CSVF Blog

From the archdiocesan Family Life / Respect Life Office:

Join us on pilgrimage as we commemorate the 37th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in our country. Hundreds of thousands will gather from throughout our nation to pray that hearts and minds may be opened to the Gospel of Life and that laws may be changed.

Join the Archdiocese of New York’s Family Life / Respect Life Office bus leaving from St. Malachy’s Church, 239 West 49th Street (between B’way and 8th Avenue) on Friday, January 22nd.  The bus will depart at 5:00 AM sharp!  The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will be offered in Maryland at 10:30 AM with Archbishop Timothy Dolan and other NY pilgrims.

Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.  Cost for the day trip will be $35.  Please email Sr. Margaret to register, or call 212-371-1011, x3195.  If you are not able to make the trip but would like to make a donation for others, we would be most grateful.  More than 40 buses will be traveling to DC from all over the archdiocese.  For more information, visit flrl.org.

No Comments »

On November 12, Professor Helen Alvaré delivered the parish’s annual St. Albert’s Day Lecture.  Before an eager and enthusiastic audience, she addressed the topic, “The Catholic Voice in the Public Square: Sectarian or Civic?”  Over the course of her remarks, Professor Alvaré shared the wisdom she has gained as a Catholic lawyer and lobbyist regarding how believers ought to engage public debate on difficult moral questions.  She focused specifically on the debates surrounding abortion, health care, and marriage, and the recommendations she gave for approaching each were both insightful and encouraging.

Below you’ll find both audio and video of Professor Alvaré’s lecture, as well as audio of the Q & A session that followed her presentation.

Click here for the video report covering the lecture that aired on NET NY‘s “Currents.”

St. Albert's Day Lecture 2009 Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

St. Albert's Day Lecture 2009 Q & A Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

No Comments »

On July 29, Justin Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia and the chair of the US Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life activities, released the following letter urging Congress to keep abortion and abortion funding out of the current health care reform proposals being debated.

TO: Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

Dear Representative:

As you consider the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” (H.R. 3200), I urge you to consider the overall priorities and concerns presented by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Bishop William Murphy’s July 17 letter to all members of Congress (www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-07-17-murphy-letter-congress.pdf). The bishops’ conference views health care as a basic right belonging to all human beings, from conception to natural death. We therefore have long supported universal health care reform that respects human life and dignity, provides access for all with a special concern for immigrants and the poor, preserves pluralism with respect for rights of conscience, and restrains costs while sharing them equitably.

In this particular letter I am writing specifically about our fundamental requirement that health care legislation respect human life and rights of conscience. Much-needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an “abortion rights” agenda or reversing longstanding current policies against federal abortion mandates and funding. In this sense we urge you to make this legislation “abortion neutral” by preserving longstanding federal policies that prevent government promotion of abortion and respect conscience rights.

In this regard several features of H.R. 3200, as introduced on July 14, need to be addressed:

1. The legislation delegates to the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to make abortion a basic or essential benefit in all health plans, or in the “public plan” created by the legislation. This would be a radical change: Federal law has long excluded most abortions from federal employees’ health benefits plans and places no requirement on private plans, most of which also decline to cover elective abortions.

2. Because some federal funds are authorized and appropriated by this legislation without passing through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, they are not covered by the Hyde amendment and other provisions that have prevented direct federal funding of abortion for over three decades. The legislation needs its own provision against abortion funding to ensure consistency with the policy in all other federal health programs.

3. Provisions such as those requiring timely access to all benefits covered by qualified health plans could be used by courts to override and invalidate state laws regulating abortion, such as laws to ensure women’s safety and informed consent and to promote parental involvement when minors consider abortion. These laws are modest, widely supported, and constitutionally sound, but they could fall before a new federal mandate to maximize “access” to abortion. It should be made clear in the legislation that such laws will not be preempted.

4. Several federal laws have long protected the conscience rights of health care providers. These laws prevent governmental bodies from discriminating against individual and institutional health care providers that decline involvement in abortion, and respect the moral and religious convictions of health professionals on abortion and other procedures in programs funded under the Public Health Service Act and other federal laws (see www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/crmay08.pdf). President Obama recently stated that he accepts these current laws and will do nothing to weaken them. Congress should make the same pledge, by ensuring that this legislation will maintain protection for conscience rights.

As long-time supporters of genuine health care reform, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is working to ensure that needed health reform is not undermined by abandoning longstanding and widely supported policies against abortion funding and mandates and in favor of conscience protection.

During committee consideration, Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joseph Pitts (R-PA) plan to offer amendments to address these problems in H.R. 3200 as introduced. I strongly urge you to support their efforts. By your actions on these issues, you have the ability to help reform our health care system in a way that will truly serve the poor and needy and uphold the dignity of all.

Sincerely,

Cardinal Justin Rigali
Archbishop of Philadelphia
Chairman
USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities

No Comments »

Over the weekend, the USCCB’s Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities released the following essay by its Assistant Director for Education and Outreach, Susan E. Willis. In it, Willis evaluates two pending pieces of federal legislation aimed at reducing the number of abortions in our country, and she helps the Catholic voter discern which of the two bills authentically serves the causes of life and justice.

LET THE TAXPAYERS BEWARE!
by Susan E. Wills
July 24, 2009

It should be called the Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009.

Instead, co-sponsors Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) have given their “new” (though largely recycled) bill the promising title “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act.” Sponsors describe the bill as a “common ground” approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions, one that should appeal to opposing sides in the abortion debate.

Sure, the bill is dressed up with some funding for after-school programs, and some (very poorly crafted) efforts to provide support for pregnant students. But make no mistake. The bill is “about access to birth control,” according to Congressman Ryan (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” May 19, 2009). In the same interview, Ryan explained: “We have to have birth control and contraception offered to these poor women who don’t have access to contraception, period, dot. There’s no other way we’re going to be able to reduce [abortions].” About what you’d expect in a bill whose co-sponsors enjoy a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL.

Accordingly, their bill calls for grants for comprehensive sexuality education (abstinence-only educators need not apply!). It substantially increases funding for the federal Title X Family Planning Program. It denies state choice, making family planning services a mandatory Medicaid entitlement in all states, and greatly expands family planning eligibility under Medicaid to all women who are eligible under state law for prenatal, labor, and delivery care.

Some people might find this approach sensible. But they ignore at least two things. First, since at least 1980, taxpayers have been funding “family planning services” to the tune of over $1 billion per year. In 2006 such public expenditures totaled $1.85 billion. So today, virtually all teenagers who are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant are already using contraception. Only 7% are not using it, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Second, contraceptives don’t work very well in real life. In the first 12 months of contraceptive use, 16.4% of teens (1 in 6) will become pregnant. Among low-income cohabiting teens, the failure (pregnancy) rate over 12 months is 48.4% for birth control pills and 71.7% for condoms.

Numerous studies in the United States and Europe have found that greater access to contraception fails to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. A recent $10 million intervention in England giving at-risk teens comprehensive sex education and contraception is a perfect example. Teens in the program had a pregnancy rate 2.5 times higher than a similar group of at-risk teens (16 vs. 6 percent).

Why does increased access to contraception fail at the population level? Thinking they are protected from pregnancy and disease, more young people become sexually active and have more partners, offsetting any reduction in pregnancy from individual contraceptive use. And the increased level of sexual activity causes STD rates to soar. In the U.S., 1 in 4 teen girls has at least one STD; many of these are incurable and some are fatal.

The sharpest decline in unintended pregnancies and abortions since 1990 has occurred among those under 18, due not to comprehensive sex ed or contraception, but chiefly to the growing number of young people choosing to remain abstinent. Visit the Secretariat’s website for contraception facts and citations at www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/index.shtml, and let your member of Congress know that the Ryan/DeLauro bill cannot fulfill the promises in its title. The real abortion-reduction bill in Congress now is the Pregnant Women Support Act (S.1032, H.R.2035), which needs our support.

No Comments »

Earlier today, Gallup released it’s latest “Pro-Life/Pro-Choice” poll.  For the first time since Gallup debuted the poll in 1995, a majority of respondents labeled themselves “Pro-Life.”

Advocates on both sides of the issue will debate the merits of this poll, but the graph above seems to confirm one thing—when abortion becomes an issue of national political interest, opinions tilt “Pro-Life.”  

For example, look at the two most significant shifts to the “Pro-Life” stance.  They occur between 1995 and 1998, and again between 2008 and 2009.  In the first instance, abortion became a national issue when Congress passed two separate laws banning partial-birth abortion (in 1995 and 1997), both of which were vetoed by President Clinton.  As you will remember, the debate was fierce, but in the end few could deny the barbarity of the procedure. In the second instance, last year’s presidential campaign again brought abortion into the national spotlight, and this exposure has continued since Inauguration Day as significant shifts have taken place in executive policy regarding abortion. Currently, national attention is focused on the use of public funds for the procedure, as well as on the uncertain future of conscience protections now enjoyed by medical professionals who object to abortion.  In both cases, prolonged national attention seems to have caused measurable shifts in the public’s attitudes toward abortion. 

Also worth noting is the first time to two lines of the graph intersect.  In the middle of 2001, the poll registered an equal number of respondents on each side of the issue.  At the time, the nation was engaged in a prolonged debate over the use of embryonic stem cells in medical experimentation, and whether public funds should be used for such research.  Again, it seems that when the dignity of human life becomes a national issue, significant though not overwhelming shifts take place in public opinion toward the defense of life.

Of course, a poll is just a poll.  But trends are read by both sides to help determine future action.  And in this regard, the Pro-Life cause has reason to hope and to continue its important witness.

No Comments »

Earlier today in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI received US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in a private audience.  They met for about fifteen minutes, and afterwards each released a statement reporting the nature of their conversation. Below are the accounts of their meeting.  

From the Office of Speaker Pelosi:

It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI today.

In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel.

I was proud to show his Holiness a photograph of my family’s Papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren.

From the Holy See’s Press Office:

Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.

Is it just me, or are they describing two completely different conversations?

No Comments »

Two actions taken by President Obama during his first week in office warrant the attention of Christians and all people of good will.

First, by an executive order dated January 22 and entitled “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations,” Obama ordered that all combatants detained during armed conflict be treated and interrogated in accord with the procedures outlined in the Army Field Manual, all other orders to the contrary being rescinded.  In effect, controversial interrogation techniques allowed by the Bush administration but considered “torture” by critics are now forbidden.  The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has welcomed this action.

Second, in a memorandum dated yesterday and addressed to the Secretary of State, Obama rescinded the “Mexico City Policy,” which enacted by President Reagan and the two Presidents Bush forbade private groups receiving federal money from using that money to perform or promote abortion in foreign countries.  As a result, tax money can now be used pay for abortions performed across our borders and overseas.  In a statement released today, Obama explains his rational for the order.  In it, he expresses concern for poor families but defiantly avoids using the word “abortion,” which is incredible considering that the entire policy revolves singularly around the act of abortion.  In reaction, the US Bishops have lodged their protest.

Were these two orders expected?  Yes.  Obama campaigned on them.  Are they consistent?  Not by a long shot.  Just compare them.  One grants enemy combatants detained on the battle field the legal presumption of innocence and the guarantee of humane treatment by interrogators, while the other leaves those truly innocent and by nature defenseless without legal protection to suffer fatal treatment by relatives and doctors.  The two orders meet only at the point where taxpayer money is given for the “treatment” guaranteed by each.

The Vatican has also weighed in forcefully on the controversy.  For its reaction, click here and here.

4 Comments »

One of President Bush’s first acts after assuming office was to offer executive protection to the Mexico City protocol, which prevents US foreign aid from being used to perform abortions.  Now, in one of his last acts, he touches again on the same theme—the sanctity of human life.  By his decree, today is “National Sanctity of Human Life Day.”  Here is the text of his proclamation.

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America. Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

By all accounts, it may be some time before the White House adopts this cultural and legal stance again.  Until then, we move forward fortified by the basic truths spelled out above.  And below, the same truths find greater expression in pictures.

No Comments »

Ross Douthat’s editorial in Saturday’s New York Times is worth a careful read. Granted, it’s a partisan piece.  In his essay, the conservative editor of The Atlantic argues in defense of the Republican Party’s platform regarding Roe vs. Wade.  That’s not why I call the piece to your attention.  What’s interesting about Douthat’s essay is not his take on the GOP, but rather what he says about the pro-life movement in general.  In essence, Douthat makes the same legal and political argument the US Bishops were making in the run-up to last month’s election.

Here are the key paragraphs:

In theory, there are many middle grounds imaginable in America’s abortion wars, from bans that make exceptions for rape and fetal deformities to legal systems modeled on the French system, in which abortion is available but discouraged in the first 10 weeks and sharply restricted thereafter.

The public is amenable to compromise: majorities support keeping abortion legal in some cases, but polling by CBS News and The Times during the presidential campaign showed that more Americans supported new restrictions on abortion than said it should be available on demand. And while some pro-lifers would reject any bargain, many more would be delighted to strike a deal that extends legal protection to more of the unborn, even if it stopped short of achieving the movement’s ultimate goals.

But no such compromise is possible so long as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey remain on the books. These decisions are monuments to pro-choice absolutism, and for pro-lifers to accept them means accepting that no serious legal restrictions on abortion will ever be possible — no matter what the polls say, and no matter how many hearts and minds pro-lifers change.

Overturning Roe and Casey has never been an easy task, and the election of Barack Obama will make it that much more difficult. Facing a hostile governing majority, pro-lifers can and should talk more about the possibility of compromise: They should explain, more often and more cogently, that if Americans want laws that better reflect their muddled sentiments on abortion, it is pro-choice maximalism, not the pro-life movement, that’s really standing in the way.

But so long as the Supreme Court remains closely divided, and a post-Roe world remains in reach, the movement’s basic political task must remain the same. Not because pro-lifers are absolutists who reject compromise, but because any real compromise will always depend on overturning Roe. Giving up on this goal would mean giving up the movement’s very purpose, while gaining nothing in return.

Click here for the entire editorial.

No Comments »

From Sr. Lucy at the archdiocesan Family Life-Respect Life Office:

“A new generation of Christians is being called to help build a world in which God’s gift of life is welcomed, respected and cherished-not rejected, feared as a threat and destroyed. A new age in which love is not greedy or self-seeking, but pure, faithful and genuinely free, open to others, respectful of their dignity, seeking their good, radiating joy and beauty. A new age in which hope liberates us from shallowness, apathy and self-absorption which deaden our souls and poison our relationships. … The Lord is asking you to be prophets of this new age, messengers of his love, drawing people to the Father and building a future of hope for all humanity.”  — Pope Benedict XVI, Homily at World Youth Day, July 20, 2008

Join with the Sisters of Life – be prophets of this new age.

Witness for Life

Sat, Dec 6th / 8am Mass at Old St. Patrick’s Cathedral, NYC – Fr. Richard Baker will be the main celebrant. Come to all or part of the morning.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass begins our day in Old St. Patrick’s Cathedral (the Sisters of Life will provide a Schola), Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament follows, and people can either remain in the Church to adore our Lord or attend the rosary procession to the local abortion clinic.

Upon return from the clinic (approx 10:15am) we will have a social (complete with coffee and bagels) with a short (15 mins) presentation by the Sisters of Life. You will hear of concrete ways to be of service, as Co-Workers, helping vulnerable pregnant women that are currently being served by the Sisters.

Promote this to your friends and keep the spiritual success of this effort for Life in your daily prayers.

Sr. Lucy Marie
Respect Life Coordinator
Archdiocese of New York
1011 First Ave., 7th Floor
New York, NY 10022
212-371-1011 X3192
Mon-Thurs 9:30am-4:30pm

No Comments »

A Spanish daily recently published the conversion story of Communist Serbia’s chief abortionist, Stojan Adasevic.  Since its appearance last week, the report has caught the attention of pro-lifers, and the Dominicans.  Why?  It seems that St. Thomas Aquinas played a prominent role—literally—in Dr. Adasevic’s conversion. The Catholic News Agency covers the incredible story.

Madrid, Nov 12, 2008 (CNA) - Spanish daily “La Razon” has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former “champion of abortion.” Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country.“The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue,” the newspaper reported.  “Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares.”

In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence.  The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint.  He didn’t recognize the name.”

“Why don’t you ask me who these children are?” St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream.

“They are the ones you killed with your abortions,’ St. Thomas told him. 

“Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions,” the article stated.

Now I have to go back and read what Aquinas taught about the apparitions of saints . . .

Click here for the entire story.

No Comments »

Building on comments he made two days ago, Cardinal George of Chicago, the president of the USCCB, released the following statement earlier today. In it the Cardinal conveys the collective thinking of the bishops regarding last week’s national election.  In the minds and hearts of our shepherds, joy appears mixed with sorrow as the historical election of Obama remains overshadowed by his promises to roll back recent advances made in the cause of life. Foremost among the bishops’ concerns are the dire consequences that passage of the Freedom of Choice Act could have on national unity and the free exercise of religion, not to mention the lethal consequences it promises for the unborn.  The statement ends with a pledge of prayers for President-elect Obama and those who will help him govern.

STATEMENT of the President
of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

“If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor; if the Lord does not watch over the city, in vain does the watchman keep vigil.” (Psalm 127, vs. 1)

The Bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States welcome this moment of historic transition and look forward to working with President-elect Obama and the members of the new Congress for the common good of all. Because of the Church’s history and the scope of her ministries in this country, we want to continue our work for economic justice and opportunity for all; our efforts to reform laws around immigration and the situation of the undocumented; our provision of better education and adequate health care for all, especially for women and children; our desire to safeguard religious freedom and foster peace at home and abroad. The Church is intent on doing good and will continue to cooperate gladly with the government and all others working for these goods.

The fundamental good is life itself, a gift from God and our parents. A good state protects the lives of all. Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973. This was bad law. The danger the Bishops see at this moment is that a bad court decision will be enshrined in bad legislation that is more radical than the 1973 Supreme Court decision itself.

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

As president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Francis Cardinal George of Chicago opened the body’s fall general assembly yesterday with an address that acknowledged first of all the historical significance of last week’s presidential election.  Given our nation’s early acceptance of race-based slavery, the cardinal commented about Senator Obama’s victory: “In this, I truly believe, we must all rejoice.”  George then placed the election within the context of the Church’s ongoing promotion and defense of the common good.  It is not difficult to hear in the cardinal’s words overtones of the general concern that many bishops expressed during the campaign that the full force of the Church’s social teaching was not being adequately applied to the issue of abortion.  In this regard, Cardinal George observed:

In working for the common good of our society, racial justice is one pillar of our social doctrine. Economic justice, especially for the poor both here and abroad, is another. But the Church comes also and always and everywhere with the memory, the conviction, that the Eternal Word of God became man, took flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary, nine months before Jesus was born in Bethlehem. This truth is celebrated in our liturgy because it is branded into our spirit. The common good can never be adequately incarnated in any society when those waiting to be born can be legally killed at choice. If the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that African Americans were other people’s property and somehow less than persons were still settled constitutional law, Mr. Obama would not be president of the United States. Today, as was the case a hundred and fifty years ago, common ground cannot be found by destroying the common good.

Below you can read the full text of Cardinal George’s address.

Today the bishops are scheduled to discuss how best to clarify the Church’s moral teaching in the public square, especially as it pertains to the Christian obligation to protect innocent human life.  Also on the agenda is how the bishops should engage Catholic politicians who work actively against the stated moral teaching of the Church. 

PLENARY SESSION ADDRESS BY CARDINAL GEORGE

Dear Brother Bishops:

At the opening session of the recently concluded Roman Synod on the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church, Pope Benedict XVI reflected on Psalm 118, that magnificent chorus praising the law, the order, that unites us to God. “The Word of God,” the Pope said,” is solid, it is the true reality upon which to base one’s life. Let us recall the words of Jesus: ‘…Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away’…It is words that create history, it is words that give form to thoughts…the Word of God is the foundation of everything, it is the true reality. And to be realists, we must truly count on this reality.”

The Holy Father offered these reflections in the face of bank closures, the collapse of giant corporations, the uncertainty of political regimes, with full awareness of the insecurity and suffering of so many around the world. His words echoed what he had told us in our own country last April, when he constantly directed our thoughts and actions toward the Word of God made flesh, whom the Pope called “Our Hope.”

Continue Reading »

1 Comment »

*(As they are released, the most recent statements from bishops from around the country will be linked at the bottom of this post.)

As the political debate leading up to the general election has become more rancorous, so too has the discussion among Catholics over how best to apply the moral principles set forth in the US Bishops’ pastoral letter “Faithful Citizenship.” 

To assist Catholics in their dioceses, several bishops have written their own pastoral letters explaining “Faithful Citizenship.”   Several of these letters are exceptional for their brevity and clarity.  The bishops of New York State have issued this statement.  

In addition to the pastoral letters of individual bishops, several Catholic intellectuals and writers have produced their own guides to “Faithful Citizenship,” to admittedly varying degrees of success.  Among some of these works there appear modes of moral reasoning that clearly diverge from the bishops’ original teaching.  The ensuing confusion among Catholics has prompted the bishops to offer yet another clarification of “Faithful Citizenship.”

To prevent further misinterpretation or misapplication of “Faithful Citizenship,” the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the USCCB issued late yesterday the following statement.

Joint Statement by
Cardinal Justin Rigali
Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities
and
Bishop William Murphy
Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
October 21, 2008

In Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (2007), the Catholic bishops of the United States urged Catholic voters to form their consciences in accord with the Church’s moral teaching. We emphasized that: ”Both opposing evil and doing good are essential obligations” (No. 24). Unfortunately, there seem to be efforts and voter education materials designed to persuade Catholics that they need only choose one approach: either opposing evil or doing good. This is not an authentically Catholic approach.

Some argue that we should not focus on policies that provide help for pregnant women, but just focus on the essential task of establishing legal protections for children in the womb. Others argue that providing life affirming support for pregnant women should be our only focus and this should take the place of efforts to establish legal protections for unborn children. We want to be clear that neither argument is consistent with Catholic teaching. Our faith requires us to oppose abortion on demand and to provide help to mothers facing challenging pregnancies.

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver sat down recently with the Hoover Institution’s Peter Robinson to discuss his new book entitled Render unto Caesar. In the resulting five-part interview posted at National Review Online, the archbishop comments on a number of topics, including the increased clarity with which the Church now treats the responsibilities of Catholics in public life.

All five parts of the interview are posted below.

Part I – Archbishop Chaput comments on the recent statements made by Speaker Pelosi and Senator Biden

Part II – Archbishop Chaput discusses the “decline” of the Church’s vibrancy in the years after the Second Vatican Council

Part III – Archbishop Chaput examines three aspects of Jesus’ relation to Caesar

Part IV – Archbishop Chaput highlights the West’s growing culture of death

Part V – Archbishop Chaput discusses abortion in American political life

No Comments »

Below is a note written by Sr. Lucy Marie of the Sisters of Life.  The event she mentions was advertised here.

As Sr. Lucy explains, witnessing makes a difference one life at a time.

Dear Friends who Witness for Life,

Many of you were among the approx 70 who participated with us in our First Helpers Prayer Vigil this past September. The prayer and witness of all of you was so powerful. Was it really – do we ever know?

One young man who was present with us that day provided prayer support at another clinic elsewhere in our area this past Saturday. I was at home preparing to sit down to breakfast and we received a call from this young man that a woman had turned around at a clinic. He brought the young woman over. Another sister and I spent the morning meeting with her and giving her examples of all of the various resources and people that were available to assist her in her pregnancy. She left our convent having a new perspective and a new sense of life.

She kept telling us – “this was my second time coming to the clinic and I just didn’t want to do it. I read the brochure… but what really changed my mind was that young man who approached me and told me there was another way. He never condemned me and he was just so nice….I am so glad he was there… he was so nice.”

It make a difference to witness to life – this woman’s life is forever changed and she and her child are eternally grateful to each of you.

Next prayer witness and vigil – Sat, Oct 4th – Mass at 8am – St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral.

God Bless You.

No Comments »

Considering that in New York City 72 abortions occur for every 100 live births (see Crain’s), this conversation may be long overdue.

From Michaelene Fredenburg, the founder of Abortion Changes You:

When I became pregnant at 18, I had an abortion.

I was completely unprepared for the emotional fallout. I thought the abortion would erase the pregnancy. I thought I could move on with my life. I was wrong.

I experienced periods of intense anger followed by periods of profound sadness. When my feelings became too difficult to deal with, I reached out for help from a trained counselor.

With counseling and the help of supportive friends, I was able to enter into a healthy grieving process.

In addition to grieving the loss of my child, I slowly became aware of how my choice to abort had impacted my family. I was surprised and saddened that my parents, my sister, and even my living children struggled to deal with the loss of a family member through abortion.

Over the years I’ve heard many heartrending stories about abortion. Although each story is unique, a common thread moves through them all—abortion changes you. Yet there is no forum to help abortion participants—and the people who are closest to them—explore this tragic truth. Although abortion has touched many of us, we rarely share our personal experiences regarding it.

This is what led me to write a book that shares some of the stories I’ve heard. There was also a need for a safe space for people to tell their stories, explore the ways abortion has impacted them, and find resources. We created AbortionChangesYou.com to fill this need.

It is my hope that this Web site will assist you as you seek to make sense of your abortion or the abortion of someone close to you.

No Comments »

“This is like deja vu all over again.”

Two weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi grievously misrepresented the Church’s teaching on life and earned herself an unprecedented rebuke from the nation’s bishops, Senator Joseph Biden, also a professed Catholic, answered the same question, from the same journalist, on the same show, in the same scandalous way.  Other than substituting the name “Aquinas” for “Augustine,” Biden simply copied Pelosi’s script when he claimed that medieval debates over delayed ensoulment reveal a loose thread in the Church’s otherwise seamless defense of life, a thread on which a Catholic politician may licitly hang a political defense of legalized abortion.  The argument made little sense when Pelosi made it, and after the corrections offered by the bishops it makes even less sense now.

In at least one way, however, Biden’s answer to the question “When does life begin?” does more damage than Pelosi’s to the public’s perception of the Church’s teaching.  More than twice on Sunday’s Meet the Press, Biden asserted that the statement ”life begins at conception” is an article of faith which a Catholic must accept under the authority of the Church’s Magisterium.  As a witness to his Catholic credentials, Biden proudly proclaimed his obedience and fidelity.  But Biden’s presentation of the Church’s teaching is not true.  The statement “life begins at conception” is not an article of faith.  It is a statement rooted in reason and science used by the Church to explain the full scope of the fifth commandment.  By arguing that “life begins at conception” constitutes a tenet of a religious creed, Biden erroneouly reduces the Church’s Gospel of Life to a sectarian, fideist claim unsupported by either reason or science.  As a definition of a particular creed, Biden argued, the statement “life begins at conception” can hold no sway in modern democratic debate.

As expected, the bishop’s have begun to respond.

Continue Reading »

1 Comment »

Statements released this week by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops clarify the Church’s teaching on two issues that dominate today’s cultural and political discourse.  The first concerns the Church’s consistent teaching on life, and the second is a joint statement with Orthodox Jews regarding marriage.  

The first statement is a fact sheet that further contradicts the erroneous summary of the Church’s tradition given recently by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Her comments necessitated an elaboration of this earlier statement.  The second text bears witness to the Church’s ongoing efforts to find religious allies in its cultural fight to preserve and defend the natural definition of marriage.

From “Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church’s Constant Teaching”:

Thus modern science has not changed the Church’s constant teaching against abortion, but has underscored how important and reasonable it is, by confirming that the life of each individual of the human species begins with the earliest embryo.

Click here for the entire text.

And from “Created in the Divine Image”:

God’s design for the continuance of human life, as seen in the natural order, as well as in the Bible  (Gen. 1-3), clearly revolves around the union of male and female, first as husband and wife, and then as parents. A unique goal of marriage, which is reproduction and the raising of families, exists apart from that of same sex unions, which cannot equally participate in this essential function. While others may claim the right to establish private relationships between persons of the same gender that simulate marriage, the legal classification of such relationships as marriage dilutes the special standing of marriage between a man and a woman. Since the future of every society depends upon its ability to reproduce itself according to this natural order and to have its young people reared in a stable environment, it is the duty of the state to protect the traditional place of marriage and the family for the good of society. 

The entire text can be found here.

No Comments »

A man for all (political) seasons

Today is the second of two feasts celebrated each year in honor of St. John the Baptist.  On June 24, the Church celebrates his birth.  On August 29, we commemorate his death.

In any political season, it is important to remember the events surrounding John’s martyrdom.  As the Gospels record, John died at the dangerous intersection of morality and lust-drunken power.  Even in the best of circumstances, the crossroads of natural law and political will remain difficult to navigate successfully.

Conclusions regarding the specifics of the natural law may differ, but in principle the precepts of the natural law are not subject to democratic political debate.  In other words, the laws regarding human life and marriage, just to name a couple of natural law issues, do not emerge from anyone’s political will.  They are the precepts of a higher authority, whose will we discern through physical and metaphysical studies of creation, on the one hand, and revelation, on the other. Because the natural law does not originate in the political realm, it follows that its precepts cannot be changed by any political majority.  It lies outside of anyone’s competency to adjust the order of creation.  Therefore, today’s debates as to whether abortion is murder, whether euthanasia is murder, or whether a same-sex union can be a marriage make little sense.  These are not realities subject to political opinion or prudence.  To the contrary, the natural law stands as the political will’s standard and judge.

When the political realm begins to exceed its bounds and legislate outside of its competency, prophets appear on the secular and religious stage to remind leaders of the true nature and origin of human rights.  St. John the Baptist is a prime example.  His was not a political tiff with Herod and Herodias.  His critique centered not on their tax policy or the kingdom’s relations with Egypt.  His words to the royal couple were much simpler, words that everyone regardless of political stature can understand: “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” That’s not a political statement.  It’s a human one.  And John paid a human price for it.

God our Father, you called John the Baptist to be the herald of your Son’s birth and death.  As he gave his life in witness to truth and justice, so may we strive to profess our faith in your Gospel.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever.  Amen.

No Comments »

In today’s first reading from Second Thessalonians (2:1-3a, 14-17), St. Paul diffuses a situation disturbing the young Church in Thessalonica.  Word reached them, purportedly from Paul himself, that the anticipated “Day of the Lord” had already come and gone.  Imagine if you were told that the Second Coming of Christ had happened, and that you missed it.  As an apostle, Paul first calms the anxiety of the Thessalonians.  He convinces them that the word they received was false.  Then, he sets out to strengthen them against spurious teaching by telling them, among other things: “hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

Here we see the apostolic ministry of the Church at work.  Because of sin, ignorance, and weakness–and sometimes through malice–error often affects the lives of believers.  But watchful shepherds, commissioned by the Lord to lead and teach, detect the error, confront it, correct it, and then restore the faithful to right teaching.  In the Church, the apostolic office is a mercy given us by Christ himself to protect and guard the fullness of his salvific truth.  The teaching office of the bishops, who at their head sits the Pope, possesses the grace of infallibility when it defines and interprets issues of faith and morals.  Within the past few days, we’ve seen the grace of this office enacted in rather dramatic ways.

As is now well known, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), made over the weekend woefully inaccurate statements regarding the consistency of the Church’s teaching on life.  Here is a transcript of the remarks she made on Sunday’s Meet the Press:

Continue Reading »

1 Comment »

New York City’s unusually high abortion rates reveal the contemporary need for the Church’s Gospel of Life.

In his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI clarified again the intrinsically evil nature of abortion, this time in the context of his discussion of the illicit means of spacing children within families.  In defending the “principle of totalilty” that should govern every instance of the marital embrace of husband and wife, the Pope lists abortion as one means of birth control absolutely contrary to both the natural law and the Christian Gospel.

In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.

This is certainly one of the least controversial points Pope Paul makes in Humanae Vitae.  One might wonder why he even mentions it.  The reason is this: the logic behind his conclusion regarding abortion is the same that undergirds his more disputed conclusions regarding the use of the pill, prophylactics, and all other artificial and invasive forms of birth control.  Once identified, his reasoning in explaining the Church’s teaching is easy to understand.  In every instance of sexual expression, the Pope explains, the integrity of the sexual act must be respected by husband and wife.  To act otherwise is to dismantle a fundamental structure that supports married life.  More to the point, to willfully render sterile something which by nature is generative and oriented toward fruitfulness is both to act contrary to the law written into human nature and to sin against Christian charity.

Continue Reading »

No Comments »