CEDAW Meets in Geneva and Zeroes in on Abortion

By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) The committee that monitors states compliance with Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) opened its latest session in Geneva this week to review the reports of 12 states. Even prior to the arrival of country delegations in Geneva, the committee had already begun questioning states on abortion, though the treaty itself is silent on the subject.

At this session, the CEDAW committee will review the reports of Belgium, Canada, Ecuador, Uruguay, Kyrgyzstan, Slovenia, Mongolia, Bahrain, El Salvador, Madagascar, Myanmar and Portugal on how those countries are implementing their obligations under CEDAW. A glance at the list of pre-sessional questions sent to the states reveals that all but four were questioned on abortion.

In the pre-sessional documents, the committee asked El Salvador for information on how the government was implementing a previous recommendation that urged the government to allow abortion. The committee asked Myanmar to explain whether “women have a right to terminate a pregnancy resulting from sexual violence.” The committee also criticized Uruguay’s law criminalizing abortion, which the committee says “has not helped reduce secret and unsafe abortions,” and asked for detailed information on how Portugal is implementing its new law which permits government-funded therapeutic abortions during the first 10 weeks.

States will be expected to answer these concerns when they come face-to-face with the committee during the session. At the end of the session, the CEDAW committee will issue its recommendations for each country. While these recommendations are non-binding, abortion activists have brought litigation throughout the world citing the ruling of United Nations human rights treaty bodies, like the CEDAW Committee, in challenging laws against abortion. Such arguments helped convince Colombia’s constitutional court to liberalize that country’s restrictions on the practice.

CEDAW critics have become increasingly concerned about the work and composition of the committee. In recent years CEDAW committee members have pressured more than 60 nations on their abortion legislation.

According to guidelines, the 23 members of the CEDAW committee should be “independent” and “of high moral standing and competence.” A recent survey of the committee revealed, however, that half of the CEDAW committee members are direct employees of such radical non-governmental organizations as the Latin America and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women's Rights (known by its Spanish acronym CLADEM), the International Council of Women, and the Global Fund for Women.

At the current session, CLADEM submitted alternative country reviews for both El Salvador and Uruguay. CLADEM declared that Uruguay “must de-penalize the interruption of pregnancy…in accordance with CEDAW” and demanded that El Salvador “reform abortion legislation” and “consider exceptions to general abortion prohibitions in therapeutic abortion cases.” Silvia Pimental, a sitting CEDAW committee member, is a founding member of CLADEM and is still listed on CLADEM’s website as a member of its honorary consulting council.

The next CEDAW committee session is scheduled to take place next January in Geneva. Recently, the UN formally empowered the committee to meet three times annually starting it 2010, which it had already been doing as an “extraordinary” measure.

For more news, visit us at www.c-fam.org.

CEDAW infuriates me! They use intimidation tactics and substantiate themselves with blatantly false interpretations of non-binding UN documents and treaties. I can't wait until someone drops the airs of diplomacy and calls them on the carpet at one of these meetings.

Keeping Obama's pro-abortion stance in the light

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 10/19/2008 5:10:00 AM

The pro-life movement could suffer heavy damage in the November election, depending on how informed voters are. The National Right to Life Committee is working to educate them.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), says Barack Obama is committed to a strategy of sweeping changes in abortion policies. "For example, he is dedicated to repealing the Hyde Amendment, which is the law that prohibits federal funding of abortions and which has saved the lives of more than one million Americans since it was first enacted," he explains.

Obama, Johnson notes, has also pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, "which is a proposed federal law that would invalidate and nullify hundreds of pro-life laws across the country, including parental notification laws and which would make partial-birth abortion legal again."

Johnson suggests the Democratic presidential candidate had a history of being extremely pro-abortion on state and federal levels -- until he won his party's presidential nod. Since then, says the pro-lifer, "he has adopted a cynical, what they call, 'messaging' strategy where he has teams of surrogates going out and trying to sell Obama to the various faith communities as some sort of centrist or moderate," he adds.

Johnson contends Obama is neither. The NRLC has endorsed GOP presidential candidate John McCain.

Study: Press, Obama love-fest continues

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 10/20/2008 6:00:00 AM

A new report confirms that "Obamamania" is alive and well in the mainstream media.

A non-partisan research group says Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has increased his lead over John McCain in the race for good press, while Sarah Palin's press has "turned sharply negative" on network news shows.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) has released the results of a scientific content analysis of nearly 600 election news stories that aired from August 23 through September 30 on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and Fox Special Report.

CMPA executive director Donald Rieck says since the party conventions began, comments about Senator Obama on the network evening news shows have been 65 percent positive, compared to only 36 percent positive comments about Senator John McCain. Rieck says Obama's press coverage has been "universally great."

"He had astronomically high positives in our study from the beginning all the way through when Hillary dropped out," he notes. "We're talking upwards of 88 percent positive evaluated statements on the evening news...of the three major networks and Brit Hume."

Rieck says Obama received tough coverage only for a two- or three-week period after Senator Hillary Clinton dropped out of the Democratic primary. According to the CMPA report, comments about Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin have been only 42 percent positive, while there have been too few evaluations of Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) for "meaningful analysis."

Heroes: Columbus and Pius XII

Remembering the Truth of Their Faith and Courage

By Elizabeth Lev

ROME, OCT. 16, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Even the ancient Romans understood the importance of gratitude. Marcus Tullius Cicero, orator extraordinaire, extolled that "gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others."

Yet in our modern age we seem to have lost this virtue as revisionist history, cinema and popular literature have vilified those whose achievements have shaped the world we live in today.

This came to mind Sunday, Oct. 12, on what was once known as Columbus Day in commemoration of the day Christopher Columbus first sighted the New World.

This event, which opened the age of discovery, has been since renamed "Indigenous People Day" by some U.S. towns, thus casting into obscurity the courageous and visionary undertaking of the explorer and his patrons who equipped the mission.

Columbus himself has been recast as a greedy, social-climbing tyrant, and while his defects have been blown out of all proportion, his admirable qualities have been simply forgotten.

Ironically, Columbus, the first European man to set foot in America, was the first example of what would later be called "the American dream."

Born of poor parents in Genoa, he immigrated to Spain with only his hard-earned knowledge of seamanship, his desire to get ahead and his profound Catholic faith to sustain him.

Like the countless immigrants who would follow him, he had a dream and the drive to work hard and take risks to realize it.

Divine Providence decreed that he would find a sympathetic ear in the king and queen of Spain, and so Columbus fulfilled his life's ambition, did well for himself and paved the way for future generations to be able to excel through hard work and ingenuity.

A deeply devout man, Columbus was always grateful to God and dedicated his mission to the New World to the conversion of pagan peoples; like the apostles, he hoped to bring the Gospel to those who had never heard of Christ. Upon sighting land on Oct. 13, 1492, the entire crew prayed the Salve Regina.

Today, his contributions are masked by words like "exploitation" and "gold-hunger," but all those Americans who descend from families who hoped to live out their ambitions while freely practicing their faith, should be grateful to Christopher Columbus who was not only great navigator on the seas, but in life.

* * *

Myth and Lies

Last Oct. 9, the Church offered a magisterial example of the virtue of gratitude while remembering the 50th anniversary of the death of Pope Pius XII, one of the unsung heroes of the 20th century.

The life of Pius XII seems to have certain parallels with this summer's blockbuster film "The Dark Knight." The hero, Batman, out of love for his fellow citizens, must sacrifice recognition for his relentless battle against evil and ultimately endure persecution by the very people he is protecting.

Pius XII, who reigned from 1939 to 1958, spanning the years of the Second World War, was universally lauded for his wartime efforts after the defeat of the Nazis. But revisionists of many stripes in the late 20th century have competed with one another to besmirch his name, culminating in the scandalous label -- or libel -- of John Cornwall's "Hitler's Pope."

Obscured by the flood of false accusations, from criminal silence regarding the fate of the Jews in Germany to active participation in their persecution, the brilliantly innovative aspects of this pontificate have been completely neglected.

But the tables recently turned for Pius XII as, in the words of Vatican reporter John Allen, Benedict XVI initiated a "full court press" to redeem the name of this great Pope and push forward the cause for his beatification.

An international symposium was held in Rome last September under the auspices of the Pave the Way foundation in order to shed light on the activities of Pius XII in favor of the Jews during World War II.

This organization was founded by an American Jew, Gary Krupp, who believes that in order to create a fruitful dialogue among religions, the accusations regarding Pius XII, a source "of friction between people," must be laid to rest through the discovery of the truth.

Among the findings of the conference was that those who "lived through the brutality of the Nazis and were saved by the church's actions" had a high opinion of the Pope. The Israeli Philharmonic orchestra asked to play for Pope Pius in 1955, and at his death Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir mourned "a great servant of peace."

Krupp noted that it has been the "subsequent generations born into the safety of the defeat of the Nazi regime" who have bought into the myth of the Pius XII as a Nazi collaborator.

During the three-day conference, the meticulous research of Sister Margherita Marchione, Rabbi David Dalin, Andrea Tornielli, Ronald Rychlak and many others was presented, refuting the spurious accusations against the Pope and demonstrating his tremendous role in saving Jewish lives.

Paolo Mieli, director of Italy's leading newspaper, "Corriere della Sera," who happens to be a secular Jew, added another interesting point in an interview published in L'Osservatore Romano when he noted that the hostility toward Pius XII did not originate among the Jews.

It was an Eastern European playwright, Rolf Hochhuth, apparently backed by the KGB, who started the ripple that turned into an earthquake with his six-hour play "The Deputy," in which the playwright accused the Pius XII of culpable silence regarding the persecution of the Jews.

The theatrical piece was quickly picked up by leftist promoters in Paris and London and soon enough, Anglo-Saxon "scholars" hopped on the bandwagon with bestselling books like "Hitler's Pope," "Papal Sin" and "Under His Very Windows."

But when Pope Paul VI announced the opening of the beatification process of both John XXIII and Pius XII in 1965, there were no objections. The Pope's decision to jointly open the two processes was a message of continuity within the Church.

The lies regarding Pius XII were welcomed and even abetted, however, by those who wanted to create a division in the 20th-century Church by drawing a line between the "good" John XXIII and the "bad" Pius XII, and between the "old" Church and the "new" Church of the Second Vatican Council.

But in this wonderful week, as Benedict XVI celebrated a Mass in honor of his esteemed predecessor in a packed St. Peter's Basilica, a giant step was taken toward putting to rest the fictitious legend and honoring the great contributions of Pius XII.

Earlier in the day, the Pope's secretary of state Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone wrote in L'Osservatore Romano of Pius XII's material assistance to the Jews. He said that if Pius XII "had intervened publicly, he would have endangered the lives of thousands of Jews who, at his request, were hidden in the 155 convents and monasteries in the city of Rome alone."

During his homily, Benedict XVI offered a refreshing new view of Pius XII indicating "a great multitude of speeches, addresses and messages delivered to scientists, doctors, and representatives of the most varied categories of workers, some of which even today still possess an extraordinary relevance and continue to be a concrete point of reference."

The current Pontiff concluded with the thought: "As we pray the process of beatification of servant of God Pius XII proceeds happily, it is well to recall that holiness was his ideal, an ideal that he constantly urged for all."

At last, a hero's welcome for Pope Pius XII.

* * *
Article by Elizabeth Lev, who teaches Christian art and architecture at Duquesne University's Italian campus. She can be reached at lizlev@zenit.org.
http://www.zenit.org/en

Pro-choice" vs. "Pro-abortion"? Or, "Pro-choice" = "Pro-abortion"?

Posted by Carl Olson on Thursday, October 09, 2008 at 02:13 AM
A reader responds to my linking to Bill Donahue's parody with some consternation:

The problem with this parody, of course, is that Obama is pro-choice rather than pro-abortion. This is not to say that a pro-choice stance is morally defensible. It is not. But one would be unfairly slandering Obama to say simply that he is pro-abortion because of his pro-choice stance. Obama has spoken out and worked consistently to lower abortion rates. The moral problem with an Obama candidacy is its opposition to making abortion illegal. Legal abortion, however, is not the same as abortion accepted on a moral level.

For Obama to support the act of abortion would be for him to support an intrinsic evil. To say simply, however, that it is not the place of the state to restrict abortion is a morally wrong decision and an indefensible political stance. It is not, however, the same as an anti-racist supporting a racist. It might be the same as an anti-racist supporting someone who thinks racism is a terrible thing but does not think that the government should criminalize the racist practices of private businesses or people. This would be a troubling moral stance, to be sure, and not necessarily one that is defensible. It is not, however, fairly characterized in Donahue's parody.

I think that valid arguments could be made against pro-life Catholics who support Obama, but the overly-simplistic approach to the problem taken by this site and others only does a disservice to Catholic moral reasoning.

Well, goodness, I do dislike being perceived at being overly-simplistic, so let's see if I can be a little more complicated this time around. Let's start with the statement: "Obama is pro-choice rather than pro-abortion."

First, what does that mean? I ask the question seriously. In other words, what does it mean when someone says, "I am pro-choice"? What is being chosen? What choice is being supported, upheld, and favored? And why is that choice being supported, upheld, and favored? I think it is fair to say that most of those folks who use the description "pro-choice" claim they support a woman's right to choose to either bring a pregnancy to term or to terminate the pregnancy; they uphold a woman's right to make choices about her body, especially when it comes to issues that are sexual and reproductive in nature; and they favor the government abstaining from any infringement upon those rights and choices.

In common parlance—and political parlance as well—being pro-choice is primarily about a woman's right to either have a child or terminate her pregnancy. Which is why, for example, the NARAL site states, "In 1973, the Supreme Court guaranteed American women the right to choose abortion in its landmark decision Roe v. Wade. In Roe, the Court issued a compromise between the state's ability to restrict abortion and a woman's right to choose. ... Making abortion access more difficult and dangerous is a key tactic of the anti-choice movement. ... The anti-choice movement's ultimate goal is to outlaw abortion in all circumstances." Numerous other examples could be given, but it should be fairly evident that the word "choice" is primarily aligned with abortion, which is why "anti-choice" almost always means "anti-abortion."

What the reader above insinuates (and others argue more directly) is that it is unfair to describe Sen. Obama as "pro-abortion" when he 1) doesn't force women to have abortions, 2) denies that anyone is really "pro-abortion", and 3) supposedly works for a lessening of the number of abortions. But this is mere sophistry, built largely on the notion that only those who force women to have abortions are actually pro-abortion.

But this defies both commonsense and a logical use of language. In his parody Donahue used the the example of racism and supporting David Duke, but I think we are better served here if we use the example of slavery, for two reasons: 1) it provides a more specific example of behavior than does racism (which can be construed in very vague ways) and 2) it closely parallels abortion in how it involves ownership and control of another person and the denial of that person's rights.

Now, which of the following could reasonably be considered "pro-slavery"?:

• Believing that slavery should be enforced on a certain group of people. (Yes, obviously.)
• Supporting the right of others to be able to have slaves if they choose so. (I would say so.)
• Insisting that the decision to have slaves is a matter for the potential slave owner to decide for himself and that such a decision should be protected by law. (Again, I would say so.)
• Demanding that the government should not be involved in keeping people from having slaves if they so choose, and supporting legislation to that end. (Yes, without a doubt)

These actions and stances are all "pro-slavery"—that is, they each, in various ways, are in favor of the practice and reality of slavery even though not all of them are based on the belief that everyone in a certain group or class of society should have slaves. Put another way, the merely complacent position of believing that slavery is alright for some people can be fairly construed as being "pro-slavery," even if the person with that perspective never acts upon it. But if they do act upon it and work actively for the right to own slaves, etc., there can be no doubt that they support slavery and are thus "pro-slavery."

But what if such a person said, "When it comes to slavery, I am 'pro-choice,' not pro-slavery"? What would a reasonable person think? The reader states, "But one would be unfairly slandering Obama to say simply that he is pro-abortion because of his pro-choice stance." This misrepresents the character of Sen. Obama's position: he is not pro-abortion because he is pro-choice; rather, he is "pro-choice" because he is pro-abortion. In blunt terms, the descriptive "pro-choice" is a semantic sleight of hand which suggests that the coin is in the hand wishing to have a "right to choose" when it is actually in the hand choosing the right to kill an unborn child. For those who say they are "pro-choice," the real concern is the one doing the choosing, while for those who are pro-life, the concern is the one who has no choice at all.

So what is the difference between choosing to have a slave and choosing to have an abortion? Simply this: the unborn are not accorded the same rights as those who are born, that is, those who could be made slaves. Or, put differently, the issue is the moral status of the unborn compared to the born. "Most supporters of abortion choice," writes Dr. Francis Beckwith in Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge, 2007), "agree with pro-life advocates that the question of abortion's permissibility rests on the moral status of the unborn: abortion is prima facie unjustified homicide if and only if the unborn entity is a full-fledged member of the human community (i.e., a person or a subject of moral rights). Most abortion-choice advocates also agree with pro-life supporters that the unborn entity is a human being insofar as it belongs to the species Homo sapiens. Where they disagree is over the question of the moral status of the unborn. These abortion advocates argue that the unborn entity is not a person and hence not a subject of moral rights until some decisive moment in fetal or postnatal development" (p. 130).

The reader states, "The moral problem with an Obama candidacy is its opposition to making abortion illegal." Again, let's use the analogy: "The moral problem with Mr. Smith is his opposition to making slavery illegal." If Mr. Smith is opposed to slavery being illegal, it follows that he is in favor of it being legal. And if he is in favor of slavery being legal, he is pro-slavery. Likewise, Sen. Obama is pro-abortion; there is simply no way a person can look at his record (see this NARAL PDF) and conclude that his protection, promotion, and providing for "choice"—that is, abortion—is anything but "pro."

The reader—who is a Catholic making a case for Catholic support of Sen. Obama—states, "Obama has spoken out and worked consistently to lower abortion rates." Likewise, the NARAL fact sheet mentioned above states, "In addition to his pro‐choice record, Sen. Obama has cosponsored legislation that would prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion." It then lists these three pieces of legislation:

• Sexual Assault Survivors Emergency Treatment Act, H.B.320, introduced on 1/13/99 (Illinois State Senate).
• Prevention First Act, S.20, introduced on 1/24/05 (U.S. Senate).
• Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act, S.2916, introduced on 5/19/06 (U.S. Senate).

Each of these prominently features the use of contraceptives as an essential means of reducing abortions. The "Sexual Assault Survivors Emergency Treatment Act" states, for example, "Within 120 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 92nd General Assembly, every hospital providing services to sexual assault survivors in accordance with a plan approved under Section 2 must develop a protocol that ensures that each survivor of sexual assault will receive medically and factually accurate and written and oral information about emergency contraception..."

The 2005 "Prevention First Act" has some 95 references to "contraceptives" and "contraception"; it is also known by these titles: "Emergency Contraception Education Act," "Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act," "Family Planning State Empowerment Act," and "Truth in Contraception Act."

In similar fashion, the 2006 "Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act" is described in this way: "To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to expand access to contraceptive services for women and men under the Medicaid program, help low income women and couples prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortion, and for other purposes." It also states, "A woman should have equal access to contraceptive services to help prevent an unintended pregnancy and to pregnancy-related care if she does become pregnant."

In 2007 Sen. Obama stated, in support of The Prevention Through Affordable Access Act, that:

We must do more to help low-income women and college students access affordable contraceptive drugs. No woman should be turned away from university clinics and health centers because the cost of prescription drugs is out of reach. Access to contraceptives is essential to lowering the rate of unintended pregnancies in this country, and we need to make sure these drugs are affordable and accessible. I thank Planned Parenthood and this bill’s co-sponsors for supporting this common-sense and necessary legislation. [emphasis added]

In other words, the central component of Sen. Obama's work in reducing abortion rates is increasing the use of contraceptives and access to contraceptives. And what does the Catholic Church teach about contraceptives? The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states:

Also to be rejected is recourse to contraceptive methods in their different forms [524]: this rejection is based on a correct and integral understanding of the person and human sexuality [525] and represents a moral call to defend the true development of peoples [526]. On the other hand, the same reasons of an anthropological order justify recourse to periodic abstinence during times of the woman's fertility [527]. Rejecting contraception and using natural methods for regulating births means choosing to base interpersonal relations between the spouses on mutual respect and total acceptance, with positive consequences also for bringing about a more human order in society. ...

All programmes of economic assistance aimed at financing campaigns of sterilization and contraception, as well as the subordination of economic assistance to such campaigns, are to be morally condemned as affronts to the dignity of the person and the family. (pars. 233, 234)

Are Catholics to believe, then, that two evils—abortion and contraception—together somehow make a right? Or that the use of one evil (contraceptives) to reduce another evil (abortion) is somehow morally agreeable and acceptable? Does the end justify the means? Of course not. The sad ironies are that 1) many contraceptives actually act as abortifacients, and 2) the evidence strongly suggests that the number of abortions increase as use of contraceptives becomes more common.

As Pope John Paul II noted in Evangelium vitae, "But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. ... 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" (par 13).

A couple of further quick points: the argument has also been made by some that Sen. Obama will reduce abortion through education. As someone who was subjected to "sex ed" in the 1980s, forgive me for being a bit cynical about such an approach, especially if such education insists on being "neutral" when it comes to objective moral judgments. Authentic education comes from a specific system of belief about the value of human life and the purpose and meaning of human sexuality, not from a utlitarian, value-free series of classes that will most likely ignore or scoff at abstinence, never mind traditional virtues and beliefs about sexuality.

The argument has also been made that Sen. Obama will reduce abortion by somehow reducing poverty. This assumes that poverty is a primary motivation for women to have abortion and utilizes a pragmatic approach that largely ignores the moral dimensions of life issues. It also assumes that Sen. Obama would be able, if elected president, to reduce poverty. But, without going into the specifics of his economic policies or arguing about their strengths and weaknesses, why can't it also be argued that he might actually increase poverty and thus increase the number of abortions? After all, the actual result of his economic policies won't be known unless he is elected and they are implemented. It is, in other words, a crap shoot. Is that a responsible way to approach such matters?

Finally, returning to the analogy of slavery: imagine that someone who described themselves as "pro-choice" when it came to slavery supported legislation with the following language:

A man's decision to buy, trade for, own, and control a slave is a personal choice. As such, decisions regarding slavery are best made by certain men, in consultation with other slave owners or trusted associates, without governmental interference. A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a man's right to choose--
(A) to buy and own a slave;
(B) to sell a slave for financial gain or
(C) to terminate a slave where termination is necessary to protect the physical life or financial health of the slave owner and his family

He may call himself "pro-choice" when it comes to slavery. I may call him "pro-slavery." Regardless, this much would be clear: the white man/slave owner would enjoy rights, protection, and moral status, while the slave would not. The slave, in fact, would be legally considered either non-human or sub-human, and that legal status would mean a life of subjection, denied the basic rights due every person.

Perhaps this is a good place to remark that those who would say that fair wages, good working conditions, affordable housing, decent healthcare, global warming, and such are equal to abortion in terms of moral weight seem to forget that when an unborn child is killed, they will never have an opportunity to have a job, own a home, get medical check-ups, or breath air (whether clean or polluted). Social justice means nothing if it doesn't protect the unborn.

Those who call themselves "pro-choice" do so because they support the right to choose death for unborn children. They are "pro-abortion." Sen. Obama is pro-abortion. The most recent example of this fact is his strong public support for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which he has co-sponsored. On June 17, 2007, he told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that, "Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do."

The USCCB has strongly condemned FOCA and has linked to this National Committee for a Human Life Amendment page, which states:

FOCA is a radical bill. It creates a “fundamental right” to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. No governmental body at any level would be able to “deny or interfere with” this right, or to “discriminate” against the exercise of this right “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” For the first time, abortion would become an entitlement the government must condone and promote.

FOCA would go well beyond the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in imposing an extreme abortion regimen on our country. No other piece of legislation would have such a destructive impact on society’s ability to limit or regulate abortion. It would eliminate a broad range of laws—informed consent laws; parental involvement laws; laws promoting maternal health; abortion clinic regulations; government programs and facilities that pay for or promote childbirth and other health care without subsidizing abortion; conscience protection laws; laws prohibiting a particular abortion procedure (e.g., partial birth abortion); laws requiring that abortions only be performed by a licensed physician; and so on.

Does this sound like the sort of legislation that would be co-sponsored by someone serious about reducing the number of abortions in the U.S.? Does it sound like the sort of Act that would be supported and championed by someone who is really against abortion?

Honestly, I'm not here to say, "Vote for this person" or "Don't vote for that person." My point is simply this: as a Catholic, be honest about the facts and don't let the misuse of language mislead you about the reality of things.

The great German philosopher Josef Pieper, who stood up the Nazis and suffered for it, wrote:

The reality of the word in eminent ways makes existential interaction happen. And so, if the word becomes corrupted, human existence itself will not remain unaffected and untainted. ...the abuse of political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the word, indeed, finds in it the fertile soil in which to hide and grow and get ready, so much so that the latent potential of the totalitarian poison can be ascertained, as it were, by observing the symptom of the public abuse of language. (Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power, pp. 14, 32-33).

And that, folks, is my not-so-simplistic response.

Resolution Condemning UN Committees Introduced in US House of Representatives

By Austin Ruse

(WASHINGTON, DC – C-FAM) A resolution was introduced in the United States House of Representatives this week condemning two United Nations committees. The non-binding resolution was introduced by Republican Thad McCotter (R-MI) and specifically condemns actions taken by the Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

The resolution singles out these two committees for reinterpreting hard-law treaties to include a right to abortion and trying to force sovereign states who have ratified the treaties into accepting these new interpretations.

The resolution charges that the committees’ "unelected members...operate without any formal oversight and entirely unaccountable to the United Nations system and Member States." The resolution further charges that these "unelected members…change the meaning" of the documents they are charged with monitoring "from the original text negotiated by sovereign states."

Though neither the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights nor the CEDAW treaty mention abortion and, as stated in the Resolution, "establishes or implies a right to abortion," the Committees routinely tell governments they must change their laws protecting the unborn.

The resolution cites five examples where the Committees criticized Ireland on abortion. In August 1999, the CEDAW Committee told Ireland "the Committee is concerned that, with very limited exceptions, abortion remains illegal in Ireland" and told the government to "facilitate a national dialogue on women's reproductive rights, including on the restrictive abortion laws." Six years later the Committee admitted that a national dialogue had taken place "with five separate referendums held on three separate occasions." Even so, the Committee again told Ireland again to facilitate a national dialogue on abortion.

In July 2000 the Human Rights Committee told Ireland that "the State should ensure that women are not compelled to continue with pregnancies where that is incompatible with (committee directives and decisions)."

UN Committees that oversee the implementation of UN treaties are made up of "experts" in each area and are generally drawn from academia, advocacy groups and non-governmental organizations. These Committees take it upon themselves to reinterpret the treaties and then ask governments to act on these changes. These statements by these committees are then used by radical lawyers on the ground to initiate law suits.

The Congressional Resolution "strongly rebukes the efforts" of the two committees, "calls into question the merit of using United States taxpayer-generated revenues to support them," and "urges countries with restrictions on the practice of abortion to remain steadfast in the time-honored traditions and verities of their cultures…"

David Quinn, president of the Dublin-based Iona Institute told the Friday Fax, "Congressman McCotter deserves congratulations for bringing this to public attention. The bullying behavior of the UN towards countries which have pro-life laws, such as Ireland, is deplorable, unconscionable and needs to be brought to an end."

Given the political make-up of the US House of Representatives, it is unlikely that the resolution will pass. However, McCotter's staff told the Friday Fax they expect to continue with such efforts in the future.

Ireland is set to appear before the CEDAW committee in January.

CAIR files FEC complaint: 'Obsession' distribution a Zionist plot

CAIR files FEC complaint: Obsession distribution a Zionist plot


Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022817.php

Despite the fact that the film Obsession contains no political content and was made well before the 2008 election cycle began, CAIR, those paragons of Islamic moderation and honesty, would now have you believe that the national distribution of the DVD was an Israeli plot to elect John McCain.

This is a very revealing action for CAIR to take. It reveals in particular two key aspects of CAIR's mindset:
1. It shows that CAIR is fully aware that the jihad against Israel is an integral part of the global jihad, and is not just a struggle to recover Palestinian "stolen land." Thus a film that reveals the nature and goals of that global jihad -- Obsession -- benefits Israel.
2. It also shows that CAIR believes that John McCain will fight against the global jihad in a way that Barack Obama will not -- and that it believes therefore the distribution of an anti-jihad film, which in a sane world would be welcomed by both the Left and the Right since the global jihad wishes to destroy and remake the West utterly, must be some partisan plot.

It further shows CAIR yet again on the wrong side of the jihad, as they are again and again. The Flying Imams threaten the ability of airline passengers to report suspicious behavior without getting harassed legally, and CAIR is right there. Sami Al-Arian for years bamboozles the Left into thinking he is a gallant freedom fighter for the Palestinians without the shadow of a hint of support for terrorism, and CAIR backs him all the way. The Patriot Act? CAIR was against it -- and not just the legitimately questionable parts, either. Has CAIR ever sponsored a single anti-terror initiative that would actually make it easier for law enforcement to identify and apprehend jihad terrorists? Nope.

Yet this shady group still enjoys mainstream media support, and is routinely depicted as a neutral "civil rights" organization.

"CAIR Asks FEC to Probe Anti-Muslim DVDs Sent to Swing States," from MarketWire, September 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

WASHINGTON, DC - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today announced that it has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over the distribution of an anti-Muslim film to 28 million homes in presidential election swing states.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is urging the FEC to investigate whether the Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that distributed DVDs containing "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," is really a front for an Israel-based group seeking to help Sen. John McCain win the U.S. presidential election. (No information about a board of directors, staff or even a physical address is offered on the fund's website.)

In its complaint to the FEC, CAIR wrote in part:

"The Clarion Fund recently financed the distribution of some 28 million DVDs containing the film 'Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West' in what many political analysts describe as 'swing' states in the upcoming presidential elections. Those same analysts say the distribution of the 'Obsession' DVD was designed to benefit a particular presidential candidate, namely Sen. John McCain...

"According to the website for the Secretary of State for New York, Clarion Fund Inc. is incorporated in New York as a Delaware-based foreign not-for-profit corporation. According to the Delaware Department of Corporations, Robert (Rabbi Raphael) Shore, Rabbi Henry Harris and Rebecca Kabat incorporated Clarion Fund. All three of whom are reported to serve as employees of Aish HaTorah International, an organization apparently based in Israel. Also according to the Delaware Department of Corporations, the incorporators of the Clarion Fund used Aish HaTorah's New York City address (150 West 46th Street, New York) to incorporate Clarion Fund in Delaware... [SEE: http://www.aish.com/aishint/wwprogram.asp]

"It appears that the funding for the production, marketing and distribution of 'Obsession' may have originated from Israel-based Aish HaTorah International." [...]

"American voters deserve to know whether they are the targets of a multi-million-dollar campaign funded and directed by a foreign group seeking to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria as a way to influence the outcome of our presidential election," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad....

American voters also deserve to know whether they are the targets of a campaign, multimillion-dollar or no, funded and directed by Islamic supremacists to mislead and deceive them about Islamic jihad terrorism as a way to influence the outcome of our presidential election, and to influence much more besides.

Paul Is No Inventor of Christianity, Says Pope

Notes Apostle's Faithful Transmission of Tradition

VATICAN CITY, SEPT. 24, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The importance that Paul gave in his letters to sacred Tradition proves false the claim the Apostle invented Christianity, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope affirmed this today during the general audience in St. Peter's Square, which he dedicated to a continuation of his series of catecheses on St. Paul. Some 15,000 people gathered for the audience, including several groups from Eastern Europe and Oceania.

The Holy Father spoke about St. Paul's relationships with the Twelve, which he said were "always marked by profound respect and by the frankness that in Paul stemmed from the defense of the truth of the Gospel."

He particularly stressed the relationship with Peter, noting that the Apostle to the Gentiles stayed with the first Pope for 15 days to learn about Christ's earthly life.

During Paul's time with the Twelve, the Pontiff explained, he received teaching on central elements of the Christian tradition. He then transmits this Tradition faithfully. Benedict XVI particularly noted passages from Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians where the Apostle explains the Christian faith on the Eucharist and the Resurrection.

"The words of Jesus in the Last Supper really are for Paul the center of the life of the Church," the Pope explained.

And the "other text, on the Resurrection, transmits to us again the same formula of fidelity," he continued.

"The importance that [Paul] bestows on the living Tradition of the Church, which she transmits to her communities, demonstrates how mistaken is the view of those who attribute to Paul the invention of Christianity," the Holy Father contended. "Before proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he encountered him on the road to Damascus, and met him in the Church, observing his life in the Twelve, and in those who had followed him on the roads of Galilee. [...]

"The mission received on the part of the Risen One in order to evangelize the Gentiles must be confirmed and guaranteed by those who gave him and Barnabas their right hand, in sign of approval of their apostolate and evangelization, and of acceptance in the one communion of the Church of Christ."

The Pontiff concluded by affirming that faith is born from an experience of the risen Christ.

"The more we try to follow in the footsteps of Jesus of Nazareth on the roads of Galilee, so much the more will we understand that he has taken charge of our humanity, sharing in everything except sin," he said. "Our faith is not born from a myth or an idea, but from an encounter with the Risen One, in the life of the Church."

The Rise of the “Religious Left”

By Kimberly Zenarolla

The annual conference of the American Academy of Religion (AAR), the world's largest association of academics who research or teach topics related to religion, was recently held in Washington D.C. This meeting brought together thousands of religious academics to discuss issues ranging from bioethics to scriptural studies. Expecting a diversity of opinion, I was surprised to find such a decisive slant towards heterodoxy. Several sessions were held on homosexual “queer theory” and there was even a session entitled “Watch out Roe! Religion and Reproductive Freedom.” Many panelists spoke of the need for a more vocal presence in the media from the so-called “religious left” which approves of such things as abortion, embryonic stem cell research and normalizing homosexual relations. In order to offer an alternate view to traditional Judeo-Christian morals, this movement attempts to distort religious values, twisting them to promote a culture of death.

In one session there was unanimous approval of embryonic stem cell research from every panelist. One member on the panel, a Jewish ethicist who also holds a prominent role at a major biotech company, scolded the other panelists for referring to “therapeutic cloning.” She warned that, hereafter, no scholarly publications that she edited would print this term, and instead, the new term “somatic cell nuclear transfer” was to be utilized. She explained that the term “therapeutic cloning” was disingenuous since no therapies had yet come from this technology. After speaking with a scientist on the panel, he confirmed that the motivation behind this had much more to do with the term “cloning” than “therapeutic.” With a wide majority of the public opposed to cloning, biotech firms are cloaking once unthinkable technologies in scientific jargon to deliberately cause confusion. And then it seems they are paying off “ethicists” to affirm the deceit.

An illustration of this deception in practice is the recent passage of an amendment to Missouri’s constitution forcing taxpayers to fund therapeutic cloning. Of course, in the $29 million ad campaign supporting the amendment (funded primarily by the state’s most prominent biotech firm, the Stowers Institute for Medical Research), scientists and celebrities argued that this amendment had nothing to do with human cloning. They explained that invoking the claim of cloning was only a scare tactic from the other side to hold back promising therapies to suffering patients. One commercial showed a pastor supporting this amendment because it might possibly “save lives.” This attempt to confuse people by redefining terminologies and then passing off such destruction of human life as the proper Christian response is subtle and duplicitous. This common strategy to discredit a unified religious response supporting the sanctity of human life is often seen in the halls of Congress where all manner of “religious” clergy are regularly called upon to testify in favor of embryonic stem cell research and other such atrocities.

A second, and even more insidious, approach of the “religious left” is to downplay the horror of abortion and other attacks on innocent life by emphasizing issues such as the death penalty and war. One such group that is working to shift the Catholic vote away from its focus on ending abortion is Catholics In Alliance for the Common Good which recently distributed a booklet entitled “Voting for the Common Good: A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics.” The booklet questions whether it is possible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate.


They respond:
Many “prolife” candidates talk a good talk on ending abortion but don’t produce results. On the other hand, there are candidates who don’t believe in making abortion illegal, but who support effective measures to promote healthy families and reduce abortions by providing help to pregnant women and young children. Catholics must look at a candidate’s position on other life issues. Can one really claim to be “pro-life” and yet support the death penalty, turn a blind eye to poverty, and not take steps to avoid war? Our Church teaches that the answer to this question is “no.”

While at first glance, this statement might appear to be accurate, there is a subtle move to equate the horror of abortion with the death penalty and war. In the 2004 document Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion to which this voting guide refers, Cardinal Ratzinger declares:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

The shrewd tactic of encouraging Catholics to vote for candidates “who don’t believe in making abortion illegal” and elevating “other life issues” such as the death penalty and war over the deliberate destruction of innocent life in the womb is emblematic of this new “religious left.” This unorthodox Catholic group distributed millions of these brochures to Catholic parishes across the country and boast that they helped change the Catholic vote in several states in this most recent election.

The “religious left” is attempting to co-op “social justice” as its mantra, turning such concerns as the “right” to abortion and the requirement to pursue all scientific technology even at the expense of nascent human life into matters of compassionate, religious justice. In appeals to the “common good,” they are hoping to fool the American public into believing they represent true religious values. The threat of this “religious left” will likely increase in the upcoming election as forces gather to secure the votes of the religious majority in America. We need to be on guard against these and other attacks on human life, especially the ones coming from within the Church. All attacks on human life are antithetical to religion and cannot be justified or trumped by any other issues. While we must work together to fight injustice and promote a true culture of life that includes caring for the poor and promoting peace, we must always remember that our first priority must be to protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us who have no voice of their own.

Source: an excellent website, www.cephasinstitute.org

Medical Downside of Homosexual Behavior

A Political Agenda Is Trumping Science, Says Rick Fitzgibbons

WEST CONSHOHOCKEN, PA, SEPT. 18, 2003
(Zenit.org). - Amid the push for same-sex unions in Canada and the recent overturning of Texas' sodomy law, an aspect of the underlying issue is sometimes overlooked: the medical consequences of homosexual behavior.

To shed light on the medical and scientific research into same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior, ZENIT approached Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons. Fitzgibbons is a principal contributor to the Catholic Medical Association's statement on "Homosexuality and Hope."

Q: Could you explain why homosexuality is not normal, from a medical standpoint?

Fitzgibbons: Homosexuality was diagnosed and treated as a psychiatric illness -- abnormal behavior -- until 1973, when it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in psychiatry because of political
pressure.

Numerous conflicts make homosexual behaviors abnormal, including rampant promiscuity, inability to maintain commitment, psychiatric disorders and medical illnesses with a shortened life span.

The sexual practices of homosexuals involve serious health risks and illness. Specifically, sodomy as a sexual behavior is associated with significant and life-threatening health problems.

Unhealthy sexual behaviors occur among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Yet the medical and social science evidence indicate that homosexual behavior is uniformly unhealthy. Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women, not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men.

Q: Is homosexuality associated specifically with psychological problems? Can an active homosexual lifestyle lead to adverse psychological consequences?

Fitzgibbons: Two extensive studies appearing in the October 1999 issue of the American Medical Association's Archives of General Psychiatry confirm a strong link between homosexual sex and suicide, as well as a relationship between homosexuality and emotional and mental problems.

One of the studies in the journal, by David M. Fergusson and his team, found that "gay, lesbian and bisexual young people are at increased risk of psychiatric disorder and suicidal behaviors."

The youth suffering from these disorders were four times as likely as their peers to suffer from major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer from generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer from multiple disorders, and over six times as likely to have attempted suicide.

An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries -- in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands.

So a high rate of psychiatric disorders associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that psychiatric disease cannot be attributed to social rejection and homophobia. The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex behaviors.

Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder.

Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence.

In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher prevalence of nearly all psychiatric disorders measured in the study.

Also, a recent study in the American Journal of Public Health has shown that 39% of males with same-sex attraction have been abused by other males with same-sex attraction.

Q: What are the medical illnesses associated with homosexuality?

Fitzgibbons: The list of medical diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of abnormal homosexual behavior is alarming: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus or HIV, human papilloma virus -- HPV or genital warts -- isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, and syphilis.

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity.

Men who have sex with men account for the lion's share of the increasing number of cases in America of sexually transmitted infections that are not generally spread through sexual contact.

These diseases, with consequences that range from severe and even life-threatening to mere annoyances, include hepatitis A, giardia lamblia, entamoeba histolytica, Epstein-Barr virus, neisseria meningitides, shigellosis, salmonellosis, pediculosis, scabies and campylobacter.

Q: Many professional medical groups have stopped classifying homosexuality as abnormal behavior, and pro-homosexual organizations actively promote it as just another option that is perfectly normal. Is this responsible from a medical point of view?

Fitzgibbons: Most medical groups have embraced the homosexual agenda and are advocating that lifestyle, despite all of the scientific studies and medical evidence that demonstrate medical and psychological risks. It seems the politically correct homosexual agenda is trumping science.

Doctors have a responsibility to inform their clients of the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle. In his study "The Health Risks of Gay Sex," my colleague Dr. John R. Diggs Jr. wrote, "As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and well-being. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, it is my duty to discourage it. ...

"There are differences between men and women in the consequences of same-sex activity. But most importantly, the consequences of homosexual activity are distinct from the consequences of heterosexual activity. As a physician, it is my duty to inform patients of the health risks of gay sex, and to discourage them from indulging in harmful behavior."

Same-sex attraction is a manifestation of serious emotional conflicts that are preventable and treatable. Gender Identity Disorder in children regularly leads to same-sex attractions in adolescence, and now there's even a move to remove it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

The media or major health organizations communicate none of the serious medical and psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality. School programs don't present this information, so children are encouraged and taught that the homosexual lifestyle is a healthy alternative to marriage.

These youngsters are not being told about the dangers of this lifestyle. I think schools and school psychologists should be legally liable because they are not providing informed consent while promoting the homosexual lifestyle.

Also, pediatricians know children raised without a father are subjected to serious psychological problems, and raising a child without a mother also predisposes the child to serious emotional and mental illnesses.

Q: Legalizing abnormal behavior would seem to dissuade people from seeking the help they need to overcome it. Would that be a fair assessment?

Fitzgibbons: I think that is a very fair assessment. There are attempts to prevent people from seeking help for same-sex attraction. There's definitely a movement to stop mental health professionals from providing treatment.

The Spitzer report from the Archives of Sexual Behavior, which will publish in October, surveyed ex-homosexuals who were out of the lifestyle for five years, and it found that 64% of the men and 43% of the women considered themselves to be heterosexuals after they received treatment. Dr. Spitzer of Columbia University led the task force of the American Psychiatric
Association in 1973 that removed homosexuality from our diagnostic manual.

In a number of studies, when people with same-sex attraction were treated, a third of the patients get better, a third get mixed results, and a third don't get better. In my clinical experience, when a spiritual component is brought in to the treatment, the recovery rate is much higher.

Q: What do you think would be the long-term impact of legalized same-sex unions? How would this affect future generations?

Fitzgibbons: Marriage between a man and a woman is based on commitment and is an expression of Judeo-Christian morality. Same-sex unions are based on neo-pagan, Kinseyian morality that doesn't expect loyalty.

In a recent study from a major journal conducted on males, it found that males in same-sex unions stayed together for an average length of two years, and would regularly have sex with others outside of the relationship.

In this Amsterdam study, 86% of new HIV infections occurred in men who considered themselves to be in same-sex unions.

Same-sex unions cause emotional trauma and pain to individuals, and damage to the culture. Equating same-sex unions with marriage is a false belief -- it's delusional.

Q: What about adoptions by homosexual couples? How would that affect the children involved?

Fitzgibbons: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a document on homosexuality that addressed adoptions by homosexual couples. The statement noted that intentionally depriving a child of a father or mother is doing violence to that child. The office's document and the Catechism of the Catholic Church's section on homosexuality are supported by medical science.

Also, raising children in an environment with same-sex parents goes against the values of the common inheritance of humanity. The absence of a father in the home leads to sadness, anger, difficulty in trusting and conflict disorders. The absence of a mother is worse. One's mother is one's fundamental basis of feeling safe in relationships; denying a child of a mother wounds the child's ability to trust and have faith in the world, which can lead to anxiety and attachment disorders.

Children should not be subjected to this cruel deprivation, as it does serious damage. Even Belgium, which approves of same-sex unions, does not allow same-sex couples to adopt. Not all adults necessarily have the inherent right to have a child. But all children have a right to a mother and a father.

Q: What are the psychological strategies in the homosexual agenda?

Fitzgibbons: The homosexual agenda aims to desensitize people to homosexuality via the media and "diversity weeks" held in many schools -- including Catholic colleges and high schools.

It portrays those who oppose homosexual behavior and unions as being troubled, in violation of the law and in need of help, similar to those who have racial prejudices. It also attempts to claim that homosexuality is genetically determined in spite of research studies that fail to support this theory.

And of course, the main goal is to convert people to the homosexual agenda.

Q: What can Catholics do to protect the sacrament of marriage?

Fitzgibbons: Catholics can pray more for the protection of marriage and families and can learn the truth about homosexuality by seeking information at reliable Web sites: the International Association of Catholic Medical Associations at www.Fiamc.org; the Catholic Medical Association at www.cathmed.org; and the National Association for the Treatment and Research of Homosexuality at www.narth.com.

They can communicate the fullness of the Church's truth about sexuality in their family, their parish and in their children's schools.

They can also support the proposed marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And they can ask priests to offer prayers for marriages as part of the daily petitions at Mass.

French Cardinal: Time Is Right for a New Secularism

Notes Religious History of Europe, Anti-Catholicism

By Anita Bourdin

LOURDES, France, SEPT. 17, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The religious history of Europe calls for the "open secularism" that Benedict XVI promoted in his visit to France, says the archbishop of Paris.

Cardinal André Vingt-Trois affirmed this Sunday in Lourdes during a meeting with journalists. The Pope was in France from Friday through Monday, stopping in Paris and Lourdes, in the context of the 150th anniversary of the Virgin Mary's apparitions there.

During the press conference, the president of the French episcopal conference weighed in on the debate in France regarding the role of religious belief in public life. Some voices have opposed President Nicolas Sarkozy's remarks advocating a "positive secularism," claiming that secularism does not have adjectives.

The cardinal, however, noted how at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, there emerged in Europe a movement whose objective was "to combat Catholicism."

The 1871-1880 Kulturkampf, a conflict led by Otto von Bismarck against the Catholic Church, was not, as the chancellor of the German empire himself said, "directed against Islam or Judaism," the cardinal recalled.

"And in the title of the French law called 'Separation of Churches and State,' as the whole world knew, the Church from which one must separate was, in fact, the Catholic Church," he said. "This question of the secularism of the political system and the state has been lived controversially and from a militant perspective. But the state does not exhaust society's expressions."

Coexistence

"Historical ups and downs," Cardinal Vingt-Trois continued, referring to the history of France since World War I, have led "to progress in a pragmatic practice of secularism, putting militancy aside, and leading, instead, to a coexistence that we can call peaceful."

"The step taken by President Sarkozy," in his conference in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome on Dec. 20, 2007, and in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on Jan. 14, 2008, has made it possible "to present an analysis of social functioning in which religious membership ceases to be a taboo, and is considered as a specific contribution that is useful for the life of society."

"To say that this approach is an 'open secularism' means that we no longer find ourselves in a situation in which one could cooperate with social services on the condition of staying quiet about the motives for such participation. One could be a good citizen 'despite being a believer.' Today one can say that it is not impossible to be 'a good citizen because one is a good believer.' That's not the same thing," he stressed.

"This means that many men and women, who have committed themselves to non-confessional social service activities, such as the 'Restos du Coeur' [Refectories of the Heart, a social service promoted by French musicians and actors], for example, can express at least part of their reasons for doing so and are not embarrassed."

Nevertheless, some views of secularism still maintain that Catholic activities, engaged in for religious reasons, cannot be manifested. The cardinal called for an end to the shadows of the prosecution to which religious congregations were subjected at the beginning of the 20th century in France.

"It is not embarrassing for a Catholic to try to put solidarity into practice," the cardinal said. "It is not a crime that must be punished by the courts."

International Planned Parenthood Abortion Primer Distorts International Law

By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the global abortion provider co-founded by US-based Planned Parenthood Federation of America, recently issued a primer to help affiliated “Member Associations” and abortion-rights activists navigate abortion laws around the world. In addition, the 87-page publication provides guidance on how “to advocate for the removal of restrictions” on abortion, such as by arguing that international treaties should be interpreted broadly to trump national laws.

The primer, entitled “Access to Safe Abortion: A Tool for Assessing Legal and Other Obstacles,” claims that international legal support for abortion “can be found in numerous international treaties and other instruments” as well as in customary international law, which is non-treaty law “that is established from the practices and beliefs of nations” evolving over time.

A detailed chart sets forth articles from “Important treaties, covenants, conventions, declarations and programmes of action which address the abortion issue” which IPPF asserts can be used to support abortion rights.

None of the enumerated treaties or conventions, which are legally binding on governments that ratify them, mention the term abortion, however. Treaties are documents negotiated by sovereign states, many of which proscribed abortion at the time of ratification. Where silent on a subject, treaties are intended to leave the domestic laws of ratifying nations unchanged, in accordance with traditional principles of interpretation.

Among the assertions made by IPPF is that the "right to life" language in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that “Every human being has the inherent right to life," actually requires a right to abortion.

With respect to non-binding documents, IPPF offers a similarly expansive reading. For example, IPPF interprets the term “reproductive health,” as adopted in the non-binding Programme of Action of the International Conference of Population and Development issuing from the 1994 United Nations (UN) conference in Cairo, to include abortion. Conceding that abortion “is not mentioned” in connection with the phrase, IPPF claims that it “can be interpreted as including the right to abortion,” attributing opposition to this as coming from countries like the United States and the “Vatican.”

Language in the Cairo document itself indicates a more limited interpretation, however. Paragraph 7.24 states that “Governments should take appropriate steps to help women avoid abortion, which in no case should be promoted as a method of family planning.”

Paragraph 8.25 similarly appears to undercut an argument that the document can be used to impose a “right to abortion” upon sovereign nations: “Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process.”

IPPF, together with its many national branches, is one of the world’s largest providers of abortion. Last year it received over $115 million in grants from individual nations, the European Commission, UN agencies like the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and various foundations, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

.

A Year Later, Global “Safe Abortion” Campaign Yields Little Support

By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) After nearly a year of soliciting signatures as part of a campaign for global “safe abortion,” Marie Stopes International has little to show for it. Less than 500 people have signed an online petition which calls for “full access to legal, voluntary, safe and affordable abortions as part of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care” around the world.

The campaign, which was co-sponsored by the pro-abortion groups Ipas and the UK-based group Abortion Rights, was launched at the International Global Safe Abortion Conference that took place in October 2007 in London, an event that was held in conjunction with the UN and UNICEF sponsored Women Deliver conference. Both the conference and the campaign seek to bolster international commitment to abortion and call “for women’s access to legal, safe abortion to be recognized as a fundamental human right.”

A detailed look at the list of campaign supporters reveal that nearly 20% of the signatures are from employees of the three sponsoring organizations. Of the 498 signatures on the campaign website, 77 are from Marie Stopes employees, 16 from Ipas employees and 3 from those who work at Abortion Rights.

The campaign says that it is “intolerable” that restrictive laws, lack of resources and “politically and ideologically-motivated interference” remain obstacles for women to access “contraceptive and abortion technologies to save women’s lives.”

The campaign disparages government programs which focus on Millennium Development Goal 5 to improve maternal health but “neglect the 13 percent of maternal deaths caused by unsafe abortion globally and fail to support the full range of preventive actions required.”

I must interrupt here... what about the 100% infant death rate of abortion? Oh, I must have forgotten, "right to choose" doesn't include one's own choice to live.

Abortion proponents often link unsafe abortion and maternal mortality to push for legal, so-called “safe” abortion. Critics of the Marie Stopes argument are quick to point out that the 13 percent figure is highly suspect, as few countries even record the sex of an individual at time of death, let alone keep records on cause of death.

Critics also challenge the assertion that legal abortion would result in fewer maternal deaths. In Poland, after abortion was severely restricted in 1993, the country showed a sharp decline in both the abortion rate and in maternal deaths. Ireland, where abortion remains illegal, reports one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world.

Marie Stopes boasts that last year alone it provided over five million people in 40 countries with sexual health and family planning counseling, “safe abortion” and post-abortive care, as well as training health professionals. Around the world, Maries Stopes has become a major player in the national health care systems of developing nations. In 2006, Marie Stopes, a registered charity, reported “amounts receivable for the provision of services” totalling almost 56 million pounds sterling, or roughly, $100 million US.

Ipas is also a giant in the abortion industry. Ipas works to “expand the availability and accessibility of medical equipment and supplies that health professionals need to deliver high-quality reproductive health services.” Ipas’ manual vacuum aspiration instruments, suction devices used to perform early abortions and “menstrual extractions,” are used and distributed worldwide.

Maries Stopes plans to present the collected signatures to world leaders at the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on International Human Rights Day on December 10, 2008.

Hopefully when Murder Stopes presents their impressive 477 signature petition, they are laughed off the stage....finally I make a post with good news. :-)

In Orissa Christians treated worse than animals, says Father Bernard

by Nirmala Carvalho

As the situation gets back to normal amid fears and tensions, what happened is slowly emerging. Victims talk about the violence inflicted upon them, a true “attack against the sacredness and dignity of human life”. Beaten repeatedly and left unconscious for hours in the forest, Fr Bernard Digal tells his story.

Mumbai (AsiaNews) – “The attack on Christians in Orissa was an attack against the sacredness and dignity of human life. The world must know this,” said Fr Bernard Digal. “In some countries even animals have rights and laws. In Kandhmal we were treated worse than animals. Every possible indignity, obscenity and torture was meted out against helpless Christians. Men, women, children; everyone was targets of brutal atrocities.”

Fr Bernard Digal is the treasurer of the Archdiocese of Cuttack-Bhubaneshwar. He spoke to AsiaNews about his pain over what is happening in Orissa. He, too, was wounded, beaten for hours by radical Hindus, left for a whole night unconscious, half naked, in the forest, until he was found by his driver. Now he is in the intensive care unit in Mumbai’s Holy Spirit Hospital.

During his talk with AsiaNews he was given another unit of blood. But his thoughts were with his people and family, all forced to flee to save their lives, now stranded in a refugee camp near Bhubaneshwar.

“My heart is filled with gratitude because God saved my life. But whilst I am being treated here my people are hiding in the forest and even there, there is no security,” he said. “There are mothers breast-feeding their infants, children, young and old people, all hanging on a precarious thread, in terror. Even refugee camps are not free of dangers.”

“I was visiting the parishes in Kandhamal district exactly on 23 August when Swami Laxamananda Saraswati and four of his followers were killed by Maoists. On 25 August, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and other radical Sangh Parivar groups decided to go on a dawn-to-dusk strike, bringing thousands of people together.”

On the 25 Father Bernard went to visit Father Alexander Chandi in Sankrakhol Parish when a Hindu mob attacked the latter’s church.

“On the night of 25 August the parish church and the priest’s house were sacked and set on fire. From far away we could hear the crowd shouting hate-filled slogans, levelling accusations against Christianity. . . . Fearing for our lives we fled into the forest.”

“The extremists also set my car on fire,” Father Bernard said. “Whilst Father Alexander stayed in the forest I went looking for some relatives who were in the area. I walked at least 15 kilometres. At one point the extremists caught me and beat me with iron rods, lances, axes and big stones. I don’t know for how long they beat me because I lost consciousness. My driver found me the next day, after ten hours, and I was taken to hospital. It is only there that I regained consciousness.”

Without acrimony but also without any warmth, Father Bernard said: “I was beaten and left naked in the forest for ten hours. Others were cut to pieces or burnt alive. Is all this human? Or is it an attack against life itself?”

“In Kandhamal the lives of Christians are under attack from Hindutva radicals,” the priest said. “The police and the government are incapable of doing anything about it. Sometimes they are not even willing to take preventive measures to contain these forces who are destroying our life and dignity.”

Even though there are still tensions and fear, the situation is getting back to normal in Orissa, said Fr Babu Joseph, spokesman for the Bishops’ Conference of India.

Still refugee camps need tighter controls to prevent Hindu radicals from infiltrating them. The wounded require medical treatment. And everyone is wondering when they can go back to rebuild their homes.

U.N. Thugs - Durban II

By Christine Williams, FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/2/2008

Support for Israel has never ranked high on the United Nations’ agenda. And the upcoming World Conference Against Racism, scheduled for early 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland, presents a valid case. Many observers are concerned that the UN-sponsored event will simply serve as yet another a platform to launch attacks against Israel -- as the previous world anti-racism conference did in Durban, South Africa, seven years ago.

Even by the standards of the organization’s traditional antagonism toward the Jewish State, the U.N.’s 2001 Durban gathering marked a low point. To the extent that “racism” was discussed, it was only to condemn Israeli policies. Little wonder that the conference, known as “ Durban I,” is largely remembered as a U.N.-backed assault on Israel.

Now it’s back. And if early evidence is any guide, Durban II, as the Geneva event is already being called, will be a replay of its predecessor. Consider that the chair of the conference’s planning committee is Libya, whose longtime leader, Muammar Gadhafi, has recently claimed that the Israeli Mossad aims to assassinate Barack Obama. The vice chair of the conference, meanwhile, is communist Cuba. And the fact that Iran's president has notoriously called for Israel’s destruction has not, expectedly, prevented it from playing a key leadership role in the upcoming conference.

Nor does it bode well for Durban II that its agenda will be set by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In particular, the conference will consider responses to “Islamophobia.” In this connection, the OIC’s members will consider what they regard as the problematic Western right to free speech. Referring to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten and to “Fitna,” Dutch politician Geert Wilders’s documentary about Islam, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu recently promised to send “a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” He went on to warn Western countries to “look seriously into the question of freedom of expression.”

For their part, Western countries should make clear that they will not allow the OIC to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. Instead, they should shift the focus onto the OIC. Instead of concerning themselves with alleged Western prejudices, Islamic states would do well to ponder the rampant racism in the Muslim World. Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims, prompting the United Nations to call it the worst human rights disaster in the world, would be a logical starting point. From there, the OIC might consider the continued bloodshed between Shiites and Sunnis, and the fanatical suicide bombers who have claimed the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. One need hardly look to the West to find “Islamophobia” in action.

As for “racism,” the conference’s nominal subject, it is worth bearing in mind that slavery - the most racist of practices - endures in the Islamic world even as it has been abolished in the West. In OIC member states like Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs still keep black African slaves. Sudan 's president, Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the World Court for human rights abuses in Darfur, is reputed to have black slaves in his own house. According to NGO reports, some 200,000 southern Sudanese have been enslaved during Bashir’s reign, a practice that the UN has charged is “deeply rooted in Arab and Muslim supremacism.” (Such grim statistics did not deter the Sudanese Minister of Justice from demanding, in a stunning act of hypocrisy, reparations for historical slavery during Durban I.) And while Mauritania legally abolished slavery in 1980, it is still practiced secretly. Even Muslims in the West have not accepted its ban on slavery. For example, four Arab princesses were found in July living in Brussels with 17 slaves.

The persistence of slavery in the Muslim world is not, of course, surprising. In August 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights was affirmed by the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It stated that Islamic Sharia law is the sole source of the Islamic perspective on human rights. And slavery is codified in Sharia law. It is doubtful, naturally, that this detail will be much discussed during Durban II.

In light of recent history, it makes sense that Israel has decided to boycott next year’s conference. Canada has also decided to boycott Durban II, and other Western countries should consider following the Canadian example. It’s the height of absurdity for free nations to have to endure lectures on human rights from its preeminent abusers. In 2001, they could have claimed to be unaware of the conference’s sinister agenda. Seven years later, ignorance is no longer an excuse or an option.

MSNBC reassigns liberal-biased 'reporters'

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 9/10/2008 6:00:00 AM

A conservative media analyst says the decision by MSNBC to drop Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as co-anchors of its political night coverage is an effort to regain some of the credibility that the network lost when the liberal bias of the two hosts was challenged on the air by their colleagues.

Veteran reporter David Gregory will now anchor MSNBC's coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates, along with election night. Olbermann and Matthews will remain as commentators on the cable news network's coverage. During the Republican and Democratic conventions, Olbermann, Matthews, and MSNBC pundits engaged in a series of spats.

Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute, believes MSNBC did not make the move sooner because it had risen in the ratings.

"There is a segment of the population out there that likes to hear Keith Olbermann rant against any conservative, but you can only do that so much and still have credibility," Knight contends. "Over the last couple of weeks, obviously Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann unleashed so much venom toward Sarah Palin and other Republicans that they felt that the reputation of the network was at stake, so they finally made the move."

According to Knight, it is yet another reminder that the major television networks are suffering from liberal bias.

"It's not just MSNBC. There've been two revealing polls in recent days. One of them was of uncommitted voters, and 50 percent of them believe that the media were trying to elect Barack Obama – they saw that much bias," Knight adds. "And then another poll that just came out said that a large number of people thought the media were being very unfair to Sarah Palin. And then when you have US Weekly losing 10,000 subscribers [who were] furious at how they treated her on their cover, you can see the public rising up and saying 'enough is enough.'"

Knight says it hurts a network's credibility any time the objectivity of an anchor is being questioned on the air by his own colleagues, as was the case with MSNBC. He recommends that if the networks really wanted to stop their declining ratings, they would employ more conservative commentators because they "speak more to the heart of America."

Politics Needs New Generation, Says Pope

Encourages Sardinians in Seeking Solutions

CAGLIARI, Sardinia, SEPT. 9, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI says the world of politics and the economy needs a new generation of committed laypeople.

The Pope affirmed this during a Mass at the Shrine of Our Lady of Bonaria in Sardinia, a semi-autonomous Italian island located in the Mediterranean Sea. The Holy Father visited the island for a one-day pastoral visit on Sunday, meeting with priests and young people and marking the centenary of the proclamation of Our Lady of Bonaria as patron of Sardinia.

During his homily, the Pontiff asked for Mary's intercession to help Christian families, "which today more than ever are in need of confidence and support at the spiritual as well as the social level."

May she help you to identify appropriate pastoral strategies so that young people will find Christ since, by nature, they bring a new energy but are often victims of widespread nihilism," he continued.

Benedict XVI asked that the Virgin Mary make believers capable of "evangelizing the world of work, the economy and politics, which needs a new generation of committed lay Christians, capable of seeking with competence and rigor moral solutions for sustainable development."


Theological formation

Later in the day, the Pope met with priests, seminarians and students of the Pontifical Theological Faculty of Sardinia.

He encouraged the professors to help their students have a "daily personal experience of God," especially through the Eucharist, "celebrated and experienced as the center of existence."

Theological formation, the Holy Father added, "must lead you to achieve a 'complete and unitary' vision of revealed truths and of their assimilation into the Church's experience of faith. From here arises the dual need to know the totality of Christian truths and to know them not as separate from one another, but in an organic way, as a unit, as a single truth of faith in God."


Trap of individualism

Before leaving the island, the Bishop of Rome met with youth, with whom he spoke about the true measure of success.

"What can we say of the fact that in modern consumer society, earnings and success have become the new idols before which so many prostrate themselves? The consequence of this is that people are led to give value only to those who [...] 'have found fortune' or who are 'notorious,' and not to those who must struggle with life every day," he said.

"There is a risk of becoming superficial, of taking dangerous shortcuts in search of success, thus giving life up to experiences that bring immediate satisfaction but that in themselves are precarious and deceptive," the Holy Father continued. "There is a growing tendency to individualism, and when we concentrate only on ourselves we inevitably become fragile."

The Pope concluded: "May each of you rediscover God as the meaning and foundation for all creatures, light of truth, flame of charity, bond of unity. You will no longer be afraid to lose your liberty, because you will experience it fully by giving it for love. You will no longer be attached to material goods, because in yourselves you will feel the joy of sharing them. […]

"If you really discover God in the face of Christ, you will no longer think of the Church as an institution external to yourselves, but as your spiritual family."

Media accused of creating controversy over Palin's faith

A conservative media analyst points out that it took the wire services and major television networks a year to discover who Reverend Jeremiah Wright was -- yet only 48 hours to begin running "sneering pieces" about Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin's religion. Tim Graham says that shows a glaring double standard.

The Associated Press has written an article claiming that Governor Palin's biography for the National Governor's Association "obscures" her "deep roots in Pentecostalism." According to the AP, Pentecostalism is "a spirit-filled Christian tradition that is one of the fastest growing in the world" and "often derided by outsiders and Bible-believers alike." (Read commentary on the AP report)

Although Palin attended a Pentecostal Assemblies of God church up until six years ago, she is currently a member of Wasilla Bible Church, an independent evangelical congregation.

Tim Graham of the Media Research Center says he finds it strange to see secular reporters trying to report on Sarah Palin's religious beliefs "when they don't seem to have any" themselves.

"For them to sort of suggest that Sarah Palin is an inauthentic Christian, that the churches she's belonged to are derided by Bible-believers -- it reads like opposition research; it doesn't read like news from a wire service," he remarks.

Graham says many Democrats in the media are still upset about the Jeremiah Wright story and are trying to "fictionalize a Jeremiah Wright scenario" in Palin's life. "You've already seen these leaked videos of Sarah Palin talking about how our soldiers are hopefully on a mission from God," he notes. "That is the sort of language that scares secular reporters and doesn't really bother Christians at all."

The first media attack on Palin's faith was launched by NBC News, which criticized her for once saying that the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq is a "task that is from God."

By Jim Brown - 9/8/2008 Source: Onenewsnow.com