent undue suffering for my patients

But the fetus has to be the scapegoat. Because voiceless, hidden, unborn children in women's uteruses have no power and no input.

The other day, a colleague and I cared for Rita, a 36-year-old mother of five who was nearly five and a half months pregnant. Rita had always been healthy, but was now hospitalized for more than four weeks at two different hospitals. An infection in her heart had destroyed two of Rita's heart valves, requiring open-heart surgical repair, then a second operation to install a pacemaker.

This young mother unsuccessfully requested an abortion from the dozens of doctors who treated her, but nobody was willing to provide this service until Rita's heart surgeons declared that her pregnancy threatened her life. Within 72 hours, I found myself in an operating room taking care of Rita so she could recover and return home to care for her family.

Pro-life physicians say that even when a mother's life is at stake, there is no need for abortion.

But let's say, for argument's sake, that there was no other recourse.

Does an abortionist have to rip the baby limb from limb, as they do in second-trimester abortions?

Couldn't she have removed the baby through a c-section or some other equally, non-destructive operation?

Why no. That would actually involve respecting the unborn.

Although Alice’s circumstances were not life-threatening in the same way as Rita's, I argue that they are no less significant. But they were not sufficient to persuade the large hospital in the liberal state of California where I practice. Instead, nonexistent "hospital policy" was invoked by disapproving administrators and senior pro-life physicians. As a result, she was sent home to have a child she does not want, or take matters into her own hands with potentially devastating consequences.

Wait. She doesn't show up at her Planned Parenthood appointment, but she didn't want the baby?

Is she competent to make medical decisions or not?

In my experience, every woman who comes in seeking a second trimester abortion has a compelling reason to do so.

Well they're all compelling, aren't they? Since when does a feminist EVER say "gee, that reason, sorry, not good enough to kill your fetus."

Never.

If there were circumstances when she wouldn't perform a 2nd trimester abortion, perhaps that would lend credibility to her statement.

Canadian Abortion Clinic Director Pleads for Late-Term Abortions

Jill Doctoroff Director, Elizabeth Bagshaw Women's Clinic, Vancouver:

We don’t know about people like my sister and her husband who, after trying to conceive for two years, got lucky on their first try with in-vitro fertilization only to have her “water break” at 17 weeks. After weeks of almost no amniotic fluid, which is required for lung development, the prognosis for my sister’s pregnancy was dire. While in the end she decided to continue her pregnancy, which resulted in a premature baby boy dying on the day he was born due to under-developed lungs, she needed the option of and access to a later abortion in order to make a fully informed choice.

She needed access to abortion to make a choice or to execute that choice.

This lady would have aborted her own nephew!

This abortion clinic director is vehiculing the notion that some lives are not worthy. That some lives are not worth living; that some people would be better off dead.

Because we don’t understand the complexity involved we feel better able to be judgmental

Complexity is everything in the left-wing moral universe. Nothing is ever black and white-- except for legal abortion on demand. That's dogma. Funny how that works.

I would like to leave you with the response to later abortions that makes the most sense to me and happens to be Dr. Tiller’s motto: “Trust women.”

Because women are infallible beings who never make any wrong or immoral decisions. Men do. But not women.

Update

Happy Canada Day.

I'm really sorry about not keeping up this blog. Now that school is over, I have three kids home with me, and I've been busy with appointments and such. Plus this computer is about to give up the ghost, and I need to buy a new one. It's very annoying to use right now.

So blogging may be light in the upcoming days. Please have a look at the blogs in the sidebar.

God Bless.

Canadian Catholic Bishops Clears Development and Peace of Allegations LifesiteNews Never Made

You had to know this was coming. In light of the scandal of D & P funding pro-abortion groups, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued its report of their investigation into the affair.

Let me say: I am not impressed.

The report begins by talking about the allegations of LifesiteNews. But never species what those allegations were.

Anybody who has a passing interest in this scandal knows that Lifesite's beef has been that Development and Peace has been funding groups that engage in abortion advocacy.

Full stop.

But what do the bishops conclude:

In conclusion of our inquiry regarding the Mexican Episcopal Conference and the five non-governmental organizations in question, we believe the allegations by Lifesite News – that financial assistance by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP) aided projects related to the promotion of abortion – are not founded on the facts.

As far as I know, Lifesite has never made any accusations with regards to funding pro-abortion projects.

I want to make some snarky remark about how convenient it was for the bishops to overlook that fact. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

The allegation was that Development and Peace funded groups that engaged in advocacy for abortion.

I have a hunch that some bishops think it's okay to give money to groups that work towards abortion, based on the legalism that the money is not going towards abortion itself.

The report says:

We questioned their leadership for considerable time, and confronted them with the allegations and accusations we had heard, but did not find any evidence that they have been implicated in promoting abortion.

And there were no details about this. Again, very convenient. Who did they talk to? What groups? What individuals?

It seems the bishops expect to be believed on their word.

Not that I would think a bishop would lie. But bishops can be deceived. Or they can put a positive spin (in their minds) on a negative situation.

In light of the seriousness of the allegations, if there were no substance to them, you would think the bishops would be anxious to publish the details of those conversations, as any in-depth investigative report would. In that sense, this report is rather incomplete.

The report says:

We make an urgent appeal to the leadership of Lifesite News that it establish an open and fruitful dialogue with Canadian Catholic groups. We are convinced that when a group makes allegations, accusations and denunciations against another, this can bring nothing positive to our Church and is a counter-witness to that Gospel spirit that should guide all Christians. Negative actions of this kind encourage suspicion, scandal and division in the Church. We also hope there will be a means for frank and transparent dialogue between Lifesite and the Bishops of Canada. We know our brother Bishops share this concern for unity and mutual respect which should be characteristic of the Catholic Church in our country

In the Catholic Church, everyone should be on the same page when it comes to the right to life.

But over and again, the bishops of the Church and social justice groups have been less than open and forthcoming in their support for the equality of the unborn child.

There are a few Canadian bishops who are strong in their support for the unborn. But in some dioceses, the silence on right to life issues is deafening.

I'd like to put to the question to the bishops individually: do you believe in the equality of the unborn child, and do you believe that unborn children should be legally recognized in Canada, and legally protected from abortion?

Let's bring it all out in the open, because I really hate conversations where we're all trying to be polite to not say what everyone is thinking and we dance around the question: the social justice Catholics do not believe in fetal rights.

We've all seen the lefty Catholics who won't speak up for the unborn, who, in some scandalous cases, will SUPPORT legal abortions.

This report has the looks of a Public Relations exercise to make the Vatican happy and to comfort suspicious and naive church bench warmers who, of course, do not want their money to go to abortion, and will believe the bishops on their word, because of course the bishops are all good and well-intentioned people (and I'm not saying they're not) and if they're good and well-intentioned, for a lot of people, that's enough to absolve the clergy of any wrongdoing and any open, explicit and concrete support for fetal rights.

Perhaps the social justice crowd at the top of the hierarchy will come and say what they're really thinking: that pro-life Catholics are a bunch of right-wing fundamentalists. We know the lefty laypeople already say it and say it to our faces. Perhaps the upper echelons of the clergy will have the courage of their convictions.

Somehow I doubt it. They must know, deep down, that pro-life Catholics are only following what the Pope and the Magisterium says about the Right to Life.

And, when all is said and done, maybe the truth will come out about the Canadian clergy:

Those who support the Winnipeg Statement are the same bishops who have accepted proportionalism. And proportionalism is the same philosophical error now being used to justify partnering with D&P’s pro-abortion partners, not to mention the soft abortion policy of St. Joseph’s hospital in London, Ontario.

I am so sick and tired of the BS in the Church. Let's just all get it out folks. You want dialogue Your Graces, I would love to have one, but not the kind we all speak in euphemisms and don't say what we really think. That's been going on long enough. Let's just tell it like it is. And we'll bring it Rome. I'm pretty confident which side the Vatican will take in all this.

Michael Jackson speaks of his religious upbringing

Yes, yes, it's the obligatory Michael Jackson post.

You can sure get a lot of insight into his mind when you read this. Not that you really needed it. Still, I just thought it was interesting. It's from the year 2000.

And as the standard disclaimer goes, publication does not signify endorsement.

But what I wanted more than anything was to be ordinary. So, in my world, the Sabbath was the day I was able to step away from my unique life and glimpse the everyday.

Sundays were my day for "Pioneering," the term used for the missionary work that Jehovah's Witnesses do. We would spend the day in the suburbs of Southern California, going door to door or making the rounds of a shopping mall, distributing our Watchtower magazine. I continued my pioneering work for years and years after my career had been launched.

Here's the thing. The ordinary was "fascinating" to him, but he lived anything by an ordinary life. Even the child-like world he tried to create was the furthest thing from "ordinary."

The Winner of the World's Ugliest Dog Contest

Pabst, a boxer-mix rescued from a shelter by Miles Egstad of Citrus Heights, Calif., won the annual contest on Friday at the Sonoma-Marin Fair in Northern California.

Pretty ugly, but there's gotta be uglier out there. He's ugly in a symmetric way-- no missing eyes, teeth, no freakish malformations.

He looks like he could be in a movie. He's what they call "t.v. ugly" :)

Björn from ABBA: You shouldn't religiously indoctrinate kids

Bjorn:

Nobody should have to form an opinion on matters of such weight before they are ready to size up the arguments. Above all, children should be kept away from anything that bears even the slightest whiff of indoctrination. In fact, freedom from indoctrination ought to be a basic human right for all children.

A religious education makes it more difficult for children to form their own views on the world. It puts obstacles in their way that not all are capable of overcoming.

What a boneheaded and prejudiced opinion.

If children could not have an opinion on things before they were able to size up arguments, they wouldn't have an opinion on anything.

I remember when I was ten years old, I had a lot of opinions on politics. In fact, at that age, I engaged in my first act of activism. I wrote to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to tell him not to de-index old-age pensions. I knew what inflation was. And I knew what de-index meant. And I knew what the consequences would be-- old people would get an increase less than the rate of inflation and become relatively poorer, when they were already hard up to begin with.

But I didn't have all the facts. I knew nothing about the debt or the deficit. Or fiscal solvency. Or paying taxes or CPP contributions. I just knew the "right result".

So. Should kids stop having opinions because they don't have the means to understand the facts or learn the arguments?

I don't think so.

Should their parents stop telling them what they think is right?

Wouldn't the parents be negligent in their duties if they did?

Here's the truth.

Kids are immature and ignorant.

For that reason they sometimes need to be told what to think. And parents should tell them.

(That's not to say that there is no room for some independent thought, but independent thought does not preclude being told.)

The real objection to indoctrination is that believers treat religion as if it is as true as math and science when humanists feel that it is not as true.

They don't care if you indoctrinate your kids with their doctrines, because they're true (in their eyes).

Indoctrination for me and not for thee. That's what it amounts to.

A religious education makes it more difficult for children to form their own views on the world. It puts obstacles in their way that not all are capable of overcoming.

As if his worldview is not subject to the same weakness!

One of the school system's most important functions is to create a feeling of community, where all are treated on equal terms regardless of race, class or creed. Society's way of treating children with the respect they deserve is to combat by all available means any sense of an "us against them" divide.

(...)

Religions by their nature always run the risk of creating an "us against them" scenario. However tolerant we believe ourselves to be, there is always a reason people consider their own religion superior to all others.

But Humanists are a special breed of people who think more clearly than the rest of us. Since their opinions are the fruit of reason, not faith, their derision and marginalization of religion is enlightening and liberating, not divisive. If only the poor benighted fundamentalists could overcome their indoctrination and their silly fairytale beliefs, they could see the error of their ways and we could all be as one and they could finally stop fomenting that "us against them" mentality. Religion is a plague on society. Humanism unites people under all one creed-- that of reason.

There is no sense of superiority in humanism whatsoever.

Swedish parents keep 2-year-old's gender secret

“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

Here's the truth.

Generally speaking, it is in a girl's biological nature to appreciate being told she is cute.

It is in a boy's biological nature to love showing off his muscle power.

Does this vary by degrees? Yes. Are there exceptions? Yes.

The outliers do not disprove the general biological tendency.

The fact that society reinforces these tendencies doesn't disprove the biological tendency, either.

When you're a boy, being boyish is enjoyable. When you're a girl, being girlish is enjoyable.

Just because a minority doesn't feel that way doesn't mean the generalization is not useful. Or that it's even harmful.

Pop is missing out that part of his or her identity. I think it's a form of deprivation. How do you love being a woman if you're not taught to embrace your femininity? The converse is true for a man.

I think not informing the kid of his identity is cruel.

Invention allows pregnant women to hold models of their unborn babies

Exciting!

Technology is a fetal rights' activist's best friend.

Pregnant women are being given the chance to hold life-size models of their unborn babies, thanks to an invention that converts data from ultrasound and MRI scans.

Jorge Lopes, a Brazilian designer, uses 3-D printing technology to create the plaster models, which go on show tomorrow at an exhibition at the Royal College of Art in London.

(...)

The technology is being trialled at a clinic in Rio de Janeiro. “It’s amazing to see the faces of the mothers. They can see the full scale of their baby, really understand the size of it,” said Dr Lopes.

But the feminists won't want that to happen, see, because then women will become informed about their unborn child and bond with him, and then they won't want abortions.

In the hands of Crisis Pregnancy Centers, this would save many lives.

Consider also the cultural impact of these models, should someone decide to commercialize these models as momentos.

Fifty years from now, not only will a generation of adults have pictures of themselves in the womb, they will have plastic models to show their grandkids and say "this is me when I was in my mommy's tummy."

You don't think that won't affect future pregnant women?

Pro-Life Democrats Unite to Protect Unborn Children in Healthcare Restructuring

Pro-Life Democrats are finally making themselves useful.

The congressmen said that they would only accept a healthcare plan that "explicitly excludes" abortion. They said such restrictions would "save lives," citing a Guttmacher Institute survey that showed banning taxpayer-funded abortion prevents about one third of abortions that would otherwise occur.

There's an abortion-reduction plan I could go for.

I feel like this might all be futile, though. Is this a token gesture? One wonders...

High court clarifies rights of minors to make medical decisions

OTTAWA - A young Jehovah's Witness who challenged a Manitoba law that forced a blood transfusion on her won a partial victory and hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs at the Supreme Court of Canada on Friday.

The court ruled that the law in question is constitutional, but said in cases of a dispute about medical treatment, judges must offer children under 16 a chance to demonstrate their competence to make medical choices.

But if has to do with abortion...no questions asked! If you're an immature 14-year-old who slept around and got pregnant and wants to sneak behind mom's back to get an abortion, well that's A-OK and the feminists will go to bat for you to make your own decisions, no matter how incompetent you are. As far as feminists are concerned, if you're old enough to have sex, you're old enough to have an abortion even when you're not.

Feminists will never allow any challenge to complete, unimpeded access to abortion, even if it means irrational fourteen-year-olds don't have to tip off their parents of their stupid behaviour and late-term fetuses have to die.

So long as it is perceived as a threat to their personal right to abortion everyone and everything else can go to hell. If some fourteen-year-old later comes to regret the abortion because she didn't know a fetus was killed, or some woman goes into the procedure blindly and learns it caused her irreparable harm, or some victim of pedophilia has to continue to be subject to an unreported attacker well tough luck!.

Almost every other right in this world is subject to some sort of limitation.

Not the right their precious right to abortion, though. That's special. Some rights are more equal than others, it seems. A fetus has to die for their political agenda, but Goddess forbid the state or a physician's college place any restrictions for the good of women. Because the only infallible judge of women's interests are feminists and the women themselves (as long as they don't threaten the right to abortion). Because women are never wrong. Women never need anyone to help them clarify their choices, give them information about fetal development, or in the case of minors, have parents make rational decisions for them.

I'm sure a lot of people think this. But don't have the guts to say it. Because the feminist lobby is strong in Canada. And people do not want to be seen as politically incorrect, especially on such an explosive subject.

It's about time people stood up to feminists.

Pro-Lifer Attacked with SUV, Alleged Attacker Charged

CHICO, CA, June 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - James Canfield, a regular pro-life protester of a Planned Parenthood and Women's Health Center in Chico, California, was almost run down during a protest last Wednesday, according to the Chico Enterprise Record. His alleged attacker, Matthew Haver, was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Witnesses reported that a man driving an SUV attempted to strike Canfield, who dove out of the way and was not seriously injured. The license plate of the SUV was taken down and was traced back to Haver, who was then arrested.

According to Chico Police Lt. John Carrillo, Canfield was protesting outside of a Planned Parenthood facility with a large, graphic sign of an aborted baby. Haver drove by with a child with him, who asked what was on the sign. Haver then apparently became enraged at the sight of the sign, and attempted to run down Canfield.

You know, the fact that the feminists blame pro-lifers and call us responsible for George Tiller's death...

That's extremist, incendiary hate speech.

Now pro-abortion passers-by at abortion clinics will be out to get us, and the feminist hate speech will provide justification for these assaults.

I bet some commenters will say they don't agree with hitting Canfield, but deep down they're celebrating. They're happy that he was attacked.




See how easy it is to make baseless, unprovable assertions about causation and intentions?

I can just predict the rebuttals: but ours is true: you're just making yours up!

As if believing their rhetoric makes it any more true.

The Joy of Sidewalk Counseling

Well, to my surprise, the girl who had been crying earlier was standing outside on the phone. I immediately approached her and asked what happened because I knew it was too soon for her to have had her abortion.

She explained that her insurance had been denied. I then knew that God had answered my prayers. I remembered she was a Christian so I began talking to her about the Bible and how the book of Jeremiah says that before God formed her in the womb, He knew her, and before she were born, He set her apart for His holy purpose (Jeremiah 1:5). I explained this passage applied to her precious child inside her womb too. She explained to me she would love to keep the child, but she knew she couldn't. She was divorcing her husband, and she already had about half a dozen children, including a newborn. She simply couldn't deal with anymore.

Read the Rest

To think, Joyce Arthur wrote a whole article about these women, condemning them for their hypocrisy, for the "only moral abortion is my abortion" mentality. When in fact, these women know it's wrong, and often do not want the abortion, but they feel trapped and the pro-choicers want to do away with the counselling that might help them see a way out of their predicament. She makes me think of the Pharisees who, having brought the woman caught in adultery before Jesus, waited for him to either stone her, or appear hypocritical in his silence.

Archbishop Weisberger condemns Website Catholics

Lifesite:

The Catholic Register reports: “The role of web sites in stirring controversy has become a challenge for bishops.” Weisgerber told the Register: “These bloggers who claim to be more Catholic than anyone — I think first of all they’re not part of the church, they’re not Catholic in the sense that they have no mandate, they have no authority, they have no accountability. And they speak very, very definitively about what it means to be Catholic, and they’re followed by so many people.”

It's almost like this Church organizes itself so that it's impossible to be orthodox.

A Catholic who is orthodox and sees wrongdoing and laxity around the church, and wants the clergy to conform to the Catechism as it is written, is blamed for standing up for the Truth.

The pictorial and documentary evidence against Development and Peace is fairly overwhelming. If bishops were politicians trying to investigate wrongdoing in their own departments, they would get laughed out of the House for defending their investigation method. Asking the organization if they're guilty? Not getting an outsider's look? Completely dismissing the evidence presented? Not refuting anything that Lifesite or John Pacheco has been saying?

And then dismissing allegations that were never made in the first place?

It's the Human Rights Commissions in reverse!

"Excuse me, defendant, are you guilty of anything?"

"Why no!"

"And what of any evidence of wrongdoing?"

"None whatsoever!"

"How do we know that what you're saying is true?"

"Because we said so!"

"Well that's good enough for me. Not guilty!"


And we're all supposed to act like this is all settled?

My consolation is that Vatican has always backed Lifesite. Faithful Catholics back the Vatican, and the Vatican backs faithful Catholics.

I don't think this is the end. I think this is just the beginning of an entrenched battle.

Perhaps this is the start of a purgative process in the Church. It's about time all the laxity and the limp-wristedness is exposed and finally acknowledged, and that we stop telling each other that everything's fine and that we're all beautiful and orthodox, when we're not.

When you have a clergy that, in toto, who won't preach the entirety of the faith, that fears offending virginal secular ears with politically incorrect and "harsh" doctrines, that is not an orthodox clergy. When the clergy closes its eyes to widespread sin-- contraception, divorce, fornication, sodomy, adultery (not to mention heresy and various other sins against the faith), and allows it to pass uncommented, and leaves the people untaught, for fear that it might upset them and make the Church look bad (i.e. "fundamentalist") that's not an orthodox clergy.

The official Church reaction towards this Development and Peace controversy is simply an extension of this attitude. Don't look too hard, or we might find that the Emperor has no clothes. God forbid that people are shown to be modernist in their thinking because then they will have to become fundamentalist and there's no worse label in the world than fundamentalist: We won't be able to hang with the cool socialist kids who walk in anti-poverty marches, piss on George Bush and spout feminist critical theory. Horrors! We may even have to vote Christian Heritage. For God sake's spare us!!!!!!

The people involved with Development and Peace are not going to look too hard because they have a vested emotional and ideological interest in remaining oblivious to the situation. Their left-wing credibility may be on the line. They will have to submit to what they perceive as fundamentalist doctrine, and they would rather be branded sinners and heretics than fundamentalists. That's why they end up in the D & P branch of Church operations and not in the Culture of Life crowd. Nobody ever requires the social justice crowd to be orthodox, because, after all, they're just good-hearted people doing good-hearted things that make people feel all warm and fuzzy and they do a lot of good PR for the Church (meanwhile they're in the background trying to push for women's ordinations and acceptance of contraception.)

We all know that this goes on, so why does the official Catholic media act like this is all a shock. Oh my goodness! The websites have taken over! They've been the voice of faithful Catholics for the last fifteen years, and the Canadian bishops haven't noticed until now?

I think the only reason they noticed is because their authority was challenged over D & P-- their baby. I'm a mom. Nobody likes to be told that their kid is ugly. I know that. But if your kid has dirt smeared all over his face, a booger hanging out his nose and he's still wearing yesterday's bedhead, does the parent have the right to be offended?

When you tell a parent his baby is ugly, they're going to get defensive. Everybody's baby is cutest in their own eyes. But parents can be the blindest observers of their own children, especially when they refuse to see any blemish.

I am glad that we at least have recourse to a higher power in this Church. People may see the central authority of Catholicism as a weakness, as a domineering and tyrannical presence-- indeed, there are many dissenters who think so-- however, it is a great service of the Church to have a Supreme Court for these matters. These "website Catholics" as a general rule stand by the Pope, the Magisterium and Catholic Tradition-- the one that's 2000-years-old, not the latest theological fads since Vatican II.

When you learn to think with the Church, you learn to see what's coming.

I can see what's coming. It's as plain as day.

Court Upholds VA Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Lifesite:

In his concurring opinion, Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote, “The fact is that we - civilized people - are retreating to the haven of our Constitution to justify dismembering a partly born child and crushing its skull. Surely centuries hence, people will look back on this gruesome practice done in the name of fundamental law by a society of high achievement. And they will shudder.”

Prophetic words.

This is an interesting decision, in light of Barack Obama's promise to push for more guarantees on abortion.

Who is going to step forward and say that stabbing a baby's head and sucking his brains out is a humane thing to do?

We wouldn't do it to born babies. Why should we do it to half-born babies?

VIDEO: Hunter and Darcy, preemie twins born at 22 weeks

Don't they look precious?

But if their mother had decided to abort, the feminists would be saying: tough luck, fetuses! After all, the interests of adult women are far more important than these little babies. If babies such as these must die in the name of women's autonomy, well tough sh*t the right to abortion is more important than any fetus's right to life.

That's the abortion ideology in a nutshell.

To think babies who look exactly like that are aborted in Canada every day.

Rebecca Walberg on Nixon's racist views of abortion

ProWomanProLife:

Most of the western world is horrified at the idea that a fetus be a candidate for termination based on its race. How is it really that different to declare it disposable because of a medical condition, or its sex, or the finances of its parents? I hope that in a generation, we recoil at that idea as much as we do now at the idea of terminating a mixed race baby simply because it’s mixed race.

I wonder about how Barack Obama feels about Nixon's views. Hmmmm....

Challenging the Rhetoric of Choice in Prenatal Screening

Victoria Seavilleklein, an ethicist, argues:

According to studies conducted in North America and in the Western world, informed consent is not being met in the vast majority of cases in prenatal screening.10 In particular, a recent Health Technology Assessment, conducted by Green at al. for the UK’s National Health Service, identified and surveyed 78 studies that have been conducted internationally about the psychosocial implications of prenatal screening. Most of these studies were conducted in the US and the UK, although several are from Canada and other European countries. The overwhelming conclusion drawn from all of this research concerned ‘the inadequacy of current procedures for achieving informed consent’.11

For example:

In health care, patients must not only be given information relevant to their decision-making, they must also understand the information that they have been given. Full understanding is not required for informed consent but patients should understand the salient aspects of the proposed procedure and the consequences of proceeding with the intervention or not.19 Studies evaluating women’s knowledge and understanding of prenatal screening overwhelmingly show that women do not understand the testing, including basic facts such as why the test is being done, what conditions are being looked for, what the results mean, and what will (or may) follow after testing.20 These findings are the same both for women who choose to have testing and for those who decline.21 Researchers of one of the most comprehensive studies done on this topic in Canada concluded that despite the high educational level of their study cohort and the existence of a well-organized provincial screening program, there were ‘information gaps overall and in all domains.’22

A contributing factor to this difficulty in comprehension may be that probabilities are very difficult for people to understand. For example, when women are told that they have an increased risk of having a fetus with Down syndrome, some women think this means a) that they have a fetus with Down syndrome23 or b) that their chance of having a child with Down syndrome is 50-50.24

This reaction reflects the difficulty in applying a population statistic at an individual level; after all, a chance of 1 in 250 of having a child with a certain condition is meaningful when considering a group of 250 women, but it does not say anything specific about the child of any particular woman in that group.

If you're really in to the "ProWomanProLife" angle of the pro-life movement, this is right up your alley.

Website Catholicism

In a recent interview on Zoom TV (produced by Salt and Light Television) Winnipeg Archbishop Msgr James Weisberger lamented the advent of "website Catholicism."

Ever since the advent of the internet, orthodox Catholics have been turning to the internet for community and leadership. I can only speak for myself, but I sense that my feelings are widely shared when I say that we have felt very betrayed by the lack of leadership from the bishops in general, with notable exceptions.

One of the symptoms of this abdication of leadership is the Winnipeg Statement, which essentially allowed for Catholic couples to decide whether or not contraception was acceptable for them.

We all know that that's not Church teaching. The Church is fairly clear about this matter: all sexual acts must be open to life.

Anyone who knows anything about Catholicism knows this. But there has been quite a lot of prevaricating in the Church. The Winnipeg Statement has been a kind of portal for the contraceptive mentality in Canada, the guiding light of dissenting Catholics.

If contraception can be "up to the couples", then any doctrine is open to question, in reality.

But now that the D & P scandal has come to light, the bishops are starting to throw their weight around. It's okay to "trust one's conscience" when it comes to contraception, but when it comes to questioning the bishops about their pet organization and the money being funnelled to abortion-promoting groups, well that's not okay.

We're not even questioning Church doctrine, here. We're questioning certain behaviours, certain blindspots in the bishop's judgement.

Although I have a good Archbishop in Ottawa (right now) I'd largely given up on the clergy. As have many pro-lifers. Because the clergy do not seem to care about orthodoxy.

What do I mean by orthodoxy? I'm talking about Catholicism *as the Church teaches it*. I'm talking about ALL Catholic doctrines, not just the ones that are more pleasant to contemplate. I'm talking about being more committed to speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, than to witholding offense.

On websites, you get the real Church. We're not getting the real Church in the parishes, which could explain, to some extent, why they are empty. The baptized do not understand Catholicism because the priests and the bishops won't preach it in its entirety. I don't want Pop psychology niceties. I want doctrine. I want spiritual edification that is an outgrowth of the past, from the Church Fathers right up to the greats of recent times like Therese of Lisieux and Padre Pio.

The clergy seem to be afflicted by modernism. Read Pius X's Pascendi. If that doesn't describe today's clergy, I don't know what does. And if they are not modernist in their affirmations, they are modernist by omission, refusing to come out and state Catholic doctrine in its entirety, with no ifs,ands or buts.

Although there are exceptions, in general, the clergy seem disconnected to the heart of Catholicism. They touch upon the surface; the inoffensive parts, the politically correct parts, the liberal parts, but not the offensive parts, the politically incorrect parts, the traditional parts.

They love to talk about social justice, but not about fetal rights. They love to talk about love and mercy, but nothing about judgement or repentance; they love to talk about the Resurrection but not the Passion; they love to talk about being liberated from one's pain, but not about redemptive suffering.

I could go on and on.

And since the Fathers do not give the bread that the faithful children need, the children will turn elsewhere for it. Have you noticed how Evangelicals are really good at snagging uneducated and uncommitted Catholics?

I really resent that Archbishop Weisberger implied that orthodox Catholics who are concerned about D & P are dissenters, when the real dissenters are being graduated from the seminaries, ordained and they're teaching every dissenting doctrine. And when we object, we're treated like pariahs, like what we say has nothing to do with real Catholicism, when it's all very plainly stated in the Catechism.

While we, who want to be faithful, are mediatically spanked by this Archbishop, nobody thinks: if the clergy had just been faithful in the first place, there wouldn't be this problem.

This reminds me of the neglectful parent, expecting his kids to honour him (because that's what the fourth commandment says) when he's never been a real parent in the first place.

It's a bit much to exact respect and submission when you didn't act like a real parent to begin with.

So yes, until the bishops clean up their act, get in line with thinking of the Church, reject modernism, learn to discipline their dissenting colleagues, the faithful will continue to look elsewhere for guidance and bread. Like abused children, we shouldn't be expected to look up to parents who do not provide what they're supposed to.

I'm all for submission and obedience, but God would never punish starving children for telling off their neglectful parents.

The pro-life angle on those Fetus Gender Detection Kits

A few weeks ago, the press reported on the sale of a new gender detection kit for fetuses. Many worried that these kits could lead to more gender selection abortions.

And no doubt, they are a concern.

However, there is another side to it.

What if Crisis Pregnancy Centres decided to use those kits, in conjunction with ultrasounds, to tell an abortion-minded woman the gender of her child?

One of the things that makes abortion more likely is the anonymity of the child.

So long as the woman conceives of the unborn in the abstract, abortion is seen as a simple "medical procedure".

When the mother learns of the fetus' identity, that decision becomes more difficult.

In the article to which I linked, some couples are suing the makers of this kit because they reneged on their 200 per cent money-back guarantee. One of the plaintiffs said:

Brittany Hayes, who had girls when she expected boys "began to bond on a deeper level with her child and began to call him by his name," the suit contends.

Abortion tries to break that bond between mother and child. Gender identity kits can deepen it.

Now, true, at this point, the gender identity kits are not perfect. But they will be refined. There is a great demand for them. I hope that pro-lifers can see their utility in fighting for the rights of unborn children.