Friday, July 01, 2005
The Catholic politician and abortion
An excellent article from Priests for Life:
On the duties of a Catholic politician with respect to abortion law reform, with particular reference to Evangelium vitae §73
Revised version of paper given to the Meeting of Pro-Life Groups and others conducted by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Canberra, 15 May 1998
(V Rev Dr) Anthony Fisher op ev
1. Introduction
The complementary roles of priests and laity in the formulation of public policy were set out in principle by the bishops of the Second Vatican Council in their Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes (‘GS’):
Secular duties and activities belong properly although not exclusively to the laity… Lay-people should know that it is generally the function of their well-formed Christian conscience to see that the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city; from priests they may look for spiritual light and nourishment. Let the laity not imagine that their pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the laity take on their own distinctive role. (GS 43)
Regarding what they called "the difficult but very noble art of politics", the Fathers of Vatican II praised "the work of those who for the common good devote themselves to the service of the state and take on the burdens of office." They counseled politicians that "with integrity and wisdom, they must take action against any form of injustice and tyranny" (GS 75). Law-making had an important role here, to recognize the duties and protect the rights of all persons, families and groups in the community (GS 75). In this context the rights of the unborn child to life and the responsibility of law-makers to protect that life were reaffirmed by the Council (GS 27, 51) and have since been repeated very often by the popes and bishops, as well as many faithful Christians, clerical and lay, Catholic and Protestant. But no politician can do everything and good laws will only take us so far in the building up of a civilization of life and love.
While I will focus on the duties of the Catholic politician with respect to abortion law reform here, much of what I say will apply mutatis mutandis to other pro-life legislators. And while I will formally be addressing the noble profession of politicians, much of what I say will I hope help inform those who advise and lobby them.
2. What is forbidden to the Catholic politician with respect to abortion law reform
I now want to outline five positions that seem to me to be clearly ruled out by Catholic teaching on the role of the parliamentarian with respect to abortion, especially as articulated in Evangelium vitae (‘EV’).
2.1 Catholic and pro-abortion
The first is the claim that one can be a Catholic in good conscience and pro-abortion. There are more of them in the US, but even here in Australia one occasionally meets people who openly declare themselves opposed to Catholic teaching in this area and yet are believing, even practicing, members of the Church. Being pro-life, it is asserted, is not a core belief for Catholics in the way that, say, the Trinity or the sacraments are.
The Catholic tradition has, however, consistently and unequivocally condemned abortion as a grave moral and social wrong, both because it is a direct killing of an innocent human being and because it is an attack on the mother, on parenthood, relationships, community. Pope John Paul likewise authoritatively spoke for the Catholic tradition when he defined that "direct abortion always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being" and that "no circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever" can ever make it licit (EV 62). He echoed the Second Vatican Council which had declared: "All offences against life itself, such as abortion... are criminal. They poison civilization, and they debase the perpetrators even more than the victims... Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes." (GS 27, 51)
The reference to crime here is primarily a moral category, but it also points to another Catholic teaching in this area: that the civil law must protect basic human rights including the right to life from conception. Thus in its Declaration on Abortion Quæstio de abortu (‘QDA’) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith observed: "It must be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, human beings can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the licitness of abortion. Nor can they take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it..." (QDA 21; cf. EV 73). Likewise John Paul II has condemned the ‘sinister’ trend in legalising attacks on life in the name of individual rights. The decriminalisation of abortion is, he argues, ‘a disturbing symptom’ but also ‘a significant cause’ of grave moral decline and the denial of true human rights (EV 4, 20, 68); it turns the supposedly democratic state into ‘a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members’ (EV 20, 70). He draws the radical conclusion that
laws which authorize and promote abortion… [are] radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law. (EV 72)
At this point someone will plead the primacy of conscience and Catholic teaching that individuals must follow their consciences even when they are wrong (e.g. Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanæ §2). It is therefore important to understand the difference between conscience and personal preference or arbitrary private intuition. The moral character of actions is determined by objective criteria, not merely by the sincerity of intentions or the goodness of motives (GS 51), and all people are called to form their consciences accordingly.
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by the objective standards of moral conduct. Yet it often happens that conscience goes astray through ignorance which it is unable to avoid, without thereby losing its dignity. This cannot be said of the person who takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin. (GS 27)
How then do we form a right conscience? Catholics seek to inform their consciences according to reason which grasps the natural law accessible to all; this is clarified, confirmed and possibly supplemented by divine revelation mediated by Church teachings. They believe that by "their faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the magisterium, and obeying it, receives not the mere word of human beings, but truly the word of God." (Lumen gentium §12) Given the consistency and gravity of Church teaching in this area, ‘(conscientiously) Catholic and pro-abortion’ makes about as much sense as ‘(conscientiously) Catholic and anti-Eucharist’ or ‘Catholic and pro-rape’.
2.2 Abortion as a ‘religious’ issue
It is commonly asserted that attitudes to abortion are ‘religious’, especially if they are the attitudes of religious people, and that they are therefore properly to be kept to the private sphere and not to influence public policy including the voting and other activity of legislators. In response to this the Church asserts that its teaching in areas like abortion is accessible to natural reason unaided by faith, even if truth in this area is clarified and decisively confirmed by revelation mediated by the Church. Catholic teaching on human rights questions such as abortion is no more arcane or mysteriously religious or sectarian than its teaching against slavery, apartheid or unjust wars. To characterize these matters as religious and personal is an evasion amounting to ethical relativism.
Of course, Catholic teaching on abortion is also a religious issue, since it is believed by Catholics not only on the basis of the persuasive moral reasons against abortion but also on the authority of the Scriptures, the Christian tradition and the living magisterium of the Church. The seriousness of abortion is all the greater when it is realized that it involves the killing of a being made in the image of God, that this is contrary both to practical reason and to God’s will, and that it involves renunciation of a sacred trust.
It is true that there is profound disagreement in the community about the abortion issue, and that the Catholic Church and other Christian communities have not been uninfected by this disagreement. This does not however reduce such issues to issues of personal choice. The morality of slavery or apartheid have been the source of considerable disagreement, but no-one seriously proposes that these issues were therefore beyond moral judgment or appropriately left to each individual slave-owner or white supremacist to decide. Thus the Pope has pointed out that the responsibility for abortion falls not only on the mother and the doctor, but also, among others, upon ‘the legislators who have promoted and approved abortion laws’ (EV 59, 90).
Called to serve the people and the common good, they have a duty to make courageous choices in support of life, especially through legislative measures. In a democratic system, where laws and decisions are made on the basis of the consensus of many, the sense of personal responsibility in the consciences of individuals invested with authority may be weakened. But no one can ever renounce this responsibility, especially when he or she has a legislative or decision-making mandate, which calls that person to answer to God, to his or her own conscience and to the whole of society for choices which may be contrary to the common good. Although laws are not the only means of protecting human life, nevertheless they do play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour. I repeat once more that a law which violates an innocent person’s natural right to life is unjust and, as such, is not valid as a law. For this reason I urgently appeal once more to all political leaders not to pass laws which, by disregarding the dignity of the person, undermine the very fabric of society. (EV 90)
2.3 Permissive abortion out of respect for constituents
Some will immediately respond that it is all very well for Catholic parliamentarians to carry their faith even into their political lives and follow their consciences, but they must also (and perhaps first) respect the consciences of their constituents, many of whom do not share their views on these matters. They must avoid imposing their religious and moral beliefs upon others, especially with all the power of state law and policy. [Of course this rather begs the question about the much more radical ‘imposition’ that abortion itself is upon at least one of the parties involved.]
But as Robert George has pointed out, professing to be anti-abortion yet pro-choice is a classic political example of having it both ways (op. cit.). And as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has observed: "It is true that it is not the task of the law to choose between points of view or to impose one rather than another. But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life." (QDA 20) And as Pope John Paul points out in EV, "the legal toleration of abortion can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and duty to protect itself against abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom." (EV 71) Those whose religion part-motivated their struggle against slavery or the genocide of Australian Aborigines were not fairly charged with religious intolerance or imposition; and those whose faith supports their action with respect to abortion law are no more guilty of imposing their religion upon others than are their doctrinaire libertarian or secular opponents.
2.4 Rule by majority opinion
Some Catholic politicians take the view that majority opinion is what counts. Most Australians apparently want abortion more or less on demand; so do most of their elected representatives; it is the job of a representative in a democracy to enact public opinion whatever his or her private views. In EV the Pope very persuasively answers this misconception. As he observes, "the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations" when legislators engage in a "tragic caricature of legality" in passing permissive abortion laws (EV 20).
Democracy, the Pope reminds us, is not infallible; it should not "be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality... The value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes." If it fails to observe "the objective moral law which, as the natural law written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law" it easily becomes hostage to those "most capable of manoeuvring not only the levers of power but also of shaping the formation of consensus" (EV 70). Thus majority votes for abortion do not make it right any more than majority attitudes towards capital punishment, immigration or Aboriginal land rights; political leaders have a duty to lead, not merely to follow. Were they to collaborate in a social prejudice which excludes the unborn from respect and protection, they would be harming rather than serving the State, because they would be undermining the very bases of respect for law and the legitimacy of the state. Legalising abortion ‘contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people’; such laws are contrary to the good of individuals and the common good; indeed there is reason to doubt whether they are valid laws at all (EV 72). Thus no parliamentarian can hide behind majority opinion, renouncing the duty of forming and following his or her own conscience, even in the public sphere (EV 69). Thus while governments might sometimes tolerate things the prohibition of which would cause greater harm, they "can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals—even if they are the majority of the members of society—an offence against other persons" (EV 71). Indeed, ‘there is no obligation in conscience to obey [= acquiesce in, accommodate to] such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them’ (EV 73).
2.5 Not all immoral activities are proscribed
Another view that might be put is that not all immoral activities can or should be proscribed at law. Catholics believe that adultery and lying are intrinsically immoral but they have not, in general, sought to make these activities criminal. So, it might be argued, abortion should best be decriminalised: after all, it is impossible to stop; women will seek abortions anyway, and possibly achieve them by more dangerous methods. Yet few would seem to be comfortable with extending this principle to the perennial problems of physical, psychological and sexual abuse of children: since it is going to happen anyway, whatever the law says, better to decriminalise it and provide a sterile environment!
As EV points out, it is a primary function of the criminal law to ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for their innate rights, such as the right to life: if the law does not act here, where can it act? The Declaration on Abortion observes:
It is true that civil law cannot expect to cover the whole field of morality or to punish all faults. No one expects it to do so. It must often tolerate what is in fact a lesser evil, in order to avoid a greater one. One must, however, be attentive to what a change in legislation can represent. Many will take as authorization what is perhaps only the abstention from punishment. Even more, in the present case, this very renunciation seems at the very least to admit that the legislator no longer considers abortion a crime against human life, since murder is still always severely punished. (QDA 20)
Likewise Pope John Paul has observed that:
Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law…The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social co-existence in true justice, so that all may "lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way" (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. … Although laws are not the only means of protecting human life, nevertheless they do play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour. (EV 71)
3. What is permitted to the Catholic politician with respect to abortion law reform: Evangelium vitæ §73
3.1 Intentionality
Having reviewed several, not uncommon, positions which are, in my view, excluded for Catholic politicians, I come now to consider what a faithful Catholic parliamentarian can do. Here I will presume a situation where abortion is presently de jure illegal but de facto available, more or less on demand, either because the law is not enforced by the police, the prosecuting authorities and/or the courts, or because, while illegal according to the letter of the law, previous or expected permissive interpretation of the law by the courts has made it more or less impossible to convict under the present law. Catholic and other pro-life legislators now face a bill, already presented or soon to be presented to parliament, which will seek to restrict, codify or even extend that very permissive abortion régime. The question they face, therefore, is whether they should or may oppose such a bill at all stages, whether they should or may support such a bill at certain stages, or whether, while opposing the bill as a whole, they should or may propose or be party to amendments to the bill to make it better than it would otherwise be.
In EV 73 Pope John Paul II notes:
A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorised abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations—particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation—there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. 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 co-operation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.
This text has occasioned some debate amongst faithful Catholics and their pro-life friends. To some it appears a contradiction: how can anyone who believes all abortion is wrong support "just a little abortion"? Has a spirit of appeasement or pragmatism crept into Vatican politics? Are we engaging in evil in the vain hope that good may come, trading some lives for others? Has despair of ever having sound laws and practices in this area resulted in a sell-out?
I think not, but I recognise that understanding Catholic teaching in this area, like Catholic teaching in many areas, requires a certain amount of arduous and dispassionate thinking. And in the heat of political debate, in the face of urgency, amongst morally unsophisticated parliamentarians and public, all led by an unhelpful media, people may be inclined to dismiss such thinking as a luxury or unnecessarily convoluted. I believe this view is wrong, if understandable. A parallel might usefully be drawn, perhaps, with respect to Catholic teaching on the just war. It is complex and will not always deliver up a single clear answer on which wars are just ones and which ways of fighting them are just. But that does not excuse us from doing the hard thinking. Too much is at stake to simply embrace "my country right or wrong" or dogmatic pacifism. The same in true in our present battle.
The applicable moral principles in this area are those concerning intention and object in the moral act (explored by the Pope at length in his earlier encyclical, Veritatis splendor) and formal and material co-operation in an evil instigated by another person(s) (described in EV 74); there are also several virtues at stake which I will treat at the end of my paper. Intentionality is at stake because if the politician’s goal is the liberalisation of the abortion régime that is an immoral object; but if their goal is tightening up that régime, or reducing a proposed liberalisation of it, thereby saving some babies, then their object here is not immoral but the means may or may not be. The leading Catholic writer on these matters, Professor John Finnis has explained the application of these principles to abortion law reform as follows:
The always illicit vote is [the vote] for a law as permitting, precisely to permit, abortion. This is always illicit, even if one is personally opposed to abortion and is voting for it only to keep one’s seat and prevent euthanasia or genocide laws, or only to equalise the position of the poor and the rich. The kind of vote which [EV] judges can be licit has as its object not to permit abortions now illegal but rather to prohibit abortions now legal or imminently likely otherwise to become legal. For example: the existing law or the threatened alternative bill says abortion is lawful up to 24 weeks, and the law the Catholic legislator is voting for says abortion is lawful up to 16 weeks. Even though it is a vote for a law which does permit abortion, it is chosen by this legislator as a vote for a law which restricts abortion. That this restrictive law I am voting for also permits abortion is only a side-effect—when we consider the act of voting in the perspective of the acting person—even though the side-effect of permission is as immediate as the object of restriction.
3.2 Co-operation in another’s evil
Another problem is that amongst the effects of the pro-life parliamentarian’s harm-limitation activities might be that however well-intentioned they have the effect of assisting the liberalisation of abortion or some other evil effect: this occasions concern about what theologians call co-operation in another’s evil. Formal co-operation in another person’s wrong acts is itself always wrong. This kind of co-operation might occur in either of two ways. First, where one shares the principal agent’s wrong purpose or aim: in this case the co-operator’s proposal, what he or she chooses to do, includes something (and perhaps everything) objectively wrong in the principal agent’s proposal. An example would be when a legislator who favours permissive abortion does not initiate a permissive bill but determines to support it with his vote or in other ways. A second kind of intentional co-operation is where the other person’s wrongdoing is the means to the co-operator successfully carrying out his or her own project, whatever that might be. An example would be someone who hopes to gain something else from the passage of such a bill, such as appeasing certain opponents, keeping his or her seat, horse-trading support for some other legislative objective etc. And in this case the politician may be guilty of formal co-operation even if he or she disapproves of abortion, finds the whole business repugnant, says so publicly, or tries to dissuade others from being pro-abortion: he or she still gives permissive abortion support as a means to some ulterior purpose.
Material co-operation, on the other hand, is where a person does something knowing or risking that it will have the undesired side-effect of facilitating another person’s wrong act. Here an agent intends as his or her own end and chooses as his or her own means things which neither are nor include the immoral ends of the principal agent; the co-operator does not make the principal agent’s immoral act his or her own, as it were; rather he or she (at most) accepts that results as an undesired side-effect of carrying out her own otherwise reasonable proposal. The difference between intending-and-foreseeing and not-intending-but-foreseeing has a long history in Catholic thought. Examples of unintentional co-operation might include: a taxi-driver who brings people to, or an engineer who keeps the utilities working in, a hospital where abortions are done, where the driver or engineer only does this work to make a living and further the other good things done there. Certainly they co-operate in the wrongful activity; without them it might even be impossible; but they do not intend it and make it no part of their purposes. So too a pro-life politician might aim to restrict a permissive abortion law in some way but in the process unintentionally but foreseeably give that law and the practice of abortion some respectability, even support.
Material co-operation is sometimes permissible; othertimes it would be irresponsible for the agent to accept the side-effects of his or her acts. What are the reasons that might persuade a Catholic parliamentarian to engage in such material co-operation? One must examine these carefully and honestly, taking them seriously without overstating them. The most important one will be any babies the legislator believes might be saved, and any mothers and others who might also benefit. Politicians themselves can might also have much at stake, as might those who rely upon them. And they might have various prior commitments and other responsibilities to take into account. So the politician must ask: how important are the benefits expected from this activity, how extensive, how certain and for whom?
What are the relevant side-effects which would count against such material co-operation? Again, the parliamentarian must examine these carefully and honestly, not ignoring them simply because they are unintended or minimizing them because of the benefits he or she hopes to achieve by pursuing this course of action. The most obvious bad effect of material co-operation is that it assists in another’s wrong-doing, in this case the evil of liberalising abortion. Thus the legislator must ask: what kind of loss or harm will result from the liberalisation of abortion with which I am unintentionally co-operating, or from any other side-effects of my own activities? How extensive will the harm be, how certain is it to occur, and who will suffer it? Will my refusing to co-operate prevent the wrong—or will it go ahead regardless? Am I in a position to stop it or at least reduce the harm done? In what ways can I at least express my disapproval and try to convert hearts and minds to my way of thinking?
Another bad side effect of material co-operation is that it may corrupt the politician concerned. A person may find their strength of will on these matters affected by having, even once, co-operated materially in the evil of liberalising abortion. They may become blasé about it, dulled to the evil side-effects, and happy enough to admit them as their own intention in the future. Or they may find themselves trapped in the company and schemes of others they thought allies who do not in fact share their scruples; the desire for solidarity and success may then carry such a person along into formal co-operation with evil in the future, whether with respect to abortion legislation or some other moral ‘compromise’.
A third bad effect of material co-operation can be that it corrupts others. A known Catholic who supports some measure with respect to abortion may be misunderstood by others to be abandoning his or her Church’s opposition to all abortion; he or she might thereby ‘give scandal’ to others who do not appreciate the distinctions between intentional ends and foreseen side-effects, formal co-operation and material co-operation, etc. This might seriously impair the witness she could and should be giving to others. And his or her example might encourage others not only to co-operate materially, but even to co-operate formally, i.e. to advance even more permissive abortion or to regard abortion less seriously. Thus it will sometimes be required to take a stance against an activity by privately or even fairly publicly refusing to co-operate even materially, even at the risk of one’s political career; or, if one is co-operating materially, at least to take as active a part as is practicable in otherwise protesting against the practice of abortion.
I want now to consider three possible positions which a Catholic politician might take on abortion law reform which might conceivably satisfy the various principles and conditions I have so far outlined.
3.3 Opposition to a permissive abortion bill at all stages
Sometimes Catholic or other pro-life parliamentarians form the view that, whatever its terms, abortion law reform is likely to have the net effect of making abortion even more freely available and more commonly practiced, or at least of confirming and codifying an already shameful situation; they might be persuaded that any restrictions will be ignored in practice, much as the present law is; they might judge that the restrictive bill or restrictive amendments are unlikely to be passed or, if passed, will be at the expense of some worse changes in other respects or in other areas; they might suspect that by giving support to such a bill their witness against abortion will be severely impaired and people will be scandalized; or they might conclude that by refusing to be party even to restrictive amendments they will help to ensure the defeat of the more radical bill already proposed. While recognizing that they have a prima facie duty to support efforts to save all or (where this is impracticable) at least some babies from abortion, and also recognizing one might support imperfect but restrictive bills or amendments with this in view in good conscience without intending any evil, some politicians may nonetheless judge that the inevitable, likely or seriously possible side-effects of even that degree of involvement by them would be so grave that the most prudent course would be opposition to such bills from start to finish of their legislative progress. This would seem to me to be not inconsistent with EV as a whole.
Those pro-lifers who oppose restrictive bills or restrictive amendments to permissive bills on these prudential grounds should be absolutely clear in their own minds (and possibly in their statements) that they are not opposing all imperfect abortion legislation per se, nor that they are accusing all pro-life supporters of such bills or amendments of intending permissive abortion, of formal co-operation in evil, of being willing to trade life for life, or even of imprudence. Rather, they make their own best judgment that by refusing to be party even to such efforts they will serve best the ultimate goals of creating a just and loving society, of saving babies and their mothers, of opposing the further corruption of our culture and our social fabric, and so on.
Finnis (op. cit.) has suggested that because the mission of the Church, especially that of the bishops, is to bear witness to the truth in a clear and unequivocal way, it may well be imprudent for bishops to support particular legislative strategies such as restrictive bills or amendments: an unsophisticated public, unaccustomed to the sorts of distinctions explored herein, led by the nose by a pro-abortion and anti-Catholic media, may well misunderstand the bishops to have accepted that some abortion is necessary, inevitable etc. This will again be a matter for prudential judgment in the particular circumstances, though no excuse for silence or other inaction on the Church’s part. My own counsel to the bishops in public controversies like this one would be that, rather than supporting any particular political strategy amongst the several permissible ones, they reaffirm and explain the evil of all abortion, the duty of the state to protect all its unborn citizens, the duty of Catholic and other politicians to do what they can to bring this about, and the permissibility of harm-limitation laws and amendments in certain circumstances as enunciated in EV.
3.4 Support for some (restrictive) abortion law reform in a permissive situation
An alternative position which a Catholic politician might adopt which also seems to me also to fall within the terms of EV 73 is that he or she will support an abortion bill which, she believes, will contribute to the lessening of abortion and the protection of at least some babies. Indeed on the basis of EV taken as a whole a parliamentarian might form the view that she has a strong duty of rescue towards the unborn which can best be satisfied by the gradual erosion of a de jure or de facto permissive abortion régime through, among other things, abortion laws which at least include some restrictions.
In an advice offered during the Western Australian controversy, Finnis suggested that if a legislator judged that Western Australian law is already widely permissive of abortion because it would be read as such by superior courts were it ever tested, the politician could in good conscience vote for a bill which, if enacted,
would accord real legal protection to some class of unborn babies who today are without that protection, even though the same Bill openly and plainly affirmed and ensured that some (perhaps many or most) other unborn babies remain unprotected (and are stripped of even ‘paper’ legal protection). That is to say, members holding the view I have described could cast such a vote (and agree in advance to do so) without immorally co-operating in the use of the legislative process to deprive human persons of their inalienable moral and human right to life.
There are many kinds of restrictions to permissive abortion laws which pro-life parliamentarians may support if they have reason to believe such restrictions will, if passed, be effective. They include:
· restricting the stage of foetal development beyond which no abortions will be permitted (e.g. 12 weeks);
· restricting the reasons for which an abortion will be permitted (e.g. threat the woman’s life; rape; threat to the woman’s health);
· specifically prohibiting abortion on certain other grounds (e.g. sex selection);
· restricting who may perform abortions (e.g. only doctors);
· restricting where abortions may be performed (e.g. only in public hospitals);
· licensing and otherwise restricting the number and activities of abortion clinics;
· restricting Medicare or insurance funding for abortion;
· restricting access to particular methods of abortion (e.g. banning ‘partial birth’ abortion and RU486);
· requiring that more than one doctor certify that the abortion is appropriate;
· requiring that adequate counselling of the women involved be undertaken;
· instituting strict informed consent provisions, including requiring that women seeking abortion receive adequate information about the unborn child, the risks of abortion, and alternatives to abortion;
· requiring parental or guardian consent to or at least notification of abortion performed on under-aged women and court-consent to abortion performed on mentally handicapped women; and
· requiring a ‘cooling off period’ between the time at which the doctor(s) certifies that an abortion may be performed and the actual abortion;
· provision for exemption on conscientious grounds of doctors, nurses, pharmacists and counsellors from any requirement that they perform, refer for, prescribe, dispense or otherwise co-operate in abortion; and
· provision that no Church or other private institution can be required to allow such procedures on its premises.
To be licit, a Catholic legislator’s support for a bill must be aimed not at permitting abortion in all other circumstances (even though this is a foreseen side-effect), nor at lending respectability to abortion performed within these restrictive circumstances: his or her goal must be to place some obstacles in the way of abortion on demand in the (not unreasonable) hope that some abortions will thereby be prevented and some babies saved. The elimination of all induced abortion must remain her goal; legislative attempts to restrict abortion where, despite or because of the present law, it is in fact commonly practised, may be supported if they are likely to increase the protection of some unborn children, even if they do not prohibit all abortions. Of course, some supposedly Catholic or pro-life politicians may disingenuously support such provisions with the real goal of enabling more liberal abortion under the thin veneer of ‘moderation’ and moral respectability, or as a way of evading taking an open stand for or against abortion, or because they are willing to trade some lives for others. Genuinely pro-life supporters of such moves, however, will only support them if they are convinced that they will amount to a real restriction on the present availability of abortion. Here there are important judgments of prudence and wisdom to be made about what actions will actually save babies, who else will be affected (e.g. doctors who no longer have the protection of the de jure prohibition of abortion against claims in tort for failure to provide an opportunity for an abortion), what messages will be conveyed to a morally unsophisticated public by an unhelpful media and what overall effect such moves will have upon culture an society.
The following things seem to me to follow:
1. Those engaging in such harm-limitation legislation must voice a clear and public opposition to all abortion, and make it clear that in supporting such a bill they are not retreating from their judgment that the present permissive situation with respect to abortion is a serious violation of human rights.
2. This strategy should not be adopted unless one judges that the new law would be interpreted more literally and enforced rather more rigorously than existing statutes and that in supporting the new law one is not wasting a real chance of persuading the police, prosecuting authorities and courts to interpret and enforce the present law more strictly.
3. This strategy should not be adopted unless one judges that the net effect will be to increase, not diminish, the present protection of the lives of unborn children.
The suggestion that a Catholic or other pro-life legislator might co-operate even materially in the passage of an imperfect abortion law will strike some as scandalous. Some people respond in a knee-jerk way to any harm-limitation measures short of absolute prohibition and actively work to undermine them; they may even defame those who support them. It must be clearly explained that the reason that support for legislation which prohibits some but not all abortions is morally licit in certain circumstances is that to strive to protect some lives does not mean one does not care about the rest. We are always obliged to refrain from evil; but there are limits to our opportunities, and therefore obligations, to accomplish good. Sometimes working to save some babies is all that a politician with the best will in the world can practically do. At the same time, of course, parliamentarians and their advisers should be careful not to conclude too hastily that more effective legislation is impossible.
Support for restrictive amendments but opposition to the permissive abortion bill as a whole
A third posture that a Catholic legislator may adopt that seems to me to be consistent with EV 73, would be publicly to oppose the bill at the beginning, on the basis that it is aimed at permitting abortion; to then vote for various restrictive amendments in the committee stage; but to oppose the final bill because it will, in toto, liberalize or confirm the de jure situation regarding abortion. Here the politician is facing a law "ready to be voted on" and does his or her best to improve that law.
As with the Catholic legislator who votes for a restrictive bill, one who supports restrictive amendments must aim not at permitting abortion in all other circumstances (even though this is a foreseen side-effect), nor at lending respectability to abortion performed within these restrictive circumstances: his or her goal must be to place some obstacles in the way of abortion on demand in the hope that some abortions will thereby be prevented and some babies saved. The elimination of all induced abortion must remain his or her goal; by introducing or supporting amendments aimed at ‘tightening up’ an otherwise very permissive abortion bill the passage of which into law seems imminent, may be supported if he or she believes they are likely to increase the protection of the at least some unborn children, even if not all.
Once again it is possible that some supposedly Catholic or pro-life politicians will disingenuously support such restrictive amendments with the real goal of enabling more liberal abortion under the thin veneer of ‘moderation’ and moral respectability, or as a way of evading taking an open stand for or against all abortion, or because they are willing to trade some lives for others. Genuinely pro-life supporters of such moves, however, will only support them if they are convinced that they will amount to a real restriction on the provisions of a bill which will be enacted and otherwise allow even easier abortion. And again there will be important judgments of prudence to be made about what actions will actually save babies, who else will be affected, what messages will be thereby, and so on.
Similar prudential considerations would apply to those outlined regarding the previous proposal:
1. Those supporting such harm-limitation amendments must voice a clear and public opposition to all abortion, and make it clear that in supporting the amendments they are not retreating from their previously expressed opposition to the permissive bill.
2. This strategy should not be adopted unless one judges that unless one so voted, a worse bill will soon be enacted.
3. This strategy should not be adopted unless one judges that the amendments will be interpreted more literally and enforced more rigorously than existing statutes and that in supporting the amendments one is not wasting a real chance of persuading the authorities to interpret and enforce the present law more strictly.
4. This strategy should not be adopted unless one judges that the net effect will be to increase, not diminish, the present protection of the lives of unborn children.
One matter about which there has been considerable debate even among faithful Catholic parliamentarians and other pro-lifers is the stage in the political process at which a legislator should engage privately in canvassing amendments or announce publicly his or her willingness to discuss or support restrictive amendments. Sometimes the earlier amendments are canvassed, the greater the likelihood that they will eventually be accepted, that other helpful amendments will be proposed, or that the promoters of a bill will be discouraged from persevering altogether. At other times, the earlier such amendments are proposed, the more likely they are to generate organised opposition from the proponents of a more permissive régime and the more likely they are to grant some respectability to the bill as a whole, thereby giving a boost to the proponents of permissive abortion. These are again matters of prudent judgment for the politicians concerned, taking into account their best assessments of the present and likely future situation, the principles enunciated above so far, and the process of discernment sketched briefly below.
4. The virtues of a Catholic politician
4.1 The virtues of faith and prudence
I have argued that in the present circumstances five commonly espoused positions are ruled out for the faithful Catholic parliamentarian but three may be permissible: which of these three is to be preferred will depend upon the fine detail of particular legal and political situations, the commitments and opportunities which present themselves to a particular legislator in all the circumstances, and his or her best prudential judgment of what will work—without asserting some perfectionist position which excludes the possibility of ever supporting imperfect laws, and without being willing to engage in any intrinsically immoral means to such a goal. Whichever course were chosen, it should follow upon discussion with pro-life friends and allies; positive alternatives to abortion of one kind or another would also usefully be canvassed, though there might be differences about these also. But as Finnis noted in his advice, one would not be surprised if people of "good faith, moral probity, and legal competence" honestly disagreed about the status quo, the net effect of the passage of such imperfect legislation, or other matters involving judgments of prudence.
At several points in my paper I have appealed to that earthly wisdom which is the virtue of prudence and that supernatural wisdom that is faith and a gift of the Holy Spirit. Only by these great virtues and gifts can a person quickly and reliably apply the various appropriate principles with sensitivity to the range of people and values at stake. I have outlined several important principles today which the virtuous lawmaker must bring to bear in his or her task. Two more, which I have hinted at along the way, would be these: we must never be willing to do even a little evil in order to bring about even a very great good; and we must with imaginative impartiality apply the Golden Rule to our problem, asking ourselves, for instance, would I, were I one of the babies at risk, or one of the mothers seeking an abortion, or one of the other politicians engaged in this great debate, regard my action or inaction as fair. Having tried one’s best to think these matters through and exclude thereby all unreasonable choices, a politician might conclude that there are still two or more paths open to her: then she must go for what seems best to her within the context of her particular temperament, gifts, opportunities, commitments and vocation.
If we are to have faith and prudence ourselves, we must cultivate certain attitudes of heart and mind: prayerfulness above all, a willingness to take counsel, humility, docility to truth, respect for our allies and a eagerness to learn from, work with and console them, self-criticism, imaginative impartiality and love for all. Of these habits of the heart St James wrote:
Who among you thinks he is wise and understanding? Let him demonstrate this by a good life in the humility that comes from prudence… The wisdom which comes from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for those who cultivate peace. (Jam 3:13-18)
4.2 Unity of purpose; diversity in strategies; charity in everything
Vatican II taught that Christians "must recognize the legitimacy of different opinions" in political matters (GS 75).
Often enough the Christian view of things will itself suggest some specific solution in certain circumstances. Yet it happens rather frequently, and legitimately so, that with equal sincerity some of the faithful will disagree with others on a given matter. Even against the intentions of their proponents, however, solutions proposed on one side or another may be easily confused by many people with the Gospel message. Hence it is necessary for people to remember that no one is allowed in the aforementioned situations to appropriate the Church’s authority for their own opinion. They should always try to enlighten one another through honest discussion, preserving mutual charity and caring above all for the common good. (GS 43)
There will always be differences in legislative strategies, and such differences may be quite legitimate. Down through the ages even great saints have differed over what course was wisest in particular situations; therefore we must be loath to judge our confreres in the battle against abortion who differ from us on prudential matters; nor can we rightly claim for ourselves a monopoly on prudence or on the authentic interpretation or application of principles about which there has as yet been no definitive clarification. Above all we must avoid the tendency to consider a person or a group less committed to the pro-life effort because they have a different legislative strategy to our own, or to attribute to them malign motives. Now that abortion is back on the legislative agenda in other states, it will be crucial to unify our pro-life forces as far as possible, just as was done fairly successfully at the time of the Andrews Anti-Euthanasia Bill. To rework an aphorism of John XXIII, let us have unity of purpose, even when we have a diversity of strategies, but charity in everything.
4.3 Hope
At an international bioethics conference in Cambridge last year, Professor Finnis observed that at the root of the present disarray and demoralisation in Western Church and society is the practical elimination of transcendent hope. "It is obviously a precondition of sustainable engagement in public policy debates that one keep bright one’s hope, and keep clear and form the presuppositions of that hope" (op. cit.). I pray that in living out the imperative to be "unconditionally pro-life" Australia’s political leaders, Catholics, pro-life activists, and their sympathisers, will always hold fast to that hope even when the political scene is difficult to negotiate and potentially demoralising. For in the end we know that we side with Him who came so that we might have life, and have it to the full (Jn 10:10).
Abstract of
Anthony Fisher op, "On the duties of a Catholic politician with respect to abortion law reform, with particular reference to Evangelium vitae §73"
In this paper it is argued that the following positions are inconsistent with Catholic teaching on the rôle of a legislator with respect to abortion:
A politician can in good faith be both ‘Catholic’ and ‘pro-abortion’;
Because attitudes to abortion are ‘religious’, a politician ought to keep his views on this matter to the private sphere and not allow them to influence his/her law-making;
A politician who is personally opposed to abortion can be ‘pro-choice’ out of respect for constituents with different view;
Laws should reflect majority opinion on abortion, whatever that might be;
Not all immoral activities are properly proscribed, and abortion is an example of an activity best unregulated by the criminal law.
In Evangelium vitæ §73 Pope John Paul II notes:
A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorised abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on… 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 co-operation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.
This text, and a correct understanding of intention, the object of the moral act, formal and material co-operation in another’s evil, clarifies that if a politician’s goal (or means to his or her goals) is the liberalisation of abortion or the achievement of that end by others, that is an immoral object and/or formal co-operation, and always wrong. But if the politician’s goal is tightening up an otherwise permissive abortion régime or proposed liberalisation of it, thereby saving some babies, then his or her object is not immoral, even if some undesired effects are foreseen or risked; his or her co-operation in the evil of others, if any, is material at most. In such a situation several important considerations must be taken into account when judging whether the act is permissible and wise.
Consistent with Catholic teaching the paper identifies three possible positions for a Catholic politician with respect to abortion law reform, depending upon certain prudential considerations which are outlined:
The politician might oppose a permissive abortion bill at all stages;
The politician might support a restrictive if imperfect abortion law bill in a permissive situation;
The politician might support restrictive amendments to a permissive abortion bill but oppose the bill as a whole.
It is proposed that those undertaking any of these strategies must voice a clear and public opposition to all abortion, and make it clear that in adopting their particular strategy they are not resiling from this; and they must have formed their best judgment that this strategy is the one most likely to save the most unborn children possible in the circumstances.
In this situation it is vital that Catholic politicians have and cultivate the virtues of faith, hope, charity and prudence, and that they engage in an appropriate course of moral discernment. We should not be surprised if people of good faith and right reason disagree about the appropriate strategy in these circumstances; but we should try to maintain unity of purpose and charity towards pro-life allies who differ from us on appropriate strategy. In being "unconditionally pro-life" politicians stand Him who came so that we might have life, and have it to the full (Jn 10:10).
Educational Materials on Abortion
Priests for LifePO Box 141172Staten Island, NY 10314Tel. 888-PFL-3448, (718) 980-4400Fax 718-980-6515Email mail@priestsforlife.org
Paul
One Woman's testimony regarding abortifacient drugs
While State Representative Maurice Pilotte has voted twice for SB30, the New Hampshire Bill which allows for abortifacient drugs to be administered over the counter and even to underage females without parental notification (and this as a Catholic who receives Holy Eucharist), read this woman's testimony regarding the so-called "morning after pill":
Abortifacients -- The Other Forbidden Grief
Janet Morana, Associate Director, Priests for Life
I was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1952 and grew up educated in Catholic schools. I am the oldest of four children with 14 years separating the oldest to youngest in my family. I graduated college in 1974 and married in 1975. It was a time when my Catholic faith no longer seemed to make sense to me and I gradually drifted away and became a non-practicing Catholic. At the same time all my close friends were getting married and so marriage seemed like the next step to take— or so I thought.
I became engaged after dating my future husband for three months. From there things snowballed towards our wedding day real fast. At Pre-Cana classes the priest told us that if there were a really good reason to delay starting a family then birth control pills were an option we could consider. What I didn't realize was that this was bad advice both theologically, spiritually, psychologically and physically!
As I was the oldest of four siblings I already had many years of dealing with diapers and babysitting and so I felt that delaying starting a family was a good idea. Also I had taken birth control pills back in high school (although I wasn't sexually active) as prescribed by my OB/GYN for menstrual problems. Now a priest and doctor were both giving me the green light and so I began my journey down the slippery slope.
Three months before my wedding date I started taking birth control pills. I continued taking the pill for two years until it seemed like it was time to start a family. Once I came off the pill, I got pregnant immediately and gave birth to an absolutely beautiful baby girl. I threw all my attention into trying to be the best mother I could be and because of that wanted to delay having another baby right away. So I went back on birth control pills until my daughter was thirteen months old. At that time I felt she needed to have a sibling so I decided to go off the pill. Once again, I became pregnant almost immediately. The lesson I was teaching myself was this: no pills equals countless children!
This time I gave birth to beautiful twin girls. By this time information started to be released showing there was a risk for clots and strokes by taking birth control pills. Since there was a history of strokes in my family I was afraid to go back on the pill. I didn't know about NFP, in fact the only natural method that I knew of was the old "rhythm" method, which was considered by most to be not very reliable.
When the twins were three I thought I was pregnant again. It was just a scare but it was enough to make me do something really drastic. I had a tubal ligation. Now I felt I had solved all my problems— or so I thought.
I had embraced all the things that the feminist movement had been promoting as being liberating for women and empowering them. I had not been liberated but rather felt more and more trapped every day in a bad marriage.
As my marriage continued its downward spiral I focused more and more on my three daughters. The good news is that I became reconnected with my Catholic faith. As I began to rediscover my faith and the teachings of the Church I learned about God's beautiful plan for marriage, including what NFP was all about.
At the same time I also became aware of how birth control pills really worked.
I thought birth control pills stopped fertilization when in fact that is not the case. The pills stop the already-fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. In other words, they act as abortifacients.
I didn't realize the impact this new found information would have on me until several years later when I was with a friend visiting Epcot Center in Disney World. It was in the Wonder of Life exhibit where I would come to the complete realization of the consequences of my birth control actions. As I began to watch a beautiful photographic video showing the wonder of how life began, I realized what taking the birth control pills really meant: aborting new life. In the years that I had been taking birth control pills, I had been very sexually active. I also knew that I was an extremely fertile woman. Given this fact, there is no doubt that I had successfully conceived new life many times, but that I had never given these little babies the chance to grow inside me. For the very first time in my life, I came to grips with the fact that I had not only shut myself off to life, but had also destroyed an unknown number of children. I came out of that exhibit and there was a giant rushing water fountain nearby. I walked over to it and began to sob uncontrollably. I stayed there for quite some time absorbed in my sudden feelings of grief and remorse. This was the very first time I became aware of the full impact of what I had done.
As my work in the pro-life movement continued I became more aware of the damage that abortion does to women. I realized that many of these women had felt alone with their grief but had found mercy and healing. These women who had come through healing needed to be a voice for other women who are still locked in the secret sin of abortion. I co-founded the "Silent No More Awareness" Campaign. People began to question me as to why I was involved in such a campaign when I hadn't had an abortion. Here again I had to come to grips with all the children I had lost because of birth control pills.
Most people that work in post abortion ministry only recognize the pain and grief from surgical abortion. Yet I know in my heart that the loss I feel is just as real as if I had had a surgical abortion. In fact, women who come to realize this loss from using abortifacients often have just as strong a sense of loss and grief. And yet there is an even bigger problem: Not enough people, not even those in post abortion recovery programs, realize the need to reach out to those of us that are suffering in silence. I know I am not alone. In fact when I am at conferences speaking about the "Silent No More Awareness" Campaign I have many women come up to me and share the grief they have from years of taking abortifacients.
But there is good news. I was able to come to grips with these feelings of grief and loss recently at a Rachel's Vineyard Retreat. It was a first step in having my feelings validated, and I began to deal with my loss in a new light. I am here to say that I will be "Silent No More" about the children that I aborted through birth control and I am reaching out to the other women who I know share these feelings. I am sure I am not the only woman with a testimony like this. I want others that would like to share their story to send it to me. I will post these testimonies here on our website. I know we can help many families realize the damage birth control will do to their lives by getting the word out. I also want to reach out to others that feel the pain that I have described and tell them that they too can take the first steps towards healing.
To find out more information about attending a Rachel's Vineyard Retreat, you can go to www.rachelsvineyard.org. Or you may contact me directly at testimony@priestsforlife.org
Priests for LifePO Box 141172Staten Island, NY 10314Tel. 888-PFL-3448, (718) 980-4400Fax 718-980-6515Email mail@priestsforlife.org
"Supreme Court" Justice Sandra Day O'Connor resigns
Supreme Court Justice O'Connor retiring
• O’Connor’s legacyJuly 1: Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s reputation as a “swing voter” on controversial issues raises the stakes over the nomination of her replacement. NBC’s Pete Williams reports on that and other facets of her decision to retire.
BREAKING NEWS
Updated: 11:22 a.m. ET July 1, 2005
WASHINGTON - Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday that she is retiring after 24 years on the bench.
O’Connor, 75, said she will leave before the start of the court’s next term in October, or when the Senate confirms her successor.
President Bush praised O'Connor's contributions saying that "our nation is deeply grateful." In brief comments at the White House, he did not announce a nominee for the seat but said he hoped to do so in "a timely manner."
It’s been 11 years since the last opening on the court, one of the longest uninterrupted stretches in history. O’Connor’s decision gives Bush his first opportunity to appoint a justice.
“This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure.”
The White House has refused to comment on any possible nominees, or whether Bush would name a woman to succeed O’Connor. Her departure leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only other woman among the current justices.
Court watchers had expected a Supreme Court vacancy during Bush's second term. There was talk that O'Connor and Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, might consider stepping down. And Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, has cancer.
Frist: Names floatedOn Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he's been talking to Democratic leader Harry Reid about nominees for a potential vacancy on the Supreme Court but doesn't have any inside information on whom President Bush might nominate.
"Have Senator Reid and I talked about individual names? Yes, we have in the privacy of our regular meetings," Frist said in a speech at the Heritage Foundation. He wouldn't say whom he and Reid had discussed or characterize their chances in front of the Senate.
Reid later offered three names of people he said would be good for the court: GOP Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Mike Crapo of Idaho. They "are people who serve in the Senate now who are Republicans who I think would be outstanding Supreme Court members," Reid said.
Reid also said that in a conversation with the justices last week, they said that "they thought what would be a good idea is to start calling people from outside the judicial system."
"I think that's something that we should listen to. And I've conveyed this to anyone that will listen," Reid said.
Fourteen senators have served on the Supreme Court. The revolving door has turned the other way only once: David Davis resigned from the court in 1877 to represent Illinois in the Senate as an independent.
• O’Connor’s legacyJuly 1: Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s reputation as a “swing voter” on controversial issues raises the stakes over the nomination of her replacement. NBC’s Pete Williams reports on that and other facets of her decision to retire.
BREAKING NEWS
Updated: 11:22 a.m. ET July 1, 2005
WASHINGTON - Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday that she is retiring after 24 years on the bench.
O’Connor, 75, said she will leave before the start of the court’s next term in October, or when the Senate confirms her successor.
President Bush praised O'Connor's contributions saying that "our nation is deeply grateful." In brief comments at the White House, he did not announce a nominee for the seat but said he hoped to do so in "a timely manner."
It’s been 11 years since the last opening on the court, one of the longest uninterrupted stretches in history. O’Connor’s decision gives Bush his first opportunity to appoint a justice.
“This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure.”
The White House has refused to comment on any possible nominees, or whether Bush would name a woman to succeed O’Connor. Her departure leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only other woman among the current justices.
Court watchers had expected a Supreme Court vacancy during Bush's second term. There was talk that O'Connor and Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, might consider stepping down. And Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, has cancer.
Frist: Names floatedOn Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he's been talking to Democratic leader Harry Reid about nominees for a potential vacancy on the Supreme Court but doesn't have any inside information on whom President Bush might nominate.
"Have Senator Reid and I talked about individual names? Yes, we have in the privacy of our regular meetings," Frist said in a speech at the Heritage Foundation. He wouldn't say whom he and Reid had discussed or characterize their chances in front of the Senate.
Reid later offered three names of people he said would be good for the court: GOP Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Mike Crapo of Idaho. They "are people who serve in the Senate now who are Republicans who I think would be outstanding Supreme Court members," Reid said.
Reid also said that in a conversation with the justices last week, they said that "they thought what would be a good idea is to start calling people from outside the judicial system."
"I think that's something that we should listen to. And I've conveyed this to anyone that will listen," Reid said.
Fourteen senators have served on the Supreme Court. The revolving door has turned the other way only once: David Davis resigned from the court in 1877 to represent Illinois in the Senate as an independent.
What constitutes scandal?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2284, teaches us that: "Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense."
And No. 2285 of the Catechism tells us that, "Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: 'Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.' Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing."
Number 2286 explains that: "Scandals can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to 'social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.' This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values."
Lastly, number 2287 teaches that: "Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. 'Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come.'"
Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians around, teaches that one can give scandal in many different ways. He says that, "Another's sin can be occasioned by bad example, by advice and encouragement, by emotionally motivating the sin, by removing some impediment, by providing an opportunity, by supplying material or resources, and so on."
What then of the politician who claims to be Catholic but who promotes the culture of death by voting for abortifacient drugs and voting against pro-life measures such as a ban on partial-birth abortion - a "procedure" which amounts to infanticide? Is such a person causing scandal? The answer, for the faithful Catholic, would appear rather obvious. However, a priest of the Diocese of Manchester would seem to disagree.
When a laywoman wrote him with concerns regarding the voting record of State Representative Maurice Pilotte of Manchester, New Hampshire and detailing how he has voted on two occasions for SB30 (the NH Bill which allows for abortifacient drugs to be administered over the counter and even to minors without parental notification) and how he has even voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion (the killing of the unborn as they are being delivered), he responded by writing:
"As for his voting record, I find it difficult to believe that anyone is scandalized by his votes. To be scandalized is to question 'whether the truth is true.' If Rep. Pilotte has voted as you have indicated, he certainly has not and does not represent the Church. The teachings of the Church regarding human life and other sensitive issues in public policy have been made quite clear by Bishop McCormack and others who represent the Church." (E-mail of June 27, 2005).
The main thrust of Rev. Arsenault's argument would appear to be that since State Representative Maurice Pilotte does not, (and never has) officially represented the Church,
there can be no scandal based upon his voting record. It would appear then that Rev. Arsenault is suggesting that the Catechism is wrong. For once again, it states clearly that: "Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged.."
How much more scandalous when the scandal comes from a politician who claims to be Catholic and receives Holy Eucharist while advancing the culture of death.
Rev Arsenault, shame on you.
Paul Anthony Melanson
And No. 2285 of the Catechism tells us that, "Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: 'Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.' Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing."
Number 2286 explains that: "Scandals can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to 'social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.' This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values."
Lastly, number 2287 teaches that: "Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. 'Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come.'"
Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians around, teaches that one can give scandal in many different ways. He says that, "Another's sin can be occasioned by bad example, by advice and encouragement, by emotionally motivating the sin, by removing some impediment, by providing an opportunity, by supplying material or resources, and so on."
What then of the politician who claims to be Catholic but who promotes the culture of death by voting for abortifacient drugs and voting against pro-life measures such as a ban on partial-birth abortion - a "procedure" which amounts to infanticide? Is such a person causing scandal? The answer, for the faithful Catholic, would appear rather obvious. However, a priest of the Diocese of Manchester would seem to disagree.
When a laywoman wrote him with concerns regarding the voting record of State Representative Maurice Pilotte of Manchester, New Hampshire and detailing how he has voted on two occasions for SB30 (the NH Bill which allows for abortifacient drugs to be administered over the counter and even to minors without parental notification) and how he has even voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion (the killing of the unborn as they are being delivered), he responded by writing:
"As for his voting record, I find it difficult to believe that anyone is scandalized by his votes. To be scandalized is to question 'whether the truth is true.' If Rep. Pilotte has voted as you have indicated, he certainly has not and does not represent the Church. The teachings of the Church regarding human life and other sensitive issues in public policy have been made quite clear by Bishop McCormack and others who represent the Church." (E-mail of June 27, 2005).
The main thrust of Rev. Arsenault's argument would appear to be that since State Representative Maurice Pilotte does not, (and never has) officially represented the Church,
there can be no scandal based upon his voting record. It would appear then that Rev. Arsenault is suggesting that the Catechism is wrong. For once again, it states clearly that: "Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged.."
How much more scandalous when the scandal comes from a politician who claims to be Catholic and receives Holy Eucharist while advancing the culture of death.
Rev Arsenault, shame on you.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Pray to St. Michael
Dear Friends,
We should pray everyday to St. Michael the Archangel for protection as we journey through these truly evil times:
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle;
be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
And please pray for the staff of the Spiritual Children of Saint Rita as we look to expand our apostolate.
Thank you,
J.A.
frappe19751975@yahoo.com
Banishing God from society
While various governments give recognition to same-sex "marriage," secular humanists continue to wage their war against God and His Commandments. Read about a college student who received an F for mentioning God:
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLSStudent gets F grade for mentioning God'He told me you might as well write about the Easter Bunny'
Posted: June 30, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Bethany Hauf of Apple Valley, Calif., examines her report 'In God We Trust' (photo: Victor Valley Daily Press)
A college in southern California is now investigating the case of a student who says she was given an F for mentioning "God" against the expressed wishes of her atheist instructor.
Bethany Hauf, a freshman at Victor Valley Community College near San Bernadino, wrote the G-word 41 times in a paper titled "In God We Trust," examining the role of religion in government.
She included "God" despite being told not to by adjunct English instructor Michael Shefchik.
"He said it would offend others in class," Hauf, 34, told the Daily Press. "I didn't realize God was taboo."
The mother of four from Apple Valley, Calif., is now demanding an apology from the school, as well as a regrading of her 10-page report.
"I don't lose my First Amendment rights when I walk into that college," she said.
"We are very serious about this situation," VVC spokesman Bill Greulich told WorldNetDaily. "You have two rights in conflict – the right to believe in what you believe in, and academic freedom. We're going to take steps that are appropriate. We don't have all the facts yet."
Greulich says Hauf began the process to challenge her grade by meeting with the department chair, but did not continue up the chain of command in her recourse. He says she could still do that, appealing to the vice president, superintendent and president of the school.
Meanwhile, Hauf has contacted the American Center for Law & Justice, which sent a letter to Patricia Spencer, president of VVC.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the ACLJ recounted in the letter what Shefchik wrote to Bethany when she was getting approval for her subject matter:
"I have one limiting factor – no mention of big 'G' gods, i.e., one, true god argumentation," Shefchik stated.
"He told me you might as well write about the Easter Bunny," Hauf told the Daily Press. "He wanted to censor the word God."
Shefchik has not been reached for comment, but Judy Solis, chair of the English department, says Hauf was given three options: submit the report with God included, make revisions and edit out the G-word, or rewrite the entire report.
"She continued to write her paper," Solis told the Press. "She knew what the consequences were."
Sekulow says Hauf should have had no ban on her freedom of speech or religious views in the assignment.
"Bethany's paper discusses some of the evidences supporting a hypothesis that, while the Constitution prohibits an established church, religion was essential to the founding of the Nation and to its governance thereafter," he writes.
"Her paper was not one written 'about God' per se. Nor was her paper inherently and necessarily religious. And, in keeping with the requirements of the assignment, it was assiduously supported with citations to authority and written objectively. Consequently, even if, in a country in which academic and constitutional freedoms are so highly prized, it could be constitutional to impose a topical ban on papers about big 'G' gods, it was sophomoric error to read Mrs. Hauf's research paper as falling within the prohibited zone."
Despite the failing mark on the paper, Hauf passed the spring-semester course with a final grade of C.
Prayer Intentions
Should you have any prayer intentions, please send them to The Spiritual Children of Saint Rita by visiting: http://www.saintritachildren.com and writing an e-mail to our staff.
Anyone interested in purchasing St. Rita's holy oil (blessed by an Augustinian priest) may contact: lasalette19@juno.com
Thank you and God love you,
Paul Anthony Melanson
Thought from Mother Teresa of Calcutta
"I make a holy hour each day in the presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. All my sisters of the Missionaries of Charity make a daily holy hour, as well, because we find that through our daily holy hour our love for Jesus becomes more intimate, our love for each other more understanding, and our love for the poor more compasionate."
Paul
Romano Guardini on the Antichrist
There are many Catholics (even a majority today) who scoff at the idea of Antichrist. These unfortunate souls have succumbed to rationalism and have rejected a truly supernatural faith based upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition. The Fathers of the Church were unanimous in their acceptance of a personal Man of Sin who will reveal himself and demand that worship which belongs to God alone.
Romano Guardini, one of the greatest Catholic writers of his day and a man known and respected for his incredible intellect and profound spirituality, had this to say on the subject:
"One day the Antichrist will come: a human being who introduces an order of things in which rebellion against God will attain its ultimate power. He will be filled with enlightenment and strength. The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence without Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed. His arguments will be so impressive, supportd by means of such tremendous power - violent and diplomatic, material and intellectual - that to reject them will result in almost insurmountable scandal, and everyone whose eyes are not opened by grace will be lost. Then it will be clear what the Christian essence really is: that which stems not from the world, but from the heart of God; victory of grace over the world; redemption of the world, for her true essence is not to be found in herself, but in God, from whom she has received it. When God becomes all in all, the world will finally burst into flower."
- The Lord, p. 513
Romano Guardini, one of the greatest Catholic writers of his day and a man known and respected for his incredible intellect and profound spirituality, had this to say on the subject:
"One day the Antichrist will come: a human being who introduces an order of things in which rebellion against God will attain its ultimate power. He will be filled with enlightenment and strength. The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence without Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed. His arguments will be so impressive, supportd by means of such tremendous power - violent and diplomatic, material and intellectual - that to reject them will result in almost insurmountable scandal, and everyone whose eyes are not opened by grace will be lost. Then it will be clear what the Christian essence really is: that which stems not from the world, but from the heart of God; victory of grace over the world; redemption of the world, for her true essence is not to be found in herself, but in God, from whom she has received it. When God becomes all in all, the world will finally burst into flower."
- The Lord, p. 513
United Nations excludes pro-life, pro-family groups
The way is being prepared for the Man of Sin to make his entrance onto the world stage. It was Dr. Henry Spaak, former Secretary General of NATO, who once said: "What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the alliances of all people and to lift us out of the economic morass into which we are sinking. Send us such a man, and be he god or devil, we will receive him."
The United Nations continue to prepare the way for this Man of Sin:
ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome
Code: ZE05062902
Date: 2005-06-29
Why Pro-life Groups Were Excluded From U.N. Meeting
Riccardo Cascioli, President of CESPAS, Explains
ROME, JUNE 29, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Nongovernmental organizations favoring life and the family were excluded from the hearing held recently at the United Nations in New York, on the occasion of the five-yearly review of the Millennium Development Goals. The objectives summarize the strategies that resulted from the extraordinary meeting in 2000 to eradicate poverty. To learn the reasons for this exclusion, ZENIT interviewed Riccardo Cascioli, president of the European Center of Studies on Population, the Environment and Development (CESPAS). Q: Why were pro-life organizations excluded? Cascioli: Obviously there is a plan, promoted for many years, to exclude NGOs from the decision-making process in the different agencies and commissions of the U.N. The reason is simple: there are powerful anti-birth, pro-abortion, ecology and homosexual lobbies, which are trying to present reproductive rights -- abortion and contraception -- as fundamental human rights, and to destroy the family by equating homosexual unions with any other kind of union. The strategy consists in creating international documents that point in this direction so that they can become instruments of pressure in the different countries that have the opposite legislation. From this point of view, NGOs that favor life and the family are "enemies" that must be excluded, so as to avoid obstacles. It is what happened on this occasion. It is no accident that on several occasions during the U.N. hearing, talk was heard of the need to introduce reproductive rights explicitly among the strategies against poverty. There were attacks on religions, obviously above all against the Catholic, as they would discriminate against homosexuals. Q: But how can these exclusions take place without any government or personality complaining about the problem? Cascioli: Let's say that at the level of government there is culpable indifference about what happens in the agencies and different commissions of the U.N. given the extremely well-organized strategy of these lobbies, which among other things have imposed the rhetoric of "civil society," a highly generic concept that serves as a cover for political operations that have nothing to do with civil society. Q: Does it mean that the NGOs who hold this line are nothing but a cover? Cascioli: Not the NGOs; it depends on the use that is made of them. Let me explain. Some 13,000 NGOs are accredited with different status in the United Nations. Some 200 were represented in last week's hearing. What was the criterion for the selection? There were no transparent procedures. A commission was established, by decision of the president of the General Assembly, made up of representatives of some 10 lobbies, obviously among the most powerful, radical feminist movements and neo-Malthusians. They chose 200 organizations -- what a coincidence, they excluded the NGOs favorable to life and the family -- to speak in the name of "civil society." Thus delegates of governments worldwide were able to hear that, in the context of the struggle against poverty, "civil society" calls for reproductive rights and the legalization of homosexual unions. And it calls for a limitation of religious freedom -- all this amid other more general addresses, which can be shared, on the struggle against poverty. But there is an important part of "civil society" that also works to eradicate poverty and that doesn't recognize itself in this platform. Where was it? Who heard it? One must have the courage to say that these sorts of maneuvers are vulgar manipulations. The truth is that the one who pays, controls. Certain initiatives have a price, and the governments and agencies that pay also decide who participates. For example, last week's hearing was financed by Canada, Norway and Finland. Was it accidental that there were no NGOs present that opposed the development policies of these governments?
St. John of te Cleft Rock (14th century) : "It is said that twenty centuries after the Incarnation of the Word, the Beast in its turn shall become man. About the year 2000 A.D., Antichrist will reveal himself to the world."
Paul
"Catholic" Spain inviting the Spirit of Antichrist
Now Spain has "legalized" sodomite marriage:
MADRID, Spain (AP) -- Parliament legalized gay marriage Thursday, defying conservatives and clergy who opposed making traditionally Roman Catholic Spain the third country in the world to officially recognize same-sex unions. Gay rights activists cheered lawmakers and blew them kisses.
The measure passed the 350-seat Congress of Deputies by a vote of 187-147 with four abstentions. The bill, part of the ruling Socialists' aggressive agenda for social reform, also lets gay couples adopt children and inherit each others' property.
The bill is now law. The Senate, where conservatives hold the largest number of seats, rejected the bill last week, but the Senate is an advisory body and final say on legislation rested with the Congress of Deputies.
Gay couples will be allowed to marry as soon as the law is published in the official government registry, the Boletin Oficial del Estado. This could come as early as Friday or within two weeks at the latest, the parliament's press office said.
After the final tally was announced, activists watching from the spectator section of the ornate chamber cried, cheered, hugged, waved to lawmakers and blew them kisses.
Several members of the conservative opposition Popular Party, which vehemently opposed the bill, shouted: "This is a disgrace." Those in favor stood and clapped.
The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two countries that recognize gay marriage nationwide. Canada's House of Commons passed legislation Tuesday that would legalize gay marriage by the end of July as long as the Senate also passes the bill, which it is expected to do.
"We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality," Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told the chamber before the vote.
Zapatero said the reform of Spain's legal code simply adds one dry paragraph of legalese -- but means much, much more.
He called it "a small change in wording that means an immense change in the lives of thousands of citizens. We are not legislating, ladies and gentlemen, for remote unknown people. We are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbors, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives."
Zapatero lacks a majority in the chamber but got help from small regional-based parties that tend to be his allies.
Popular Party leader Mariano Rajoy said after the vote that Zapatero has deeply divided Spain and should have sought a consensus in parliament that recognized same-sex unions but didn't call them marriages. Rajoy said that if the vast majority of countries in the world don't accept gay marriage, including some run by Socialists, there must be a reason.
"I think the prime minister has committed a grave act of irresponsibility," Rajoy told reporters.
The gay marriage bill was the boldest and most divisive initiative of the liberal social agenda Zapatero has embarked on since taking office in April 2004.
Parliament overhauled Spain's 25-year-old divorce law on Wednesday, also irking Spain's Roman Catholic Church, by letting couples end their marriage without a mandatory separation or having to state a reason for the split-up as required under the old law.
He has also pushed through legislation allowing stem-cell research and wants to loosen Spain's restrictive abortion law.
The Roman Catholic Church, which held much sway over the government just a generation ago when Gen. Francisco Franco was in power, had adamantly opposed gay marriage. In its first display of anti-government activism in 20 years, it endorsed a June 18 rally in which hundreds of thousands marched through Madrid in opposition to the bill. Some 20 bishops took part in the June 18 rally.
On Wednesday, a Catholic lay group called the Spanish Family Forum presented lawmakers with a petition bearing 600,000 signatures as a last-minute protest.
Late last year, a spokesman for the Spanish Bishops Conference, Antonio Martinez Camino, said that allowing gay marriage was like "imposing a virus on society -- something false that will have negative consequences for social life."
However, polls suggest Spaniards supported gay marriage. A survey released in May by pollster Instituto Opina said 62 percent of Spaniards support the government's action on gay marriage, and 30 percent oppose it. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
But surveys show Spaniards about evenly split over whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.
"And they did not understand until the flood came and swept them all away." (Matthew 24:39).
MADRID, Spain (AP) -- Parliament legalized gay marriage Thursday, defying conservatives and clergy who opposed making traditionally Roman Catholic Spain the third country in the world to officially recognize same-sex unions. Gay rights activists cheered lawmakers and blew them kisses.
The measure passed the 350-seat Congress of Deputies by a vote of 187-147 with four abstentions. The bill, part of the ruling Socialists' aggressive agenda for social reform, also lets gay couples adopt children and inherit each others' property.
The bill is now law. The Senate, where conservatives hold the largest number of seats, rejected the bill last week, but the Senate is an advisory body and final say on legislation rested with the Congress of Deputies.
Gay couples will be allowed to marry as soon as the law is published in the official government registry, the Boletin Oficial del Estado. This could come as early as Friday or within two weeks at the latest, the parliament's press office said.
After the final tally was announced, activists watching from the spectator section of the ornate chamber cried, cheered, hugged, waved to lawmakers and blew them kisses.
Several members of the conservative opposition Popular Party, which vehemently opposed the bill, shouted: "This is a disgrace." Those in favor stood and clapped.
The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two countries that recognize gay marriage nationwide. Canada's House of Commons passed legislation Tuesday that would legalize gay marriage by the end of July as long as the Senate also passes the bill, which it is expected to do.
"We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality," Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told the chamber before the vote.
Zapatero said the reform of Spain's legal code simply adds one dry paragraph of legalese -- but means much, much more.
He called it "a small change in wording that means an immense change in the lives of thousands of citizens. We are not legislating, ladies and gentlemen, for remote unknown people. We are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbors, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives."
Zapatero lacks a majority in the chamber but got help from small regional-based parties that tend to be his allies.
Popular Party leader Mariano Rajoy said after the vote that Zapatero has deeply divided Spain and should have sought a consensus in parliament that recognized same-sex unions but didn't call them marriages. Rajoy said that if the vast majority of countries in the world don't accept gay marriage, including some run by Socialists, there must be a reason.
"I think the prime minister has committed a grave act of irresponsibility," Rajoy told reporters.
The gay marriage bill was the boldest and most divisive initiative of the liberal social agenda Zapatero has embarked on since taking office in April 2004.
Parliament overhauled Spain's 25-year-old divorce law on Wednesday, also irking Spain's Roman Catholic Church, by letting couples end their marriage without a mandatory separation or having to state a reason for the split-up as required under the old law.
He has also pushed through legislation allowing stem-cell research and wants to loosen Spain's restrictive abortion law.
The Roman Catholic Church, which held much sway over the government just a generation ago when Gen. Francisco Franco was in power, had adamantly opposed gay marriage. In its first display of anti-government activism in 20 years, it endorsed a June 18 rally in which hundreds of thousands marched through Madrid in opposition to the bill. Some 20 bishops took part in the June 18 rally.
On Wednesday, a Catholic lay group called the Spanish Family Forum presented lawmakers with a petition bearing 600,000 signatures as a last-minute protest.
Late last year, a spokesman for the Spanish Bishops Conference, Antonio Martinez Camino, said that allowing gay marriage was like "imposing a virus on society -- something false that will have negative consequences for social life."
However, polls suggest Spaniards supported gay marriage. A survey released in May by pollster Instituto Opina said 62 percent of Spaniards support the government's action on gay marriage, and 30 percent oppose it. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
But surveys show Spaniards about evenly split over whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.
"And they did not understand until the flood came and swept them all away." (Matthew 24:39).
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
The Radical Homosexual Agenda
Those who are promoting the homosexual agenda are using time-proven tactics which have been employed by secular humanists for some time now. In the words of Ralph Martin, "First, a plea is issued for a dominantly Christian society to 'tolerate' what appears to be a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Secular humanists argue that a pluralist society cannot do otherwise. They then try to make the deviant behavior seem normal and behavior governed by Christian values seem abnormal - a threat to a pluralist society. The last step is often to use the legal system to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always considered righteous behavior." (A Crisis of Truth, pp. 101-102).
Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York:Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process:
"The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."
Truthfully, isn't that what we're witnessing in Canada and even in the United States (albeit to a still lesser degree)? Already there has been much talk in Canada about passing legislation which would make it a "hate crime" for churches - or individual priests and ministers - to refer to homosexuality as being sinful. The Gospel itself would constitute "hate literature" under legislation which is proposed by homosexual militants who have many friends in the government it would appear.
The United States isn't far behind. Soon, Christians who hold firm to what Sacred Scripture has to say about sodomy will be labelled "dangerous" and in need of "re-education" or forced internment in a special "camp." Perhaps those of us who remain "obstinate" in accepting God's Word will be dealt with in another "final solution" offered by a society which has succumbed to the "Dictatorship of Relativism."
Some will accuse me of being a "prophet of doom and gloom." Recent events in Canada and in the United States would seem to contradict such an assessment.
Until next time,
Paul
Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York:Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process:
"The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."
Truthfully, isn't that what we're witnessing in Canada and even in the United States (albeit to a still lesser degree)? Already there has been much talk in Canada about passing legislation which would make it a "hate crime" for churches - or individual priests and ministers - to refer to homosexuality as being sinful. The Gospel itself would constitute "hate literature" under legislation which is proposed by homosexual militants who have many friends in the government it would appear.
The United States isn't far behind. Soon, Christians who hold firm to what Sacred Scripture has to say about sodomy will be labelled "dangerous" and in need of "re-education" or forced internment in a special "camp." Perhaps those of us who remain "obstinate" in accepting God's Word will be dealt with in another "final solution" offered by a society which has succumbed to the "Dictatorship of Relativism."
Some will accuse me of being a "prophet of doom and gloom." Recent events in Canada and in the United States would seem to contradict such an assessment.
Until next time,
Paul
The New Sodom
An excellent article on the New Sodom which is being prepared by the forces of Antichrist:
Canadian Bill C-38 Final Passage Eerily Coincides With Sodom and Gomorrah Readings at Catholic Masses
TORONTO, June 28, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The likely final passage this evening of Canada’s same-sex marriage bill C-38 was eerily highlighted by today’s daily Mass readings, encountered by Catholics who attended Mass across the nation. Today’s scripture readings, which are established years ahead according to an international liturgical calendar, contained passages that astonished many by their direct relevance to the disturbing culmination of the same-sex marriage legislation battle.
The first reading, from the book of Genesis Chapter 19, relates the infamous story of the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah as a result of its sexual and especially homosexual immorality. The second reading from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 8:23-27, in the New Testament, relates the story of the apostles’ terror while in a boat in the midst of a violent storm. When they ask Jesus to save them he responds “Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?”
LifeSiteNews.com interviewed bishop emeritus (retired) Pearce Lacey of Toronto about today’s phenomenon.
The bishop responded, “I like the Gospel in today’s Mass where the apostles were with the Lord and were scared stiff. The terrible violent storm was swamping the boat and they were in it and they cried out—which is normal, for all of us to cry out—‘Lord save us, we seem to be perishing, we are perishing!’ Many people feel almost a loss of hope and are very depressed that things have gone the way they have. But, that’s not the discipleship that we follow”.
“As in today’s Gospel” said Lacey, “the Lord is simply saying ‘Don’t be afraid. Don’t be of little faith. I am with you.”
The bishop, who gave an impassioned speech at the recent defense of marriage rally at Toronto’s Queen’s Park, said he was “deeply saddened” by the latest developments on C-38 and emphasized, although many say “'I’ve given it my best shot and look what’s happened’, obviously we haven’t given our best shot. We still have our work cut out for us.” He suggested that God is telling Christians to “be more intense in our prayer life, to be more sacrificial, the need for more penance” and that the intense prayer undertaken so far “has in all likelihood restrained the punishing hand of God” at a time “perhaps worse than any other time”. Bishop Lacey added, “how patient He (God) must be, how loving He must be and this is the God we trust.”
The bishop again encouraged defenders of marriage, “The one thing we shouldn’t do is lose hope. I mean, time moves by very quickly. The Paul Martins of this world will die, and they will have to face the God who gave them life, the same as each one of us. And he’s had his time in the sun, and he certainly hasn’t done a very good job.”
Referring again to the Catholic Prime Minister, Lacey stated, “some day the Paul Martins of this world will have to face up to a judgment that will be far, far more damaging and far more vigorous”. He further added, “I pity Paul Martin. I don’t wish evil on anybody. But Paul Martin has got a great judgment ahead of him, a judgment that I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes. Imagine, the leader of a country, who has the responsibility of really giving the kinds of strong direction and leadership to his people, and then to flunk, to literally fail is a very, very serious indictment on him.”
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Signs of the End Times
Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser left us these words on the end times. Reading them, one cannot help but see that he is describing our own day with astonishing detail:
Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser (17th century, Germany)
"During this period, many men will abuse the freedom of conscience conceded to them. It is of such men that Jude, the Apostle, spoke when he said: 'These men blaspheme- whatever they do not understand; and they corrupt whatever they know naturally as irrational animals do. . . They feast together without restraint, feeding themselves, grumbling murmurers, walking according to their lusts; their mouth speaketh proud things, they admire people for the sake of gain; they bring about division, sensual men, having not the spirit.'"
"During this unhappy period, there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the Clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh."
"They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modification and delimitation by man."
These are evil times, a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant, and that they live as befits their state in life. In like manner, therefore, they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church: Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while bishops, prelates, and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything."(Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy,Tan Books and Publishers, 1973).
Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser (17th century, Germany)
"During this period, many men will abuse the freedom of conscience conceded to them. It is of such men that Jude, the Apostle, spoke when he said: 'These men blaspheme- whatever they do not understand; and they corrupt whatever they know naturally as irrational animals do. . . They feast together without restraint, feeding themselves, grumbling murmurers, walking according to their lusts; their mouth speaketh proud things, they admire people for the sake of gain; they bring about division, sensual men, having not the spirit.'"
"During this unhappy period, there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the Clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh."
"They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modification and delimitation by man."
These are evil times, a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant, and that they live as befits their state in life. In like manner, therefore, they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church: Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while bishops, prelates, and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything."(Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy,Tan Books and Publishers, 1973).
Canada: Poised for Sodom
Dr. Abram Kardiner, a distinguished physician, psychologist and anthropologist, once said that homosexuality reaches plague and pestilential proportions in morally rotting societies on the verge of total collapse. With that in mind, read this:
Canada May Be 3rd Nation to OK Gay Unions
By BETH DUFF-BROWNAssociated Press WriterJune 28, 2005, 2:51 PM EDTTORONTO -- Canada is set to become the third country to legalize gay marriage, with Parliament likely to pass landmark legislation Tuesday despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders. Although gay marriage already is legal in seven provinces, the bill would grant all same-sex couples in Canada the same legal rights as those in traditional heterosexual unions. The Netherlands and Belgium already allow gay marriage. The legislation, drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government, needs at least 155 members of the House of Commons to gain a majority of the 308-seat House. While some of his Liberal lawmakers have said they will not back the legislation, enough allies in other parties have indicated they would support the bill when it comes to a vote. There are an estimated 34,000 gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to government statistics. "I think this is going to be a proud and exciting day to be a Canadian because we are, once again, affirming to the world that we are a country that is open, inclusive and welcoming," said Alex Munter, national coordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage, a group that has led the debate for the legislation. "This is a victory for Canadian values." Martin, a Roman Catholic, has said that despite anyone's personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage. "I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law," Martin told the House of Commons. Churches have expressed concern that their clergy would be compelled by law to perform same-sex ceremonies, with couples taking them to court or human rights tribunals if refused. The legislation, however, states that the bill only covers civil unions, not religious ones, and no clergy would be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies unless they choose to do so. "The facts are plain: Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe," Martin said. "If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right." The Roman Catholic Church, the predominant Christian denomination in Canada, has vigorously opposed the legislation. "The most overlooked and disenfranchised group in the current debate about marriage is that of children," Calgary Bishop Frederick Henry said in a recent statement. "The issue is not whether traditional marriage, as it stands, is a perfect institution, but whether society and especially children are better off with it than without. Families with both mothers and fathers are generally better for children than those with only mothers or only fathers. Biological parents usually protect and provide for their children more effectively than non-biological ones." The debate in Canada began in December, when the Supreme Court ruled that passage of same-sex legislation would not violate the constitution. A roster of right-wing groups under the banner Defend Marriage Canada headed to Parliament Hill on Tuesday to lobby legislators against the bill. "I fear radical social change thrust upon a nation that is not asking for it," Charles McVety, a spokesman for Defend Marriage Canada and president of Canada Christian College, told Canadian Press. According to most polls, a majority of Canadians supports the right for gays and lesbians to marry. In the United States, gay marriage is opposed by a majority of Americans, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in November, shortly after constitutional amendments in 11 states to ban same-sex marriage were approved. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriages, although Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions. * __ On the Net: Canadians for Equal marriage: http://www.equal-marriage.ca/ Defend Marriage Canada: http://www.defendmarriagecanada.org/
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.
Then read and meditate on Romans, Chaper 1.
Paul
Canada May Be 3rd Nation to OK Gay Unions
By BETH DUFF-BROWNAssociated Press WriterJune 28, 2005, 2:51 PM EDTTORONTO -- Canada is set to become the third country to legalize gay marriage, with Parliament likely to pass landmark legislation Tuesday despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders. Although gay marriage already is legal in seven provinces, the bill would grant all same-sex couples in Canada the same legal rights as those in traditional heterosexual unions. The Netherlands and Belgium already allow gay marriage. The legislation, drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government, needs at least 155 members of the House of Commons to gain a majority of the 308-seat House. While some of his Liberal lawmakers have said they will not back the legislation, enough allies in other parties have indicated they would support the bill when it comes to a vote. There are an estimated 34,000 gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to government statistics. "I think this is going to be a proud and exciting day to be a Canadian because we are, once again, affirming to the world that we are a country that is open, inclusive and welcoming," said Alex Munter, national coordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage, a group that has led the debate for the legislation. "This is a victory for Canadian values." Martin, a Roman Catholic, has said that despite anyone's personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage. "I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law," Martin told the House of Commons. Churches have expressed concern that their clergy would be compelled by law to perform same-sex ceremonies, with couples taking them to court or human rights tribunals if refused. The legislation, however, states that the bill only covers civil unions, not religious ones, and no clergy would be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies unless they choose to do so. "The facts are plain: Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe," Martin said. "If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right." The Roman Catholic Church, the predominant Christian denomination in Canada, has vigorously opposed the legislation. "The most overlooked and disenfranchised group in the current debate about marriage is that of children," Calgary Bishop Frederick Henry said in a recent statement. "The issue is not whether traditional marriage, as it stands, is a perfect institution, but whether society and especially children are better off with it than without. Families with both mothers and fathers are generally better for children than those with only mothers or only fathers. Biological parents usually protect and provide for their children more effectively than non-biological ones." The debate in Canada began in December, when the Supreme Court ruled that passage of same-sex legislation would not violate the constitution. A roster of right-wing groups under the banner Defend Marriage Canada headed to Parliament Hill on Tuesday to lobby legislators against the bill. "I fear radical social change thrust upon a nation that is not asking for it," Charles McVety, a spokesman for Defend Marriage Canada and president of Canada Christian College, told Canadian Press. According to most polls, a majority of Canadians supports the right for gays and lesbians to marry. In the United States, gay marriage is opposed by a majority of Americans, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in November, shortly after constitutional amendments in 11 states to ban same-sex marriage were approved. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriages, although Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions. * __ On the Net: Canadians for Equal marriage: http://www.equal-marriage.ca/ Defend Marriage Canada: http://www.defendmarriagecanada.org/
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.
Then read and meditate on Romans, Chaper 1.
Paul
Monday, June 27, 2005
The Religious Habit as a sign
This article, along with so many other very important articles, may be found at: www.faithfulvoice.com:
Religious garb opens so many opportunities to witness
THE ATTRACTION OF A HABIT Sr. Joseph Mary Maximilian, FTI
Sisters without a habit miss so many opportunities to speak about God to souls hungry to hear of Him.
June 20, 2005
Feast of St. Anthony
This past weekend an invitation was received to participate in a åThird Order Awareness Weekendπ. So there, with the Benedictine Oblates, the Secular Carmelites, and the Secular Franciscans, I set up my little table and wore the habit of a Tertiary of my particular branch of the Franciscan Order.
On the table were Miraculous Medals, Rosaries, and printed pamphlets with information on them. Books that the Order publishes were on display and there was a statue of Our Lady of Fatima and Sts. Francis, Maximilian, Pio and Anthony. A framed picture of St. Francis was a focal point as well.
Printed information on the Franciscan Tertiaries from the web site was available for the taking. Then a most enjoyable experience commenced!
It was wonderful to be able to speak about things of the faith to those who were truly interested. I taught a woman how to pray the rosary, gave many away, was able to explain the Miraculous Medal to others and spoke about all sorts of faith topics.
It was such a pleasure to talk with a couple coming in from the Episcopal Church, excited about beginning RCIA this fall. Moreover, their excitement was contagious! They wanted to know more about Our Lady, to share their great joy in the new things they were discovering in the faith.
Young people had many questions. Many did not know about the Miraculous Medal. Both medals and information were given to them. One mother said that she wished I could teach her childrenπs religion class. All Mom had as evidence was the habit being worn and the religious articles being distributed.
Now, it must be admitted that the majority of people walked by with a gaze straight ahead and did not want to even make eye contact but it was fun to greet those who did.
It was joyful to speak of the faith, about adoration and the Sacraments, about Our Lady, the Franciscan life, our Lord and to be encouraging to others. It was such a good time; the kind that is difficult to explain because it is a spiritual joy.
One of the Seculars came over and said, "I don't get it, why have you had so many people at your table and talking to you?"
I thought about it and found the answer. It is the habit!
It is that outward sign that has been abandoned by so many. That is what drew people to come over to my table, to ask questions. It certainly was not åme!π
Pondering this thought, I recall a dear religious brother who enjoys wearing the habit because it draws people to him, people asking religious questions. Since talking about things of God is my friend's favorite subject, it has been his great joy to wear that external sign of the consecrated religious life.
The religious garb opens so many opportunities to witness for God and to plant seeds of faith and encouragement in others.
What a pity for those who gave up their habit, especially for those who were forced. The religious habit attracts souls! For example, my own sons have never seen a Sister in a habit. We do have some religious Sisters in our area, but one would be hard pressed to pick them out, sorry to say. Sisters without a habit miss so many opportunities to speak about God to souls hungry to hear of Him.
There was sadness at hearing of the time when a Sister in our parish burned her veil in the trashcan in her back yard. If blending in was the goal, it has been achieved because most of our parishioners have no idea who the Sister listed in the bulletin might be. Her clothing cannot recognize her vocation.
More shamefully disappointing is when priests do not wear their clerics in public. Most likely, there are times when it is uncomfortable or a burden to be obviously seen as a priest. Living a life of Christ is not easy.
I have so admired those who are first, foremost and always a discernable priest, wearing the distinctive garb of their vocation.
One particular spiritual director who always wears his clerics in public says wearing his clerics invites people to approach him. He has heard confessions in mall parking lots and other interesting places. Father rejoiced that Our Lord brought souls to him for reconciliation.
Another priest, a cousin, is never seen out of his religious garb. Even family outings, such as going to the ice cream store, brought him the opportunity to give a Miraculous Medal to the sales girl at the counter and to answer questions about the Catholic faith. Opportunities are everywhere for those willing to witness by wearing that sign of consecration in the world ≠ the religious garb.
Itπs well documented that those religious Orders whose Sisters are wearing their habits are growing, some phenomenally.
There is attraction to the habit and not just because it is special clothing, but also because it is a witness to the way of life behind the habit and to the person clothed in it. Here we find someone dedicated to God! Wearing their habit is saying, ≥May I be of service!≤
Maybe a question that has been on the heart for a long time can be asked. Perhaps good advice can be sought. Oh, how we need these souls of consecrated life in the world.
This is only a small taste of what it must be like to wear the habit. In ordinary life, I am a wife and mother. I do dress differently in some respects, modestly, as well as wearing the Miraculous Medal of the Order.
As a Franciscan Tertiary, care must be taken to be reverent and to set a quiet example, for like the Seraphic Father, St. Francis, we must always spread the Gospel by our actions first, using words only when necessary.
Outside the Franciscan setting, the habit is worn only at chapter meetings and on very special occasions, therefore rarely seen in public. But, there is no denying how much I enjoyed that little taste of what it must be like to attract souls by the wearing of the religious habit.
Ave Maria!
Sr. Joseph Mary Maximilian, FTI
Sr. Joseph Mary Maximilian of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is the religious name of a member of the Franciscan Tertiaries of the Immaculate (FTI). She is a wife and mother, a professional person in a medical field and active in her home parish.
The Coming Persecution
Catholics and other Christians who accept scriptural teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual acts are rightly concerned over what is transpiring in Canada. Read this very disturbing article:
Sun, June 26, 2005
Argument for voting no to marriage bill
By Ted Byfield
Gay marriage will become a legal right in Canada before Parliament prorogues for the summer, Canadians were told last week, because the Liberal government will prolong the session to make sure the bill enacting it gets approval.
Those few Tory MPs favouring the bill, one of them Jim Prentice of Calgary, assure Christians that they need fear no unforeseen consequences from it.
Nothing in it will interfere with freedom of speech, they say, or with the rights of churches to refuse to marry gays, or the rights of Christian schools to teach the biblical injunctions against the practice of homosexuality, or the right of churches to read passages from Scripture condemning homosexual activity.
All these alarming possibilities, say the bill's supporters, are being raised by "the bigots" who oppose the bill.
There is no basis for them, they insist.
Which would be very reassuring were it not for the fact that no Member of Parliament or the cabinet will have any voice whatever on what the bill's consequences will in fact become. That will be left to the Supreme Court, a body that has been diligently stacked to produce whatever the gay and feminist lobbies call upon it to produce.
In other words, it is no longer a court at all. It is now an unelected legislature, its members specifically chosen to create laws fulfilling an ideological agenda that could not possibly gain the approval of an elected Parliament.
And the content of those laws is already becoming clear.
Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary has been twice cited in complaints registered with the Alberta Human Rights Commission for daring to inform the faithful of the church's position on homosexual practices. If the case proceeds, it will undoubtedly wind up in the Supreme Court where the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Churches that allow the reading of Levitican or Pauline injunctions against sodomy will be carefully watched, and when sufficient evidence is gathered by gay groups, a prosecution under the "hate" laws will be launched and the court will be asked to decide which is to prevail: Sodomist rights or religious rights?
Again, the outcome has already been decided.
Christian schools and colleges that refuse to hire teachers who practice and preach homosexuality will face similar prosecution -- remember the Vriend case -- and again the outcome is known now.
Soon any church caught teaching Christian sexual morality, or urging its members to oppose sodomy-endorsing politicians, will be accused of getting into politics and its tax exemption status will be challenged. This too will wind up before the Supreme Court with the outcome known in advance.
The effect will be to silence the voice of the church, except of course those churches that put biblical principle first.
Meanwhile, lesbian couples will have been allowed to adopt children. Would it not be vicious discrimination to deny them such a right? It certainly would, the court will rule.
And since gay women have that right, surely gay men should be allowed to adopt little boys. How can the court say no?
The final step will take the cause into the home itself. Some unfortunate Christian parent, caught teaching his child the Christian rules in contradiction of the rules he learned in school, will be hailed before the court for "child abuse."
Again the outcome has already been determined. The court is highly aware of gay rights. The term parental rights does not appear in its legal vocabulary.
These are some of the eventualities that MLA Ted Morton portrayed before a meeting held in Edmonton last week in connection with his upcoming bid for the leadership of the provincial Tory party.
It is not a pleasant picture, he said, but we should be acutely aware of the implications of the gay-marriage bill.
Morton is a reputable professor of constitutional law. His dire warnings cannot be lightly dismissed.
No doubt when Jim Prentice and the little circle of gay-rights Tory advocates vote "yea" on this bill, let's hope they're aware of what they're letting us in for.
When it happens, they will of course deny they had any idea such travesties would occur.
But if perchance they entertain in their minds even the smallest lingering doubt, then surely this argues for voting "No," not "Yes."
Sun, June 26, 2005
Argument for voting no to marriage bill
By Ted Byfield
Gay marriage will become a legal right in Canada before Parliament prorogues for the summer, Canadians were told last week, because the Liberal government will prolong the session to make sure the bill enacting it gets approval.
Those few Tory MPs favouring the bill, one of them Jim Prentice of Calgary, assure Christians that they need fear no unforeseen consequences from it.
Nothing in it will interfere with freedom of speech, they say, or with the rights of churches to refuse to marry gays, or the rights of Christian schools to teach the biblical injunctions against the practice of homosexuality, or the right of churches to read passages from Scripture condemning homosexual activity.
All these alarming possibilities, say the bill's supporters, are being raised by "the bigots" who oppose the bill.
There is no basis for them, they insist.
Which would be very reassuring were it not for the fact that no Member of Parliament or the cabinet will have any voice whatever on what the bill's consequences will in fact become. That will be left to the Supreme Court, a body that has been diligently stacked to produce whatever the gay and feminist lobbies call upon it to produce.
In other words, it is no longer a court at all. It is now an unelected legislature, its members specifically chosen to create laws fulfilling an ideological agenda that could not possibly gain the approval of an elected Parliament.
And the content of those laws is already becoming clear.
Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary has been twice cited in complaints registered with the Alberta Human Rights Commission for daring to inform the faithful of the church's position on homosexual practices. If the case proceeds, it will undoubtedly wind up in the Supreme Court where the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Churches that allow the reading of Levitican or Pauline injunctions against sodomy will be carefully watched, and when sufficient evidence is gathered by gay groups, a prosecution under the "hate" laws will be launched and the court will be asked to decide which is to prevail: Sodomist rights or religious rights?
Again, the outcome has already been decided.
Christian schools and colleges that refuse to hire teachers who practice and preach homosexuality will face similar prosecution -- remember the Vriend case -- and again the outcome is known now.
Soon any church caught teaching Christian sexual morality, or urging its members to oppose sodomy-endorsing politicians, will be accused of getting into politics and its tax exemption status will be challenged. This too will wind up before the Supreme Court with the outcome known in advance.
The effect will be to silence the voice of the church, except of course those churches that put biblical principle first.
Meanwhile, lesbian couples will have been allowed to adopt children. Would it not be vicious discrimination to deny them such a right? It certainly would, the court will rule.
And since gay women have that right, surely gay men should be allowed to adopt little boys. How can the court say no?
The final step will take the cause into the home itself. Some unfortunate Christian parent, caught teaching his child the Christian rules in contradiction of the rules he learned in school, will be hailed before the court for "child abuse."
Again the outcome has already been determined. The court is highly aware of gay rights. The term parental rights does not appear in its legal vocabulary.
These are some of the eventualities that MLA Ted Morton portrayed before a meeting held in Edmonton last week in connection with his upcoming bid for the leadership of the provincial Tory party.
It is not a pleasant picture, he said, but we should be acutely aware of the implications of the gay-marriage bill.
Morton is a reputable professor of constitutional law. His dire warnings cannot be lightly dismissed.
No doubt when Jim Prentice and the little circle of gay-rights Tory advocates vote "yea" on this bill, let's hope they're aware of what they're letting us in for.
When it happens, they will of course deny they had any idea such travesties would occur.
But if perchance they entertain in their minds even the smallest lingering doubt, then surely this argues for voting "No," not "Yes."
"Supreme Court" rules against Ten Commandments
BREAKING NEWS
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:06 a.m. ET June 27, 2005
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday struck down certain Ten Commandments displays inside courthouses but gave more leeway when such exhibits are on the grounds of public property.
The justices found that a six-foot granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol does not cross the line between church and state.
In an earlier ruling, however, the justices held that two courthouse exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message.
In that 5-4 decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they’re portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation’s legal history.
But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.
“The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion,” Justice David Souter wrote for the majority.
“When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality,” he said.
Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor, who provided the swing vote.
Scalia writes dissentIn a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation’s religious and legal history.
Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said.
He was joined in his opinion by Chief William Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
“In the court’s view, the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable,” he wrote. “Surely that cannot be.”
“The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history,” Scalia added.
Earlier oral argumentsThe justices heard oral arguments in the Kentucky and Texas cases last March.
The Bush administration, via acting Solicitor General Paul Clement, argued against a strict First Amendment wall between church and state.
getCSS("3088874")
INTERACTIVE
• Key 2004-2005 Supreme Court casesTen Commandments displays should be allowed on government property because they pay tribute to America’s religious and legal history, he argued in court. “The idea of having a fence around the Ten Commandments to make clear the state has nothing to do with it, I think that is bending it too far,” said
David Friedman, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who is challenging courthouse displays in Kentucky, countered: “An assertion that the Ten Commandments is THE source, THE foundation of our legal system ... that is simply wrapping the Ten Commandments in the flag, and that’s endorsement.”
In their comments and questions from the bench, justices were reluctant to adopt a blanket ban on such displays. They struggled to formulate a clear constitutional rule that could determine the fate of thousands of religious symbols on public property around the country, including one in their own courtroom featuring Moses holding the sacred tablets.
Justice Antonin Scalia noted that legislative proclamations and prayer invoking God’s name are permissible. “I don’t see why the one is good and the other is bad,” he said.
Texas case backgroundDuring oral arguments in the Texas case, Erwin Chemerinsky, a lawyer representing a man who sought the removal of the tablet, told the justices the display is a “religious symbol.” The prominence of the display on the capitol grounds and the fact that so many of the commandments deal with God “does promote religion,” he maintained.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in his court filing, wrote that “countless monuments, medallions, plaques, sculptures, seals, frescoes, and friezes — including, of course, the Supreme Court’s own courtroom frieze — commemorate the Decalogue. Nothing in the Constitution requires these historic artifacts to be chiseled away or erased.”
Chemerinsky countered that “the government’s symbolic endorsement of religion is most obvious from the content of the monument itself. In large letters, the monument proclaims ’I AM the LORD thy God.”’
Ten Commandments monuments are common in town squares, courthouses and other government-owned land around the country. At issue was whether they violate the First Amendment ban on any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” or simply represent a secular tribute to America’s legal heritage.
The question has sparked dozens of heated legal battles, including one in Alabama by Roy Moore. He lost his job as chief justice a year ago after defying a federal order to remove a 5,300-pound Ten Commandments monument he had installed in the state courthouse.
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:06 a.m. ET June 27, 2005
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday struck down certain Ten Commandments displays inside courthouses but gave more leeway when such exhibits are on the grounds of public property.
The justices found that a six-foot granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol does not cross the line between church and state.
In an earlier ruling, however, the justices held that two courthouse exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message.
In that 5-4 decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they’re portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation’s legal history.
But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.
“The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion,” Justice David Souter wrote for the majority.
“When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality,” he said.
Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor, who provided the swing vote.
Scalia writes dissentIn a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation’s religious and legal history.
Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said.
He was joined in his opinion by Chief William Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
“In the court’s view, the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable,” he wrote. “Surely that cannot be.”
“The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history,” Scalia added.
Earlier oral argumentsThe justices heard oral arguments in the Kentucky and Texas cases last March.
The Bush administration, via acting Solicitor General Paul Clement, argued against a strict First Amendment wall between church and state.
getCSS("3088874")
INTERACTIVE
• Key 2004-2005 Supreme Court casesTen Commandments displays should be allowed on government property because they pay tribute to America’s religious and legal history, he argued in court. “The idea of having a fence around the Ten Commandments to make clear the state has nothing to do with it, I think that is bending it too far,” said
David Friedman, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who is challenging courthouse displays in Kentucky, countered: “An assertion that the Ten Commandments is THE source, THE foundation of our legal system ... that is simply wrapping the Ten Commandments in the flag, and that’s endorsement.”
In their comments and questions from the bench, justices were reluctant to adopt a blanket ban on such displays. They struggled to formulate a clear constitutional rule that could determine the fate of thousands of religious symbols on public property around the country, including one in their own courtroom featuring Moses holding the sacred tablets.
Justice Antonin Scalia noted that legislative proclamations and prayer invoking God’s name are permissible. “I don’t see why the one is good and the other is bad,” he said.
Texas case backgroundDuring oral arguments in the Texas case, Erwin Chemerinsky, a lawyer representing a man who sought the removal of the tablet, told the justices the display is a “religious symbol.” The prominence of the display on the capitol grounds and the fact that so many of the commandments deal with God “does promote religion,” he maintained.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in his court filing, wrote that “countless monuments, medallions, plaques, sculptures, seals, frescoes, and friezes — including, of course, the Supreme Court’s own courtroom frieze — commemorate the Decalogue. Nothing in the Constitution requires these historic artifacts to be chiseled away or erased.”
Chemerinsky countered that “the government’s symbolic endorsement of religion is most obvious from the content of the monument itself. In large letters, the monument proclaims ’I AM the LORD thy God.”’
Ten Commandments monuments are common in town squares, courthouses and other government-owned land around the country. At issue was whether they violate the First Amendment ban on any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” or simply represent a secular tribute to America’s legal heritage.
The question has sparked dozens of heated legal battles, including one in Alabama by Roy Moore. He lost his job as chief justice a year ago after defying a federal order to remove a 5,300-pound Ten Commandments monument he had installed in the state courthouse.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Powerful exorcism prayer
Spirit of our God, Father, Son , and Holy Spirit, Most Holy Trinity, Immaculate Virgin Mary, angels, archangels, and saints of Heaven, descend upon me. Please purify me, Lord, mold me, fill me with Yourself, use me. Banish all the forces of evil from me, destroy them, vanquish them, so that I can be healthy and do good deeds. Banish from me all spells, witchcraft, black magic, malefice, ties, maledictions, and the evil eye; diabolic infestations, oppressions, possessions; all that is evil and sinful, jealousy, perfidy, envy; physical, psychological, moral, spiritual, diabolical ailments. Burn all these evils in hell, that they may never again touch me or any other creature in the entire world. I command and bid all the powers who molest me -- by the power of God all powerful, in the name of Jesus Christ our Savior, through the intercession of the Immaculate Virgin Mary -- to leave me forever, and to be consigned into the everlasting hell, where they will be bound by Saint Michael the archangel, Saint Gabriel, Saint Raphael, our guardian angels, and where they will be crushed under the heel of the Immaculate Virgin Mary. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)