LifeSiteNews.com - Wednesday June 3, 2009
* New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex "Marriage": Governor Signs Bill
* L'Osservatore Romano Won't Let me Defend Myself Says Brazil Archbishop
* Commentary: Let's Get our Facts Straight about Tiller and Anti-Abortion Violence
* Catholic Agencies Must Adopt to Homosexuals: UK Charity Tribunal
* A Good Journalist May Be Hard to Find, But Not a Late-Term Abortionist
* Senator Feinstein Assures Pro-Aborts: Sotomayor "Respects Precedent" Set by Roe v. Wade
* Dick Cheney Voices Support for Same-Sex "Marriage"
* "Obsessional" Fear of Suffering Ushering in Euthanasia Culture: Prominent Bioethicist
* "Pop Can" Miracle Baby Set to Go Home – Born at 12.5 Ounces
* Third Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Ban on Bible-Reading in the Classroom
* UK Man Convicted after Trying to Stop Homosexual Sex in Public with Video Camera
* Christians in the UK Facing Increasing Official Discrimination: Poll
* Former Westminster Cardinal Won't Join Tony Blair Faith Foundation After All
* Interview with Brazil Archbishop over Excommunication of Abortion Doctors
DONATE to LifeSiteNews.com http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/lifesite/
NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call 1-888-678-6008 Press 1
Change email address - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/subscribe/update/
Subscribe friends - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/subscribe/gift/
Unsubscribe - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/unsubscribe/
New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex "Marriage": Governor Signs Bill
By Alex Bush
June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Governor John Lynch has signed a bill that will legalize same-sex "marriage" in New Hampshire when it comes into effect in January 2010. The bill passed in the House today by a vote of 198-176.
Same-sex "marriage" legislation was originally passed in the House on March 26 by a vote of 186-179 and was then approved by the Senate in a 13-11 vote on April 29. The legislation was then passed on to Gov. Lynch for approval or veto.
However, Governor Lynch stated at the time that he would not sign the bill unless it was amended to adequately protect religious groups. The bill was then amended to do so, but then defeated in late May, apparently over opposition to the inclusion of the religious protections. However, the House then worked out a compromise, and another amended form of the bill was passed today that included some protections for religious groups.
Kevin Smith, executive director of Cornerstone Policy Reearch, complained about the confusing and fragmented process that the bill followed on its way to being passed. "It is no surprise that the Legislature finally passed the last piece to the gay marriage bill today. After all, when you take 12 votes on five iterations of the same issue, you're bound to get it passed sooner or later," said Smith.
Religious groups, according to the amended bill, are free to have control over doctrine, policies, teaching, and belief about marriage. Also, religious organizations that are charitable or educational are not required to pay insurance or other benefits to the "spouse" of a homosexual employee.
New Hampshire is now the sixth state in the US to allow same-sex "marriage," along with Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, and Iowa.
Related LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:
NH House Votes Down Same-Sex "Marriage" Bill over Objections to Religious Liberty Clause
New Hampshire Senate Approves Same-Sex "Marriage"
NH Governor Backs Same-Sex "Marriage" Legislation
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
L'Osservatore Romano Won't Let me Defend Myself Says Brazil Archbishop
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent
RECIFE, BRAZIL, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, is asking that the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano publish his response to Archbishop Salvatore "Rino" Fisichella, who criticized him on its pages on March 15 for having announced the excommunication of the doctors who assisted in a now-famous abortion on a nine-year-old girl.
"It seems to me important that L'Osservatore Romano should publish my response," Cardoso told the French newspaper Present in a recent interview. "This is what we are trying to obtain, as we have been from the start."
"We sent the archdiocese's response to Mgr Fisichella's article to Rome. It's a natural right to be allowed to respond if someone has been publishing false information, for who knows which motive: the readers of L'Osservatore should also be in a position to know the other point of view."
The article, entitled "On the Side of the Brazilian Girl," shocked the pro-life world by defending the doctors who killed the unborn twins of a nine-year-old child in Recife, Brazil, and criticizing Cardoso for announcing the automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church incurred under Church law for committing an abortion.
Cardoso observes that the piece by Fisichella contained raw factual errors. In particular the article implied that the world would never have known about the case if the Archbishop had not mentioned the excommunication, suggested that Cardoso had immediately announced the excommunication without prior contact with the media, and that the girl's life was in danger from the pregnancy.
In reality, the Brazilian media had already been reporting on the girl's situation for several days, and the hospital where she was initially admitted acknowledged that she was in no danger at the time of the abortion (see LifeSiteNews' extensive coverage).
Cardoso also explains that he had already spoken to the media several times even before the abortion was committed. "I expressed myself several times [to the media] because this affair of a nine year-old pregnant girl attracted widespread media attention," he said. "Above all, we did all that depended on us to save three lives: not only the life of the little girl, but the three lives. When the abortion finally did take place, I simply recalled once more the law of the Church."
Pro-abortion activists, including the former President of "Catholics for Choice," Frances Kissling, openly applauded the article by Fisichella, which critics have said used rhetoric similar to that of the pro-abortion movement.
Although the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife has responded to the charges, L'Osservatore Romano has yet to reprint any of the material defending the decision by Cardoso. However, two members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Judie Brown and Joseph Seifert (see coverage), have objected publicly to what they have said is an attack on Cardoso, as has Human Life International and other pro-life organizations.
Related Links:
English translation of "On the Side of the Brazilian Girl" by Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella
http://novantiqua.com/2009/03/20/translation-of-archbishop-fisichellas-intervention-on-the-brazilian-excommunications/
Declaration of the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031805.html
Related LifeSiteNews coverage:
International Pro-Abortion Group Conspired With Hospital to Kill Unborn Twins in Famous Brazilian Case
Part I - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032018.html
Part II - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032413.html
Part III - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032018.html
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
Commentary: Let's Get our Facts Straight about Tiller and Anti-Abortion Violence
Commentary by Brian Clowes, PhD - Human Life International, Research Manager
June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Along with everyone else at Human Life International and throughout the legitimate pro-life movement, I strongly condemn the murder of abortionist George Tiller in Kansas. The Fifth Commandment does not read "Thou shalt not kill, except for abortionists."
Not only is it wrong to respond to people like Tiller with the ultimate anti-life act of murder, it also sets the entire pro-life movement back as good, committed leaders have to scramble to distance themselves from an act that they never called for and which is obviously antithetical to their philosophy and work. Pro-abortion legislators seize on the opportunity to call for laws restricting legitimate pro-life activities such as sidewalk counseling and picketing, knowing the whole time that such legislation will do nothing to hinder a maniac with a gun. And, worst of all, thousands of people who would otherwise have joined the pro-life movement will continue to sit on the sidelines, believing the media lie that we are violent.
Pro-lifers should indeed condemn the murder of George Tiller. But we should not play permanent defense as the nonsense snowballs and the unfair attacks against the pro-life movement multiply. Here are some facts that should be taken into consideration by all people of good will, especially those whose responsibility it is to report on this story.
1) George Tiller is the first abortionist to be killed in eleven years. If you think that's a "trend," or an "epidemic" as some have said, you're just not a serious person.
2) All of the posturing going on in the pro-abortion movement over the safety of abortionists is a ruse. There are four times as many hairdressers and 150 times as many convenience store clerks murdered as there are abortionists. Where is the "pro-choice" grieving over them?
3) George Tiller made his money performing late-term abortions, which often involves the killing of a viable human being. According to Kansas state statistics, he killed 395 viable third-trimester babies in one year – 2001 – all for "mental health" reasons (which, as we know, is the category for all elective abortions). Not one of those abortions was for a mother's physical health or for a medical emergency. Americans overwhelmingly believe this disgusting practice should not be legal. If any objective journalist were to look into his practice they would see that most people, and all sane people, are appalled by what happened in his clinic every day.
4) Tiller has been tried on criminal indictments for multiple abuses of his practice, including breaking state laws requiring another medical doctor to verify that certain patients' lives were at risk before performing late-term abortions. This man was no hero or saint, and his being held up as a martyr says more about pro-abortionists than it does about those they are trying to condemn.
5) Abortionists are not only widely considered an embarrassment to the medical profession, but they are much more likely to commit violence than to suffer violence. You may be surprised to learn that more than a dozen abortionists have been convicted of murder and manslaughter ― of their wives, of their patients, and even of other abortionists. Yet you never hear about these killings in the press (see http://www.abortionviolence.com/ for documentation). Abortionists are more likely to kill than to be killed.
6) Whenever an abortionist mutilates, kills or molests a woman, the "pro-choice" movement always rushes to his defense, as they did for Brian Finkel, the Arizona abortionist who was sent to prison for 35 years for 22 counts of sexual abuse. So much for caring for women!
7) The pro-life movement is the most peaceful social movement in the history of this country. Most other social movements, including the unionization movement, the pro-abortion movement, the homosexualist movement, the animal rights movement, and the environmental movement have all demonstrated much greater violence. So where is the outcry over the violence committed by these movements?
During the predictable surge of publicity over Tiller's murder, we must remember that abortion itself is the most cowardly form of murder, committed against the most helpless and innocent of all of God's people, the unborn. We must also remember those who have died, but who are ignored by the media and the pro-abortionists ― the hundreds of women who have died of so-called "safe and legal" abortion, and the hundreds of other women who have been murdered by their boyfriends or husbands because they would not abort their children (see http://www.abortionviolence.com/ for documentation).
Let's not be bullied or silenced by those who are trying to tar the whole pro-life movement by cynically exploiting the murder of George Tiller. Let's instead reply with facts which add context to the "abortionists are heroes, pro-lifers are violent" narrative that the "mainstream" media seems too willing to parrot.
Not that I expect the media to suddenly start reporting the truth of abortion. If they did that, there would be no legal abortion in the first place. But we can try, and the facts are on our side. Let's pray, too, for the soul of George Tiller, his family, and his murderer, as well as for the conversion of all pro-aborts that they see how destructive abortion is for all human life, not just the child who is killed and the mother who is wounded.
One thing you can do is forward this information and the address of the abortion violence Web site to your friends so that we can reach those of good will ― those who aren't just mindlessly screaming bloody murder but who can actually think and listen to reason ― and show them that the story they've been told about supposedly "violent" pro-life activists is just that ― a story.
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
Catholic Agencies Must Adopt to Homosexuals: UK Charity Tribunal
Legal defence say local bishops left Catholic adoption agencies "to sink or swim on their own"
By Alex Bush
LEICESTER, England, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The UK Charity Tribunal has ruled that Catholic adoption agencies cannot restrict homosexual adoption and keep their charitable status, which allows them to receive public funds. The decision came down against Catholic Care, one of the few adoption agencies in the country that has challenged oppressive homosexualist legislation instead of simply shutting down or secularizing.
Catholic Care was appealing a previous decision made in March, where they attempted to change their provisions (i.e., their charter, or objectives) that would allow them to restrict who is allowed to adopt, according to section 18 of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs). The SORs were passed in 2007, and were ostensibly meant to prevent "discrimination," but have instead led to a culture of persecution against Christians and Christian organizations who hold to age-old beliefs about sexual morality.
Section 18 of the SORs states that a charitable group may restrict services based on sexual orientation if the reason for the restriction is based on the provisions of the charity.
Catholic Care attempted to add "the advancement of the Christian religion in accordance with the tenants of the Roman Catholic Church" and "The Charity shall only provide adoption services to heterosexuals and such services to heterosexuals shall only be provided in accordance with the tenets of the Church" to their provisions, in order to qualify for an exemption under the SORs.
The tribunal, however, said that a public adoption charity could not restrict adoption to homosexuals for religious reasons, even if based on the provisions of the charity. The result is an insurmountable impasse between the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the increasingly homosexualist and anti-Christian legal situation in the U.K. Now the charity faces the option of either violating its own beliefs, shutting down its adoption services, or losing its charity status and possibly facing discrimination complaints.
In its decision the tribunal reasoned that one section of the SORs cannot trump another section, and pointed to Section 15, which states that an adoption agency can restrict their services based on sexual orientation on religious grounds only until December 31, 2008. The Tribunal decided that the purpose of parliament in enacting section 15 would be negated if the agencies "were permitted to continue with identical activities" before and after the time limit passed.
The Tribunal said that "regulation 18 could not be relied upon by the Appellant [Catholic Care] to permit activity which was no longer permitted, or which was made unlawful, by another regulation."
Neil Addison, director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, who has argued in the past that the SORs do not in fact absolutely restrict Catholic adoption agencies from refusing to adopt to homosexuals, called the tribunal's statement a "fatuous remark." He asked rhetorically on his blog, "If reg 18 only applies to activities which are not covered by the SOR's anyway then why would any Charity need to rely on reg 18 at all?"
Addison commented on the lack of support from the local bishops for the charities in question, saying, "I certainly feel ... that had the Bishops really defended the Agencies as a Unit they might have been able to win but what they did was to leave them to sink or swim on their own, most sank and the few who tried to maintain a Catholic Adoption Service were frankly deserted."
"It is very sad that in the name of 'diversity' we are in fact destroying diversity by ensuring that their [sic] cannot be different agencies and organisations offering distinct and unique policies," he said.
See the Tribunal's Decision:
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/decisions.htm
The Sexual Orientation Regulations
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20071263_en_1
Related LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:
Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05053106.html
UK LABOUR GOVERNMENT PASSES HOMOSEXUAL ADOPTION
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/nov/02110411.html
UK Catholic Adoption Agencies Voluntarily Refuse Religious Opt-Out Clause for Homosexual Adoption
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112804.html
Catholic Adoption Agency Will Close Before Giving Children to Homosexual Parents, Bishop States
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07073003.html
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
A Good Journalist May Be Hard to Find, But Not a Late-Term Abortionist
By Peter J. Smith
WICHITA, Kansas, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In the aftermath of the murder of late-term abortionist, George Tiller, a number of media stories have reported that Tiller was one of only three remaining late-term abortionists in the United States. However the claim does not square up with numbers released by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and further evidence that indicates that late-term abortion has plenty of willing practitioners across the country.
The Associated Press called Tiller "one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions" on May 31. The AP stated, "Tiller's Women's Health Care Services clinic is one of just three in the nation where abortions are performed after the 21st week of pregnancy."
According to the New York Times, "Some described Dr. Tiller as one of about only three doctors in the country who had, under certain circumstances, provided abortions to women in their third trimester of pregnancy, and said his death would mean that women, particularly in the central United States, would have few if any options in such cases."
The Los Angeles Times called Tiller, "One of the few American physicians who performed late-term abortions." The Times added that "the doctor had always overcome the daunting legal and physical challenges of his work, terminating pregnancies of women and girls who were in the 22nd week of gestation or beyond."
However the fact is that statistics show that many doctors perform such late-term abortions in the United States. Tiller, on the other hand, was actually notorious for being among the few doctors willing to perform very late-term abortions, way past the point of viability, right up until birth.
Although no week demarcates the precise beginning of what is defined as a late-term abortion, the procedure is regarded as beginning in the second trimester, around the point of fetal viability outside the womb. In general, viability begins 21 weeks – although advances in medical technology and a number of cases show this number might actually be lower. If this figure is taken as a benchmark, then the statistics of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, indicate that late-term abortion is a very busy industry indeed.
Fr. Frank Pavone yesterday drew attention to this data on his blog where he wrote: "The Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) reports that abortions of pregnancies at 21 weeks or later comprise about 1.1 percent of the nation's abortions, which that same institute also indicates are in the area of 1.21 million."
A quick crunching of the numbers means that for the year 2005 (the latest available data from Guttmacher), 13,310 late-term abortions were performed in the United States. A corresponding CDC report (which does not include data from California and several states) reported that in Kansas – where Tiller conducted his grisly business - only 452 abortions of unborn children were performed at 21 weeks and beyond. This is a mere fraction of the total number, despite the fact that aborting children late in pregnancy was Tiller's avowed specialty.
The rest of these late-term abortions are performed at other abortion centers and hospitals across the country, which pro-life columnist Jill Stanek says are hardly an endangered species.
"The reality is late-term abortions are committed pretty much in every pocket of the country, contrary to claims by the other side," said Stanek on WorldNetDaily.com.
While a number of abortion facilities and hospitals perform late-term abortions, Tiller was among a handful who offered to perform very late-term abortions, even right before birth. One non-exhaustive listing of abortion providers listed at least six facilities that would perform abortions beyond 24 weeks, which is twice the number of late-term abortion providers the mainstream media have reported, whom they define as those performing abortions beyond 21-22 weeks.
Guttmacher spokeswoman Rebecca Wind told LifeSiteNews that while she had no specific information on Tiller's abortion practice, she stated, "the other two physicians who have been cited as performing abortions very late in pregnancy are Dr. Carhart in Nebraska and Dr. Hern in Colorado."
That may explain the media misapprehension that Tiller was one of three doctors providing simply late-term abortions, while in fact they were very late-term abortions in very advanced pregnancies.
Despite Tiller's death, his abortion facility in Wichita will once again be open for business. Dr. Leroy Carhart, a friend of Tiller and the abortionist behind two Supreme Court cases, Stenberg v. Carhart, and Gonzales v. Carhart, has said that he is leaving his abortion practice in Nebraska temporarily to continue providing very late-term abortions at the Tiller facility.
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
Senator Feinstein Assures Pro-Aborts: Sotomayor "Respects Precedent" Set by Roe v. Wade
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Judiciary committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday told reporters that Judge Sonia Sotomayor had satisfied her concern that the nominee to become the next Supreme Court judge would uphold liberal access to abortion as founded in Roe v. Wade.
Following a meeting with Sotomayor, who has spent the last two days at Capitol Hill meeting with senators, the pro-abortion senator admitted that the discussion broached the topic of abortion. Asked to elaborate on that topic, Feinstein praised Sotomayor's "respect for precedent."
"I think she is a woman who is well-steeped in the law and well-steeped in precedent," said Feinstein. "And I believe that she has a real respect for precedent, and that she was not just saying that. And if that is really true, then I would agree with her. And I believe it is."
Feinstein's words confirm earlier reports that point to pro-abortion proclivities in Obama's choice to replace retiring Supreme Court judge David Souter. While several pro-abortion groups have expressed concern that Obama's Sotomayor has not proven herself as a champion of abortion, Planned Parenthood, like Feinstein, had assured constituents of Sotomayor's fidelity to "precedent."
Feinstein also said that Sotomayor regretted the wording of her controversial statement decried by conservatives as revealing a "reverse racist" viewpoint.
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," Sotomayor had told an audience at the University of California-Berkeley Law School in 2001.
"She said, 'Obviously it was a poor choice of words, if you read on and read the rest of my speech you wouldn't be concerned with it, but it was a poor choice of words,'" Feinstein told reporters.
Conservative leaders such as Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, who had questioned Sotomayor's racism, have more recently softened their approach to Sotomayor. Limbaugh said his support for the nomination rested on the Catholic Latina judge proving that she is not hostile to the pro-life cause.
"I can see a possibility of supporting this nomination if I can be convinced that she does have a sensibility toward life in a legal sense," the radio guru told his audience today.
The Senate Judiciary committee has not yet scheduled hearings to examine the nominee. Though promising to look carefully at Sotomayor's record, leading GOP senators on Sunday indicated that the party was not planning a filibuster to block the nomination.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Is Sotomayor a "Souter" on Roe v. Wade for the Abortion Movement? All Signs Point to No
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09052904.html
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
Dick Cheney Voices Support for Same-Sex "Marriage"
By Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – If Republican Chairman Michael Steele did not have enough problems keeping the GOP's conservative coalition together, Dick Cheney's Monday endorsement of same-sex marriage did little to ameliorate the situation.
The former vice president stated Monday at the National Press Club that he supported same-sex unions, whether they be called "marriage" or otherwise.
"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney asserted in response to a question concerning the latest court rulings and legislation legalizing same-sex "marriage." Cheney mentioned the homosexual lifestyle of his daughter, Mary, who has a son conceived through an anonymous sperm donor. A 2007 White House photo announcement, however, obscured that fact, calling both Mary Cheney and her lesbian partner, Heather Poe, the child's parents (see coverage).
"I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish," said Cheney.
However, Cheney then qualified his position by reiterating that the federal government had no role in imposing same-sex "marriage" since "historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level."
"It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. ... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."
Cheney's statements at the National Press Club were not his first public support of same-sex unions. Throughout the campaign trail in 2004, Cheney refused to endorse President Bush's call for a Constitutional amendment limiting the definition of marriage to a man and a woman. Cheney also stated at a campaign rally in Iowa that his "general view is freedom means freedom for everyone" and added that "People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."
While Cheney no longer holds any sort of elected office or leadership position in the GOP, his words add to the frenzied debate over same-sex "marriage," and to the woes of a Republican Party that is struggling to find a unified voice to oppose President Barack Obama and the Democrats in the 2010 Congressional elections.
When asked about Cheney's statements on CNN's American Morning, GOP Chairman Michael Steele responded, "My personal view is that marriage is between a man and a woman," remarking that his opinion is "very much in line with what the President has said."
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
"Obsessional" Fear of Suffering Ushering in Euthanasia Culture: Prominent Bioethicist
"If the point of society is to make sure you don't suffer, that will often be making sure there aren't any sufferers."
By Kathleen Gilbert
LANSDOWNE, Virginia, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A culture that seeks to escape suffering and inconvenience at all costs will end by eliminating not only pain, but by ending the lives of those suffering or whose condition burden their families, warned bioethicist Wesley J. Smith this weekend.
Smith spoke at the Second International Euthanasia Symposium held at the National Conference Center in Lansdowne, Virginia. The symposium was hosted by Canada's Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Reflecting on the euthanasia agenda amid the modern advances of palliative care, Smith asked, "Why now?"
"We live in a time of - even despite the problems we're having - such tremendous prosperity," said Smith. "If you had a burst appendix 100 years ago, you died in agony. Today, people don't have to, at least in the developed world, die in agony."
Smith said he was further baffled after receiving piles of hate mail in 1993 for writing an article warning against euthanasia. "What happened to my culture, and where was I when it happened?" he mused.
Smith said he found the answer in the reflections of philosopher and bioethicist Yuval Levin, who stated: "Health has become the primary good for society ... not only as a beginning, but also as an end, relief and preservation from disease and pain, from misery and necessity, become the defining ends of human action and therefore human societies."
"The purpose of society had shifted from when I was growing up in my formative years," said Smith. "From the concept of justice, from the concept of eqality, mutual caring and mutual support, to - I would say - an obsessional fear and loathing and avoidance of not only suffering, but difficulty. ...
"It is distorting our culture ... into something that is not as compassionate as we should be, that is not as caring as we should be," said Smith. "If the point of society is to make sure you don't suffer, that will often be making sure there aren't any sufferers. Which isn't only about making sure the sufferer doesn't suffer, but putting the sufferer out of our misery."
"If we're going to defeat euthanasia and assisted suicide, we're going to have to recognize that for a lot of people, the principle of right and wrong don't matter anymore," said Smith. "What matters is making sure there isn't suffering. And that can lead to some very bad and dark places."
Smith told the story of a mentally ill, depressed woman who paramedics allowed to die after drinking antifreeze, because she had left a note asking not to be treated. Smith related the sentiments of her attending physician, who said: "It's a horrible thing to have to do, but I thought I had no alternative but to go with her wishes."
"Think about the kind of mental anguish somebody is going through to drink antifreeze, and to do it more than once," said Smith. Allowing her to die, he said, was "abandonment of the most profound kind."
"There are many things today that are better than in my formative years, racism being one of them," he continued, "but there are a lot of things that are not, and this is one of them: abandoning suffering people, mentally ill, mentally anguished people, to suicide."
In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com, Smith noted that an avoidance of suffering logically leads to "greater and greater extremes to try to prevent the suffering to the place where you end up preventing the sufferer." The current culture, he said, tries to prevent "not only the suffering of the patient, but the suffering of the family and the suffering of society who has to put up with these people, and see them or pay for them, and be reminded of our own mortality."
Smith called the current trend toward euthanasia "a rather desperate and sad attempt to avoid part of the human condition, which is difficulty and suffering." "If you took it to the full extreme, we'd all end up totally infantile, because the way people grow and gain wisdom is to go through difficulties," he said. "It's not the only way, but it's the essential way."
Although aware that such anti-humanistic policies as deep ecology and euthanasia are becoming mainstream, Smith said he was optimistic about the possibility of turning back the tide.
"This is not a shift that is a fait accompli, we are in the midst of what I call a 'coup d'culture,' but the coup has not succeeded, the contest is being waged," he said.
Smith urged those opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide to be proactive in asserting the sanctity and equality of human life.
"Unless people engage that with a clear eye that they're in a 'coup d'culture,' that they need to man the battlements and ramparts to keep the barbarians from getting through the gates, they'll get through the gates," said Smith. "And believe me, if these people get through the gates, they're not going to be gentle about 'tolerance' and 'freedom,' because that's not their gig. That's their gig when they're on the outside; when they're on the inside, their gig is power."
Related Links:
Wesley J. Smith's blog http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition website http://www.epcc.ca
To order DVDs of the Second International Symposium, contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Experts at International Euthanasia Symposium Stress Unity, Strategy, and the Triumph of Love over Suffering
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060204.html
"The Weekend Cleanup": The Gruesome Aftermath of Legalized Euthanasia in Belgium
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060109.html
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
"Pop Can" Miracle Baby Set to Go Home – Born at 12.5 Ounces
"There's a God in this world, and if it's meant to be, it will be" mother says to parents with similar difficulties.
By Patrick B. Craine
PITTSBURGH, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On March 12, parents Brittany Rideout and Adam Bouchat welcomed their beautiful and extraordinarily tiny little girl, Taylor Rideout, at Magee-Women's Hospital of UPMC in Pittsburgh. Born at 26 weeks gestation, Taylor was a mere 12.5 ounces or 350 grams, about the size of a pop can.
Ms. Rideout suffers from lupus, and about six weeks into the pregnancy she underwent two strokes and two seizures, says Mr. Bouchat in a video on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's website. She was hospitalized for a month. Then, two months after she was released, she was diagnosed with pre-eclampsia and HELLP syndrome. "Her blood pressure was sky-high and her liver was failing," said Mr. Bouchat.
Faced with the possibility of death for both mother and child, they chose to deliver baby Taylor at 26 weeks. According to Taylor's doctor, Dr. Jennifer Kloesz, the smallest babies they had delivered before Taylor were about 500 grams, but these babies were only 24 weeks gestation. Dr. Kloesz said that Taylor was about half the size of a normal 26-week baby.
"The reason that she's still here and is going to survive and be discharged is that she was 26 weeks," Dr. Kloesz said. "Her organ systems had developed more like a 26-weeker so that she was able to respond to our resuscitation."
Dr. Kloesz said that if Taylor had not been gestated so long, they might not have made the attempt. Referring to her being 26 weeks, she said, "That's kinda the main thing that makes her so different and why it was worth giving it a try, with her parents' wishes," continues Dr. Kloesz.
But Ms. Rideout urges parents facing similar difficulties never to give up, reports WXPI in Pittsburgh. "I would tell them," she said, "don't give up on their child if they're born small or have a disease or anything. There's a God in this world, and if it's meant to be, it will be."
Taylor is now 83 days old, and weighs 3 pounds. She has been transferred into a transitional unit for a couple weeks in preparation for leaving the hospital.
Her parents, of course, are overjoyed. "I was scared that she wasn't going to make it, but she made it, so it's great," said Ms. Rideout.
They are looking forward to bringing her home, but are grateful for the care she has received. "We're just really looking forward to the time we can bring her home. But we're just so thankful that she's here, though, and just getting the care and attention. So even if we can't have her home, we feel safe that she's here," said Mr. Bouchat.
"Despite all she's been through, she seems to be a very happy person," he said.
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
Third Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Ban on Bible-Reading in the Classroom
PHILADELPHIA, PA, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a 2-1 decision, a federal appeals court has ruled that school officials did not violate the free speech rights of a kindergartner and his mother when they refused to allow Donna Busch to read a selection from the Bible as part of a classroom "All About Me" program intended to spotlight her son Wesley and his favorite book, the Bible. In appealing to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had argued that school officials violated the Busches' First Amendment rights by discriminating against them based on the religious nature of the selected reading.
"By excluding religious expression, and Christian expression and symbols in particular, from the classroom, school officials have exhibited the kind of hostility toward religion that should never be found in an American public school," stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "If these situations continue, there will be absolutely no freedom for religious people in public schools in this country."
The case began in October 2004, when Donna Busch accepted an invitation to visit her son Wesley's kindergarten classroom at Culbertson Elementary School in Newtown Square, Penn., and read an excerpt of Wesley's favorite book to his classmates. Wesley's teacher had invited Mrs. Busch because Wesley was the featured student of "All About Me," a school program intended to feature a particular student during the week and emphasize that student's personal characteristics, preferences and personality in classroom activities.
One activity made available to all featured students during "All About Me" is the opportunity to have the child's parent read aloud from his or her favorite book. Wesley, a Christian, had chosen the Bible as his favorite book, and Mrs. Busch planned to read an excerpt from Psalm 118. However, on the day of the reading, Wesley's teacher directed Mrs. Busch not to read the passage until the principal had determined if it could be read to the class. When Principal Thomas Cook was summoned, he informed Mrs. Busch that she could not read from the Bible in the classroom because it was against the law and that the reading would violate the "separation of church and state."
In filing suit against the Marple Newtown school district in May 2005, Institute attorneys alleged that the reading incident was just one example of the school's efforts to suppress the right of Christians to freely express their religious beliefs. For example, although Mrs. Busch was not permitted to read from the Bible, another parent was allowed to read a book about Judaism; teach the class the dreidel game; and display a menorah in celebration of Hanukkah.
In upholding the lower court's ruling, the court of appeals held that "educators may appropriately restrict forms of expression in elementary school classrooms" even when they have invited speakers into the classroom.
"The public school setting may implicate the Establishment Clause, especially where public authority undertakes or is reasonably perceived to have undertaken to give one religious belief official approval or approval over other religious beliefs," Anthony Joseph Scirica, chief judge of the appeals court, wrote in his decision.
However, Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman issued a vigorous dissent, pointing out that the reading of a passage from Psalms to Wesley's class was within the subject matter of the "All About Me" unit, which was to highlight things of interest and important to Wesley, and the exclusion constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment because it was based solely upon its religious character.
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
UK Man Convicted after Trying to Stop Homosexual Sex in Public with Video Camera
By Hilary White and John Jalsevac
BOSTON, UK, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A UK man who became fed up with homosexuals meeting for sex in the local park, has received a suspended jail sentence for his attempts to shame them into stopping by using his video camera. Colin Anthony Haw, 47, of Mayflower Road, Boston, in Lincolnshire, was called a "vigilante" by the court who said his campaign to stop the activities of the local homosexual community was a threat to a "vulnerable" minority.
Haw, a self-employed mechanic and a father of two children, said that he had reported to police the ongoing activity in a wooded area near his home area, but that his complaints were ignored. He admitted to a public order offense after one man who had been filmed found the footage on the internet and complained to the police.
Haw was convicted by Boston Magistrates' Court and sentenced to four months in prison, suspended for a year and a half, and was given 200 hours community service.
Chairman of the bench Pat Walsh told Mr Haw, "Your actions were premeditated and quite deliberate in targeting a group of people we would describe as vulnerable.
"Our thoughts were to send you to custody but we are not going to do that today."
Despite Britain's public decency laws, homosexuals routinely meet for sex in public lavatories in parks and other public places such as bus stations, train stations, airports and University campuses, calling the activity by the slang term "cottaging."
"Guidance" released by the Deputy Chief Constable Michael Cunningham last year said that UK police officers should balance the law with the "human rights of those people who frequent open spaces for the purposes of having sexual relationships with other like-minded people." (See coverage here)
The guidance report by Cunningham complained that previous activity on the part of police officers to stop public sex has alienated the homosexual community. The report blames law enforcement for leading to homosexual "self-harm," citing the fact that some homosexuals have attempted suicide who "may have been arrested, charged or come into contact with the police in such a situation."
Outside of Court, Haw told the Daily Mail, "We didn't go in there to cause people harm. We reported it on several occasions to the police. We tried to name and shame them but we didn't have any intention of causing them distress. We didn't put up any pornographic material.
"In our videos in Boston we have also brought attention to all the rubbish and the drug users who have thrown their syringes on the floor.
"We were not out to cause any trouble. The police wanted it covered up.
"I've got nothing against homosexual people but what gives them the authority to do it in public?"
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
Christians in the UK Facing Increasing Official Discrimination: Poll
By Hilary White
LONDON, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A poll conducted by the Sunday Telegraph has found that thousands of Christians in Britain fear losing job promotions and are being harassed at work because of their religious beliefs. The poll has been released at the same time that reports that Britain is becoming increasingly hostile to Christian believers are increasing.
In the Telegraph poll, one in five said they had faced "opposition" at work because of their beliefs. Over half said they had suffered from some kind of "persecution" at work.
44 percent said they had been mocked by friends, neighbors or colleagues for being a Christian. 19 percent said they had been ignored or excluded for the same reason.
In recent months and years nurses, public officials, charity workers, foster parents and potential adoptive parents, policemen, teachers, and even school children in the U.K. have been sacked and threatened with legal action and job discipline for expressing their religious convictions. A great majority of these cases are those in which people who stand by the Christian belief in natural marriage have come into conflict with Britain's increasingly powerful homosexualist political lobby.
In January, a local council threatened to cut the funding of a nursing home for elderly Christian evangelists because residents had refused to relate their opinions on homosexuality. In a number of recent cases, potential foster parents and adoptive parents have been turned away by council authorities because of their faith-based opposition to the homosexual "lifestyle."
In May, the government's Equality ministers announced that Christian churches will be forced to hire active homosexuals as youth ministers even if their religion teaches that such activity is sinful. Despite efforts to include exemptions for religious groups, the Christian Institute says that the Labour government's Equality bill "dramatically narrows exemptions in sexual orientation employment laws which protect the religious liberty of churches and other faith groups."
The government has paid the anti-religious group the British Humanist Association (BHA) £35,000 to draw up "guidelines" for the Equality ministry. Andrew Copson, director of education at the BHA, said that sharing religious beliefs at work could be called harassment under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
He said, "The law specifically protects people from being intimidated or confronted with a hostile environment in the workplace.
"Systematically undermining someone's beliefs or persistently attempting to convert someone would lead to the creation of a hostile environment."
The group has encouraged the government actively to undermine the religious "ethos" of Britain's "faith schools." The BHA, responding to a letter in the Times newspaper, said that under the Equality bill they would be working to "pressure Parliament to outlaw religious discrimination in our schools."
Read LifeSiteNews.com's extensive coverage:
UK Secularists and Gays Demand Marginalization of Christians
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07040408.html
Christian U.K. Registrar Loses Right of Conscience on Same-Sex Civil Unions
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08121911.html
Another UK Couple Rejected for Fostering Children over Religious Beliefs on Homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022705.html
Christian Teacher Suspended after Questioning Homosexualist Training Program
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042708.html
Funding Cut for U.K. Christian Care Home Accused of "Institutionalised Homophobia"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09010804.html
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
Former Westminster Cardinal Won't Join Tony Blair Faith Foundation After All
By Hilary White
LONDON, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNew.com) – Until today, the website of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation (TBFF) still carried a note saying that Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor was expected to join their Advisory Council. But today a statement from the organization has said that the Cardinal will not join the Blair Foundation after all.
Parna Taylor from the Foundation told LifeSiteNews.com via e-mail, "We can totally understand Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor wanting to review his commitments" since his retirement. Taylor said that the Foundation had "always valued the private advice" given by the Cardinal.
"While they support the broad aims of the Foundation," Taylor continued, "we do not expect the Advisory Council members to agree with Tony Blair on every aspect of policy past or present. Their role is to provide advice and guidance, alongside many other senior religious figures who provide such insights on a less formal basis."
The Tablet news magazine reports that since Blair launched his Foundation in 2008, "it had been intended that the cardinal would join the advisory council once he had stepped down as Archbishop of Westminster."
It is unclear precisely why the Cardinal has reconsidered joining the Foundation. However, his plans to do so had been heavily criticised by many faithful Catholics and members of the life and family movement in Britain. Tony Blair, who was received into the Catholic Church by Cardinal O'Connor in December 2007, has been described by John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, as the "principal architect" of the culture of death in Britain during his decade as Prime Minister, largely on account of his support for abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
But Blair's stock with the Catholic Church seems to have fallen since the installation of Archbishop Vincent Nichols as the replacement of the long-serving Cardinal O'Connor. After Blair gave an interview to a homosexualist magazine in which he chastised Pope Benedict for refusing to change the Church's teaching on homosexuality, Nichols commented that the former Prime Minister's strong "political instincts" have not helped his understanding of his religion.
Nichols told the Times, "Maybe he lacks a bit of experience in Catholic life."
The Blair Foundation states that its purpose is "to promote respect and understanding about the world's major religions and show how faith is a powerful force for good in the modern world." Blair himself has described the work of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation as encouraging "faiths" to come together, overcoming differences in "doctrine." A large part of his work, he said, is to urge religious leaders to reinterpret "religious texts" metaphorically rather than literally. He said religious leaders need "to treat religious thought and even religious texts as themselves capable of evolution over time."
But Blair has been dispraised even by many on the left for his lack of depth as a religious leader.
In May, the Guardian's Hugh O'Shaughnessy wrote that the "wheels are coming off" Blair's religious project. O'Shaughnessy quoted Dr. Ghada Karmi of Exeter University who called him "at best – a total irrelevancy." O'Shaughnessy noted that having annoyed the Vatican, and given "the hostility – and ridicule – that the Blairs and their associates stir up" he is "increasingly unlikely to achieve his ambition of becoming president of the EU."
Stephen Pound, a Catholic Labour MP said that Blair's "hubris" is "extremely counterproductive."
"Entrance to the Vatican is only gained through a series of iron-clad, hermetically sealed, heavily padlocked and bolted doors, and I can hear them creaking shut as we speak."
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Following Blair Attacks on Pope/Catholic Church, Announcement that Westminster Cardinal Will Join Tony Blair Faith Foundation
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09040904.html
British Clergy Say Blair Must Renounce Anti-Life, Anti-Family Views Before Becoming Catholic
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07112907.html
Blair Championing Religion in Westminster Cathedral Leaves Catholics Outraged
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08040311.html
Tony Blair "Not a Good Guide to the Teachings of the Catholic Church": New Archbishop of Westminster
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09052505.html
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
Interview with Brazil Archbishop over Excommunication of Abortion Doctors
Interview with Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife, Brazil
June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Note: The following is an interview with Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, of Olinda and Recife, Brazil, by French journalist Jeanne Smits. The interview appeared originally in French in the newspaper Present, and was republished in her blog in English. Mrs. Smits has kindly granted LifeSiteNews permission to reprint the article in its entirety.
Q: In the wake of the Recife affair, the Osservatore Romano publicly rejected your declarations on the automatic excommunication of those who chose abortion for the little girl and those who carried it out. Since then a tendency has appeared in the media suggesting that Church teaching has changed as to determining whether abortion when the mother's life is in danger or in other particular circumstances is wrong, whether it is sinful. On the other hand, media lies on important points in the case have been plentiful, even though many people have expressed admiration for your attitude. Could your Excellency tell us what really happened?
A: First of all I want to express my very profound gratitude to all those who expressed support. I received hundreds of messages of solidarity from the world over: priests, bishops, lay people, approving my decision to speak out clearly on the law of the Church. I received the "Human Life International" cardinal Von Galen prize, and very recently the Pro Vida association of São Paolo also attributed its prize to me. Thanks be to God, many people approve of what I did.
There are some people, however, in France, in Canada … including bishops, who wrote articles or public letters to state their disapproval. In a spirit of dialogue, I would like to say that is wrong to say that we – that is to say myself and the parish priest of the pregnant little girl – did not give her the special attention she needed. We gave her every attention and every care. What has unfortunately been published is simply not true: we did everything that was in our power to help.
Some, when they speak about the publicity surrounding this affair, affirm that it was not "timely" to speak of excommunication. I do not agree with that point of view. They were practically telling me that we should have forgotten what Canon Law says concerning excommunication. My opinion is different. I say that this law exists for the good of the Church. And that it was not I who excommunicated anyone, as I have repeated countless times. Those who accuse me say that it is I who "excommunicated", and that's totally false; I simply drew attention to a law that exists in the Church, canon 1398. And I ask: is it appropriate to remain silent, as many claim? Would it have been better that I not speak at all about excommunication? Well, I answer that I do not agree. It is a law of the Church for the good of the Church. It has existed for many centuries. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983 be the Servant of God Pope John Paul II, reiterates this law. In the same way the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by the same pope in 1992, repeats and comments on this law. Would it have been better to keep silent? Well, in my opinion, it is of the highest importance to draw everyone's attention, especially that of the Catholic faithful, to the gravity of the crime of abortion. That is the reason why the law exists.
We, in our diocese, have received so many messages from so many people who have told me "Now, I better understand the gravity of abortion, and I will change my conscience." In my opinion, the act of the drawing attention to the existence of this excommunication produces a spiritual benefit among the Catholic faithful. But it also benefits others, who apparently perform abortions with their minds at rest and who will from now on, I trust, weigh in their conscience the gravity of what they are doing. That is the final goal of this law of the Church, of this penalty of excommunication: it is medicinal. It is a remedy in view of the conversion of all. For the person who incurs it, it is a means to make him understand that he will have to answer for his act before God. With the Church, we desire that every single person, even those who follow the path of error, may come to live according to the law of God. We do not want the eternal condemnation of anyone. In my opinion, silence – not speaking of excommunication – would cause grave damage to the Church.
But there is something more serious, I have the impression that among those who spoke against me, some are practically insinuating that it would be better to abrogate the canon on excommunication. But the Church does not believe this. The Church maintains this law, because it is necessary for the common good of the Church, when it comes to very grave offences, that there is a clear law, and that this law be applied. These are principles of great importance. For me, silence would be equivalent to complicity. We know – all the international media say so – that there are up to 50 million abortions each year, worldwide. Here in Brazil, the number quoted is about one million each year. In conscience, I feel certain that it is necessary to speak, to waken people's conscience, because silence can be construed as approval.
Q: I recently interviewed Prof. Josef Seifert who took your defence in the media. He described excommunication as an act of charity toward the persons who incur it, as it makes them realize the damage done to their spiritual life. Would you use that expression?
A: It is a spiritual remedy. The Church is invested with a mission, which is to bring all men to eternal salvation, and to make them live in the grace of God. It is a fact that there are people who perform abortions with their minds at rest and who say just as calmly that they will continue. We, as Catholics, and above all as pastors of the Church, cannot remain silent, as if this were all well and good. This is why I repeat that not speaking up, not drawing attention to the gravity, to the seriousness of the problem, and above all to the fact that the Church, for the common good, applies this penalty, would be complicity. It would practically amount to accepting this grave situation.
Here in Brazil, we are in the process of preparing a law to legalize abortion. We Catholics must speak out first on moral responsibility. Evidently, there are Catholics in our Parliament who defend the law of God, but there are others who defend this bill, beginning with the president of the Republic. We cannot remain silent!
Q: When you spoke of the automatic excommunication of the mother of the pregnant child and of the doctors who took part in the abortion, did you do so before or after it had been committed?
A: I talked about that before and after the abortion, as the note of the archdiocese of Recife to Mgr Fisichella clearly stated: on March 3rd, the day before the abortion, I told journalists about the "medicinal penalty" of canon 1398. Unfortunately the article of mgr Fisichella states that the first time I talked to the press about this affair I talked only about excommunication. That is absolutely false. I expressed myself several times because this affair of a nine year-old pregnant girl attracted widespread media attention. Above all, we did all that depended on us to save three lives: not only the life of the little girl, but the three lives. When the abortion finally did take place, I simply recalled once more the law of the Church. Any person who – in full conscience, of course – commits an abortion is excommunicated. That was the meaning of my declaration.
Q: Is it true that the little girl was rachitic or that she was suffering from malnutrition?
A: No, not at all! The pregnant little girl, even when she was taken to hospital, was living with other children with whom she played like a normal child.
Q: Did she know that she was pregnant, and that she was expecting two children?
A: Yes, of course! Not only did she know it, but she had even said that one of the babies would be for a member of her family, and the other for her so that they could play together. We were to learn later that there were two little girls…
Q: It has been said that the legitimate father of the little girl, who was opposed to the abortion, was en evangelical Christian. Is this true?
A: Yes, that is true, he is not a Catholic. However he was with us totally. I had him at my house for a whole day; he did not accept the abortion.
Q: There must have been very much emotion…
A: Yes. He came from his little town of Alagoinha which is 230 km distant from here. He stayed with us: with me, with Father Edson Rodriguez who is his parish priest, with my lawyer, with the president of the law courts here to see whether it was possible to stop the abortion by legal means. But as you know the abortion was performed after the child was taken without our knowledge to a "health center" which habitually performs abortions.
Q: Were there any street demonstrations against the abortion outside the clinic where the little girl was originally placed?
A: None at all. But in the newspapers and on television there was a lot of pressure in favour of the abortion, and as you know several "feminist" organizations intervened to obtain the abortion.
Q: Was the little girl ever at risk of dying?
A: No, never. The doctors stated this to me most explicitly.
Q: But if she had been in danger of dying, would the abortion have been justified?
A: That possibility was very clearly anticipated by the doctors. They hoped that when six months of pregnancy would be reached, it would be possible to make a C-section. But as the "feminist" groups wanted an abortion, they came to the IMIP (Mother and child institute of Pernambuco) where the child was hospitalized in order to take her to the other "health center" where the abortion was performed within hours of her arrival. They took her in the evening and all was over next day by 10 AM. It is well known here that this "health center" is habitually dedicated to performing abortions. It is very important to me to recall that the doctors who committed the abortion declared that they had been performing abortions for a long time, and with "pride" at that. And they affirm that they will continue. We cannot remain silent in the face of that. And there is so much less reason to say there was "doubt" in this case, as Msr Fisichella unfortunately writes. He said that nobody knows whether the doctor, in the moment of action, didn't have "doubts" on what he should or should not do. We know the opposite is true: these doctors declared publicly that they practice abortion as part of their lives and have no "doubts" at all on the matter. They want to go on.
Of course there are other Catholic doctors here who say, on the contrary, that they perform no abortions because they believe in God and respect His law.
Q: Would your Excellency have reacted differently if the little girl had really been in danger of dying?
A: No, not at all. We know that even when there is danger of death abortion is never permitted. That is God's law, as the Church proclaims it. Even in face of this danger, the natural evolution of the situation should have been waited for, trying all the while to save the three lives. This is a fundamental principle of God's law and also of natural law: the end does not justify the means. My objective can be very excellent: to save the life of the pregnant girl. But the means to reach this end can never be to suppress two innocent lives. That is a natural principle which human reason can understand.
To give an example which is easy to understand here in Brazil: if I want to find food for the poor – and we have so many here – that does not allow me to hold up a bank, to take other people's money to do a work of charity. And as my team of councilors said – the general vicar, my catholic lawyer and the other signatories of the text I was talking of earlier – it is not up to us to change God's law, even if public opinion is following another path. Our mission, our so-important mission is to proclaim it for the benefit of all, even in cases like this when it is not easy.
It must be understood: since the very first centuries of the church, there have been laws on excommunication in the Church. They seek to protect the common good of the ecclesial society: it is for this reason that we need a canon law; the juridical aspect of the Church as a human society is indispensable. We cannot simply hope that each person follows his conscience. Evidently, the Church must first of all take care of the spiritual life of each person, but the common good, in the technical sense, is also very important: it consists in an adequate environment in which each may live peaceably. The penalties foreseen by the Code in canon law also have this goal.
Q: Have you heard what is being said about Mgr Fisichella: that he wrote his note while being "deluded" and "forced" to do so?
A: This information reached me indirectly. Certain persons in Brazil, including bishops, called Mgr Fisichella, and they tell me that that was his response: that he followed the indications of hierarchic superiors.
The fact is that today the international press has come to the point where it is saying that the Church agrees with "therapeutic" abortions. This seems to me a very grave situation: how can one fight against this?
It is our mission always to proclaim the law of God. You know that in Africa, Pope Benedict spoke out clearly on moral issues and that the press, particularly in France, did not accept it. But that is and remains the mission of the Church: we cannot remain silent for reasons of social acceptability. Within democratic liberty, which is a good thing, trying to legitimize, even within the limits of the law, customs or actions which go against the law of God would be abusive. Our mission, the Church's mission, is to proclaim the law of God and the Gospel of Jesus-Christ, even if it isn't easy.
Q: Are your relations with your fellow-bishops in Brazil good?
A: Very good. Two weeks ago we were all at the National assembly of bishops in São Paolo; all the bishops with whom I talked approve my position, not one is against me. On the other hand, I read the texts of several French bishops. It seems to me they were not aware of all the circumstances. They read Mgr Fisichella's article and believed that to be the truth.
Q: Perhaps they are now in a position to realize that they reacted to false information. But how does one mend?
A: It seems to me important that L'Osservatore Romano should publish my response. This is what we are trying to obtain, as we have been from the start. We sent the archdiocese's response to Mgr Fisichella's article to Rome. It's a natural right to be allowed to respond if someone has been publishing false information, for who knows which motive: the readers of the Osservatore should also be in a position to know the other point of view.
As for myself, my conscience is at peace. I did not expect nor did I wish for these repercussions which have taken on an international dimension. I repeat that the common good of the Church requires these latae sententiae laws, which serve as permanent warnings and which she will never abrogate. She has always condemned abortion and she always explained why: it does not only hurt the person, it damages society. Today, I repeat that there are 1 million abortions every year in Brazil, 50 million the world over: our silence would be equivalent to consent.
Thank you for letting me set out these points which seem to me important for the spiritual good of souls. Please tell the readers of Présent that I willingly send them my blessing.
Back to Top |
Print this Story |
Email to a Friend |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.
Comments, questions, or news tips: lsn@lifesitenews.com
Search LifeSite - http://www.lifesitenews.com/search/
Subscribe - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/subscribe/
Unsubscribe - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/unsubscribe/
Change subscription information - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/subscribe/update/
Subscribe friends - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/subscribe/gift/
Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at http://www.lifesitenews.com/donate/
