The Liberal Party is Losing the Catholic Vote

"The Liberals were able to coast to victory in 2000 with the support of two key groups: visible minorities and Catholics," the study says, but "by 2008, the Liberals could no longer count on their loyalty."

(...)

"The Catholic vote tells a similar story," they say, with Catholic support dropping "a massive 24 points" since the 2000 election, dropping from 54% to 30% in 2008. In 2006, the Liberals and Conservatives received about the same percentage of the Catholic vote, but by 2008, the Conservatives far exceeded the Liberals with over 40%.

(...)

They say that the most important factor in 2004 and 2006 was the sponsorship scandal, but pro-life concerns also had a major impact. While "opposition to same-sex marriage did not have a significant effect on the probability that a Catholic vote would vote Liberal," the study says, "...in 2006, views about abortion did."

In 2008, however, Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage was a factor, it says. "The story is different in 2008. It was not Dion and it was not the green shift. In contrast to 2004 and 2006, Catholics who oppose same-sex marriage were less likely to vote Liberal."

The other major new factor in the 2008 election, according to the study, was the vote of Catholics who believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture.[ RE:Serious Catholics!] In 2008, they say, "for the first time, Catholics who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God were significantly less likely to vote Liberal."

The authors conclude that "the Liberals can no longer take the support of Catholics or visible minority voters for granted. ... Catholics and minority voters have been the twin pillars of Liberal dominance, but their support is clearly crumbling. The Liberals' failure to own a single major issue in 2008 underlines just how serious the party's situation has become."

If anyone in the Liberal Party is reading: if you give me someone who is pro-life and will present a fetal rights bill, I will vote for them.

Note the two conditions.

I'm not satisfied with just pro-life. They have to be a candidate willing to do something about the rights of unborn children.

You want to reach out to religious groups? Reach out to pro-lifers. If the cost's too high: enjoy Opposition status.

Cardinal John Henry Newman on a liberal view of religion

Edward Michael George has a very long quote about liberal aversion to religion. I don't want to steal his thunder. But here's a taste:

They maintain it is impossible that religion should really be so strict according to God's design. They condemn the notion as over-strained and morose. They profess to admire and take pleasure in religion as a whole, but think that it should not be needlessly pressed in details, or, as they express it, carried too far. They complain only of its particularity, if I may use the term, or its want of indulgence and consideration in little things; that is, in other words, they like religion before they have experience of it,-in prospect,—at a distance,—till they have to be religious. They like to talk of it, they like to see men religious; they think it commendable and highly important; but directly religion comes home to them in real particulars of whatever kind, they like it not. It suffices them to have seen and praised it; they feel it a burden whenever they feel it at all, whenever it calls upon them to do what otherwise they would not do. In a word, the state of the multitude of men is this,—their hearts are going the wrong way; and their real quarrel with religion, if they know themselves, is not that it is strict, or engrossing, or imperative, not that it goes too far, but that it is religion. It is religion itself which we all by nature dislike, not the excess merely. Nature tends towards the earth, and God is in heaven. If I want to travel north, and all the roads are cut to the east, of course I shall complain of the roads. I shall find nothing but obstacles; I shall have to surmount walls, and cross rivers, and go round about, and after all fail of my end. Such is the conduct of those who are not bold enough to give up a profession of religion, yet wish to serve the world.

A Critique of Calvinism

From Anglican Samzidat:

This idea of a God who can be called omnipotent only if his will is the direct efficient cause of every aspect of created reality immediately makes all the inept cavils of the village atheist seem profound: one still should not ask if God could create a stone he could not lift, perhaps, but one might legitimately ask if a God of infinite voluntaristic sovereignty and power could create a creature free to resist the divine will. The question is no cruder than the conception of God it is meant to mock, and the paradox thus produced merely reflects the deficiencies of that conception.

Frankly, any understanding of divine sovereignty so unsubtle that it requires the theologian to assert (as Calvin did) that God foreordained the fall of humanity so that his glory might be revealed in the predestined damnation of the derelict is obviously problematic, and probably far more blasphemous than anything represented by the heresies that the ancient ecumenical councils confronted.

A Bang-Up PR Job of Eliminating the Stigma of Abortion

Right after I finished my last post about an abortionist wanting to eliminate the stigma of abortion, I came upon Our Truths, a zine published by Exhale, the pro-abortion group that seeks to help women deal with their negative feelings around abortion. The website features an article about the first wave of women who had abortions after the Roe v. Wade ruling:

What I do know is that many of us who gratefully sought abortions in that first wave are mothers now. And our feelings toward abortion have become more complicated over time. For some, abortion is still viewed as our liberator, the event that allowed us to live the rest of our lives.

For others, it's our burden. We can't look at the children we have now without thinking of the babies who were never born.

At the book club meeting, my friend who is the mother of four, shifted in her seat.

"I never told anyone," she whispered and lifted her hand.

"You, too?" I asked.

She nodded, a tear slipping down her cheek.

Every woman in the room except one had ended a pregnancy. And each remembered it in her own way. Some were defiant in their gratitude while others were haunted by regret.

No self-inflicted stigma there. Ambivalence, regret, "complicated feelings". What a testimonial to the power of abortion. That makes me want to support it and become a provider.

The abortionists act like they're so innocent of it all

AbortionClinicDays quotes an abortionist at a press conference (whom, interestingly enough, they do not name.

Why does the shame persist and silence pervade in our culture when so many people share the abortion experience?

Could it be....THIS?:

Most of the time these 45 million women are silent.

Most of the time the loved ones who helped them with their abortion don’t talk about it either.

And when women who've undergone abortions talk about how awful an experience it was, they're told they're crazy and to shut up because they're hurting the cause.

In fact, the pro-choice majority is silent.

Sure pal. You're assuming that 45 million abortions means that it's one abortion per woman. That's not the case. In fact, a sizeable number--maybe half-- are repeat abortions.

The polls are pretty consistent. Pro-aborts are on the losing side of public opinion in the United States. There's a reason for the stigma. This man (and I assume it's a man because most of them are men) is in denial. Or just not too bright.

To me, irradicating stigma is the single most important thing we can do for abortion rights in this country.

The pro-aborts will simply never eradicate the stigma of this:



or this:

Even by supporters, by pro-choice people I see this question on their face or experience the silence or separation when I talk about providing abortions.

He means the "eww" factor. Now where would they have gotten that idea? Clearly, they're not fundamentalists. Evidently, they've made up their own mind.


Is this guy naive?

The opportunity to invite women to accept themselves and to live out their dreams is a byproduct of abortion care to some people, but to me it IS abortion care.

Yeah, the fact you actually kill fetuses for a living...that's just a petty detail.

Do YOU even feel the stigma of your OWN JOB? Women don't go to you for values clarification. They go to you because they want to get rid of their fetus!

Sheesh, your own avoidance of the gist of what you do contributes to the stigma. We can all see that you don't want to talk about how satisfying it is to perform the procedure, the killing. It's a lot of blah, blah blah and oh....

I can truly change the world one woman at a time, simply by sitting next to a woman, listening to her story, witnessing her experience and gently nudging her to be all that she can be.

And to the fetus: Tough sh*t. You're the problem. You count for nothing.

Does he not understand the source of the abortion stigma?

I usually don't give advice to my opponents, but since I'm virtually certain they won't listen I'll say this: if you want to eliminate the stigma of abortion, you have to figure out what causes the stigma. It's our value of unborn human life, and the fact that you kill them that is at the source of the stigma. It's not that pro-lifers and other less-than-pro-choice people don't care about women, contrary to what you may think. You seem to think that in order to care about the woman, you must not care about the fetus: that caring is a zero sum game. That's the lie that pro-abortion people have been telling themselves for decades. People can see through that. If you care about both, then you seek to help both (and not kill one in the name of helping the other).

But they don't get that.

But they'll never own up to it.

There will ALWAYS be a stigma to abortion.

Even in countries like Russia and Japan, where there is virtually no pro-life movement, abortion has a stigma. People understand that it involves the taking of human life.

Canadian Bishops Urge Catholics to Fight Euthanasia

Here's what I want to know.

Are the bishops going to have an education campaign in the churches?

Are they going to deny communion to Catholic politicians who support euthanasia?

Are they going to impose discipline on clergy who do not toe the line?

Maybe if they set the example, they wouldn't have to set the message.

It always seems that with the bishops, it's too little, too late, on social issues.

This should have been the message five years ago. And there should have been more done then.

If you do not want to lose on a social issue, you must act like winners. The Catholic bishops have been acting like losers for the past 40 years. Full of verbiage, not of actions.

Atheists indoctrinate, too

From Anglican Samzidat:

Camp Quest is the atheist summer camp for children. The camp prides itself on teaching children to think critically. Hence we have the invisible unicorns:

One of the most popular exercises is the invisible unicorn challenge. The children are told there are two invisible unicorns who live at Camp Quest but that they cannot be seen, heard, felt or smelt, and do not leave a trace. A book about them has been handed down through the ages but it is too precious for anyone to see.

All counsellors – as the adults are called – are said to be staunch believers in these unicorns.

Any child who can successfully prove that the invisible unicorns do not exist is rewarded with a prize: a £10 note with a picture of Charles Darwin on it signed by Richard Dawkins, or a “godless” $100 bill, printed before 1957 when “In God We Trust” was added to paper currency in the US.

Clearly, the unicorns are supposed to represent God. The purpose of the exercise appears to be to show that the burden of proof lies with the unicorn-believers. The problem is, the councillors don’t actually believe in the unicorns so they obviously can’t give reasons for their pretend belief, the book – the unicorn bible – is not something that can be read and the unicorns have no discernible effect on reality.

(...)

The unicorn exercise is not one of critical thinking but of constructing and demolishing a straw man: very rational.

Concerned Roman Catholics Condemn K of C Inaction on Abortion

MEDIA ADVISORY, July 30 /Christian Newswire/ -- Concerned Roman Catholics of America (CRCOA) condemn the Knights of Columbus for their continuing failure to expel pro-abortion and pro-homosexual politicians. The K of C meet at the JW Marriott Desert Ridge Resort in Phoenix, Arizona, for their 127th Supreme Convention on August 4-6, 2009.

(...)

Fisher continued: "Every year, at state and national level, the K of C pass resolutions denouncing pro-abortion politicians. These resolutions are just hot air put on paper. We hear rhetorical speeches from Supreme Knight Carl Anderson telling us that the K of C will no longer tolerate pro-abortion politicians in their ranks, but have yet to see Anderson expel any pro-abortion or pro-homosexual politicians from the Order. The bishops, many of whom are K of C members, have not excommunicated a single pro-abortion or pro-homosexual politician!

Isn't Paul Martin a Knight of Columbus?

LifeSiteNews.com Offers “Frank and Transparent” Dialogue with Bishops of Canada

But Bishops are "too busy".

So, when are you up for that frank and transparent dialogue, your graces? The pro-life movement waits with bated breath. I hope "transparent" means we can publish the comments.

The cutest fetal models

From Little Angels Online store. Awwwww. Available in light and dark skin.

'Corrective genes' closer thanks to enzyme modification

If corrective genes are invented, could they help prevent abortions for genetic diseases (like Tay-Sachs)?

What would this mean for stem cells? Would we still need them?

Pakistan rescues boys trained as suicide bombers

Child abuse of the worst order.

Bad enough they have to do it themselves. How despicable that they have to kidnap boys to do their bidding. What's the matter, Taliban? Running out of recruits, are you?

Amnesty International Calls on Nicaragua to Discriminate Against its Unborn Citizens

LifeNews:

AI asserted that Nicaragua's legislation banning all abortions was equivalent to government commissioned “torture” or at least “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” banned by the Convention.

Amnesty also claims that Nicaragua's law "causes women and girls to die," an assertion disputed by pro-life critics.

Amnesty cannot be a true human rights organization and call for Nicaragua to permit the killing of its citizens.

Shame on Amnesty International.

Your personal, private choices can affect others

Barbara Kay, on legalizing assisted suicide:

As with abortion, if euthanasia and assisted suicide become legal, the voices of those who cling to the "sanctity of life" rubric will be pushed to the margins of public life. They will become pariahs, just as pro-life voices on campuses must fight tooth and nail to be heard.

Ironically, if euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are legalized (philosophically it comes to the same thing), by the time Mr. McKay's "wonderful life" has become less wonderful to the point of chronic pain and suffering, he may find, to his surprise, that against all logic he wishes to "cruelly extend" his life. But he may also find -- nothing could be more logical -- that others around him reproach him, saying no, "life is for the living," and therefore it is unconscionable for him to have such expectations.

Legalizing assisted suicide would mean that hospitals would become places where people are killed, not healed.

(Oh wait, they already kill the unborn).

The medical system would no longer feel obligated to heal people at the end of their lives. Treat that 90-year-old heart attack victim? Why? I'm only going to prolong his suffering and have to euthanize him anyway. Let him die. Why prolong suffering?

Life is not suffering. When you equate life with suffering-- even if you do suffer-- you cheapen life. Treat the problem. Suffering is the problem. Not life. Life is not a cause of suffering. Pain is. Treat the pain.

Always remember that even the most private of acts, when performed by millions of people, are not purely private acts any more. They are social phenomena, that society has an interest in judging, commenting and possibly (though not necessarily) regulating. There are social ramifications beyond the private space where you perform this act. You can't justify every behaviour on the basis of "my body, my choice", which is the self-centred abortion slogan that led to legalizing killing of unborn children. Choices lead to consequences that the rest of society must deal with.

Imagine if millions of people resorted to suicide (unassisted) to solve their problems. An unlikely scenario, but play along with me.

Consider the intense ramifications. Besides the predictable grief, there would be a lot of abandoned responsibilities. It would almost certainly affect the economy. Family life would be disrupted. I'm sure you can imagine other possible, large-scale results.

The point is that this private decision to kill oneself, when performed by millions, can be toxic, even if we grant people "the choice". Could we regulate such a practice? Probably not. But if millions of people perform it, then you can imagine there could be drug traffickers who would profit from this. You might imagine people lobbying for safe, legal and affective suicides in hospital so that people who attempt suicide do not have to suffer from botched attempts (and take up valuable hospital space). The funeral industry might benefit.

The structures surrounding the practice-- because these structures always develop around acts such widescale private acts-- benefit, and shut out opposition. "What's it to you if I kill myself-- it's my choice."

Never mind the consequences in the changes in belief and practices around the sanctity of life.

It's the same thing with assisted suicide. Once the medical system benefits from death (which it would, since doctors would be paid for it and it would free up hospital beds) you can imagine different structures erected to satisfy this demand, (like the suicide clinic in Switzerland) and the pressure for old and terminally ill people to die.

You cannot imagine that an individual's choice is the only thing at stake. People think that their individual desire is the only thing that matters, or should. But individual decisions have consequences, tangible and intangible. We shouldn't be fooled into the "my body, my choice" rhetoric.

Sometimes when you allow for bad choices for yourself, you take away choices from others.

USA: Deaths from late-term abortions exceed AIDS Deaths

This extraordinarily high number is even more remarkable in that it is based on 2005 data (i.e. the latest CDC Report issued in late 2008) which is two years AFTER the Federal Ban Act of 2003 prohibiting D&X Partial Birth Abortion in the U.S. The alternative but similarly grotesque procedure, primarily employed in late-term post-20-weeks’ abortions (that HAS NOT been banned in the U.S.) is the D&E – Dilation & Evacuation – procedure, which dismembers the child in the uterus (womb) using surgical instruments, with the cervix as a fulcrum. It is a procedure as horrific to contemplate as D&X and possibly even more pain-inflicting to the potentially-viable child.

The CDC hard data identifies that late-term third trimester D&E abortions are performed in nearly every state in the U.S.

Do they really perform D & E's on third trimester babies? I'm appalled. I thought D & E's were only performed up to about 20 weeks. PBA was intended to be a variation thereof, because of the lack of room in the womb.

Honour Killings are about an ideology

The news of the honour killings of the Muslim women in Kingston filled me with rage.

Born people are murdered every day in this country. I don't typically comment on these killings because Canadian society accepts that they are wrong.

However, I find honour killings very disturbing.

Because these are community-accepted ways of dealing with domestic problems.

Do all Muslims accept them? Of course not.

But in many parts of the world, killing women for bringing shame on their family is not only accepted, but expected. It is only natural that immigrants from these parts of the world bring their ideas with them. They are importing a murderous ideology into Canada.

Murder will always exist. You can't get upset with every report of murder. What angers me is ideologically-based and systematic murder-- for whatever reason.

This is what Honour Killings are about. They're not about individual domestic violence, about one man trying to force a woman to do his individual bidding.

They are about a collective set of beliefs. Honour Killings, by definition, require that you restore your reputation in the community by killing the people who besmirch the family's reputation.

I don't even care whether this is about Islam or not. To me, the religious aspect is not the point.

It's about a collectively accepted, murderous ideology.

As an aside...Antonia Zerbisias asks this pertinent question:

If a man -- any man, whether a member of a criminal biker gang or just some goof -- takes out another guy as payback for being disrespected, do we say ''honour killing?''

No, we do not.

When a Christian husband born and bred in Canada kills his wife for walking out on him, or cheating on him, do we call it an ''honour killing?''

Again, it's about ideology. There is no community in Canada that accepts that killing a wife is okay to solve one's problems. Only criminals accept that killing one another is okay in order to restore one's reputation.

There was a time when "honour killings" were accepted in the West...largely among men...in the practice of dueling.

Dueling has all but died out. Because the ideology that upheld this practice died out.

Dueling makes no sense if the people around you don't accept dueling as a means to restore your reputation. If anything, challenging someone to a duel would make you look ridiculous.

In the same way, honour killings only make sense if a community accepts it as a solution. If your reputation is not restored by killing your family members, then there is no point in doing it.

This is something the wider community should be vigilant about. It's all well and good not to tar all Muslims, but when it comes to people dying, we should a little more circumspect about the truth of the matter. Political correctness be damned when lives are at stake.

The Morgentaler Clinic...things that make you go hmmm....

I'm rather bemused and maybe even perplexed at some of the things I'm reading on the Morgentaler.ca website. For instance, at the Ottawa Clinic, the upper abortion limit is at 18 weeks-- I assume this is dated from the Last Menstrual Period. (LMP).




Now Morgentaler said he never performed an abortion past 16 weeks. I wonder why that is. It could be because his particular technique is only appropriate for killing fetuses under 14 weeks. How come he never did abortions past 16 weeks?

And why would they do 18 weeks, but not 19 weeks? I've never heard of that particular limit before.

And regarding methods, here's another little surprising tidbit...



...medical abortions are not available in Morgentaler's clinic.

I find that more than a little intriguing. Medical abortions are available at some places in Canada. You would think that an abortion clinic would be anxious to offer the widest range of choices possible...hmmm....

Archbishop of Toronto Does the Right Thing

TORONTO, July 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a two-page statement issued today, Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins has released his long-awaited decision regarding funding of the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P). For 2009, says the statement, "We will set aside $1,125,000, which will be available for projects of Development and Peace which are operated by organizations endorsed by local bishops." The measure will serve to clear up the problems with such funding since none of the pro-abortion groups funded by D&P are known to be endorsed by their local bishops in the developing world.

(...)

In the current statement, Archbishop Collins also calls for a "thorough review" of D&P. "(I)n this coming year there needs to be a comprehensive review of the organization, including its mandate, its governance and organizational structure, its policies and protocols related to the funding of projects, and the instruments of communication linking Development and Peace and the Canadian bishops."

The significance of the decision is heightened by the fact that the Archdiocese of Toronto, the largest in Canada, provides over one million of the annual ten million dollars D&P receives from dioceses.

Less money for pro-aborts pushing discriminatory measures against unborn children.

It's a good thing.

Why Canada needs an unborn victims of crime bill

Many opponents of of the notion of an unborn victims of crime believe that the victim's pregnancy should be an aggravating factor in sentencing.

But I don't think they get it.

In this story, the victim was shot in the face, and her unborn child suffered no adverse effects.

But what if the unborn had been harmed in the commission of this crime?


Even if pregnancy were an aggravating factor in Canada, whether the woman is shot in the face or shot in the abdomen (and loses her fetus) it makes no difference to sentencing. The sentence would be the same.

The unborn child is of no account. The loss of that baby would have no influence on sentencing.

That's how feminists think.

That's not how most people think.

Consider two pregnant women who get shot in the same incident. The first preserves her pregnancy. The other loses her unborn child.

Who do you think suffers the greater loss?

Clearly, it is the mother who loses her child. But feminists do not want that forced miscarriage to count in and of itself. Only the pregnancy, that is the condition the state of the woman, not the fetus, even if the woman suffers the greater loss because of the harm to the fetus.

They cannot see past their abortion ideology to value the unborn child in and of himself. How could they? It would contradict their vision feminist supremacy.

Only women matter. Fetuses do not.

But women don't just decide to have a late-term abortion because they don't feel like parenting any more...do they?

The one that shocked me most was the woman who came into the office saying that she was pregnant of 22 weeks and she wanted and abortion. The thing is that until one week ago she wanted to keep the baby, which is a little girl. However, lately she moved back into her mom´s house and she suddenly decided that she did not want to keep the baby anymore. In fact, the main reason was financial aid.

We tried to counsel here in many ways and told her that there is an office in Manhattan where they can help her with financial problems or clothing.... She suddenly left the office without saying nothing and later on her cousin came asking for our phone number just in case she could change her mind.

If there's one thing I've learned about abortion...is that if you can imagine the scenario-- far-fetched as it may sound-- someone's probably lived it.

I shouldn't be shocked. But I am.

I'm wondering if I'll ever see the case of the woman who wanted a late-term abortion so that she could fit into a bikini. It's supposed to be some kind of urban legend.

Testing

I'm testing my Nintendo DSi web browser. I don't recommend it for typing very long messages. I wou,d hate to have to edit with this thing.

VIDEO: Another pro-life Imagine ad

Conceptually, it's a little iffy. But I really love the connection between the unborn and the born person in this ad. I didn't like the word "potential" though. That's the word supporters of legal abortion hone in on.

We want the world to recognize that this is an actual human being.

That's why I like the connection between the unborn and the born person.

And it's very timely, given that this month is the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing.

Update

My whole family is sick and we're supposed to go on vacation soon. Expect more light blogging ahead. I need prayers. Bad enough when mom is sick, but when mom AND dad is sick, it's a tough hand to play.

UPDATED-- A little disappointed in the Pope's meeting with Stephen Harper

Canadian blogger and journalist Deborah Gyapong was present at the meeting between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. She confirms that there was no talk of right to life issues.

Seeing as Canada has no protection for the unborn, and that Prime Minister Harper has said he will not allow pro-life legislation to come to the floor, that should have been a topic of discussion.

UPDATE July 13th***

From Lifesite News

Pope Addresses PM Stephen Harper on Life, Marriage, and Family

According to the Vatican communiqué issued after the meeting, "With regard to Canada, the conversation involved ethical values, the defense and promotion of life, marriage and family."

Harper, who called the meeting an "honor," did not explicitly mention life or family issues in his statement after the audience. According to Harper, the twenty-minute conversation addressed "a number of important issues, including human rights and an ethical response to the global economic crisis."

Pope Benedict XVI: On Rights and Duties

From Caritas in Veritate:

Many people today would claim that they owe nothing to anyone, except to themselves. They are concerned only with their rights, and they often have great difficulty in taking responsibility for their own and other people's integral development. Hence it is important to call for a renewed reflection on how rights presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere licence[106]. Nowadays we are witnessing a grave inconsistency. On the one hand, appeals are made to alleged rights, arbitrary and non-essential in nature, accompanied by the demand that they be recognized and promoted by public structures, while, on the other hand, elementary and basic rights remain unacknowledged and are violated in much of the world[107]. A link has often been noted between claims to a “right to excess”, and even to transgression and vice, within affluent societies, and the lack of food, drinkable water, basic instruction and elementary health care in areas of the underdeveloped world and on the outskirts of large metropolitan centres. The link consists in this: individual rights, when detached from a framework of duties which grants them their full meaning, can run wild, leading to an escalation of demands which is effectively unlimited and indiscriminate. An overemphasis on rights leads to a disregard for duties. Duties set a limit on rights because they point to the anthropological and ethical framework of which rights are a part, in this way ensuring that they do not become licence. Duties thereby reinforce rights and call for their defence and promotion as a task to be undertaken in the service of the common good. Otherwise, if the only basis of human rights is to be found in the deliberations of an assembly of citizens, those rights can be changed at any time, and so the duty to respect and pursue them fades from the common consciousness.

Anti-Zionist Protest at a Toronto Dead Sea Scroll Exhibit...what the..?

Today there was a anti-Zionist protest and counter-protest at the Royal Ontario Museum's exhibit on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I'm baffled that this exhibit would be at the centre of any protest. I shouldn't be. But I am.

Read more at Lumpy, Grumpy and Frumpy


Here's what the Ottawa Citizen had to say about it:

An odd assortment of groups are protesting the exhibit on the grounds that the scrolls are stolen artifacts and really belong to Arabs, not Jews. Yes, you read that correctly. Hebrew manuscripts of the Jewish Bible that were written centuries before Muhammad was born are, apparently, Muslim property.

It's easy to see what's going on here. Just as Holocaust denial circulates in some corners of the anti-Israel movement, there is a parallel effort to deny the Jewish people's ancestral connection to the Holy Land. The idea is to delegitimize Israel by denying the indigenous rights of Jews. Some Israel-haters have even taken to arguing that Palestinian Arabs are the real descendants of "ancient Hebrews."

It makes me think of the Trail of Blood theory of the Christian Church, where they try to fit facts to contemporary ideas. Very conspiracy-based history.

(And if you don't get the reference, it's a Catholic apologist's thing).

H/T: Girl on the Right

Catholic Bishops Ignore Canon Law

Shocking, I know.

The institutional Church must become an organization that respects the rule of Canon Law.

What good is Canon Law if it's arbitrarily applied? It's supposed to lay out the responsibilities and rights of Catholics, but if no one respects it, what's the point?

If secular law would be applied that way, it would be called tyranny.

The whole point is to guarantee our rights and make sure proper Catholic teaching is respected.

Which it is not.

Why we need an unborn victims of crime law

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - A Charleston teenager has been sentenced to life in prison for a November 2008 shooting in which a pregnant woman's unborn child died.

Sixteen-year-old Kelly J. Chapman won't be eligible for parole on the first-degree murder conviction because Kanawha County Circuit Judge Duke Bloom's sentence Tuesday came with no recommendation of mercy.

Bloom also gave Chapman an additional 3-to-15 years for attempted murder in the wounding of Nastasha Folden.

Had there been no unborn victims of crime law, there would have been no justice for the killing of the unborn child. The crime of depriving the woman of her unborn child would not have been recognized.

Such is the case in Canada.

Feminists would only want a "more severe" sentence. Part of justice, though, is properly identifying the wrong that was committed.

Killing a fetus is not just about harming the woman's body. It is about depriving a woman of her unborn child, someone that is distinct from herself.

But don't tell feminists that. They INSIST that the fetus and woman are one. Nobody actually ACTS like they are, but their precious right to abortion is more important than anyone else's loss.

VIDEO CUPE (Union) Striker Dumps Bag of Garbage In Front of Child

For those of you who may not know, Toronto is experiencing a garbage strike. It's making Toronto into a cesspool.

We're not just anti-abortion: we're fetal rights activists

From the Reuters Handbook of Journalism:

Unless quoting someone, refer to aborted foetuses rather than unborn babies. Describe those campaigning for a woman’s right to have an abortion as abortion rights campaigners and those campaigning against abortion rights as anti-abortion campaigners. Terms such as pro-choice, pro-life and pro-abortion are open to dispute and should be avoided.

I think pro-lifers should be termed "fetal rights activists".

Pro-lifers are more than just "anti-abortion". People can be against abortion for reasons other than fetal rights.

And "fetal rights" is the core of our philosophy. It cannot be disputed that those who support legal abortion oppose fetal rights.

I think that would be the most descriptive, respectful and indisputable label for pro-lifers.

We're not against the act of abortion, or for a thing called "life". We fight for the rights of people.

One woman shares her abortion experience

All the clichés are there, but she insists that she does not regret her abortion.

The dating of her life before and after the abortion. Unprotected sex with the jerk who abandoned her (unconscious desire for a replacement baby?) Breaking up right after the abortion. The attempt to act like nothing happened, when in fact one is profoundly affected. The abortion always at the back of her mind.

It's all there.

This is one reason why sex before marriage is wrong. If two people are not committed to live together and have kids, it leads to the logic of abortion. It leads to one person wanting the kid, and the other not, and the logical conclusion to that is abortion.

You cannot tell me that she did not want that baby, in the beginning. They were enthusiastically getting ready. If she had had that baby as they had planned, I am certain that she would have been happy-- at least with the decision to have the baby.

And because they weren't committed--married--to begin with, and she ended up pregnant, she had to suffer the consequences. Perhaps the guy wasn't ready to have a kid. Then perhaps he shouldn't have gotten her pregnant. Perhaps he shouldn't have had sex. But because sex happened-- with or without contraception, it doesn't matter-- she had to reap the consequences of an abortion. Abortion seemed liked the only "logical" choice.

That's why sex before marriage is wrong. Because the marriage-- the commitment-- to stand by the woman protects the woman from being alone and feeling like she has to abort. If the boyfriend hadn't had cold feet, she would have had the baby.

It's normal for men to have cold feet in front of any major commitment. They feel the weight of responsibility. Sometimes the weight is from them being immature and feeling like they can't do it. Sometimes it's because they ARE mature and sense the gravity about what they're going to undertake, and it's scary.

Marriage holds them to their commitment. It obliges them to smarten up-- if they're immature-- and to suck it up if they understand the importance of what they're doing.

You can't properly have children without a commitment. A woman can give birth, no doubt about it. But that's the harder way. The more convenient and practical way to have kids is to wait to have sex when you're married, when you both know you'll stick by each other; when you both know that kids will be welcomed.

Family Coalition Party Leadership Convention, October 24th, 2009

The Family Coalition Party will have a Leadership Convention will be held at the Hamilton Convention Centre, Saturday October 24th, 2009. Doors open at 8:00 am and the Program starts at 9:30 am. and ends at 4 pm.

Registration is $25 and covers breakfast and lunch. Fees must be received by October 9th. Cheques can be sent to 17 Braemar Place, Hamilton, L9C 1C9.

Voting is open to those who purchased memberships 30 days in advance or to those who have been members in the past and renewed by the pre-registration deadline (October 9th).

Nominations can be sent to the nomination committee between August 24th and September 24th.

For further information contact Lynne at lynne-s@mountaincable.net Please include "Leadership Convention Registration" in the subject line. Or phone 905-517-7909 or Fax 905-575-0747.

Art: The Unborn In Me

I have no idea what this is or whether this tumblr made it, but it is absolutely fascinating, and I'd like to know who the artist is.

My impression is that it's abortion related. It makes me think of women who get pregnant after an abortion in order to conceive of a redeemer child who makes up for the one who was aborted. Like a blood stain, the memory of abortion is difficult to erase.

I like this a lot.

ACTION ALERT! Help stop infanticide in Brazil!

As reported in Lifesite, Latin American leaders of the pro-life movement are asking for people around the world to persuade Brazil to adopt a law that would ban the practice of infanticide.

Isn't infanticide already illegal in Brazil, you ask?

The practice being targeted occurs among indigenous tribes. There are some who kill their babies if they are born disabled or are considered "cursed".

This is an outgrowth of their past. It was considered "merciful" to kill a disabled child who could not be helped.

This may have seemed moral in the past, but in the 21st century, it cannot be sanctioned, especially as access to health care is improving.

Critics are afraid that enforcing a law would interfere with tribal practices and we would be "imposing" our values on these groups.

Human rights are supposed to be universal.

We can be tolerant of certain evils in the name of a greater good. But we may never be tolerant of allowing others to kill innocents. The right to life is the first human right.

Right now, in the Brazilian legislature, there is a proposed bill that would require the government to take measures to eradicate the practice. It would not criminalize the practice-- I imagine it is already technically legal-- but it would require the government to take action to get natives to stop engaging in the practice. The Lifesite article mentions giving the natives of other options. I imagine there would be education campaigns, policies and other relatively non-coercive measures.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children is asking that people write the President of the Brazilian Human Rights Commission to ask him to support this law and support the right to life of babies.

The President of the Commission is Congressman Luiz Cuoto. Please also CC Dom Dimas Lara Barbosa (secgeral@cnbb.org.br), the President of the Brazilian Bishops' Conference. The SPUC also wants you to email Chico Alencar (dep.chicoalencar@camara.gov.br), a Brazilian Congressman. (I'm trying to find out what role he is playing in all this...please be patient! Most of the references are in Portuguese).

Please, do it, now! Please show that this subject is important to the outside world!

Totlol.com: A video site for kids

Totlol.com is a video website intended for kids. The idea behind it is to be able to watched YouTube videos that are screened by parents.

It's a members-driven website. It costs $18 US to join.

I have often used Totlol.com and I really recommend it. It's cheaper than renting videos, and you don't have to worry about the garbage that gets hidden in the cartoon YouTubes (it seems there are a lot of people who like to do that).

If you want your children to enjoy YouTube, without worrying about the junk, this is a good place to be.

The Pope's New Encyclical

CARITAS IN VERITATE. Read it here.

QUOTE:

Openness to life is at the centre of true development. When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man's true good. If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away[67]. The acceptance of life strengthens moral fibre and makes people capable of mutual help. By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, they can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead, they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and every individual.

When life is cheap, everything else becomes cheap.

VIDEO: Evian Roller Babies Commercial

Yeah, just what you'd expect on a pro-life blog. Seen on the Youtube home page.

"Consistent Life Ethics" Catholics

I have made this observation as well:

Have you noticed that there’s something about opposition to abortion that gives the creeps to “progressive” Catholics?

By the way, they hate to be called “liberals” or “left-wing” Catholics; they think of themselves as just plain, ordinary Catholics. We aren’t to label them, but they freely label us. This is what "liberal" now means. For liberals, pro-lifers are “single-issue Catholics” or “single-issue voters”, a label intended to accuse us of ignoring all the other life issues in the “seamless garment” that makes up their precious “consistent life ethic.”

QUAERUNTUR: When was the last time you saw a “consistent life ethics” Catholic instead of simply assuring you that, yes, they too oppose abortion, actually speak out loudly against abortion? Do you know any “consistent life ethic” Catholics who seriously weigh a candidate’s position on abortion when deciding how to vote in an election?

Obama: What, me support abortion?

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a meeting with several members of the Catholic media Thursday, President Obama insisted that pro-life Catholics' fears over the new administration's abortion agenda was "not based on anything I've said or done." The president also said he embraces the so-called "seamless garment" moral theory of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, which he said he feels has been "buried under the abortion debate" in recent decades.

You said that you would sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

And the seamless garment theory includes the notion of fetal rights. What have you done for them lately?

President Obama said that the expectation of heavily pro-abortion policy from his administration "is not based on anything I've said or done, but is rather just a perception somehow that we have some hard-line agenda that we're seeking to push."

Qui veut faire l'ange, fait la bête.

Which, loosely translated means: those who want to look innocent, play stupid.

However, Obama said, that theory has been "buried by the abortion debate" in recent years, and he expects to advance a "broader set of values" than those espoused by pro-life Catholics.

Let's test that. What have you done to eliminate capital punishment?

Although President Obama has more than once called upon the theory to downplay his disagreement with the Church on abortion, including in his speech at Notre Dame, Cardinal Bernardin himself strongly condemned the use of the consistent life ethic to dismiss the centrality of the abortion debate.

It seems that Obama is trying to pander to those who are less than enthusiastic for abortion on demand.

It gives me the impression that even though pro-life forces have suffered a political setback, the culture of life is gaining ground. Apparently, Obama can't push through his pro-abortion agenda without catering to the anti-abortion crowd (though it's not at a point where he is trying to actively implement fetal rights).

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

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

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

(...)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexual behaviour does not do that.

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

Unlike gay rights activists who promote intolerance of conservative Christians.

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

Saving babies. It's beautiful.

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

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

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

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

Cue pro-abort excuses.

This kind of rhetoric supposedly endangers lives but AP publishes it

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

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

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

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

That's news?

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

Something tells me they won't be getting any.

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

And people still deny that the media is biased.

Bishop says disobedience is harming the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has a point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A faith-based one.

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

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

Abortionist explains why she provides 2nd trimester abortions

Radha Lewis says,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why no. That would actually involve respecting the unborn.

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

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

Is she competent to make medical decisions or not?

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

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

Never.

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

Canadian Abortion Clinic Director Pleads for Late-Term Abortions

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

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

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

This lady would have aborted her own nephew!

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

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

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

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

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

Update

Happy Canada Day.

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

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

God Bless.