Dissident theologians and pro-abortion politicians

The Kennedy clan is the most prominent Catholic family in the highly dynastic world of US politics, and it is firmly pro-abortion. How did this come about? The promise of money and allies from the abortion lobby was underpinned by a group of dissident Catholic theologians who actually had a formal meeting in 1964 to coach family members in the sophistical distinctions they could make to rationalise their position. What they advocated appears to have been basically the familiar claim that a politician can be 'personally opposed' to abortion but as a matter of policy various considerations, from the need to maintain public order to the 'distress' of a woman who might be refused abortion, can justify voting to make abortion easier in every possible way - as if the state's duty to defend the lives of the innocent could be set aside so easily.

From Fr Z, with his emphases and comments in red (see his post):

The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting in his book "The Birth of Bioethics" (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion. [Get that? There was a workshop for them to help them get around the teaching of the Church.]

Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that [AGAIN… pay attention…] "distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue." It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians "might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order."

One conclusion to draw from this is that these networks of dissent which this blog has sought to highlight have their importance and can do real damage. Simply by providing 'cover' for dissenting positions they can render inneffective the Church's opposition to some of the greatest evils of the day.

Read More...

Summary only...

Archbishop Chaput responds to The Tablet

Business as usual in The Tablet last week - claiming that abortion is just 'Catholic' issue and that therefore Catholics should not let it get in the way when they decide what political policies to support (er, right!). This is a central tenat of the implicitly or explicitly pro-abortion dissident network of 'Catholic' organisations which feed off the Church and neutralise her public teaching. On this occasion The Tablet was addressing not a UK issue but an American one, so Archbishop Chaput pf Denver has posted a reply. (H-t Damian Thompson) In part:

Last week a British Catholic journal, in an editorial titled “US bishops must back Obama,” claimed that America’s bishops “have so far concentrated on a specifically Catholic issue - making sure state-funded health care does not include abortion - rather than the more general principle of the common good.”
It went on to say that if US Catholic leaders would get over their parochial preoccupations, “they could play a central role in salvaging Mr Obama’s health-care programme.”
The editorial has value for several reasons. First, it proves once again that people don’t need to actually live in the United States to have unhelpful and badly informed opinions about our domestic issues. Second, some of the same pious voices that once criticized US Catholics for supporting a previous president now sound very much like acolytes of a new president. Third, abortion is not, and has never been, a “specifically Catholic issue,” and the editors know it. And fourth, the growing misuse of Catholic “common ground” and “common good” language in the current health-care debate can only stem from one of two sources: ignorance or cynicism.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Recife Affair

From CFNews gives a long commentary on the affair from Mgr Schoonans., here. He discusses the multiple inaccuracies of the article by Archbishop Rino Fisichella in the Osservatore Romano of the 15th of March, which it shares with other attacks on the local ordinary who reminded the abortionists that, under canon law, they were excommunicated latae sententiae (ie without him having to do anything). Mgr Schoonans also reports that Mgr Lombardi, the Vatican press officer, appeared to try to re-interpret remarks of the Holy Father to make them compatible with support for the Recife abortion (which he falsely suggested was an example of 'indirect' abortion: medical treatment such as chemotherapy not aiming at the death of the unborn child, which brings it about).

The most worrying thing here is the impression of divisionsn and open dissent at the highest reaches of the Vatican.

Here is an extract.


3. Divisions in the Church

1. According to RF, the attitude of Archbishop Cardoso undermines the credibility of the Church. But the Church and its pastors do not deserve to be credible unless they proclaim the truth. The Gospel does not recommend that we please men, it calls us to be faithful to the message which it is our mission to announce. As regards abortion, the Church's doctrine is expounded with clarity in major documents such as Gaudium et spes (1965), para. 51 § 3 ; cf. para. 27 § 3 ; Code of Canon Law (1983), para. 1398 ; 1314; 1323 s. ; Donum vitae (1987), para. 3 ; Evangelium vitae (1995), para. 62 ; Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997), para. 2271, 2322.

RF's article was published in the French edition of the Osservatore Romano on 17 March. It is astonishing that it fails to echo the statements of His Eminence, Cardinal Re, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops, published in La Stampa on 7 March. Could RF have been unaware of this statement when he signed his article? In this statement, Cardinal Re declares, with regard to the double abortion performed at Recife: " it is a crime in the eyes of God. The excommunication of the person performing the abortion is just". On 14 March, Dom Cardoso, Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, received a letter of praise from that same Cardinal. The Church's position is also reaffirmed by Father Gianfranco Grieco, Head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, in La Stampa of 7 March.

2. The Osservatore Romano is the unofficial mouthpiece of the Vatican. It publishes pontifical texts. It also publishes articles at the request of certain dicasteries. It also publishes texts proposed by authors considered to be knowledgeable about and respecting of the Church's doctrine. This prestigious publication is particularly necessary at a time when the media pronounce with assurance on any issue. As Molière wrote, " People of quality know everything without ever having learned anything. " (Les précieuses ridicules, scene 10). With some notable exceptions, adherence to an elementary code of ethics, for example, checking the sources on which relies, does not appear to be a priority. In the case under examination, those in charge of the Osservatore Romano let through a text containing serious inaccuracies and omissions and biased in every sense of the word. To cap it all, instead of putting a stop to the circulation of this article in foreign languages, the publication's Director arranged for the text to be circulated in different languages. The Vatican's mouthpiece is therefore seriously adding to a muddying of the waters in as far as it is failing to comply with its mandate as a faithful mouthpiece, palming off on its readers products which are doctrinally dubious.

3. On 20 March, a few days after the appearance of RF's article, while meeting the authorities in Luanda, Benedict XVI made reference to the abortion. The Pope regrets that the abortion is being presented as a matter of maternal health. Let us quote the strong words pronounced by the Pope:

"How bitter the irony of those who promote abortion as a form of maternal healthcare! How disconcerting the claim that the termination of life is a matter of reproductive health!" (Osservatore Romano, French edition, 31 March 2009, pages 4 and 15).

Whence immediate protests from certain journalists, whose reasoning can be summarised as follows: " Abortion is a matter of reproductive health. Yet the Pope is against abortion. Therefore he is opposed to reproductive health, which must include therapeutic abortion." According to this sophistic argument, the premature twins constitute a serious danger to the young Carmen and are themselves in danger, and so it is necessary to go ahead with the abortion.

The next day, in Luanda, Father Federico Lombardi S.J., Head of the Vatican's Press Office, felt obliged, even authorised, to blunt the authority of the Pope's statement, quoted above. The statement did not relate to therapeutic abortion, as understood by the ideologists of reproductive health and safe motherhood. In a context in which he is commenting on the Pope's words, Fr Lombardi goes so far as to affirm, incautiously, that the Catholic Church has " always allowed indirect abortion ", when treatment given to a pregnant woman in order to save her life "results in the death of the foetus " (Cathobel, 23 March). The double abortion performed on Carmen would be therapeutic and would thus, in the twisted logic of the Reverend Father, escape the sanction of Canon Law. It would not be condemned by the Pope who moreover - it is added- said nothing, in Africa, on the events in Recife. It is therefore difficult for Father Lombardi to have avoided compromising the Holy Father by creating the impression that the Pope did not condemn the double abortion in Recife, on the grounds that this double abortion was therapeutic! It follows that the Pope would have implicitly disagreed with Archbishop Cardoso!

Admittedly, Father Lombardi asserted, in Luanda, that he did not have all the necessary information regarding the Recife case. However, his statement poses a fundamental problem. Is it normal for a journalist, even a highflyer, to set himself up as an authorised interpreter of what the Pope has just said, especially if his interpretation has the effect of blunting the edge of the Holy Father's statements? It would doubtless be necessary to clarify the levels of expertise and authority. Should the Pope's words be so obscure as to need deciphering by an unofficial media magisteriium?

4. Serious grounds for concern have emerged in circles close to the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Pontifical Council for the Family:

a. Incomprehension and sadness on the part of a considerable number of Christians, engaged for several years in multiple pro-life programmes encouraged by the Church. A feeling, often well-founded, of having been " abandoned " by their pastor.

b. Perplexity and shame on the part of many members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who are wondering how such a faux pas could have occurred, and what action will be taken.

c. Discredit affecting the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who has undermined his own moral, theological and scientific authority. Loss of confidence in the President and disillusionment. Many members of the Pontifical Academy for Life fear that RF's statements will compromise them at rank and file level. There will be a down-sizing in aid of all kinds earmarked for the activities of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

d. Fears of a weakening of the Pontifical Academy for Life: its members will be less motivated and will become divided among themselves. There is already talk of only convening members of the Academy every two years. But where is this decision coming from, if confirmed? Is it, as rumoured in certain circles, the prelude to the burial of the Pontifical Academy for Life, at a time when the attacks on life are incessantly multiplying ?

5. In his Letter to the Archbishops of the World, dated 10 March 2009, the Holy Father, quoting the letter to the Galatians (5, 13-15), wrote: "If you bite and devour one another, be warned: you will destroy one another " Referring to the question of Archbishops following the lead of Archbishop Lefebvre, this quotation also deserves to be repeated in relation to the scandal of Notre Dame University and the harrowing story of Carmen and her twins.

Read More...

Summary only...

Anti-Life Groups and RC Politicians

Pro-abortionists often say the Church is too concerned over life issues. What is truly amazing, however, is how little concerned the Church is, in terms of its institutions. Pro-Life groups don't find it easy to give presentations in Catholic schools and parishes; many bishops and priests would rather talk about something else in their sermons; little time and money is allocated to life issues in the clerical bureaucracy. Even more amazing, however, and scandalous, is that organisations and individuals can present themselves as Catholic while rejecting the Church's teaching on these important issues. There is obviously a close connection with the 'Justice and Peace' groups which ignore the issue of abortion or even quietly support the promotion of abortion.

The Anti-Life brigade
Click on the names to see our full dossier on each group

Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) This group was set up by and continues to be funded and promoted by pro-abortion campaigners to undermine the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion. Its leading members are not practicing Catholics, and it has few links even with dissident Catholic groups or theologians (though feminist-influenced groups tend to be committed to abortion, and link their websites to CFFC). The rhetoric of 'choice' is badly chosen, as they oppose the right of doctors to refuse to carry out abortions, and they oppose giving women with crisis pregnancies information or counselling which includes anything about alternatives to abortion.

All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG)/ Passion for Life: The APPPLG is the officially recognised Parliamentary 'Group' campaigning, supposedly, against abortion, euthanasia and so on. Unsurprisingly, it is dominated by Catholic Members of Parliament. It has come as a shock to discover, on closer examination, that the individual views of officers of the APPPLG are not consistently pro-life, and that this ambivalence has found its way into their policy in Parliament, and in the campaign materials produced by a lobbying group, Passion for Life, which the APPPLG set up. Typically, officers of the APPPLG do not oppose legal abortion in principle: they tend to the view that there is simply 'too much abortion'. The Passion for Life campaign postcards, which were distributed in Catholic churches, included the slogan 'Abortion should be rare', an astonishing claim for a 'pro-life' group to make.

The APPPLG and Passion for life can be criticised on pro-life grounds; its members can also be criticised as Catholic politicians, who appear as such in the Catholic Directory, who are clearly dissenting from the teaching of the Church: see below.

Dissenting 'Catholic' Politicians
Only the most prominent are listed here.

John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose" any law that attacks human life. (Paragraph 4 of the CDF document on The participation of Catholics in political life)

Jim Dobbin accepts abortion when the mother's life is in danger

Lord Alton accepts abortion for the severely disabled.

Claire Curtis-Thomas is 'not against abortion'.

Ann Widdecombe accepts IVF.

John Gummer supported the Civil Partnerships Act

Tony Blair is anti-Catholic in almost every possible way

Ruth Kelly refused to vote against the bill to allow human-animal hybrids

Clare Short supported the hybrids bill

Read More...

Summary only...

WHO's fantasy statistics to promote abortion

Briefing.

From C-Fam: 2 Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. writes : A newly released research paper identifies structural flaws in United Nations (UN) data collection and analysis of global maternal health, finding that UN maternal heath policies based on the bad data are jeopardizing women's health in the developing world.

The paper, 'Removing the Roadblocks from Achieving MDG 5 by Improving the Data on Maternal Mortality,' by Donna Harrison, M.D., was published by the International Organizations Research Group (IORG) [IORG is a division of C-FAM, publisher of the Friday Fax]. The paper shows how the World Health Organization's (WHO) guidelines to UN member states require nations to collect faulty data while at the same time pressuring them to enact UN policies such as liberalizing abortion laws based on that data.

Harrison finds that the WHO's Reproductive Health Indicators are flawed because of 'quasi-legal, rather than scientifically-based definitions used to define maternal health.' Specifically, she examines WHO documents that equate 'safe abortion' to legal abortion, and 'unsafe abortion' to illegal abortion. Harrison said that even pro-abortion groups have taken WHO to task for its faulty definitions. She gives the example of Marie Stopes International, which claims that the abortions it performs in countries where it is illegal are safe.

WHO definitions also create confusion about the true number of deaths attributable to abortion, Harrison argues. This is because WHO guidelines require hospitals to count deaths from miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) in calculating maternal mortality, but not deaths from planned abortions. Maternal deaths due to planned, induced abortion are therefore not required to be recorded in government statistics, and the extent to which such abortions harm women is impossible to measure.

Despite this fact, WHO is promoting planned abortion as a way to improve maternal health. Citing WHO's 2006 report 'Sexual and Reproductive Health: Laying the Foundation for a More Just World through Research and Action,' Harrison says that 'the report details its extensive research and promotion of chemical or medical abortions in developing countries using mifepristone and misoprostol and manual vacuum aspirators, a technique used by some to perform abortions in countries where the practice is illegal under the auspices of 'fertility regulation.'…Without accurate data collection and analysis, the effects of such changes are often not perceived until years after damage has been done and may not be reversible at that late point.'

Harrison quotes WHO researchers who admit to 'adjusting the data' up to 50 percent based upon what they 'expect to find' in order 'to make the numbers turn out right.' To improve WHO statistics and policies Harrison offers several policy recommendations, including the collection of data 'for all pregnancy outcomes,' separating the data on miscarriages and induced termination, and refining the definition of 'induced abortion' to distinguish among terminations medically necessary to save the life of the mother, voluntary terminations performed in the hospital, and voluntary terminations performed in an outpatient setting.

If WHO does not improve what one World Bank researcher calls 'tortuous statistical techniques and educated guessing,' Harrison concludes, 'Policy decisions will be founded on political assumptions, rather than scientific fact.' [C-FAM]

Read More...

Summary only...

Home abortion drug: high failure rate

Briefing: something you should know as abortionists push for the wider availability of over-the-counter or GP Surgury abortions.

from Lifesitenews: Abortion advocates have promoted the dangerous abortion drug RU 486 (mifepristone) in part by saying it can cause an abortion without women having to have a surgical abortion. However, a new study shows the abortion drug fails anywhere from 16-23 percent of the time. When the mifepristone abortion drug fails, a follow-up surgical abortion is necessary because an incomplete abortion can result in major medical problems, including death. Melissa Strafford of the Boston Medical Center presented the results of her study at the recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists annual meeting. The abortion drug failed to complete the abortion in 23 percent of the women getting the two drugs simultaneously and failed to finish the abortion process for 16 percent of the women getting the drugs 48 hours apart. For Dr. Randy O'Bannon, the director of research and education for National Right to Life, there failure rates and need for surgical abortions present bigger problems for women. 'Those who have developed and promoted RU 486 have told women that the abortifacient offers them a way to have an abortion without the risk of surgery,' he told LifeNews.com. 'Attempts to make the process more convenient for women, for the clinics, may help the industry attract more customers, but as this latest study shows, it exposes women to additional risks.' [LifeNews]

Read More...

Summary only...

AI campainging for abortion in Dominican Republic

Briefing. This is how low Amnesty International has sunk. Once they accepted abortion as a 'human right', it was never going to be a marginal issue.

From C-Fam: Piero A. Tozzi, J.D. writes : ' The politicized human rights organization Amnesty International has again taken a pro-abortion position in a nation's internal debate over abortion, coming out against the Dominican Republic's proposed protections for unborn life in its draft constitution and in the country's penal law. In so doing, Amnesty pits the rights of the mother against those of the unborn child while misrepresenting what international law says - or doesn't say - about abortion.

In a statement issued a few weeks ago, Amnesty International claims that the country's constitutional and legal reforms 'could lead to violations of women's human rights' and further claims that laws penalizing abortion would lead to increased maternal mortality. It also argued that the proposed protections of the unborn were inconsistent with the Dominican Republic's 'obligations under international human rights law.'

According to Amnesty, the penal law revisions 'would increase penalties for persons involved in carrying out an abortion.' Amnesty criticized the proposed revisions for allowing criminal prosecution of abortionists 'for providing abortion services that are safe.'

Critics point out, however, that in addition to being fatal to the child in utero, maternal health risks from abortion outweigh those associated with childbirth, particularly where the level of obstetric care is low.

Moreover, such claims about 'international human rights law,' which Amnesty also made in an informal 'friend-of-the-court' memorandum circulated last year among the justices of the Mexican Supreme Court, are contradicted by prior statements by the group. As recently as 2005, Amnesty acknowledged that 'There is no generally accepted right to abortion in international human rights law.'

Two years later, however, Amnesty International formally abandoned its previous objectivity and embraced abortion advocacy. According to Dr. Rachel MacNair, a former Amnesty member and Vice President of the group 'Consistent Life,' Amnesty's board 'railroaded' the new policy through, never announcing the results of a member vote on the issue.

Since Amnesty International abandoned neutrality on abortion, it has become an increasingly aggressive abortion advocate. Earlier this year it demanded that Mexican physicians be forced to perform abortions in cases of rape, even where doctors had conscientious objections to abortion. Noting the irony of a group founded to defend prisoners of conscience seeking to override conscience rights, MacNair called Amnesty's Mexican position 'too bizarre for words.'

Amnesty International's Dominican statement closed by praising the judicial activism of the Colombian constitutional tribunal that in 2006 struck down certain penal laws in that country protecting unborn life, implicitly calling on Dominican courts to do the same.

Amnesty's revisionist approach to global human rights is unsupported by traditional understandings of international law based principally on the consent of state parties to precisely-drafted and duly-ratified treaties. Activists have been pressing national courts to modify abortion laws to conform to their notions of evolving obligations and non-binding 'interpretations' by United Nations treaty compliance committees, which are often staffed with radical advocates.

Among major human rights organizations, Human Rights First still maintains neutrality on the abortion issue, in contrast with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. [C-FAM]

Read More...

Summary only...

Fr Corapi on the Notre Dame scandal

Fr Corapi speaks for the Cardinal Newman Society, an important conservative Catholic organisatiion in the US.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pro Abortion L'Osservatore Romano article uncorrected

Briefing. We commented on the article here.

From LifeSiteNews: In recent weeks, pro-life Catholics from around the world have flooded Vatican offices with protests, petitions and letters asking for a retraction or clarification on an article published by L'Osservatore Romano implying that direct abortion could be morally justified or its evil mitigated in some 'extreme circumstances'.

However, since the March 15th publication of the article, provocatively titled, 'On the side of the Brazilian girl,' by Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV), nothing has been heard from the Vatican or Fisichella himself.

Archbishop Fisichella prompted widespread outrage when he attacked as 'hasty' the decision by Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife to announce that those who had procured the abortion of twins for a nine year-old rape victim had incurred an automatic penalty of excommunication. Fisichella wrote that the decision to 'help stop the pregnancy,' was a 'difficult' one 'for doctors and for the moral law.'

On Thursday, April 30, LSN was informed that Monsignor José Geraldo Caiuby Crescenti, a noted canonist, former judicial vicar of the archdiocese of Anapolis in Brazil and close friend of Archbishop Sobrinho, had confirmed that to date, no response has come to the archdiocese from Archbishop Fisichella or any official of the Vatican.

LSN has been shown dozens of letters and petitions sent to Rome by prominent academics, physicians, and pro-life advocates from sixteen countries asking Archbishop Fisichella and various Vatican congregations for a correction or clarification.

The article, and the silence following it from Pope Benedict's curia, has raised fears among some in the worldwide pro-life community that key members of the Vatican hierarchy are silently moving away from the Church's historically robust condemnation of abortion and defence of the absolute sacredness of human life.

In an open letter published by LifeSiteNews.com, highly respected philosopher Professor Joseph Seifert, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that the article has led to a 'deep crisis' in the PAV, and 'more importantly, of the public perception of Church teaching on abortion.' (See letter: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09050107.html )

Professor Seifert, rector and professor of philosophy at the International Academy of Philosophy of Liechtenstein, writes that because of this article, and its support by the pope's official media spokesman, Fr. Frederico Lombardi SJ, 'countless persons' throughout the world now attribute to the PAV and by extension to the Pope himself, 'a propagation of a new moral doctrine diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Church'.

Although Msgr. Fisichella wrote in his article that 'procured abortion has always been condemned by the moral law as an intrinsically evil act, and this teaching remains unchanged to our day,' at its end, he praised those who had 'allowed [the girl] to live' by killing her two children. He concluded by stating that those who were involved in the abortion did not 'deserve' excommunication.

In a statement of clarification, the archdiocese responded to Fisichella's accusations, saying that the local Church had come to the child's aid in many ways, both spiritual and material, and that Fisichella had perpetrated a serious injustice against his 'brother in the episcopate' by failing to contact Archbishop Sobrinho or find out what had happened directly from anyone involved.

Calling Fisichella's article 'a direct affront to the defense of the life of three children carried out energetically by Dom Jose Cardoso Sobrinho' the authors of the Recife diocese's statement said Fisichella had spoken 'about something he did not know, and what is worse, without even doing the work of speaking previously with his brother in the episcopate...'

The secular press and the pro-abortion lobby responded promptly to the article, with headlines and hundreds of articles and editorials claiming that Fisichella is hinting at a softening of the Church's position on abortion. The Associated Press announced, 'Vatican prelate defends abortion for 9-year-old.' The Washington Post said, 'Vatican Official Defends Child's Abortion.'

Significantly, Fisichella's article was highly praised by France Kissling, the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, an abortion lobby group that presents itself as Catholic and attempts to pressure the Catholic Church to abandon its teachings on life and family.

In a widely published essay, Kissling called Fisichella's article 'an amazing shift in the Vatican's strategy of no dissent from its position that direct abortion is never permitted.' She said it was a 'modest deviation' that 'opens the door for Catholics who follow church teachings on reproduction to discuss the possibility that there are some cases officially acknowledged where individuals can choose abortion and have a calm conscience.'

Taking a similar interpretation to that of Ms. Kissling, pro-life leaders reacted with shock. Letters of protest are known to have been received by Archbishop Fisichella, and circulated to several Vatican dicasteries, from Italy, Spain, England, Canada, the US, Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatamala, El Salvador, Venzuela, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Panama, Argentina and Belgium.

Adding to the unease is the fear that the article has recieved the highest possible sanction from the hierarchy of the Church. It is common knowledge that articles intended for L'Osservatore Romano are vetted first by the Vatican's Secretariat of State, the highest office under the papacy. Vatican watcher and respected journalist Sandro Magister said that given the prominence of the article's author and its content, it 'was certainly among the most carefully scrutinized and authorized by the Vatican Secretariat of State.'

Moreover, rumours have circulated in Rome that the article had also been approved by an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church's doctrinal watchdog.

During the 26-year papacy of John Paul II, pro-life people had relied heavily on the unswerving defence and frequent expositions on the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life both from the pope himself and from various high-level Vatican officials. Key Vatican posts, such as the congregations on doctrine and the family, were held by well-known and outspoken defenders of Catholic teaching.

Prominent among these was the Pontifical Academy of Life which, under the guidance of the now-retired Bishop Elio Sgreccia, was described as a 'bastion and guiding light' to the pro-life movement around the world.

One prominent pro-life advocate, who asked not to be named, told LifeSiteNews.com that the shock of this incident, compounded and intensified by the Vatican's complete silence, is a sign of a significant shift against the pro-life movement at the highest levels of the Catholic Church.

He said that pro-life people around the world are asking why this undermining of Catholic teaching has gone uncorrected and why this attack on a 'brother bishop' has been un-answered?

'At this stage,' he said, 'we need a clarification or a retraction by Archbishop Fisichella, a press release from the Holy See Press Office or even a clear re-statement of the Church's unchanging teaching from the [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] CDF.'

Read More...

Summary only...

That MAP advert here

Here it is, folks, if you missed it on TV.

Now you can complain to the Advertising Standard Authority. The MAP is an extremely serious medical intervention: to portray it in a cartoon as a routine 'easy way out' is grossly irresponsible. It is also grossly misleading to suggest - though this is not made explicit - that it prevents conception. In many cases conception will already have taken place, and the MAP will be causing an abortion. Abortion is tightly controlled by law in the UK, in theory: and yet here it is available over the counter.

Here's more from Christian Concern for our Nation: The advertisement encourages women to think that having sex without adequate contraception is a worry that can easily be eliminated by a trip to the local pharmacy.

No mention is made of the STDs that a woman might catch through casual sex; no mention is made of the fact that emergency contraception may terminate a young life and no mention is made of the pain, bleeding or other side effects that may be experienced by using the medication.

OFCOM's "standards objectives" relevant to advertising should prevent the broadcasting of advertisements that may be misleading, harmful or offensive by television and radio services and should protect persons under the age of 18.  

Please see section 319(2) Communications Act 2003; and a CCFON article

Please write to the Advertising Standards Authority, by using their online complaints form.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama billboards

This is pretty cool, as they say over there.

H-T Catholic Fire.

Read More...

Summary only...

Embryos for body parts

Briefing.

From the Daily Mail (in part): Couples could be allowed to store embryos in order to use them to create new body parts or cure diseases.

Government legal and ethical experts are to discuss whether families can ‘bank’ embryos not just for procreation but also for use by doctors to create personalised treatments for parents and their children.

Now, embryos – the first stage of life after an egg has been successfully fertilised – can be stored for up to five years but only for procreation.

But a huge ethical debate is set to erupt as the Government’s fertility watchdog, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), moves closer to endorsing new developments in medical science.

It will debate whether embryos could be stored to harvest important stem cells that have the ability to turn into any tissue type in the body.

See the full story

Read More...

Summary only...

Catholic school to be piloted for MAP by text

Local messages of support would be welcome. Nb Bishop Kenny is NOT the 'bishop of Birmingham': as everyone except the Telegraph subeditors know, Vincent Nichols is the Archbishop if Birmingham. Bishop Kenney in an auxiliary. His contact details are below.

From the Daily Telegraph (see here for the full story): Under the scheme pupils at six schools in Oxfordshire – including one Catholic secondary – would be able to access contraceptive advice and contraception, including the controversial 'emergency' pill.

William Kenney, the Bishop of Birmingham, who performs mass at St Gregory the Great Catholic School in Oxford once a year, has criticised the scheme, which is likely to be piloted in July.

The bishop said: "It goes against the very central idea the Catholic church has on human life. It is sending out the message that it was better to deal with the aftermath of what people do, rather than the causes. I don't think this will help solve the teenage pregnancy rate and is taking away responsibility from parents."

Leaders of St Gregory's and the five other schools are to been denied any say in stopping their pupils from being offered the service by Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust and the Oxfordshire County Council. The two authorities have said that, because the service will be offered outside school hours, it will "fall outside the governance of schools".

Right Reverend William Kenney CP, Titular Bishop of Midica
Born: 7 May 1946
Ordained Priest: 29 June 1969
Ordained Bishop: 24 August 1987 (Auxiliary Bishop of Stockholm)
Transferred to Birmingham: 17 October 2006

Residence:
St Hugh's House
27 Hensington Road
Woodstock
Oxfordshire
Tel & Fax: 01993 812234
Email: wk@sthughs.plus.com

Read More...

Summary only...

Notre Shame

Please sign the petition if you haven't yet. This is a really huge campaign now: they have well over 300,000 signatures, and the support of more than 30 American bishops, including the local bishop.

Notre Dame, the flagship of the US's system of Catholic universities, has invited President Obama to received a honorary law degree and address them at their 'commencement' ceremony. To invite the most pro-abortion President in the history of the country is not a monor faux-pas. Notre Dame is saying that it no longer wants to be associated with Catholic teaching and values.

If so they must cease to call themselves a Catholic university!

Read More...

Summary only...

Archbishop Nichols calls for protests over abortion and condom ads

Action: please answer the Archbishop's call. The consultation has not been made very user-friendly but please take a moment to send something in.

All the documents you need are on this page. There is a 'cover sheet' which should accompany your submission, and a list of questions: the idea is that you select the questions you want to address and paste your responses into the document. There is also a guide to the consultation (and an 'executive summary').

Archbishop Nichols makes the very helpful points that the existing advertisment of condoms fails both 'truthfullness' and 'taste' tests: they are not truthful because they are demeaning; they are evidently distasteful. On abortion it is wrong to advertise abortion alongside ordinary goods and services because, like other medical services, but more so, it needs to be presented in a situation where there is proper information and counselling available, and not promoted as if it were a consumer item. This is why there are no adverts for medical products or practicioners in the UK: it is bizarre that it should be proposed to make abortion an exception. It is scandalous that the opportunity should be given to pro-abortion counselling services and not pro-life ones: there cannot be any justification for that. It is simply a matter of the Advertising Code taking a view on the what kind of advice women should be getting.

From CFNews: The Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop-designate of Westminster, has urged Catholics in England and Wales to oppose plans put forward to allow abortion services to advertise on television and radio.

The Archbishop also called on Catholics to make their opposition known to proposals to relax rules restricting the advertising of condoms on television.
Appointed as the new Archbishop of Westminster by the Pope last Friday, he said current television advertising for condoms 'demeaned' young people by depicting 'casual sex on the street corner' and 'drunken sex'.

He urged Catholics to respond to a consultation exercise on the proposed changes, saying that the country would not expect abortion to be advertised 'alongside a packet of crisps'.

Archbishop Nichols said: 'I would appeal to Catholics to respond to the consultation and two of the principles put forward are that advertisements should be truthful and tasteful.

'I doubt that any intended adverts about abortion would be fully truthful and tell the whole truth of the effects of abortion in a woman's life. I seriously wonder if any advertisements for the use of condoms would be tasteful because the ones we have at the moment are demeaning of the young people of this country.
'They depict casual sex on the street corner and drunken sex. I do not think these things do anything to genuinely help young people to understand themselves in their own dignity and in the proper meaning of what human sexuality is about.'

Under the terms of the proposals, adverts for pregnancy advisory services could be allowed in prime-time evening slots on the major channels and radio but advertisers would have to stipulate if the service does not refer women directly for abortion.

Condoms could be advertised on television before the 9pm watershed.

Currently Channel 4 is the only channel with permission to advertise condoms from 7pm.

The proposals would mean that for the first time pregnancy advisory services advertisements that were not Government approved would be permitted on broadcast media. [Telegraph]

Read More...

Summary only...

Abortion kills mothers

Briefing.

From LifeSiteNews: A coroner has criticised abortionists at one of the U.K.'s largest abortion providers after a fifteen year-old girl died from complications following an abortion. Roger Whittaker, the coroner for West Yorkshire, has charged that staffers at a Marie Stopes International abortion facility in Leeds were negligent in having failed to provide antibiotics to Alesha Thomas and that the facility could face prosecution.

Thomas died on July 11, 2007 from a heart attack after contracting toxic shock syndrome, a bacterial infection. She had been fifteen weeks pregnant at the time of the abortion. An inquest heard how the gynaecologist who performed the abortion, Dr. Peter Paku, had made out a prescription for antibiotics, but that the girl left before she received them. Dr. Paku admitted that it is not uncommon for patients to leave the facility without their medication. Alesha was discharged 45 minutes after having the abortion.

The inquest was told that Marie Stopes had no system in place to ensure that nurses would re-check a patient's notes after discharge to make sure all instructions, including prescriptions, had been followed.

Rose Bent, Alesha's mother called the Marie Stopes helpline three days after the abortion, telling a nurse that Alesha was suffering stomach cramps and heavy bleeding. The nurse recommended Ibuprofen. Five days after the abortion, Alesha's symptoms worsened and she died from a heart attack in the car on the way to the hospital.

Despite the claims of the abortion lobby that legal abortion has answered the problem of the 'thousands' or 'tens of thousands' of women dying from 'illegal back-alley abortions,' researchers have found that legal abortions rank as the fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States. In 1972, the year before abortion was legalised in the US, the Centers for Disease Control reported 39 abortion related deaths.

A recent study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth. The statistical analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health found that women who obtained abortions were 76 percent more likely to die in the following year than non-pregnant women. The research found that of 281 women who had died within a year of their last pregnancy between 1987 and 1994, 27 died after giving birth, 48 after having had miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and 101 after having had abortions.

The leading causes of abortion related deaths are haemorrhage, infection, embolism, anaesthesia, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies. [LSN]

Read More...

Summary only...

Morning after pill by text for 11 yr-olds

Briefing.

From SPCU: Children in England aged 11 will be able to request morning-after pills
from nurses by short message service texts. Schools are involved in the scheme in Oxfordshire. The opposition Conservative party said morning-after pills were only for emergencies. Family and Youth Concern said the move would not cut teenage pregnancy. Rev John Saward of SS Gregory and Augustine Catholic church, Oxford, said it was horrendous and would encourage promiscuity.

Read More...

Summary only...

Abortionists to advertise on TV?

Briefing.

From SPUC: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is considering lifting its ban on abortion agencies advertising through the broadcast media.

John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said: "The ASA's proposal threatens to further commercialise the killing of unborn children. It would completely disregard the adverse effect of abortion on women's health. Agencies with a financial interest in abortion will be in a position to buy expensive broadcast advertising, whereas groups which provide objective information about abortion and its impact on women's health will be unlikely to afford to advertise.

"We note the proposed requirement that any group advertising counselling services for pregnant women must make clear if the group does not refer women for abortion. We will be scrutinising the ASA's proposals closely for any similar signs of potential discrimination against pro-life groups. The ASA already demonstrated a bias against pro-life groups when it attempted to ban advertisements which stated correctly that morning-after pills may cause early abortions.

"We are also concerned about the proposal to allow advertisements on television for condoms before the 9pm watershed. Such a move would only serve to sexualise young people, and the resulting promiscuity would lead to more abortions, more teenage pregnancies and more sexually transmitted infections."

Read More...

Summary only...

Dept Health issues flawed abortion guidlines for Northern Ireland

Briefing

From SPUC: Belfast, Monday, 23 March 2009 - Pro-life campaigners in Northern Ireland are warning that newly issued guidance from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) on the circumstances in which
abortion can be legally carried out in the Province is fundamentally flawed. If the guidance is not amended, it may face a judicial review, campaigners say.

Betty Gibson, chairwoman of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in Northern Ireland, said: "Abortion is a criminal offence in Northern Ireland not a medical procedure. A medical intervention to save the life of a pregnant woman is lawful, even if it risks the death of her unborn child. However, it is never lawful to perform any operation solely aimed at taking the life of a child. This remains the law and the guidance published by the department of health cannot change that.

"The guidelines are incorrect in relation to a medical professional's refusal to facilitate to an abortion. The DHSSPS guidances cites advice from the General Medical Council in an attempt to convince objecting doctors that they should refer women to a colleague who will approve the abortion. However, no-one can be forced to co-operate in the performance of a criminal offence.

"Doctors should remember that GMC advice also states: 'Patients must be able to trust doctors with their lives and health. To justify that trust you must show respect for human life and you must: Make the care of your patient your first concern.'

"Medical professionals have a duty to have respect for life and an ethical and legal duty of care owed to an unborn child as a patient. It is unacceptable for the health department guidelines to require anyone to put in place arrangements to facilitate the intentional killing of a child through abortion. On the contrary, a doctor has a moral and legal duty not to be involved in the deliberate killing of one of his or her patients.

"We believe the department of health has not listened to the concerns expressed by the Northern Ireland Health Committee. As a result these
guidelines are fundamentally flawed. At present we are considering all of
the options available to us to ensure that the law is fully reflected in
the guidelines. If the department wishes to avoid a judicial review of this
document then it must introduce serious changes right away," said Mrs
Gibson.

Read More...

Summary only...

Divisions over the excommunication of abortionists

Comment: it seems extraordinary that Archbishop Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has criticised the action of a local ordinary in the Brasilian rape case. As John Smeaton says, to subject this unfortunate girl to abortion is a further violation of her following her appalling rape. Abortion is gravely illicit; it carries with it the penalty of excommunication and it would cause confusion and scandal for Archbishop Sobrinho, the local bishop, to seem to excuse it in this case.

You can't kill innocent people just because they are inconvenient, or bring unpleasant memories to mind. There is simply no logic to the idea that abortion might be permissible in the case of rape, if not in other cases.

From SPUC: The president of the Pontifical Academy for Life has criticised excommunications which were announced after the abortion of twins belonging to a nine-year-old girl in Brazil. Archbishop Rino Fisichella opposes the decision by Most Rev José Cardoso Sobrinho, Archbishop of Recife, to exclude medical staff and the girl's mother from the sacrament. The former says the move eroded the credibility of Catholic teaching and seemed insensitive. Brazil's episcopal conference has also distanced itself from Archbishop Sobrinho's actions, though Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Holy See's Congregation for Bishops, approved. The girl was allegedly raped by her stepfather. [Times, 16 March] SPUC's national director wrote: "[T]he right to life of the twins in the womb of this poor Brazilian girl has been denied by all those participating in the abortion, and all those approving of the abortion (neither of which category, of course, includes the nine-year-old mother). [T]he little girl at the centre of this tragic situation has suffered not only the violence of rape but also the violence of abortion, which carries with it the risk of long-term harm including a seriously increased risk of suicide." [John Smeaton, 16
March]

Read More...

Summary only...