How's that abortion vote grab workin' for you, Iggy?

Tories have 11 point lead over Liberals in the latest poll.

True enough, it's an internet poll, and the gap is rather larger than what other polls have suggested.

Still, Harper's "secret agenda" was supposed to be his Achilles' heel.

It looks like he doesn't have one.

He doesn't want the abortion debate. Doesn't like abortion. Doesn't want to fund it.

I'd say that's about what the average Canadian thinks. I think that's why people are not afraid of Harper.

Abortion: NOT IN MY NAME!

I, like Andrea Mrozek, am sick to death of feminists who claim to represent women in the political arena, especially on the abortion issue.

Really, pro-life women, we MUST SPEAK UP.

We must break the feminist monopoly on what is considered acceptable to believe about  so-called "women's issues", especially when it comes to abortion.

I think it's time we had a women's only pro-life march on Parliament Hill. And you know when would be a good date to host it? Septmeber 8th, 6 months after "International Women's Day" and the birthday of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

A whole lot of other women have chimed in. Please visit the blog and chime in, too!

My blogs do not contain viruses-- please ignore your browsers

 I have had two people comment that their browsers flag my blog as an attack site or virus site.

Ignore that.

I have javascripts running on my site which could be the cause. Also, I link to Zenit.org which has also been flagged. They have said that they believe these warnings were caused by scripts used to run their banner ads.

If you never had a technical problem with my blogs before, then fear not you will not be exposing your computer to any harm.

Feminists complain not enough men support abortion

Gee, you crap all over men and then you complain they're not supportive of your cause.

I WONDER WHY THAT IS.

For the last forty years feminists have been saying "you're not allowed to have an opinion on abortion, you can't get pregnant!"

So guess what happened?

Whereas the pro-life movement will listen to what men have to say. Especially men who've had negative experiences with abortion and are angry that they were told to suck it up.

I suspect that ultimately, this male recruitment drive will fail. Feminists don't "get" men. They don't want to "get" men. They just want to change men. Sure, there are a few left-leaning men who are willing to go along with feminism to appease their consciences.

Aside from them, guys like being guys, period. And that's why they do not like feminists. They do not want to be their tools.

So good luck with the recruitment campaign. I suspect though that even if they do manage to find some volunteers for these positions, people will know they're just the Homme Rose de Service. Tokenism can be discerned a mile away.

Dutch Pro-Lifers Mark 29th Anniversary of Abortion Legalisation

By lining up 30 000 plastic fetuses in front of the Hague:

French article

Dutch article

OMG-- this is an actual federal government agency

Assisted Human Reproduction Canada

My tax dollars go to this?

We pro-lifers should look a little more closely into this agency and see what's going on.

Abortion censorship in BC: What are they afraid of?

Hospitals use your money to pay for abortions, but they won't let the public know how many are performed.

I think pro-lifers should raise this issue. Access to Information also applies to abortion!

A commenter makes a pertinent comment:

Even Stats Canada expects more from the provincial record keepers when they reported last year that BC’s abortion numbers were “too unreliable” to add to the Canadian totals. If Stats Canada can’t trust the abortion industry to count properly, how can we be sure they aren’t ripping off the Ministry of Health?

Feminist abortion freaks with too much time on their hands

I've noticed this about some of the feminists who show up at abortion protests.

A good number of them look like freaks. Not all. But the ones that showed up at Michael Coren's talk did. He spoke last week at a Campaign Life function in Halifax.

I think the theory is that if you show up looking like you're having fun and you make it light-hearted and engaging, it'll make people pay attention to you and take your cause more seriously. So they called themselves Hula Hoopers for Reproductive Justice.

Well, they succeed in getting people to pay attention.

Come on. Pink hair. Yeah, that's the lady I want running my social service system one day. A woman whose sense of esthetics is that of a 14-year-old. That's a person whose credibility on important matters I trust.

There's a reason people don't hire punks with Mohawks, girls.

Yeah, protest with a game of Duck, duck goose. Hooyeah, that just conveys the urgency of the issue. It reminds me of the time the McGill students who shut down Jojo Ruba's speech by singing preschool songs for an hour. They thought they were the sh*t. They got results. And made themselves look like arrested adolescents (or kindergartners) in the process. You can't buy PR like that for the pro-life cause.

And as if their antics weren't bad enough, the original article reporting on the event got Michael Coren's affiliation wrong. Did no one think to Google his name to get some background on who it was they were protesting? I've often noticed this about pro-aborts. They are so sure of themselves, they think their opponents are beneath their contempt and don't even bother looking up basic salient details. Catholic, Evangelical, British, American, it's all the same, right? They're all Taliban clones. If they're religious and against abortion, that makes them the equivalent of stone-aged tribesmen who publicly machine gun women for committing adultery.

I know that lots of feminists and other poor-choicers reading this will poo-poo my commentary as me being an old fuddy-duddy and that real people actually enjoy this kind of thing and it makes politics more engaging, and it shores up support.

Okay folks, you believe what you want. Tell yourselves that abortion was legalized because of some chicks staged freak shows on public venues. I don't care if you keep your heads in the sand.

H/T: Concerned for Life

Italian Government Investigates Baby Left to Die after Failed Abortion

But who the hell cares, right? The baby is supposed to be dead, according to feminists. The doctor's incompetence led to "forced birth". Damn him for letting that baby live! He violated that lady's rights. It's a good thing the baby didn't survive. The mother would have had to submit to involuntary motherhood. God Forbid a baby's existence "ruins" a woman's plan for her life. Her body, her choice, and all that. Screw the baby.

This is so screwed up

As the mother an autistic child, this scares the hell out of me:

A couple in Kamloops had their three youngest children removed by the B.C. government after they gave shelter to their violent, mentally ill adult son, who had been turned away from government care.

"We were backed into a corner," said the children's mother, Leah Flagg. "We had to choose between the well-being of one child or our other children."

(...)

Trevor was living in a secure youth residence, with 24-hour supervision, when he turned 19. At that point, because he was an adult, the ministry was no longer responsible for him. His parents said they could find no other government agency or community agency to take him in.

"Although they could see he had a need for help, he was turned down, because somebody else needed it more," said Leah.

(...)

Trevor also left home — the night his siblings were removed — and his mother said he hasn't returned since.

"He was devastated," said Leah. "He told the social workers that night, don't take the kids away, this is the best mom you will ever see, don't take the kids away — I'll leave."

Son now facing charges

Trevor went to stay with a friend, his parents said. He went off his medication and was taking street drugs. He's now in custody, facing charges for robbery and assaulting a police officer.

"We're now going to visit our son at jail," said Leah.

Both Flagg girls have since returned home. The parents are fighting to get their son home from foster care, though. The 14-year old boy had a nervous breakdown because of all the upheaval, his mother said, and is now in counseling.

"We now have children who now want the doors and blinds closed all the time, because they are afraid people are going to be looking in on us … to take them away."

The Victimist Pro-Abortion Mentality

Pro-abort Sophia complains that doctors who refuse to perform tubal ligations are perpetuating a woman's duty to breed. As if these doctors are taking these women to be raped and impregnated. Oh those mean, mean doctors!

Simply put, in most places in this country women that are still young enough to produce viable eggs will not find it easy to obtain a permanent “de-fertility” option. Are you 27 and want your tubes tied? Sorry, you may want kids later, trust us.

(...)

Except this is all bullshit, because women are not required to produce children, yet they are expected to be the sole responsible party for the life and death of the human race.

Sure they are. That would explain all the incredible social stigma against deadbeat dads and those laws regarding evasion of child support payments-- which disproportionately affect men. Sure, women are the only women involved *roll eyes*.

Maybe the reason why doctors are reluctant to perform tubal ligations is because a significant number of women do regret their decision to get themselves sterilized and come back to get those operations reversed. But don't let the facts get in the way of a crappy argument.

Feminists are allowed to exercise their autonomy. But not doctors. Feminists decry "forced pregnancy" and "forced birth" but "forced tubal ligation" is A-OK.

Women of reproductive age are expected to not only have children, but to desire children. If they don’t want children, they are murderers (pro-choice) , uninformed or just plain sick in the head.

Waaah!!! Our choices must not be critiqued ever. EVERYONE must accept our choices and the reasons for those choices no matter what.

Like not wanting children because they're horrible little creatures, or that they cramp one's lifestyle, that desire should be embraced by the wider society.

According to many cultures today, women are perceived not to be capable of intellectually deciding they do not want children.

That may be true of some backwaters. They are completely capable of deciding whether or not they want children.

It's that these abortion-minded individuals expect the rest of society to LIKE and RESPECT these choices.

Sorry, but no. You can decide to not have children. Whether or not you want kids is your affair (as long as you don't kill any in the process).

I don't have don't have to like it, and no one else has to either. And it doesn't make one a misogynous if one disagrees.

The message is fairly clear in this one comment: women who want to abort, or not have children, are not fully aware of the choices and/or consequences of the choices they are making- let us inform them.

Which is true. Women testify to this. They say "had I just known the truth, I wouldn't have chosen abortion."

Oh but wait, that would be "paternalistic"-- telling them ALL the facts that could be relevant to their decision. Informing them of these truths would make them victims. Oh, the oppression!

VIDEO: Catholic Baby Boomers Are Leaving the Scene

Woman Impregnated by Rape at Age 12 Encourages Others to Choose Life

MEXICO CITY, April 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - "Don't worry, you're not going to have the baby...your womb is very young....you are very weak...it's going to be a high risk pregnancy...your life is in danger....you should consider it..."

At the age of 12 years, after having been raped by a gang in her neighborhood, Lianna Rebolledo was told she was pregnant -- and the doctors wanted her to have an abortion.

But Rebolledo, who is now 33 years old and works at a radio station in Los Angeles, says she never even considered the possibility, and she wants others in Mexico to know that she is very happy that she chose life for her child.

After she was raped, says Rebolledo, she wanted to die, and tried to commit suicide by taking an overdose of pills. She was rushed to the hospital, where doctors pumped out her stomach and saved her life. They then informed her that she was pregnant.

She says that she never saw an ultrasound of her child, but that she was allowed her to listen to the beating of her baby's heart through a stethoscope. "When I heard the word 'heart,' believe me I immediately felt that I have something with me that is mine, that belongs to me, no one is going to be able to take it away from me, and I am no longer going to be alone," she told the Mexican newspaper La Prensa in a recent interview.

"After I heard her heart, I knew that I had to advance so that baby would have everything she needed, so I worked and studied for a degree in communication, to give the best to my child, who was always telling me 'thank you for not having given me (in adoption) mommy,'" she said in an interview with the newspaper Ovaciones.

"I continued to study. It has been difficult but tell me: what is easy in life, right? And believe me that at the end of the day and after all these years, I see that it has been worth it."

Rebolledo says that she would like to meet a ten year old girl from the state of Quintana Roo who is currently pregnant after being raped by her stepfather, to tell her her story. Pro-abortion organizations in Mexico have sought to exploit the case to promote the legalization of abortion, and have tried to persuade the girl's mother to consent to the procedure, despite the fact that doctors say an abortion would endanger her health at this stage in the pregnancy.

"At 12 years, I was raped, I became pregnant," says Rebolledo. "I have a child who is almost 20 years old and the life of this little person has given me so much, because at the end of the day she ended up giving life to me, not I to her."

The Simpsons Goad South Park

Apparently, the Simpsons poked fun at South Park during last night's episode:

Originally found here at Gabby Babble. Love the commentary:

Last week’s episode of South Park was censored because a certain religious group had basically threatened the creators for including the prophet Mohammad on their show. In a way I’m glad this is drawing so much attention, but South Park will go on and continue to make us laugh our a** off no matter what and that’s all that really matters.

Yeah. A goofy show is all that really matters. Not high-minded things like freedom.

And wasn't it Comedy Central that bleeped it?

Reposted at Reason.com and The Platonic Shift.

Fighting the Enemy Within The Catholic Church

Can I hear an AMEN!

H/T: SoCon or Bust

Systematic Lukewarm Catholicism

What does the sex abuse scandal and the scandal over Development and Peace have in common?:

Make no mistake: there is a huge similarity in the modus operandi of the bishops that hid predator-priests from prosecution through denials and obfuscation and the M.O. of the Canadian bishops that are hiding and denying the truth about Development and Peace. The scandal is very different, but the underlying culture of hiding problems and being above reproach is the same. Very little has changed. Even the most faithful bishops in this country are gun-shy when it comes to openly denouncing the Development and Peace scandal. Have they not learned anything from the sex abuse scandal?

Lukewarm Catholicism is a systemic problem that requires a comprehensive big-picture strategy. I don’t have a miracle solution, but we should be thinking big.

(...)

It’s our duty to try and fix the problem of lukewarm Catholicism. But if we don’t, God won’t hesitate to send us persecutions to clean house. The lukewarm will then bail out of the Church and be pruned away, leaving a more fervent Church for the future. That’s the last resort. It would be most uncharitable for us to sit back and wait for God to do this. After all, we want the lukewarm to convert, not to apostatize and be lost. So let’s get moving.

I said it before and I'll say it again:

As long as the regulations to root out sexual abuse are just paper edicts, and the Church does not promote people who are gung ho about the faith, another scandal is going to erupt.

It's people who matter. The regulations are necessary of course. But if you don't have people who are not keen to obey those regulations out of a sense of duty to God, Truth, and Honesty (instead of just keeping their butts out of jail) forget it.

There'll be another scandal around the corner. We must promote people who love the faith as it is taught and who feel bound in conscience by it. Because if they don't, they will hide abuse once again, if they feel they can. Now it may not be sexual abuse. It'll be some other form of abuse of power. But it will happen. It's human nature. If rules don't matter, you don't follow them if you can get away with it.

Development and Peace Spokesperson Rejects Church Teaching on Contraception

Big Surprise!

Danny Gilles, a "development educator" at Development and Peace, and representative for the Atlantic region wrote a denunciation of Lifesite's report on D&P association with a pro-abortion group.(Published on their facebook page).

I will repost the item in toto at the end of this blogpost. However, I just wanted to highlight some of things he wrote. To begin with, he seems not to know too much about the fetal rights issue. Freedom from Debt Coalition, a Filipino partner of D & P, was accused by Lifesite of supporting abortion. He says of one of the articles on the FDC website:

says: "Because of largely unmet needs for modern contraception and related reproductive health services and education, half of the 3 million pregnancies occurring every year are reported as unplanned, with one-third ending up in abortion. Induced abortions are the fourth leading cause of maternal deaths in the Philippines."

This is not a pro-abortion statement.

If you read the articles from the Freedom from Debt Coalition, it's full of feminist rhetoric including "the right to choose"

D & P would have us believe this is all very innocent, and has nothing to do with abortion.

But on top of being naive to a fault, Mr. Gillis is obviously ignorant that many contraceptive methods are abortifacient.

And if one goes by the Catholic definition of abortion, those statements are pro-abortion.

But Development and Peace has shown time and again that they are ignorant of the abortion issue, they don't care and that they do not support fetal rights.

Then Gillis tries to deflect again, by saying that FDC is not really a pro-abortion organization because that's not the crux of their work. Nobody ever said it was the crux of their work. What is being said is that it supports abortions (and other beliefs against Church teaching) and they work against Church teaching. He practically admits the charges here:

What is true is that the women’s committee of the FDC has taken part in the work of a very broad coalition of women’s groups and other groups who are pushing for the passage of the reproductive health bill. The women's committee of the FDC, as well as dozens of other groups, participated in meetings to give input into the drafting of the bill and have organized activities to educate the public about the content and importance of the bill for society's development.

And we know from their website that they supported this pro-abortion bill. So they're a pro-abortion group. And when you give to Development and Peace, that money goes to these groups, who are not audited, and they can use that money for pro-abortion lobbying.

Danny continues:

Why has Lifesite decided to make an issue of the reproductive health bill now? One reason is that it needed a news story so that it could defame Development and Peace during its Share Lent campaign.

What "defamation"?

So far, it has become OBVIOUS that Development and Peace does not support fetal rights, nor does it uphold the teachings of the Church. D&P keeps putting its head in the sand instead of just admitting the gist of the facts. That would be the most honest thing to do, but they are afraid of being exposed for what they are.

And here's the kicker folks. Danny Gillis practically admits his non-support for the Church's teaching on contraception:

The reproductive health bill is controversial for the Catholic Church in the Philippines because of the church’s teaching on contraception, not because it advocates for abortion. It should be pointed out that in Canada, the bishops conference in their nuanced Winnipeg Statement have not been so unrealistic as to deny Catholics a choice with regard to forms of birth control.

And there you go. The Winnipeg Statement, a statement by Canadian Catholic bishops, is used to dissent against the Church's universal teaching against contraception.

Note to Danny Gillis: the Church's opposition to contraception is part of the universal magisterium and therefore must be accepted as part of Divine Revelation.

Here's a little snippet from Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae on the matter:

It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality" - which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act - are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".

But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.

The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being.

Note to the Catholic Bishops of Canada: you're going to have to put your money where your mouth is: either denounce contraception and retract the Winnipeg Statement, or else continue to have groups like this work against fetal rights. Your souls depend on it.


And one last thing about D & P's response to all these allegations: I have never seen such a tone-deaf PR response in my whole life. They don't even get it and don't want to get it. They won't even condescend to try. Their PR might work on people outside the Church. But to the orthodox who CARE about the Catholic Fait-- people who potentially put money in their envelopes, they're shooting themselves in the foot, and they don't even REALIZE it.

Here is Danny Gillis' reply to Lifesite:




Life Site News attacks Development & Peace partner
Share
Wed at 1:12pm
On Tuesday, March 22, Lifesite News made all-too-familiar allegations against a Development and Peace Filipino partner. Under the headline Development & Peace Sending Canadian Youth to Work with Pro-Abort Group in Philippines, Lifesite News (LSN) wrote that abortion advocacy “is readily available” on the partner's website.

The organization being attacked is a long-time D&P partner The Freedom From Debt Coalition. In fact there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of abortion advocacy on the coalition's website. This is not a matter of opinion where a reporter can make a judgement, it is a matter of fact and I challenge anyone to produce one shred of evidence that would show otherwise.

So why are articles like this written on LSN? That's a good question and I hope that what I will write will shed some light on LSN's smear campaign against Development and Peace.

The March 22nd article is typical of LSN reporting. It mixes a small bit of truth with a lot of manipulation to attempt to defame a Development and Peace partner in the eyes of Catholics. The LSN report contains some truth but it is so misrepresented as to make even the truth seem like lies. First of all, it is true that there are two articles on the coalition's website that mention abortion. LSN’s dogged journalist discovered these articles by simply doing a website search for the word abortion. However the references to abortion in these articles have to do with the terrible state of affairs in the Philippines where so many deaths occur because of abortion. One of the articles in question says: "Because of largely unmet needs for modern contraception and related reproductive health services and education, half of the 3 million pregnancies occurring every year are reported as unplanned, with one-third ending up in abortion. Induced abortions are the fourth leading cause of maternal deaths in the Philippines."

This is not a pro-abortion statement.

The second important piece of truth in the article is as Lifesite reports: the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines opposes the reproductive health bill. LSN would like us to believe that the bishops oppose the bill because it would legalize or decriminalize abortion, and most people reading their report would draw that conclusion. However, this is simply not true. The bishops oppose the bill because it proposes that sex education and better access to contraception be made available to the Filipino people. The LSN report also makes it seem as though the Freedom From Debt Coaltion is leading the charge to pass this bill. This also is not true.

The Freedom from Debt Coalition has attempted for many years to have the Filipino government move more of its spending away from the servicing of debt (paying interest on the country’s foreign debt) and into services that would benefit the people, whether these be education, health services or housing. This is the crux of their work. What is true is that the women’s committee of the FDC has taken part in the work of a very broad coalition of women’s groups and other groups who are pushing for the passage of the reproductive health bill. The women's committee of the FDC, as well as dozens of other groups, participated in meetings to give input into the drafting of the bill and have organized activities to educate the public about the content and importance of the bill for society's development.

One quote that LSN uses in their report is the following: According to the coalition, “The RH Bill makes it the responsibility of the state to protect the right to choose, not to make decisions for individuals. Women’s right to choose is a basic part of exercising control over their lives. The Bill provides for women to be informed as to services that will ensure women’s ability to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights.” LSN’s use of this quote in the context of the rest of the article is supposed to make the reader think that the coalition is advocating for abortion rights. It is not.

“Choice” in this quote refers to knowledge of one’s body, the reproductive health services that are available to people and access to forms of contraception… it does not refer to abortion. Why has Lifesite decided to make an issue of the reproductive health bill now? One reason is that it needed a news story so that it could defame Development and Peace during its Share Lent campaign. What makes this news story, which draws on two articles that are 17 months old, “current” is that LSN has learned that Development and Peace is organizing youth from Canada to visit the Philippines next summer. The obvious inference is that Development and Peace will be corrupting impressionable youth by exposing them to a group that has been a leader in the struggle for abortion services. Anyone who believes this has been duped.

The reproductive health bill is controversial for the Catholic Church in the Philippines because of the church’s teaching on contraception, not because it advocates for abortion. It should be pointed out that in Canada, the bishops conference in their nuanced Winnipeg Statement have not been so unrealistic as to deny Catholics a choice with regard to forms of birth control. Should Catholics in the Philippines have a choice whether to use contraceptives? Should non-Catholics? Should men and women be aware of options in this regard? These and other sensitive questions frame the debate in the Philippines. The debate is not about abortion, which is illegal in the Philippines. For Lifesite News to ignore this distinction and attempt to draw slanderous conclusions against a Development and Peace partner is a travesty for the truth.

For someone who calls himself a reporter to sit at his office computer in faraway, rich Canada; log onto a website of an organization that is fighting for better services for its people; do a word search for the word abortion just so that he can nail that word to the organization which does no abortion advocacy whatsoever… and finally try to plant the idea that Canadian youth are being corrupted by the staff and volunteers of Development and Peace… this to me is an irresponsible “journalist” who writes for a news agency that is led by a narrow view of reality and unconcerned by the real struggles of the poor.

For the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace to have to take this slander year after year… this too is a travesty.


- Danny Gillis

Regarding the Controversy of South Park's depiction of Mohammed

Mark Shea:

Such is the madness of our time that Christians--Christians!--rejoice because now South Park, passing from glory to glory, moves from a blasphemous depiction of Jesus to pulling the nose of Mohammed! O Happy Day!

Are we really willing to settle for so little? Well, you *did* depict Jesus defecating on somebody, but, aw heck, since you are willing to pluck up the guts to mock my political movement's current ideological enemy then heck! Come here and let me hug you, ya big lugs! We're all on the same page after all!"

Talk about selling your manhood cheap!

Clues for the clueless! South Park is the production of very funny, very gifted cultured despisers of Jesus Christ and him crucified. The devil always sends enemies of the gospel into the world in pair so that fleeing one, we might embrace the other. For quite some time, the alternative has been inflamed Islamic spirituality or watery secularist spirituality. Of late, the West has been tending a bit more toward "Inflamed Islamic spirituality vs. some form of inflamed secular spirituality". But both of these are false choices. Christians should be about radical commitment to the healthy spirituality of Jesus Christ (which, as a Catholic, I would argue is found in the tradition He has handed down to us in the Catholic faith). Selling that for the pot of message offered by the cultured despisers of South Park, or the equal opportunity haters of God like Christopher Hitchens, is but one of the signs of the madness that has gripped Christians in the US who don't seem to get that post-Christian Western Culture is, well, post-Christian.

This makes me think about the controversy surrounding the niqab.

I'm in agreement that people should not be walking around in public with their faces covered. It truly is a security isssue.

On the other hand, banning the niqab will provide the impetus for the persecution of other unpopular religious practices.

Secularists DO NOT UNDERSTAND FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

Why would they? They have no vested interest in that freedom. They do not believe in God, or do not take him seriously.

They think freedom of religion means the freedom to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the privacy of one's own home. That's the level of intellectual discourse in their discussion of religion. They're ignorant, bigoted and often close-minded.

They do not believe in a transcendent destiny for humankind. They do not believe in absolute truths. They do not have any "rule" to measure truth, except their own feelings-based political correctness.

Don't be too quick to rejoice over an anti-Islamic moment. Because when they can, those militant secularists will turn on you.

Gutsy University of Calgary Pro-Lifers

This is what will win the struggle for fetal rights-- (from the U of C pro-lifers' press conference)

We shall not abandon the unborn child to be murdered.
We shall not desert the single mom in crisis.
We shall not allow the evil of abortion to remain unexposed.
We shall not be intimidated by the threat of force.
We shall not be scared by the threat of expulsion.
We shall not back down from the stand we have made.

If they are to punish us, then we are content to let history revile them for their suppression of liberty.

If they are to punish us, then let the blood of the unborn child be upon their heads.

If they are to punish us then let the pain of the suffering mom be upon their conscience.

History will not remember what illegitimate excuse they used, other than as a derogative footnote; but history will remember their transgression against freedom, and it is upon this that posterity shall judge them.

So let the university do whatever action their twisted worldview sees fit, for we fear not the judgment of tyranny.

Sarah Palin interview to be aired on CTS

An interview with Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska, U.S. Vice Presidential Candidate, pro-life supporter and advocate for children with special needs, will be shown in a special edition of Always Good News on CTS TV (http://www.ctstv.com/), Wednesday, April 21st at 5:30 pm EST and again at 12:00 noon EST on April 22nd.

The entire interview will also be featured within Canada’s longest running daily TV program, 100 Huntley Street, airing the following Tuesday on April 27th at 9 am on CTS TV and Global.

More details here.

An Expert Sheds Light on the Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal

National Catholic Register:

What criticisms remain regarding the Church’s handling of these cases?

Much of the public criticism of the Church’s early handling of cases stems from a lack of knowledge about the historical context of this phenomenon.

I have seen newspaper articles criticizing officials for not reporting acts of abuse to the civil authorities during years when there were no child protective services and the particular behaviors involved were not criminalized yet. It is fair for criticism of decisions made in the ’60s and ’70s to focus on interpretation of moral behavior, weakness in the resolve of leaders or even the disregard of procedures set out in canon law. By the same token, it is essential to separate this from expectations that are based on the laws and standards of today.

We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s, discovered it caused real harm in 1978, and realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s. During the ’70s when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders — sending them to treatment instead of prison.

At the time, it was believed they could be cured with relative ease. This is a very young body of knowledge, and as we sort through both valid and questionable criticisms, we must consider the historical context of any given episode.

H/T: SoCon or Bust

The Betrayal of Christian Churches

Remember my blogpost yesterday about how Protestant churches have to speak out against abortion?

This blogpost from The Abortioneers is rather topical.

You might even be surprised to know that we truly owe many clergy during the 1960s and 1970s our gratitude for helping to pave the way for making abortion legal in the USA. Surprised? Believe it or not, there was a group called the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion in New York in the 1960s. The founder was an American Baptist Minister. This set the groundwork for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

No, actually, I'm not surprised.

Eleven-year-old Mexican Girl Refuses Abortion

Despite protests and pressure from feminists and pro-abortion groups, an 11-year-old girl in the Mexican city of Chetumal has refused to undergo an abortion. The young girl explained her decision saying that she understands, “a life is growing in her womb.”

Univ. of Victoria Student Union redefines "harassment"

Gotta love the self-serving definition:

The new definition includes discrimination on the basis of "sexuality, gender, gender identity, pregnancy or medical operation." Also defined as harassment would be "communicating with another person or group of persons by verbal, electronic, telephonic, written or visual means in a manner that harasses, which includes disseminating print materials, including but not limited to posters, notices, leaflets, signs or symbols, that compare abortion to genocide, war, child abuse or murder."

And gotta love this part:

Warner also took exception to the "communication" provision of the harassment definition. "So YPY is having their club meeting in a room on campus and they leave the door open," he suggested, "and they believe that abortion is murder, and they're talking about that because that's their belief, and someone walks by and hears that conversation and complains...I think that would be just a ridiculous charge to make."

"I do think that's a bit of a breach," Harrison responded. "We're hoping that this is used in a way that isn't abusing it."

OF COURSE they're going to "abuse" it. Anything to shut pro-lifers up.

Feminists cannot deal with the issue. They can only silence.

ARCC calls for the criminalization of coerced birth and pro-life activism

Got it from Ottawa Rebelles Blog

I cannot believe the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada is THAT STUPID.

Hey kids-- if your mom couldn't have an abortion, Joyce Arthur thinks it's a tragedy that you're not dead.

I wish I had the ability to draw satirical cartoons. It should have Joyce Arthur and the mom telling the baby she should have never been born.

“It’s not just partners or family members who try to compel women and girls to have babies against their will,” said Arthur. “The entire anti-choice movement has been trying to force women into pregnancy and motherhood for decades, by working to outlaw or restrict abortion. Perhaps we need to protect women from this coercion by criminalizing anti-choice activism!”

You can't get what you want, so you have to take away rights-- real rights. Not the fake ones you make up.

I think it just reeks of desperation.

But it won't happen. And even if it does, pro-lifers will not back down. You will have a movement of martyrs on your hands.

China tries to sterilise 10,000 parents over one-child rule

Whatever it takes to stem overpopulation, right?

Thousands of others have refused to submit and officials are continuing to detain relatives, including elderly parents, to force them to submit to surgery. Those in detention are required to listen to lectures on the rules limiting the size of families.

H/T: ProWomanProLife

VIDEO: Embryo at 7 weeks

Just because it's interesting and educational:

Feminist contempt

Heather Mallick

It's a mystery to me why women would join the Conservative Party in the first place. Harper's Conservatives may tolerate wives, but they don't appear to like women. This will be a huge problem for them in the next election.

Sometimes I just want to get all right-leaning females together and send a loud collective STFU to Heather Mallick and her ilk.

Why women join the Conservative Party? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT LEFTISTS LIKE YOU.

Because women like being judged on their merits.

Because they don't want their hard-earned tax dollars to go to leftist lobbying and judicial activism.

Because they don't want an expanded state-- they like their personal autonomy.

Because they like people who are tough on crime and are pro-family.

Because they are sick of feminists treating women sometimes as victims, sometimes as capable as it serves their ends.

They hate the radical feminist chip on their shoulder.

Believe it or not, Heather, there are millions of women who think that way.

And it hasn't done Stephen Harper any harm.

In the rural Ontario riding of Simcoe-Grey, sweatpants are a smart choice.

That just sums out why people hate Toronto.

University of Calgary Campus Prolife Group Threatened with Academic Censure

CALGARY- The University of Calgary has notified eight of its own students that they are being charged with non-academic misconduct, with a possibility of expulsion, for having set up a pro-life display on campus earlier this month.

Details here.

Claire Culwell: abortion survivor

From her website:

My name is Claire Culwell. I am 21 years old and Im from Austin, Texas. I am a nursing major in College Station, Texas. I became involved in the pro-life movement after meeting my biological mother who told me that my life is a miracle. I am a twin- abortion survivor. My birth mother walked into an abortion clinic at 13 years old where she had an abortion. My twin did not survive but I did.

Protestant Churches Must Speak Out Against Abortion

Says Jonathon Van Maren, a Canadian pro-life blogger:

Many of the Protestant churches in the US and especially Canada have responded to the challenge of secular-progressivism by simply becoming insular. The churches have opted to simply withdraw themselves from the public sphere, and consequently, their voices are not heard while unborn children are murdered behind sterile clinic doors. Their outrage is not heard by the politicians who create legislation, and in Canada, have a Supreme Court mandate to impose restrictions on abortion. Indeed, the Protestant churches often have very little outrage left to display, as apathy has been a way of life for so long it has, in many cases, prevailed. [...] Apparently many Christians believe that society can speed along a destructive path without the church being majorly impacted. We can sleep quietly in the back seat while the secular progressives drive the country towards the edge of the cliff. Rome is burning, but our house won’t catch fire.

The attitude of many Christian churches in Hitler’s Europe during the Holocaust comes to mind—the silence of these churches in the face of the slaughter of the innocents is a black page in Christian history that is still often discussed in university history courses today. But are we really so different from the many German civilians who watched with apathy while trains rolled by en-route to death camps like Auschwitz? A quick glance at history shows a frightening parallel between their excuses and ours; “We weren’t aware of the true horror of what was happening. “I didn’t dare say anything.” “I disagree with what is going on, but my hands are tied.” “What can we really do, anyhow?” Edmund Burke has so rightly noted that “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Although I think he's being a little too generous towards the Catholic Church about defending the right to life. There are many strong voices, but there is still a lot of apathy and even opposition to fetal rights.

Owning up

Fr. Owen Kearns talks about his past defense of Fr. Marcial Maciel:

I realize, though, that even if I don’t feel quite ready to talk about my role in defending our founder and the harm my words must surely have caused, the readers of the Register are ready and it is better that I speak now. To be honest, they have probably been ready for some time.

I publicly defended our founder as spokesman for the Legion of Christ in early 1997 and as publisher in the National Catholic Register in November 2001 and May 2006. On each of these occasions I believed completely that the allegations against Father Maciel were false. I trusted him and his profession of innocence. I know now that I was wrong.

I feel the same way. I would not believe the attacks on him because so many lies are spread about Catholic leaders, I believed it was part of the pattern.

The 1997 allegations of Father Maciel’s sexual abuse came as a complete shock to the Legionaries of Christ. We couldn’t believe that the allegations against our founder were true, because they were so incompatible with our experience of him. We tended to interpret them as one more attack — something normal in the life of many founders.

I know the Legionaries to be completely faithful and orthodox. I know that people who are orthodox are often maliciously slandered. I saw it as a way to get back at the Legionaries.

Even when the Vatican invited Father Maciel in 2006 to a retired life of prayer and penance, and it was obvious to many that he was considered guilty, the absence of a public explanation for the move allowed me to hope against hope that he was innocent.

Many saints had been falsely punished for perceived misdeeds, like St. John Chrysostom and St. Teresa of Avila. This seemed like the safest course.

Nothing in my experience of our founder prepared me to believe his victims — nothing, that is, until I learned that he had fathered a daughter. The conclusive evidence that he had done things incompatible with religious and priestly life made me rethink everything.

It was a shocking level of duplicity. Very hard to digest. When you live your life to be honest and as simple as possible, it's hard to imagine that anyone would be so two-faced.

Honestly, I don't know how the Legionnaires can carry on with that kind of history. It's so tainted. I'm thinking they should disband and regroup into some other formation.

REAL Women: "Shadowy Organization"

I had a great time at the REAL Women conference in North Bay, Ontario. I met a bunch of wonderful people. The presentation on blogging went very well. I anticipate an upswing in readership :)

Gwen Landolt, a founding member of REAL Women, gave an interesting address to the conference, in which she quoted political scientist Sylvia Bashevkin on women and politics in Canada. A REAL Women newsletter basically says the same thing that Gwen did:

Ms Bashevkin also blames REAL Women for Canada’s failure to further advance the cause of “women” in Canada. She is intimidated by the presence of REAL Women. In several passages that are unintentionally hilarious, she describes REAL Women as an organization, which is the “elephant in the living room”, undermining the “women’s” movement, since feminists were “no longer able to assert uncontested claims on behalf of the women of Canada”. Again, Ms Bashevkin never for a moment considers: why should feminists speak for all women? No organization speaks for all Canadian men. Ms Bashevkin further claims, in an interview in the Hill Times (August 10, 2009), that the Conservative government has “significantly higher contacts with REAL Women, and that the latter’s views find resonance with the current government” (If only that were the case!)

She hilariously describes REAL Women as a “secret, shadowy and ominous” organization, which has “managed to cultivate a compellingly authoritative voice”. Well, good for us! She sees REAL Women as a threat (again, good for us: someone had to do it!). She wonders where our funding originates, “besides government grants.”

As an incentive to having more elected women, Ms Bashevkin suggests that the political parties be required to have quotas, proportional representation and that there be mandatory voting. She also suggests that confronting this “looming but never silent elephant in the room” (i.e. REAL Women) can be achieved by the media probing our organization.

You have to laugh. "Secret, shadowy and ominous organization." Next time, I'll have to get them to teach me the secret hand shake and give me a decoder ring to read The Hidden Agenda.

Remember when Free Dominion was baptized "the shadowy group" ?

Were you coercd into having an abortion?

There's a new website dedicated to Bill C-510, Roxanne's Law, which would make it an offense to coerce a woman into having an abortion.

This website is soliciting the stories of women who had been coerced into having abortions.

Abortionist calls late-term abortion "euthanasia"

Says Dr. Peter Kopf in an interview done last October:

Well, as long as you have an early abortion, that's birth control. If you have a late-term abortion, that's euthanasia. I mean c'mon, let's face it. You do an abortion at 30 weeks, you know, you could do a C-section and you have a little baby in your hands. That's euthanasia.

Yeah, so, if a thirty-week fetus has to die in the name of choice: tough luck, baby!

H/T: Real Choice

Peggy Cooke: Punishing coerced abortion is "anti-choice"

A private members' bill seeks to punish coercing women into doing something they won't want, but it's deemed "anti-choice":

I feel that in most cases, someone being coerced into having an abortion (or being coerced into carrying a pregnancy to term, something about which Bruinooge seems strangely unconcerned) is in an abusive situation. The coercion is not the problem here(...)

There are already laws against domestic violence on the books.

What if you're not in a violent relationship? There are plenty of women not in violent relationships who face coercion.

Once again, this is why we deem the "pro-abortion" not "pro-choice".

I'm a pro-life woman. The now dead Bill C-484 and Bill C-510 recognized and upheld my choice!

Do these feminists care?

Noooooo.

I sense that the only choice they want to protect is the abortion choice.

The Sheer Stupidity of the Abortion Ideology

Abortioneer Daughter of Wands blurts out this tearjerker of a post.

There are tears for all the victims. Except the unborn children that she helps kill, including a 24-week fetus. Life's unfair, so you have to die to make it fair again. Tough luck, kid!

I wanted to weep-out how strange and frightening men and women harassed me and my doctor and my colleagues and our patients and our patient’s families and the mailman, how they took our most sacral babies, and how they covered them in jelly then blew them up on posters.

Babies so "sacral" they killed them. Babies so "sacral" they dumped them into bins. What irrationality!

Saskatchewan to scrap Human Rights Tribunal?

But not the Human Rights Commission. Still it would be a start!

H/T

Light blogging ahead

Hello dear readers.

This weekend I will be in North Bay, Ontario to give a presentation on blogging at the REAL Women Conference.

I anticipate that blogging will be light. Or not. Depends. :)

Things will go back to normal on Monday.

Joyce Arthur Makes No Sense. Surprise.

She writes:

The pro-choice view is woman-focused, and we take no view on the fetus (or should not). The status and moral value of the fetus is moot because it's a matter of subjective personal opinion, and the only opinion that counts is the pregnant woman's.

But the issue of who should be a rights-bearing person is not moot. And it should not merely be a personal opinion. It should be something that society can agree with.

Pro-lifers are arguing that fetuses are rights-bearer.

Of course, she doesn't want to come out and say that even if fetuses are rights-bearers, it should still be legal to kill them. She doesn't want to lay her cards on the table.

Note how she says that "choice" is "woman-focused". Ever notice that about feminism: only the woman matters. If men must suffer injustice in order to live up to their ideology, tough luck!

Canada: Private Members' Bill introduced to protect women coerced to abort

Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South), today, introduced a Private Member’s Bill deisgned to protect women who are coerced into getting abortions.

Details

---

Update:

“We hear stories of women being pressured and threatened and intimidated into having abortions against their will,” explained Bruinooge. “When a woman submits to ending the life of her unborn child because someone else pressured her into, then that abortion is coerced.”

Bruinooge warned that, “Coercion can escalate into violence. Many women have been forced into unwanted abortions; others have been injured or killed for resisting, like Roxanne Fernando, in whose memory I have named this bill.”

North Dakota Measure Seeks to Ban Decapitation, Skull Crushing during Abortions

Watch the feminists fight this. Tough luck fetuses! Your pain does not matter!

During a federal district court case out of New York in 2004, abortionist Dr. Stephen T. Chasen said that “the fetal head is extracted by placing the forceps around it and crushing it.” Dr. Chasen went on to say that he did not have “any caring or concern for the fetus whose head [he was] crushing.” Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, another abortionist, said, “For the vast majority of D&Es [it is] necessary either [to] crush or collapse the fetal skull.” She told the judge she does not use the word “crush” when speaking to her patients.

According to Woodard, the initiated measure would provide a class A felony penalty to physicians participating in skull-crushing or decapitation abortions. That penalty would become a class AA felony if a skull fragment from the unborn child were to cause serious bodily injury to the mother during or following a decapitation or skull crushing abortion.

Abortion and Slavery

The parallels

A sample:

1.Fate of certain human beings is dictated by financial and personal interests of others.

2.Courts establish who is human/non-human and use categories of partial humanness (slaves were called 3/5 of a person for legal purposes, fetuses lack all human rights).

3.The right to life and liberty, according to proaborts, are not inalienable for the fetus just as for slaves. They are a different category than the “all men who are created equal”, like slaves of old, and are held to receive their fundamental rights of life and liberty not “from God” but only if other more powerful people say they have them.

Can you say "Irony"?

You have to laugh at today's blogpost at The Abortion Gang regarding Nebraska's new law requiring mental health screening before performing an abortion:

So, if a woman is pregnant and wants to have an abortion, and is found to have a mental illness, then what?

Is she refused an abortion, and forced to forgo medication until she gives birth (is she put in some kind of cattle pen also)?

Is she forcefully medicated, refused an abortion, and stuck with a baby with birth defects ranging from mental illness to non-functioning organs?

Does anyone else hear echoes of eugenics and Hitler’s experiments?

Yeah treating mentally ill women and forcing them to give birth to handicapped babies. That's so like Hitler!

It's like they lack all sense of reality.

Status of Women: A Useless Ministry

Can I get an Amen!

Four decades later it seems Mathyssen and the other politicians still believe a minister needs to represent the status of women at the cabinet table. It is as if nothing has been learned or changed in 40 years. Worse, they seem to believe sending cheques to dozens of women’s organizations that lobby government is a wise investment.

It's time to arrest Dawkins and Hitchens for crimes against humanity

Patricia Maloney:

In typically Dawkinsesque fashion, Dawkins began his most recent attack on Catholics with some pretty slanderous statements against Pope Benedict that were presumably warm up exercises for his and Hitchens' current campaign to attack religion.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

I have a better idea.

Let's arrest Dawkins and Hitchens. For international crimes against humanity. For the religious persecution of over 1 billion Catholics in the world.

Patricia quotes actual legislation:

The definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Nürnberg Charter included the requirement that the prohibited acts be committed in connection with crimes against peace or war crimes. A decision has yet to be made as to whether the definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Statute will also include such acts when committed in peacetime. In this regard, the Yugoslavia Tribunal stated, 'it is by now a settled rule of customary international law that crimes against humanity do not require a connection to international armed conflict...Persecution against a group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious (and possibly gender) grounds".

And she means this tongue in cheek.

But it just goes to show that Dawkins' suggestion is hysterical and obviously bigoted.

Kiesle Case Redux

Where's the cover up?

This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican-- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. In short, if you're looking for evidence of a sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant.

We Americans know what a sex-abuse crisis looks like. The scandal erupts when evidence emerges that bishops have protected abusive priests, kept them active in parish assignments, covered up evidence of the charges against them, and lied to their people. There is no such evidence in this or any other case involving Pope Benedict XVI.

Hope and Change: The Results

I'm writing this especially for my American readers.

Liberal Americans often point to Canada as a land full of wonderful social programs to meet the needs of the less fortunate.

Barack Obama was elected to bring this "Hope and Change" to America.

Among the Canadian provinces that best epitomizes this "progressive" vision of society is Quebec.

Quebec has universal health care, $7 a day daycare, generous parental leave benefits. And so on and so forth.

Guess what?

Yesterday 50 000 Quebeckers went to the National Assembly to protest the latest budget.

They are sick to death of tax and spend.

I am from Quebec City. And I can tell you, unless a union or some other large scale body is behind a protest, residents of Quebec City don't get up and protest for anything.

This protest shows how pissed off they are. 50 000 people at a grassroots protest in Quebec City (in a province of close to 8 million people) is unheard of. Metro Quebec City is only 1 million (and you have to go way out to get that number).

The moral of the story: if you implement "progressive" policies in government, expect the taxpayers to revolt. Tax and spend is not a viable fiscal policy. Eventually the middle class gets squeezed, and they are not going to take it.

Understand that the conservative, republican ideology that you're all familiar with is alien to Quebecers. Quebeckers once embraced "social democracy". It was ideologically de rigueur in every public space.

The middle class can read their pay stubs. NO MORE!

Here's a video of the protest. You may not be able to understand French. Speed ahead of the interviews and watch the images. They're pretty impressive. They may me homesick for my home town.

Vatican issues new guidelines on sexual abuse

Details at the Vatican Information Service blog.

Here's an excerpt:

In very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming, the CDF may choose to take the case directly to the Holy Father with the request that the Pope issue a decree of "ex officio" dismissal from the clerical state. There is no canonical remedy against such a papal decree.

The CDF also brings to the Holy Father requests by accused priests who, cognizant of their crimes, ask to be dispensed from the obligation of the priesthood and want to return to the lay state. The Holy Father grants these requests for the good of the Church ("pro bono Ecclesiae").

I think these guidelines leave the Church open to criticism because there's a lot of discretion here, e.g. use of the word "may" instead of "should".

I can just see the reaction: You mean if the priest is guilty of a crime, he's not automatically laicized?

It's like when you're convicted of murder. It should be punished with life in prison.

In the Catholic Church, a priest who attempts to marry incurs automatic excommunication. It seems to me that there should be a canon law that imposes a penalty at least as severe on sexual abuse.

What happens if the bishop judges the priest in a penal process and only gives him a slap on the wrist?

This brings me to something I've been thinking about with regards to the Church.

I'm all for stricter guidelines. But I've noticed this a lot with the Church. There are a lot of rules, a lot of doctrines, but lots of clergy just ignore them.

So coupled with stricter guidelines, the Church has to ordain and promote clergy who are keen on following Church doctrine and canon law. Otherwise, all these guidelines will remain a dead letter. It will be the same old crap. Now the clergy will only try to not get caught ignoring the guidelines. So long as there's a culture of laxity in the Church, this is not going to change much.

I have a hunch that in some cases, bishops may not want to punish fellow brother priests, especially the story never manages to make it into the media. It's plausible that it doesn't.

I don't wish to impugn any intentions on Pope Benedict-- he's trying to do the right thing.

It's the local churches that worry me. They do not have a good track record enforcing canon law.

The Kiesle Case: No, the Pope was not trying to cover up

Cover up! Cover up! The Pope was complicit in a cover up!

Those words are on the lips of every anti-Catholic bigot after the release of a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger addressing the Kiesle case.

Fr. Fessio has the inside track.

Secondly, nothing at all prevents a bishop from: removing a priest from all ministry; removing his faculties; reporting him to civil authorities. There is no need even to inform Rome about this. The only way (until 2001 or in cases of abuse of Confession) that it need get to Rome is if the priest appeals the bishop's actions.

Thirdly, why was the CDF involved anyway? That was not the congregation that handles abuse cases, except where abuse of Confession has played a role. I believe the CDF was involved in cases of dispensation from celibacy. (Though you would think that should be under the Congregation for Priests.) But, again, dispensation has nothing to do with preventing further abuse.

It's the local bishop's job to handle abuse cases. The Pope can issue guidelines, but he's not the local enforcer.

The notion that the Pope is in on a conspiracy to cover up the sins of priests is a joke. It is based on nothing except ignorance, lies and bigotry.

VIDEO: French Gay Activists Try to Shut Down Debate on "The New Family"

Just watch this. It's about a debate on "The New Family"-- families created by assisted procreation, surrogate mothers, etc. that was held in France. Some gay activists tried to shout down everyone.


Act Up-Paris et Les Panthères roses zappent Christine Boutin
Uploaded by yaggvideo. - News videos hot off the press.

---

The comments are wonky again. Sorry about that! When I have a minute I'll try re-installing my comments system, if the problem doesn't resolve itself.

More Poor Choice Cluelessness

Nicholas Fogelson tries to explain why the Pro-Choice side of the abortion debate is losing in the United States:

Pro-life has been very successful in merging two question that should be separated, and by doing so have taunted the pro-choice side into addressing the wrong one. These questions are 1) is abortion unethical / immoral? and 2) should abortion be illegal? The vast majority of pro-life rhetoric is based on the belief that termination of pregnancy is immoral.

It appears that some people have not pushed their analysis of the pro-life cause to its logical conclusion.

Of course pro-lifers understand that just because something is immoral it doesn't have to be illegal.

What pro-lifers advocate is the recognition of the personhood of the unborn child.

It's not a morality/legality issue as the columnist seems to believe.

It's a philosophical one, that isn't ultimately about actions but about people.

Pro-choice must separate these two questions.

They can do that. But that doesn't address the main point: the unborn child is an equal human being with human rights.

See, the official pro-choice movement has always run away from this question. It based its push for legality on relativism, that we can't really settle on the issue of the moral status of the fetus. Different people have different ideas. We can't impose our morals on others.

It's a whole other kettle of fish when the premise being advanced is that fetuses are persons and that abortion is a form of discrimination against them.

It's not the old morality/legality paradigm.

It's almost a different debate. Because now the debate is not about an act, but about the fetus.

Pro-choice needs to stop addressing the question of morality question all together.

Sure, evade the ultimate question.

Prior to Roe v Wade hospitals had entire wards full of women injured or dying from illegal untrained abortion. This is incredibly compelling, yet Pro-choice gives it a back seat to a pointless argument about morality.

That argument worked in 1970 because women were seen as victims.

In the 21st century, that is less compelling.

The truth is: a woman who doesn't want to die from an abortion shouldn't have one.

The fetus has no choice.

There's something about adhering to evil that makes you unable to understand. If they truly understood the pro-life argument and tried to argue effectively against it, they would in effect have to go back on a whole bunch of ideas they've already banked on (e.g. ideas on the fetus vary; the fetus is not a human being; etc) and they would in effect indirectly make the pro-life argument.

It's like when communism made the argument that capitalism was evil because it allowed such great disparities and oppressed its poor, and yet store shelves across Communist countries were bare. There was a credibility gap that eventually led to communism's implosion. The people who ran communist countries couldn't come to grips to the truth, otherwise it would mean the end of their system. Which is exactly what happened. When the pro-choicers try to argue against the pro-life cause, they expose their own credibility gap, their own lack of understanding.

Smoking cannabis a religious right, court told

In a constitutional challenge to Canada’s drug laws, however, the two men argue that the cannabis plant is sacred to their religion, the Assembly of the Church of the Universe (COU), which claims about 35 active ministers and 4,000 members across Canada.

“It’s the most spiritual thing that has ever happened to me,” Styrsky testified Wednesday.

If this lawsuit sticks, watch this so-called Church gain a bunch of converts. Oh yeah, I just see it. A bunch of greasy-haired stoners just lining the parks and doing dope in the name of "religion".

“The COU offers no insight or answers into the existential questions (of) ‘ultimate concern’ which are the chief domain of religion; offers no comprehensive system of belief by which to live and offers no moral or ethical code,” federal Crowns Nicholas Devlin and Donna Polgar say in written submissions.

“It offers only marijuana — however and wherever individuals want it.”

What a farce.

Their only alternative is judicial activism.

Charges of a papal cover up are a lie

Fr. Raymond de Souza:

On March 25, the Times set off a worldwide firestorm with a front page story that made an incendiary accusation: "Top Vatican officials -- including the future Pope Benedict XVI--did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit."

Falsehood upon falsehood -- four errors in the first paragraph. First, the case to defrock Father Lawrence Murphy was approved by the "top Vatican officials," was never stopped by anyone in Rome and was ongoing when Murphy died. Second, Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict, is not shown in the documents to have taken any decisions in this case. Third, the real villain, aside from Murphy himself, was the compromised former Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, who had sat on the case for 20 years. Fourth, the files were not "newly unearthed"; a general chronology had been released by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee years ago, and the documents were released by the archdiocese itself.

The New York Times was guilty of egregiously shoddy reporting -- or worse -- on a story of global implications.

While the case was not new -- the priest died in 1998 -- the charge landed on front pages around the world, including the National Post, because the Pope was supposedly involved. Within days we learned that the Times was false on the facts, suspect in the sources and reckless in the reporting. All of which the paper had to implicitly concede a week later in an extraordinary rewrite by the same author. So what happened? Were the reporter, Laurie Goodstein, and her editors merely careless, genuinely duped or willing collaborators in an orchestrated smear?

(...)

For those who knew this file, the sources used screamed out for greater scrutiny. The first was Jeffrey Anderson, who gave the documents to Goodstein, a longtime reporter on Vatican affairs who covers the religion beat. Anderson is the most prolific contingency-fee lawyer in suing the Church, from which he has made tens of millions. He has current civil suits pending against the Vatican. It is in his direct financial interest to promote the public perception of complicity by the Pope. That alone should have prompted Goodstein to examine what the documents showed and to inquire of others whether there were other relevant documents that he did not give her. Instead, her story accepted fully the Anderson spin.

VIDEO: Do you know Pope Benedict XVI? (Cool Stuff!)

It's hard to explain what this video is. I'll call it eye candy about the pope. Just watch it.

Pastor calls Christian atheists to shed hypocrisy

The way Christian atheism plays out, he preached at that time, is: "I believe in God but I want to do whatever the heck I want to do. I want enough of God to keep me out of hell and enough of God to get me into heaven but I don't want so much of God that it makes me change my lifestyle because at its root I believe in God but I do not fear Him."

(...)

To the Christian atheist, the pursuit of happiness gives license to sin. And happiness to them is based on the things in this world rather than God's kingdom.

Moreover, "to the Christian atheist, the holy God of the universe is quietly transformed into a cosmic soda machine. If we give enough money, or pray the right prayer, or live the right way, God must deliver and do what we ask."

(...)

Other symptoms include believing in God but not being certain that He loves you, not really knowing Him, not believing in prayer, not thinking He's fair, not thinking you can change, trusting more in money, worrying all the time, shunning the church, and not sharing your faith.

Lawyer gave the OHRC the Shaidle treatment

Kathy Shaidle repeatedly tells people to send the Human Rights Commission packing if they ever come calling.

In light of that, I'd like to relate this anecdote of retired lawyer dahn batchelor:

About ten years ago when I was practicing law before I retired, I represented a man who was a tenant in an apartment building. He was a witness who was testifying against the superintendent of his building. The super was charged with mischief. Whenever he had an argument with a tenant (including my client) he would sneak into the parking garage of the building late at night and cause damage to the tenant’s vehicle. I was overheard referring to the super as a Polish Bastard. A few days later, I got a call from a young twit who said that she was with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. She warned me that if I call the super a Polish Bastard again. I would be charged under the Human Rights Act of Ontario. I told this young twit on the phone that I cannot be charged with telling the truth. I said the man is Polish and he certainly is a bastard. I further told her that if I hear from her or any other person in the Commission, I would make fools of them all. Needless to say, I didn’t hear from them again.

McGill Student Union Votes to Reinstate Choose Life's Club Status

The kicker:

"A lot of their complaints revolved around the ambiguity of our equity policy, or ambiguity of their actual violations of the equity policy," Olle said. "It's good that we have come to some sort of agreement on a black and white document."

In particular, the document stipulates that "Choose Life will not advocate or lobby for the criminalization of abortion through the use of SSMU resources."

Here's another chuckler:

They want us to keep being able to be a club; shutting down a point of view is not at all their goal."

Scripture Verses Officially Interpreted By the Catholic Church

One of the misunderstandings that people have of Catholicism is that the Church gives official definitions to every phrase of Scripture.

Revelation doesn't work that way. Not all Truth can be written down, even though it's accepted by the body of believers. Otherwise, it's also implicit in what is already being taught.

However, there are some verses whose meanings have been defined by the Church.

I find this blogpost on the subject interesting, because I've always wondered what they were.

These official interpretations do not exclude additional but non-contradictory interpretations.

Just an example:

Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24 - Council of Trent, September 17, 1562 "Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass," canon 2

If anyone says that by these words: "Do this for a commemoration of me [Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24], Christ did not make the apostles priest, or did not ordain that they and other priests might offer His own body and blood: let him be anathema.

The Church derives basic concepts from Scripture and defines those as doctrines. Just sayin'.

Why I Never Became An Actress

When I was a youth and considering my future, one of my career options was acting. I was very involved in amateur theatre (much of it no-frills, church basement, bare bones kind of theatre).

God I loved it.

This is why I never became an actress.

HOLLYWOOD, California, April 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Sticking to his principles as a Christian and a family man, Hollywood actor Neal McDonough has been fired from a spot in a television series because he refuses to perform explicit sex scenes.

ABC sacked McDonough only three days into filming, according to an industry source cited on Hollywood columnist Nikki Finke's blog, Deadline.com, for declining to perform the scenes with co-star Virginia Madsen on the network's new series "Scoundrels." ABC officially said the decision was a simple casting change.

McDonough, a Catholic who is married with three young children, also refused to act out passionate scenes with actress Nicolette Sheridan when he played the role of her husband in season 5 of the popular ABC series "Desperate Housewives." He reportedly turned down similar scenes in NBC's "Boomtown" as well.

I know that people say that sex and kissing is "just" acting therefore, it's not harmful to chastity.

I don't buy that.

You kiss someone, you're kissing them, whether you "mean it" or not. You're still being intimate with someone, even if the intent is not adulterous. As if being in the sack with some other person doesn't bring temptation to actually enjoy it. I think it banalizes sexual expression when you treat that kind of acting as "just pretend".

I'm not perfect on this point. I know I watch plenty of movies where the characters engage in some fairly heated amorous exchanges knowing darn well they are not married to each other. Now, watching it isn't the same as engaging in it, but when I sit back and analyze what is going on, I'm morally uncomfortable with it. "Hey look, those two actors are getting it on and they're not married." It's just sort of voyeuristic. I know you're supposed to be suspending your belief to follow the story, but...it doesn't feel right.

And yes I'm often this analytical when I watch movies.

Maybe if we kept private things a little more private (and no, I don't consider killing a fetus a legitimately private thing) then this wouldn't be a problem.

Status of Women Canada pays extreme group to discredit CPCs

Patricia Maloney's Run with Life is new to the blogosphere, but she has an interesting scoop.

She has discovered, through an Access to Information Request that Status of Women Canada funded Pro-Can to write a report panning CPC's (Crisis Pregnancy Centres).

The grant was for $27 400.

Check out this quote from the application:

[The goal of this project is to] ..publicly expose the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPCs..

It's about time someone told the feminists that their ideology is not the Gospel truth to what is or is not pro- or anti-women.

Just because they say they are for equality doesn't make them so!

Why hasn't the government shut down this agency.

Religion and Power

Harebell and I have been having a long-winded discussion following my post on falsely accused priests.

I'm very interested in continuing the discussion --as this is exactly the kind of discussion that I appreciate. It makes me nostalgic for my days as a religious message board operator.

I think it's a shame that others should be left out of the discussion-- naturally they've probably moved on.

But I would like to quote Harebell's latest message and get your reaction on it. You might wish to read the whole thread.

Put power in the hands of anyone or any group and that is what controls. Anybody who denies the power that religious leaders in the world wield is deluded. Religions are created to control people and their thoughts and have been used to great effect in the west as well as elsewhere. It is this powerful side of religion that allowed kids to suffer and continue to suffer at the hands of criminals in dog collars.

Religion is a man made institution. You cannot separate it from the actions of its leaders and adherents. God on the other hand is a completely different matter, but mankind and religion are linked at the conception of any faith based doctrine.

Nice twist in the words at the end there. Religious folk are always free to act on their convictions, but must expect to be called to justify them. However they are not free to align government policy with one specific form of religion. That was the founders'

Here is what I have to say:

Put power in the hands of anyone or any group and that is what controls.

If someone puts power in the hands of someone, it suggests that they have power that they are giving.

So to me, that suggests that is the believer who ultimately has the power, not the religious leader. (This is all in the context of a free society).

Anybody who denies the power that religious leaders in the world wield is deluded.

I just find it funny that you, a secular individual claims to know better than I, an actual religious believer, who has power and who doesn't.

If I don't want the pope to have power over my life, then I don't.

But I buy into Catholic Doctrine, I willingly submit to the authority of the Church.

Any adult who is a faithful Catholic isn't faithful by force. You believe it or you don't. Nobody "makes you" be Catholic.

Religions are created to control people

I'd like some evidence to back that up. I'd like some historical evidence of a conspiracy to control people.

You can't control people who do not want to be controlled.

It is this powerful side of religion that allowed kids to suffer and continue to suffer at the hands of criminals in dog collars.


Again, I'd like some evidence of it. There's nothing in Catholic Doctrine that says "if a pedophile priest is caught, cover it up, regardless of consequences to the children."

Religion is a man made institution. You cannot separate it from the actions of its leaders and adherents.

So if one leader screws up, we all screw up?

If all Catholics sin, then the religion is sinful?

No, it doesn't quite work that way.

However they are not free to align government policy with one specific form of religion. That was the founders' intention.

Actually, no. The Founders' intention was that people act politically on their religious convictions.

You can't manipulate a person's conscience. If a person's conscience is formed about religion, then they must follow their conscience, in all areas, including in politics. If a person cannot follow their conscience in politics, they have no freedom of religion.

Continuing on the the feminist theme of coercion through positive reinforcement

Yesterday, there was an article in the National Post in which Jonathan Kay described his visit to an anti-racism workshop.

I laughed, as it reminded me of what DeBeauxOs said of the likes of me and other so-called intégristes.

An especially telling moment came when someone raised the subject of Third World nannies who immigrate to Canada under government-sponsored caregiver programs. The instructor told the class that the practice was inherently "super-exploitative." She also pointed us to an article included in the week's reading, Black Women and Work, in which Canadian author Dionne Brand argues that cynical employers use appeals such as "You know that you're part of the family" to emotionally blackmail nannies, housekeepers and elder-care workers into the continuation of abusive work relationships.

One of the students -- I'll use the name "Chris" (having promised not to identify any attendee by name) -- interjected, apologetically. Chris couldn't help but confess that her own family had employed just such a nanny, who truly did seem "part of the family." For several minutes, Chris gave details, describing all the touching, intimate ways in which the nanny's family had become intermingled with Chris's own.

This speech from the heart caused a ripple of discomfort. One woman suggested that the nanny has adopted a "coping mechanism" to deal with her subordinate situation. This led to a discussion about how we must recognize the nanny's "agency"--a popular buzzword signifying that minority members must not be seen as passive victims. The instructor listened attentively -- but didn't offer much more except that the example demonstrated the "contradictariness" of anti-racism studies. We moved on while Chris sat there, looking somewhat confused, and attracting my sympathy.

Maybe the "contradictariness" is due to the fact that it's crap.

Look, the woman has "agency". Just because she's a poor woman of colour from the Third World doesn't mean she can't see through the BS.

If the family says she's part of the family and they don't treat her that way, don't you think she's not going to see that?

It seems that feminists have low expectations of women in "victim" groups. It's almost...sexist, racist and discriminatory in other ways as well.