New Sins? Huh?

Sometimes the media makes me laugh, sometimes they make me cry. Today there was a little of both.

Imagine my shock when I found out that the Catholic Church considers abortion, contraception, and drug dealing to be sins. Oh and not just sins, they are NEW sins. Yep, that is what the Fox News headline said.

If you haven't heard of this before, you must be living under a rock because the media is eating it up. In reality, it is sheer foolishness. The things mentioned have always been sins, especially contraception and abortion.

Also, the portrayal of this as being an official Vatican proclamation seems to be the exaggeration of the year. It is not an official proclamation, and it does not come from the Pope. It was a simple interview which for some reason has exploded into a firestorm. The message of the interview is nothing new!

As for the ecological sins, when the world was created God entrusted humanity with the responsibility of caring for it. So yes, abusing and destroying the earth is a sin...and always has been.

Want the real story? CNS has a good article.

Catholic World News has an even better one. Emphasis mine.

When he finished his interview with L'Osservatore Romano, Archishop Gianfranco Girotti probably thought that his main message had been an appeal to Catholics to use the sacrament of Confession. Little did he know that the English-language news media would play the interview as a newly revised list of sins.

Archbishop Girotti, the regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, spoke to the Vatican newspaper about "new forms of social sin" in our era. He mentioned such transgressions as destructive research on human embryos, degradation of the environment, and drug trafficking. Within hours, dozens of media sources were suggesting that the Vatican had radically revised the Ten Commandments, issuing a list of "new sins."

[...]

When a second-tier Vatican official gives a newspaper interview, he is not proclaiming new Church doctrines. Archbishop Girotti was obviously trying to offer a new, provocative perspective on some enduring truths. The effort backfired-- but in a very revealing way.

An ordinary reader, basing his opinion only on the inane Telegraph coverage, might conclude that a "sin," in the Catholic understanding, is nothing more than a violation of rules set down by a group of men in Rome. If these rules are entirely arbitrary, then Vatican officials can change them at will; some sins will cease to exist and other "new sins" will replace them. But that notion of sin is ludicrous.

Sin is an objective wrong: a violation of God's law. What is sinful today will be sinful tomorrow, and a deadly sin will remain deadly, whether or not Telegraph editors recognize the moral danger. The traditional list of deadly sins remains intact; nothing has replaced it. Greed, gluttony, and lust are as wrong today as they were a day or a year or a century ago. If Archbishop Girotti referred to "new" sins, it is because some of the offenses he named (such as genetic manipulation) were impossible in the past, and others (such as international drug trafficking) are much more prevalent today, in a global society. Insofar as people could have engaged in these activities a century ago, they would have been sinful then as well.

A sin is not a sin because simply an archbishop proclaims it so. Sin, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us, "is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience…" The precepts of "reason, truth, and right conscience" do not shift in response to political trends, nor do they change at the whim of Vatican officials.

The fundamental point of the L'Osservatore Romano interview was that Catholics need to recover a sense of sin, make use of the sacrament of Confession, and receive absolution for their offenses. Sin, the archbishop insisted, is a reality that man cannot escape.

Update: Welcome to everyone coming from the CNN link.

Portuguese Medical Association Supports Life

Sometimes things happen which make me proud of my heritage. This is one of them.

From LifeSiteNews.com

The Portuguese Medical Association, defying threats by the socialist government's health minister to begin criminal proceedings against it, has re-elected its president, Pedro Nunes, who has defied the government's order to change the Association's ethical code to allow abortion.

In his victory speech, Nunes promised to maintain the independence of the Medical Association from the government, signaling his resolve to preserve the association's ethical code.

The Association does not "have to do the work of the government nor the work of the opposition," said Nunes, and added that his organization should not fear to criticize what it believes to be worthy of criticism. "Doctors are on the side of the Portuguese," he said.

The Portuguese code of ethics states that "doctors must maintain respect for human life from its beginning", and "the practice of abortion or euthanasia constitutes a grave ethical failure".

Following the government's decision to decriminalize all first-trimester abortions in 2007, socialist health minister Antonio Correia de Campos ordered the Medical Association to eliminate the prohibition against abortion from its ethical code in October. He was supported by the Portuguese Attorney General, who had issued a legal opinion condemning the passages.

However, Nunes refused, insisting that it was an internal matter, and that the government had no authority to intervene in the affairs of the Association. Although Correia claimed he was filing a criminal complaint in November, no action has yet been taken against the group.

The group's presidential election was seen as a referendum on the abortion issue, because Nunes was the only candidate who promised from the beginning to maintain the ethical code. His main rival, Miguel Leão, wanted to change to code to comply with the government's demands.

The issue of the ethical code made the recent elections the most intense and bitter in memory. Although Nunes' pro-abortion rival garnered the most votes in the first round, the January 17th runoff between Leão and Nunes resulted in Leão's resounding defeat, 56 to 44 percent.

Nunes' current term will last until 2010.

A Mother, A Father, and an Unborn Baby

As I am sure you all know, today is the 35th anniversary of the tragedy called Roe vs. Wade. I will commemorate the anniversary here by telling my story.

4 years ago, on January 13th I got wonderful news. After many years of infertility, my husband and I were going to have a baby. Our joy was indescribable, but like the road to conception, the path of this pregnancy would take us through trials I never imagined.

My first ultrasound was scheduled for February 3rd. I had no idea what to expect, but I didn't think I would see much on the little screen. I was wrong! Only 4 week and 4 days after conception, the ultrasound tech pointed out all the parts of this tiny human, arms, legs, face, heart. I watched arms and legs move and saw a tiny heart beating and pumping blood though this beautiful human being. My husband and I were in awe and when we got into the car he began to cry. I asked him why and his response was, "It's a baby. How can anyone have an abortion and kill a little baby like that". We sat in the car together and wept for all the children like the one growing within me that the world has lost. It didn't take much to see that it was a baby.

A little over two weeks later, at 7 weeks after conception I had another ultrasound. This machine wasn't as good as the other machine, so the images weren't as clear, but it was still clear to my husband and I. This was a human! Still, I had no idea the twists and turns which were in store for me.

I refused most of the prenatal tests which I was pressured to allow because I didn't want to be placed in a position where I was tempted to make a decision that I didn't want to make. That may sound dumb, but I knew that if there was something wrong, I would be pressured by family, friends and society in general to abort. To me not having to make the decision meant I couldn't make the wrong choice. Despite my best efforts, God had other plans.

17 weeks after conception, I had another ultrasound. This time there was no doubt. I watched him smile, purse his lips, and even scratch his head. This was when I discovered that this beautiful child was a boy. We named him immediately. A few days later we got devastating news: I needed to get a special ultrasound because there was a kidney deformity. I scheduled an appointment with the perinatologist and had another ultrasound. Once again I saw JP's beautiful features on the screen. Then we met with the doctor. He explained what was wrong and that it could correct itself or could be surgically repaired after birth, or even in utero if necessary. Then she began to tell us that this was a marker for Down Syndrome. She presented all sorts of statistics, then handed my pamphlets on abortion. "I'm going to step out while you decide what you want to do", she said. My husband and I just looked at each other, we both knew this baby was going to be born.

When the doctor returned we told her that we were not aborting. She said, "We can do it right now. You don't even have to come back. Let me explain to procedure to you and I'll give you a few more minutes." I said, "No, I am not getting an abortion". Then she said, Well, take the papers home, look them over, and call me back. Take your time, you don't have to decide today". My husband stood up, threw the pamphlets on the desk and said, "What part of this don't you get? No abortion! We already told you no. Don't ask us again. We aren't killing our baby!"

The doctor didn't get it because she repeated, "I understand that is how you feel now, but you can always change your mind." He said, "Don't worry we won't and we won't be back" and we stormed out of the office. The doctor and the staff seemed puzzled. I wondered how many people they had pressured into abortions they didn't want to have.

The craziest part of the story is that there was only a 5% chance of Down Syndrome. 5% chance! That means there was a 95% chance of everything being just fine.

JP was born 18 weeks later, and he was very sick. However, it didn't have anything to do with either Down Syndrome or his kidneys. It turned out that he had neither problem. JP was very sick because an overdose of Pitocin which was given to speed labor. JP was born without a heartbeat. The doctors worked frantically to resuscitate him. Ironic that they used the word resuscitation because that implies admission that he had been alive prior to birth. There was no ontological change which occurred during the birth process except the change from alive to dead and alive again. It was a traumatic week as I watched this little boy suffer attached to machines which kept him alive, countless tests, and simply being separated from him.

He survived everything without any damage. He is a beautiful, perfect, intelligent three year old who is sitting next to me right now trying to add to this post. I could have missed out on playing with trucks, sloppy kisses, tight hugs, and muddy shoes if I had listened to that doctor who was completely wrong both morally and medically.

Father, Grandfather, Brother, Father

Huh?

A 72 year old British man is going to father his own grandchild thanks to IVF. His son and daughter-in-law are going to be the parents, so the child's brother is also going to be his father. Ummm, but his grandfather is also his father.

...and people think this is a good idea?

Read about it here.

Importance of Natural Moral Law

This morning the Pope received members of the International Theological Commission, who have just completed their annual plenary meeting, held in the Vatican from October 1 to 5 under the presidency of Cardinal William Joseph Levada.

In his remarks to them, the Holy Father recalled the recent publication of a commission document on the subject of "the hope of salvation for children who die without receiving Baptism," and expressed the wish that it may "continue to be a useful point of reference for pastors of the Church and for theologians," as well as providing "assistance and consolation for the faithful who have suffered the sudden death of a child before receiving" the Sacrament.

Turning to focus on "natural moral law," a question being examined by the commission, Benedict XVI indicated that the doctrine on natural law "achieves two essential aims: on the one hand, it makes it clear that the ethical content of Christian faith is not an imposition dictated from outside man's conscience, but a norm that has its basis in human nature itself; and on the other hand, by starting from the basis of natural law - which of itself is accessible to all rational creatures - it lays the foundations for dialogue with all men and women of good will, and with civil society more generally."

The Pope then highlighted the fact that nowadays "the original evidence for the foundations of human beings and of their ethical behavior has been lost, and the doctrine of natural moral law clashes with other concepts which run directly contrary to it. All this has enormous consequences on civil and social order."

What dominates today, he continued, "is a positivist conception of law" according to which "humanity, or society, or in effect the majority of citizens, become the ultimate source for civil legislation. The problem that arises is not, then, the search for good but the search for power, or rather the balance of power. At the root of this tendency is ethical relativism, in which some people even see one of the principal conditions for democracy because, they feel, relativism guarantees tolerance and mutual respect. ... But if this were true, the majority at any given moment would become the ultimate source for law, and history shows with great clarity that majorities can make mistakes."

"When," the Holy Father proceeded, "the fundamental essentials are at stake: human dignity, human life, the institution of the family and the equity of the social order (in other words the fundamental rights of man), no law made by men and women can subvert the norm written by the Creator in man's heart without society itself being dramatically struck ... at its very core. Thus natural law is a true guarantee for everyone to live freely and with respect for their dignity, protected from all ideological manipulation and from all arbitrary abuses of the powerful. No one can disregard this appeal.

"If," he added, "by reason of a tragic clouding of the collective conscience, skepticism and ethical relativism managed to annul the fundamental principles of natural moral law, the very democratic order itself would be profoundly undermined at its foundations. Against such clouding - which is a crisis for human, even more than for Christian, civilization - the consciences of all men and women of good will must be mobilized, both lay people and followers of religions other than Christianity, so that together they may make an effective commitment to creating ... the conditions necessary for a full awareness of the inalienable value of natural moral law."

Benedict XVI concluded by stressing that "the advance of individuals and of society along the path of true progress" depends upon respect for natural moral law, "in conformity with right reason, which is participation in the eternal Reason of God."
VIS

The Truth of Pope John Paul's Death

In an article published in MicroMega, an Italian periodical, Dr. Lina Pavanelli claims that Pope John Paul II and his doctors disregarded Church teaching by using a form of euthanasia to accelerate the pontiff’s death. This shocking claim reached the mainstream American media though an article in Time magazine, under the sensational title “Was John Paul II Euthanized?”. These articles are inaccurate because of Dr. Pavanelli’s, method of diagnosis, dismissal of the reported cause of death, misunderstanding of the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding life support, and intentions.

Dr. Pavanelli, a professor of intensive care medicine, claims that Pope John Paul II should have received a feeding tube weeks before his death. She has published this claim even though she never had access to either Pope John Paul II or his medical records. She openly admits that her claims are based on information she gained though media reports, watching the pope on television, and from a book written by the Pope’s doctor. Although doctors are not allowed to diagnose through these methods, Dr. Pavanelli not only makes a diagnosis, she accuses the pope of suicide. According to the article in Time, Dr. Pavanelli believes that the pope’s doctors recommended a feeding tube, but he refused the procedure, which she claims amounts to suicide in the opinion of the Church. On May 30, 2005, a Vatican press release stated that the pope had been given a feeding tube, but she claims that it was inserted too late. It has been argued that if Pope John Paul II intended suicide, a feeding tube would not have been inserted at any point. Furthermore, in a press conference given on September 26, 2007, the Vatican announced that the feeding tube had been inserted much earlier, but it was not reported to the media until later. In response, Dr. Pavanelli revised her accusations and now claims that the feeding tube provided was the wrong type. Because she was not present and does not have access to the pope’s medical records, these claims do not have any basis in fact.

Nonetheless, Dr. Pavanelli also claims that Pope John Paul “died for reasons that were clearly not mentioned. […] the incapacity to swallow.” All official reports state that Pope John Paul II died from septic shock and cardiovascular collapse. This was not the result of either starvation or dehydration. The incapacity to swallow and the difficulty breathing which he suffered are both symptoms of his advanced Parkinson’s disease. Difficulty breathing creates a greater risk of infection and physically weakens the patient. A tracheotomy was performed to help the pontiff breathe easier. If suicide had been his intention, he would have refused the tracheotomy.

The most disturbing aspect of the articles are the misrepresentations of the teaching of the Catholic Church. The article in Time claims that “Catholics are enjoined to pursue all means to prolong life.” This statement is false and does not appear in any document of the Catholic Church. On the contrary, article 2278 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

“Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted.”

Despite that, the dying can be allowed to suffer from starvation or dehydration. Just weeks before the publication of the MicroMega article, the Vatican released a document entitled Responses to Certain Questions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Concerning Artificial Nutrition and Hydration. The document states:

"The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented."

While some may interpret that passage to mean that Catholics are obliged to provide feeding tubes at all costs, the Declaration on Euthanasia which was approved by Pope John Paul II in 1980 states:

“When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted”

The Catholic Church teaches that feeding tubes only need to be used when they are necessary and useful. In the case of a dying person, they are to be used to ensure the comfort of the patient. That seems to be exactly what the pope’s doctors did.

Despite appearances, the pope is not the real center of this controversy. He is simply the target which Dr. Pavanelli and MicroMega have chosen. This article is really about Piergiorgio Welby, an Italian man with muscular dystrophy who died after being taken off life support. Mr. Welby was not allowed to have a Catholic funeral because his death was seen by Church law as an act of suicide. The difference between Pope John Paul II and Piergiorgio Welby is that Pope John Paul II was actively dying. Earlier insertion of a feeding tube would not have prevented the pope’s death, but Mr. Welby could have lived for some time if his life support had not been removed. In that way, Mr. Welby’s death was directly caused by the removal of the life support system. Dr. Pavanelli and MicroMega have been vocal supporters of Mr. Welby’s decision. This is simply an attempt to promote their cause.

Through her unsubstantiated accusations and gross misinformation, Dr. Pavanelli has broken the physician’s credo of “First, do no harm”. She has harmed the integrity of the medical profession, the reputation of Pope John Paul II, and the knowledge of all those who do not have expertise in Catholic teaching on end of life issues. Her arguments are not cogent because they are not based on knowledge of the patient, they ignore many disclosed facts, and present an inaccurate view of Church teaching. Moreover, she does not openly disclose her true intentions. I am disappointed that Time has given Dr. Pavanelli a means to promote her message without questioning its factuality.

Read more on this topic here:
Fr. Jonathan Morris
LifeSite News

The Seven Year Marriage

For better, for worse, in sickness and in health, for the next seven years. Doesn't quite sound right? Well, one Bavarian politician thinks that is how marriage should be.

From News 24:

Bavaria's most glamorous politician -- a flame-haired motorcyclist who helped bring down state premier Edmund Stoiber -- has shocked the Catholic state in Germany by suggesting marriage should last just 7 years.

Gabriele Pauli, who poses on her web site in motorcyle leathers, is standing for the leadership of Bavaria's Christian Social Union (CSU) -- sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) -- in a vote next week.

She told reporters at the launch of her campaign manifesto Wednesday she wanted marriage to expire after seven years and accused the CSU, which promotes traditional family values, of nurturing ideals of marriage which are wide of the mark.

"The basic approach is wrong ... many marriages last just because people believe they are safe," she told reporters. "My suggestion is that marriages expire after seven years."

After that time, couples should either agree to extend their marriage or it should be automatically dissolved, she said.

Fifty-year-old Pauli, twice divorced, is a maverick intent on shaking up her male-dominated and mainly Catholic party which has dominated Bavarian politics since World War Two.

"This is about bringing ideas into the CSU and starting a discussion," she told German television Thursday after she had unleashed a wave of criticism from other politicians.

Former foe Stoiber said she did not belong in the CSU and European lawmaker Ingo Freidrich dismissed her views.

"She is diametrically contradicting our Christian, ethical values," Freidrich said.

Peter Ramsauer, head of the CSU in Germany's parliament, compared Pauli's ideas to "the dirt under your fingernails."

Banning the HPV Vaccine

Poor reporting strikes again. On first glance it seems that the Diocese of Hamilton is planning to expel students who recieve the HPV vaccine, but that is not the case. This actually isn't newsworthy since it only states that school nurses are not allowed to administer the vaccine in the school. Since when did kids get vaccinated at school anyway? Leave it to Canada to come up with weird ideas. See what free health care comes with.

Also, the HPV vaccine doesn't prevent cervical cancer because although HPV is the primary cause, it is not the only cause of cervical cancer.

From 680 News:

The Halton Catholic School Board could become the first in the province to ban female students from receiving the HPV vaccine.

Trustees with the board will vote tonight on whether public health nurses should be allowed to administer the vaccine in its schools, according to a report in the Hamilton Spectator.

The human papilloma virus vaccine is offered to Grade 8 girls in Ontario, as a way to prevent cervical cancer in their future.

The ban could also cover the public health unit from counselling or giving advice on the vaccine to any student on board property.

Thou Must Feed

Made public today was a response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to certain questions raised by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops concerning artificial nutrition and hydration. The replies were approved by the Holy Father during an audience granted to Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the congregation. The text of the responses has been published in its Latin original and in English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Polish and Portuguese.

"First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a 'vegetative state' morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient's body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?

"Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.

"Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a 'permanent vegetative state,' may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?

"Response: No. A patient in a 'permanent vegetative state' is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means."

An English-language note accompanying the responses indicates that: "When stating that the administration of food and water is morally obligatory 'in principle,' the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not exclude the possibility that, in very remote places or in situations of extreme poverty, the artificial provision of food and water may be physically impossible, and then 'ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.' However, the obligation to offer the minimal treatments that are available remains in place, as well as that of obtaining, if possible, the means necessary for an adequate support of life. Nor is the possibility excluded that, due to emerging complications, a patient may be unable to assimilate food and liquids, so that their provision becomes altogether useless. Finally, the possibility is not absolutely excluded that, in some rare cases, artificial nourishment and hydration may be excessively burdensome for the patient or may cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed.

"These exceptional cases, however, take nothing away from the general ethical criterion, according to which the provision of water and food, even by artificial means, always represents a 'natural means' for preserving life, and is not a 'therapeutic treatment.' Its use should therefore be considered 'ordinary and proportionate,' even when the 'vegetative state' is prolonged."

VIS

Read the document here and the commentary here.

Living in The Culture of Death

On Wednesday my professor presented an interesting class activity. We were to break into groups and discuss several issues regarding medical ethics. We never made it past the first question.

Question 1) You and your spouse are expecting a child. A genetic test after the first trimester detects problems in the growth of the fetus. The results suggest that the child will most likely develop cystic fibrosis, a painful incurable condition, which usually results in death by the time a child is in her early teens. Do you terminate the pregnancy? Why or why not?

There were five students in my group. Two women and three men. We were a diverse group made up of people from different races and backrounds. I was the oldest in the group, by at least eight years.

The responses of my classmates shocked me. I imagined there would be differing viewpoints, but I didn't expect to be the only person on the side of life. When we were debating the first question, one 18 year old girl's comment particularly shocked me when she said that it was ok for the mother to abort the fetus "because the kid is going to die anyway". I responded by saying that "we are all going to die. Does that make our lives less valuable." Then I thought I had the clincher. "If you were pregnant and you knew your child was going to be hit by a car and die at 5 years old what would you do?" The resonse, "I would get an abortion". Everyone in my group agreed with her.

I wanted to cry right then and there. This is the future of the world and they cannot see the value of life. Some of them even said they would prefer to be aborted rather than die young. My son is almost three years old and if something horrible were to happen to him, I would never regret the past three years. NEVER!

So, how long does a person have to live for their life to be "worth it". 20 years, 40 years, 70 years and when is a person's life no longer worth it. Although these kids don't see it yet, life is ALWAYS worth it. To paraphrase Archbishop Sheen, There is no human life which isn't worth living. He knew it then, and some of us now it now, but will anyone know it in the future.

After our group debates we opened it up to the entire class. On the pro-life side there were me, another woman about my age, and two students from the Rabbinical college. It's a class of 25 students (mostly freshmen) at a Catholic college. I pray the good Dominicans will be able to get through to these kids.

Couple Receives over $21 Million Dollars for "Wrongful Birth" of Handicapped Son

TAMPA, Florida, July 24, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A judge has awarded over $21 million dollars to a couple for the "wrongful birth" of their second handicapped son. The couple would have aborted the child if they had known about his disability, the Tampa Bay Tribune reports.

Daniel and Amara Estrada have two sons who are both physically handicapped with the same genetic disorder, Smith-Lemli-Opitz, which does not allow them to properly synthesize cholesterol. The children have difficulty walking and must be fed through a feeding tube. They also have smaller heads and other physical abnormalities.

After the first son was born, the couple's doctor, Boris Kousseff, from the University of South Florida (USF), told them that they would be able to have other normal children and did not diagnose the problem as hereditary. Consequently, when their second son Caleb was born with the same disorder, the couple sued the doctor and the USF.

"He says you have the same chance of anyone else in society of having a normal child. He doesn't tell the truth," said the family's attorney Christian Searcy, Tampa Bay My Fox reports. The judge ruled that the couple will receive over $21 million dollars in recompense for the negligence of the doctor.

The couple claimed that if they had had a proper diagnosis after the birth of their first child in 2002, they could have determined by a pregnancy test that the second son Caleb had the same disorder. According to the lawsuit, if the couple had known this, they would have aborted him, the Associated Press reports.

Commenting on the situation, president and spokesperson for Florida Right to Life Lynda Bell told LifeSiteNews.com, "How bizarre that in our nation, not only have we become a throw-away generation, including our babies that are not perfect, but that now we're holding doctors responsible to deliver a perfect baby. I think this is absurd, and I think this court is opening up a Pandora's box to all types of litigations that say, 'it's not just a matter of nature, now I can hold a doctor accountable for an imperfect child.'"

Bell stated, "Doctor's may feel that they have a responsibility to lead people to abortion just so there's not a lawsuit." She continued, "I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not the doctor was negligent without knowing all the facts of the case, but I think there's a very fine line between a negligent physician and having him being responsible for an unborn child, whether or not it is perfect." She also said that the doctor might have been sued legitimately for negligence, but not for "wrongful birth". "Doctors are not God," she said, "they're physicians."

This story is similar to the case of an Austrian doctor in 2006 who was threatened in court with paying lifetime support costs for a young girl who was born with Down's syndrome. The mother claimed that she would have aborted her daughter if she had known about the child's condition early enough (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06071402.html).

Similarly, in 2003 a British Columbia, Canada court ruled that Dr. Ken Kan of Richmond must pay $325,000 for "wrongful birth", after he failed to diagnose that a child had Down's syndrome. The mother claimed that their handicapped child's birth "totally disrupted our plans," and caused the couple's marriage to fall apart (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jan/03013005.html).

What They Are Really Good For

h/t to Zadok. This story is too good to pass by.

From the Telegraph.

India is struggling to prevent millions of condoms from being made into toys or sold as balloons.

The contraceptives were distributed free to control the country's population and restrict the Aids virus.

However, they are being used instead to strengthen roads, provide extra waterproofing for houses and to carry water.

Health activists said millions of condoms were melted down for their latex and made into toys. Others were dyed and sold as balloons.

In rural areas, villagers used them as water containers. India's soldiers covered their gun barrels with condoms as protection against dust.

Only a quarter of about 1.5 billion condoms made each year were "properly utilised", the activists said.

Health planners are trying to control India's population of more than 1.2 billion. In 2005 the HIV epidemic afflicted more than 5.7 million people. Of the 891 million condoms meant to be handed out free, most were used by road contractors, who mixed them with concrete and tar to create a smooth surface.

Soccer Star Supports Virginity

So Gisele thought she was making a great point... well, here is another opinion from a star who can make sense when he speaks.

From LifeSiteNews.com:

The Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen is receiving widespread media coverage after an outburst in which she criticized the Catholic Church for its teachings on premarital sex, abortion and contraceptives.

Bundchen’s remarks follow closely on the heel’s of Pope Benedict’s visit to the Catholic country, during which visit he repeatedly restated the Church’s teachings on social issues, exhorting Brazilians to live up to the ideals that their faith professes.
Bundchen, however, called the Church’s teachings “ridiculous” in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper. At one point she made the unsubstantiated claim that in the modern world no one ever waits until marriage before having sex, even apparently calling into question the possibility that a man or woman can remain chaste until marriage.

"Today no one is a virgin when they get married ... show me someone who's a virgin!" she said. She went on, criticizing the Catholic Church’s moral teachings saying, "How is it possible to not want people to use condoms and also not have abortions? It's impossible, I'm sorry." However, in an interview with the Italian edition of “Vanity Fair” that appeared just after the supermodel made her remarks, the Brazilian soccer superstar known as Kaka has said that both he and his wife, Caroline, were virgins when they got married. Kaka, one of Brazil’s most successful soccer players, has long been known for both his outspoken Christian faith and his remarkable good looks.

“The Bible teaches that true love waits until marriage," Kaka told “Vanity Fair”, saying about his marriage, “If our life today is so beautiful, I think it is because we waited."

The time prior to his and his wife’s marriage, during which they conducted a chaste relationships, says Kaka "was important, as it tested our love." The soccer star admitted that it was not easy to stay a virgin until his wedding night, and that even still there are difficulties in living faithfully, saying that “there are always temptations,” but also says that the sacrifices that he and his wife made for each other have been more than worth it.

Gisele Bundchen, who is one of the most popular supermodels in the world, not only called into question the possibility of living chastely and defended the use of contraceptives and abortion, but in a bizarre twist actually indicated that the use of condoms should be “compulsory.”

"It's ridiculous to ban contraceptives,” she said. “You only have to think of the diseases that are transmitted without them. I think it should be compulsory to use a contraceptive."

See the Vanity Fair article (in Italian) at:http://www.style.it/cont/people-show/news/0706/0500/kaka-e-i...

Rudy! Listen up!

From LifeSite News:

In what is being perceived as an eerie instance of coincidence, a series of lightning hits caused audio disruption at the exact moments when pro-abortion presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani attempted to defend his support for abortion despite his supposed Roman Catholic faith. The lightning storm occured during a New Hampshire debate.

The first bolt hit just as the former New York mayor took the mic to answer a question about the sharp criticism his position on abortion garnered him from Rhode Island Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin, who publicly condemned Giuliani for his abortion stance earlier this week.

Bishop Tobin compared Giuliani's refusal to oppose abortion to Pontius Pilate's role in the crucifixion of Christ.

"I can just hear Pilate saying, 'You know, I'm personally opposed to crucifixion but I don't want to impose my belief on others," Bishop Tobin wrote in a column for the Providence Catholic news.

As Giuliani began to brush aside Bishops Tobin's view, a crack of lightning caused the sound system to give out and cut off his mic. Wolf Blitzer of CNN, who was moderating the debate, pointed out the electronic disturbance was caused by lightning.

The audience burst into laughter, evidently recognizing the possible interpretations of such the eerie event.

Giuliani said, laughing, as his debate opponents backed away from him in jest, "For someone who went to parochial schools all his life, this is a very frightening thing." However, a second bolt crashed moments later, just as Giuliani opened his mouth to answer the question again, cutting him off as he attempted to say he "respected" the views of Catholic and religious leaders.

He finally completed his answer audibly, despite two more lightning strikes, reiterating his position that while he believes abortion to be wrong, he does not believe it should be illegal. Giuliani's insistence of remaining on the fence over the issue was condemned by Bishop Tobin as "preposterous", saying he had "defected from the Catholic faith" on the issue.

"Rudy's preposterous position is compounded by the fact that he professes to be a Catholic," Bishop Tobin wrote. "As Catholics, we are called, indeed required to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death. As a leader, as a public official, Rudy Giuliani has a special obligation in that regard."

Read Bishop Tobin's Column here.

When Idiots Attack the Church

Gisele Bundchen is apparently calling for the extinction of the human race.

From Reuters:
The words in red are my commentary.

Supermodel Gisele Bundchen stepped into the debate over birth control and sexual behavior in Brazil on Tuesday, saying Church opposition to condom use was ridiculous and women should have the right to choose on abortion. Oh my, now she is a credible expert if I have ever seen one. Yep, let's all follow the woman who makes a living by looking pretty. @@

Gisele is idolized by many young women in Brazil, the world's largest Roman Catholic country, where debate over sexual issues has intensified around a visit by
Pope Benedict last month. Poor deluded young women.

The Pope stressed the Church's firm opposition to abortion and contraception and railed against sex outside of marriage. Hmmm...follow 2,000 years of Church teaching and the Pope who is the vicar of Christ and has spent the last 60 years studying theology and moral issues or follow the supermodel who has spent her life looking pretty. I can't decide.

The Brazilian beauty, one of the world's top models, told Folha de S.Paulo newspaper in an interview that when the Church made its laws centuries ago, women were expected to be virgins. Ummm, and they are still supposed to be virgins.

"Today no one is a virgin when they get married ... show me someone who's a virgin!" she said. Raises hand! I was a virgin and I know plenty of virgins.

Asked about abortion, she said a woman should have the right to choose what is best for her.

"If she thinks she doesn't have the money or the emotional condition to raise a child, why should she give birth?" Because we cannot kill people because of our own circumstances.

Gisele, who had just arrived from New York to take part in Rio de Janeiro's Fashion Week, also defended condom use.

"It's ridiculous to ban contraceptives -- you only have to think of the diseases that are transmitted without them. I think it should be compulsory to use a contraceptive." Wow, Compulsory! You are really showing your intellegence now. Stop talking and go back to looking pretty. Right now you are looking pretty stupid. If contraceptives were compulsory you wouldn't be alive. Not to mention that contraceptives prevent pregnancy, not disease...unless one considers pregnancy to be a disease. Ohhhh...I get it now.

The Brazilian government has clashed with the church over anti-
AIDS programs in which it distributes millions of free condoms and Health Minister Jose Temporao has called for a national referendum on abortion.

Other Brazilian celebrities have fallen foul of the Vatican over sex issues. Singer Daniela Mercury was banned from performing at a Vatican Christmas concert in 2005 because she took part in a campaign promoting condom use to prevent AIDS.

She denied rumors she was pregnant. How can she be pregnant? She believes contraceptives should be compulsory!

"Of course I want to have a family in the future. But not at this moment." That would require not using contraceptives and that would be illegal if they were compulsory. Please go back to looking pretty and keeping quiet because you aren't making sense. Oh and put some clothes on.

Pope Benedict Answers Questions on Romero, Liberation Theology, Abortion, and Evangelization

During the course of his flight to Brazil yesterday, the Holy Father held his traditional press conference for the journalists accompanying him.

"I love Latin America very much," said the Pope expressing his joy at having the opportunity to visit the "continent of hope." The aim of this journey, he said, "is specifically religious: to give life in Christ and to [help people become] disciples of Christ."

Answering a question about liberation theology, the Holy Father recalled that "with the changing political situation, the position of liberation theology is also radically different. It is clear that simplistic forms of millenarianism promising immediate and real conditions of a just life were mistaken. The question now is how the Church must be present in the struggle and the reforms necessary to guarantee conditions of justice. It is precisely on this point that theologians are divided."

Benedict XVI also spoke of Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero of San Salvador, murdered in 1980 as he was celebrating Mass. Describing him as "a great witness of the faith," the Pope expressed his conviction that the late archbishop "merits beatification, although his memory must be liberated from the ideological deformations of those who have sought to appropriate it for political reasons."

Going on to consider the proliferation of religious sects in Latin America, the Holy Father said "they are a sign that people thirst for God. The Church must respond to this need with a highly concrete plan and in the awareness that, apart from announcing the Christian message, it is important to help people achieve just living conditions."

Replying to a question concerning the Mexican parliament, which has just approved a law in favor of abortion, the Pope highlighted "the need for Christian politicians to remain coherent to their principles." The Church, he said, "announces the Gospel of life; life is a gift and not a threat."

For his part, Holy See Press office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J. made it clear that "the Mexican bishops have not excommunicated those politicians, and neither has Benedict XVI." However, he added, "legislation in favor of abortion is not compatible with participation in the Eucharist." Upon being asked whether this meant that the politicians were effectively excommunicated, Fr. Lombardi said "no, they exclude themselves from communion."

In his replies to journalists, Benedict XVI had declared that "such excommunication is laid down in the Code, it is not arbitrary, it is simply written in the Code of Canon Law. The death of an innocent, of an unborn child, is inconceivable. It is not arbitrary, and the Church express appreciation for life and for the individuality of life from the first moment of conception."
VIS

John Allen has translated the complete text of the press conference into English, or you can access the Italian version here.

Support for Archbishop Bagnasco

Pope Benedict XVI has given strong public backing to Genoese Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops Conference, who has been threatened with death after having strongly condemned proposals to permit homosexual civil unions. The Vatican made it public that Pope Benedict personally telephoned Archbishop Bagnasco yesterday urging him not to give in to intimidation.

Later in the day, the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, sent an official telegram to the Archbishop signed in the name of the Pope urging Archbishop Bagnasco to "continue in his work for the common good, defending and promoting those human and religious values without which it is impossible to build true, free and stable democracies". The pope, said Cardinal Bertone expressed "his profound and painful shock" at the "grave and despicable events which aim to disturb the serene coexistence of the civil and ecclesial community".

In the latest in a series of threats against the Archbishop, a letter was sent to Bagnasco Friday containing his photo with a swastika carved into it, and accompanied by a bullet. Police bodyguards were assigned to protect Archbishop Bagnasco several weeks ago, after threatening graffiti appeared on his cathedral and other buildings across the city. "Death to Bagnaso" and "Shame on you, Bagnasco" were spray painted, along with insults against the Pope and Cardinal Camillo Ruini, previous head of the bishops' conference. Other disturbing attacks included pornographic images of the Virgin Mary portrayed as a bisexual that was left in pamphlets in the cathedral at the end of the Easter Vigil Mass.

The threats against Archbishop Bagnasco began after he issued a strongly-worded condemnation of the proposal to give legal rights to unmarried couples, including homosexual couples, comparing such measures to also giving rights to other sexually radical behaviours such as incest and pedophilia. "Why not say no to various forms of living together, to the creating of alternative forms of the family?," asked the Archbishop. "Why not say no to the incest of a brother and a sister who live together and have children in Great Britain? Why not say no to the party of pederasts in Holland?"

To counter the governmental proposal for civil union legislation, pro-family groups with the support and encouragement of the Italian Bishops Conference and the Vatican are sponsoring a "Family Day" on May 12, where it is hoped many thousands will demonstrate in favour of protection for the traditional family.

Responding to the official Vatican telegram, Italian President Giorgio Napolitano wrote Cardinal Bertone saying, "I wish to assure you that Italy will not leave Archbishop Bagnasco alone to face the present threats."

Source: LifeSite News

Death Threats Against Archbishop Bagnasco

Standing for Catholic values can still bring martyrdom or at least threats.

Homosexual activists mailed a bullet to the office of Genoese Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco Friday, in the latest threat against the senior church official over his opposition to same-sex civil unions.

Police bodyguards were assigned to protect Archbishop Bagnasco several weeks ago, after threatening graffiti appeared on his cathedral and other buildings across the city. “Death to Bagnaso” and “Shame on you, Bagnasco” were spray painted, along with insults against Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Camillo Ruini, previous head of the bishops conference.

Pornographic images of the Virgin Mary portrayed as a bisexual were left in pamphlets in the cathedral at the end of the Easter Vigil Mass, Catholic News Agency reported April 11.

According to a Herald Tribune report, a local newspaper said a photo of the archbishop accompanied the bullet, with a swastika scratched into the image.

Archbishop Bagnasco was recently elected as head of the powerful Italian Bishops Conference. Since his induction into that role, the archbishop has led a campaign against the government proposal to legally recognize homosexual civil unions.

The threats against Archbishop Bagnasco began after he issued a strongly-worded condemnation of the proposal to give legal rights to unmarried couples, including homosexual couples.

“Why not say no to various forms of living together, to the creating of alternative forms of the family?” Archbishop Bagnasco said, warning that legalization of homosexual unions would make it difficult to prevent the further breakdown of family life and sexual morality, reported Spero News.

“Why not say no to the incest of a brother and a sister who live together and have children in Great Britain? Why not say no to the party of pederasts in Holland?”

The Communist symbol of the hammer and sickle accompanied the death threat scrawled on the cathedral, along with the five-pointed star of the left-wing Red Brigades terrorist group.

Carlo Arcolao, spokesman for the archdiocese, told Vatican Radio the threats came from “very small and psychologically weak fringes.”

Source: LifeSite News

Forced Abortions

Asia News is reporting that 61 Chinese women were forced to abort their children. Some were even 9 months pregnant. This is absolutely disgusting and heartbreaking.

From Asia News:

The Chinese governments cruel abortion campaign continues: on April 17th last in the southern province of Guangxi, police forced 41 women to abort their children, dragging them into the local hospital to carry out the termination. The following day the same fate awaited a further 20 women.

China Aid Association (Caa), a United States based non governmental organisation which fights for religious freedom and human rights in China reported the cases.

Eyewitnesses reported to CAA that provincial police transported the women to Youjiang District People’s Hospital; they were injected forcefully with an abortive drug. The agents were led by Family Planning officials. In less than 24 hours 61 foetuses were dead.

At Bed number 37, He Caigan was 9 months pregnant. Officials injected her baby's head and after 20 minutes of pain and suffering, her baby stopped moving and died.

About 6am on April 18, Pastor James Liang's wife Wei Linrong gave birth to a boy, but he was dead because of the injection. She received three doses of injection-one is to induce the birth and the other two to kill the baby in the womb.

After China Aid reported the forced abortion, police were seen surrounding the section of the hospital where these abortions take place. In fact for some time now the Chinese population has been protesting against Beijing, which allows rich and famous couplet to ignore the family law on one child, which is instead applied with force on the less well off.

The politics of family planning, the bastion of the communist government, affects 90 million Chinese families. This provokes social problems such as the imbalance of sexes and the aging population.

Since 1978 only one child has been permitted to urban residents, two to rural couples. The average family has dropped from the 5.83 children per household of the 1970’s to 2.1 in the ‘90’s and the current 1.8. The government aims to contain the population within 1.37 billion by 2010. These policies have led to a massive campaign of forced abortions and infanticide of female babies, in order to have a male heir to maintain the family name.

US Supreme Court Supports Partial Birth Abortion Ban

From Lifesite News:

In a 5-4 majority decision penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the federal partial birth abortion ban which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2003.

The law bans "partial-birth abortion," a legal term of art, defined in the law itself as any abortion in which the baby is delivered feet-first "past the [baby's] navel . . . outside the body of the mother," or "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," before being killed.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, who have previously voted on the court against the gruesome late-term abortion procedure, voted with the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito who were appointed by President Bush also voted with the majority.

"This will be President Bush's pro-life legacy," said Jim Hughes, Vice President of the International Right to Life Committee. Hughes, also the President of Campaign Life Coalition Canada added: "Thank God for him because what he's doing there is going to affect us greatly here north of the 49th parallel."

Referring to Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups which argued against the ban, Justice Kennedy wrote that they "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases."

Kennedy maintained that the current ruling upheld the Roe v. Wade 1973 abortion decision. He said that since other abortion options are available, "it does not construct a substantial obstacle to the abortion right."

A short adjoining opinion written by Justice Thomas and joined by Justice Scalia, said "that the Court's abortion jurisprudence...has no basis in the Constitution." Of note, neither Justice Alito nor Chief Justice Roberts joined that opinion.