Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Girls are just dog food
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Supposedly abortion is always to protect the health of the "mother"....
The top three reasons these women cite for not being able to continue their pregnancies and give birth are:
•negative impact on the mother's life
•relationship problems /unwillingness to be a single mother
Does the AMA list financial instability, relationship issues, and unwillingness as women's health issues?
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
The upcoming Ottawa visit by Netanyahu is widely seen as a public show of thanks for the strong support Harper's government has shown for the Jewish state during a time when the US - long Israel's strongest ally - is increasingly seen in Jerusalem as unreliable.
We need to understand the stakes here. Sunday, Obama laid the groundwork for more war.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
By their failure to rule, they have participated in the creation of this radical divide. Only by ruling now can they once again close that yawning chasm...
Thursday, September 22, 2011
In 1999, AIDS cost Canada $2 Billion.
So by computing 61% of that $2 Billion we can see that $1.22 Billion in costs and losses (1999) are directly avoidable if only homosexuals were not committing sodomy. Putting other peoples penises up your bum maybe a compulsive obsession for some persons, but for most humans it is a totally controllable behavior. No one ever "accidentally" has anal intercourse. It is always a result of a series of conscious choices.
It should be illegal in the interests of both public health and negative economic impact. Not to mention the myriad negative social, moral and spiritual consequences.
This small percentage of compulsive misbehavors in society are costing the rest of us taxpayers way too much proportinately. I can think of a lot better things to do with $1.22 Billion.
So keep your pants on, and stop putting things up your bums, and we'll all be richer boys.
In Canada, God is officially recognized in written law as Supreme. The power referenced as the rule of law, which forms the rationale for the existence of laws, is herein inextricably linked to God's supremacy through the inclusion of these two powers wedded in a single sentence placed inextricably atop all of the nations legal documents, acts, laws and regulations. The power to enforce these laws over other citizens devolves from this same linkage to God.
Further, Canada's Head of State bears the title; "Defender of the Faith" - which refers to Canada's Head of State's position as leader of the Anglican Christian communion. Therefore the God of the Christians officially, in written law, reigns supreme over Canada, and any power used to enact and enforce laws come from Him through the rule of law. It is at this summit of Canada's judicial authority, that the commands of the Christian God are publicly acknowledged to form the official basis for all of Canada's laws, statutes, and regulations.
The paycheque of a public servant is actually the consideration that contractually binds them to uphold God's truth in the execution of their duties as public servants. Elected servants do not wield the power of the people; they wield the power for the people. We only elect the office-holders. The powers and authorities are held by their office, not by them. They are selected for stewards of Her Majesty's power and authority, not "the people's" power and authority.
The power of the Queen is acknowledged to come from the One only being to whom she willingly bends her knee. The One to whom, as condition of receiving her power and authority, she swore to "... maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel."
What then are we to do with public servants who deliberately teach Canadian children that it's acceptable to sin certain sins? And that also teach that it is wrong to tell those sinners that they are sinning? - when in actuality, the God on whose behalf they wield power, actually says such things as:
Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
These servants are clearly abusing their God given power to instruct OUR CHILDREN to do things which are NOT in accord with His will, nor ours. Nor is approving these sins in the best interests of the children since committing them is also clearly proven to increase the risks to physical, mental and emotional health by staggering amounts. That's a flagrant abuse of power which endangers OUR CHILDREN.
Within Canada, it's our Criminal Code that describes offenses and proposes suitable remedies. One such code (which BTW, applies to all citizens, including ministers, superintendents, principals, teachers, etc.) states that endangering the morals of children by exposing them to vice, and allowing persons under 18 to engage in sexual acts, or make preparations to engage in sexual acts while in their care or on their premises should result in jail time. Criminal Code 171 and 172 apply to teachers and school premises, and based on the likely activities that occur in GSA's, they are quite likely crime scenes. [Code 212. (4)]
Larry Hayes - Baljinder Narang - Ron Burton - Tony Coccia - Diana Mumford - James Wang - Gary Wong
James Sanyshyn - Debra Sutherland
... et al ...
QED: All power comes from above.
John 19:11 / Matthew 28:18 / Romans 13:1
John 3:31 / John 3:35 / Proverbs 8:15
Worship the Lord your God and serve him only
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
I promised some of the speeches from the last school board meeting on policy 5.45, the school district's anti-homophobia policy. Click here for an earlier story. (Note: the policy was already passed by the board but is still subject to public input and final approval.) There were nine presentations to the board, some for and some against. I'm posting four here, but all separately. This is the raw, unedited version...
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 19:11:38 -0700
Subject: Why do we oppose policy 5.45
I did a presentation on May 24 at Burnaby School Board meeting. I want more people know why we are opposing this policy. There is some misunderstanding about the policy and about the concerned parents and students who oppose this policy. I edited my presentation into letter. Kindly check the attached. Should you have any question, please feel free to contact me. Thank you Burnaby Now to keep everybody informed about what's going on regarding our community. Wish Burnaby Now every success.
I would like to share my views and concerns regarding Policy 5.45.
Let’s start with something all of us can agree on: nobody should be bullied. It’s a good idea to teach students—from a young age—to be good citizens… which includes treating others with respect, in words and deeds.So far, I believe we have common ground with those who support this policy. Now: what’s the best way to achieve this noble goal? I am so grateful to find out that Burnaby School board already addressed this issue in its Code of Conduct.
QUOTE "The following behaviour are considered unacceptable:
Engaging in acts of bullying, harassment, intimidation, retaliation, discrimination and/or violence
Being disrespectful or using threatening language or behaviors.
All members of the school community are expected to comply with the purpose and spirit of the BC Human Rights code, including not engaging in discriminatory conduct on the basis of gender, race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status physical, mental disability or sexual orientation. END OF QUOTE
Does this code of conduct missing something? Like sexual orientation? No. This Code of Conduct clearly addressed the discrimination and bully against sexual orientation as unacceptable.And please look at this, which is in the same code of conduct, "Every effort to support individuals and to determine the root causes of behavior will be made."
So the question is: why do we need two policies to address discrimination and bully against sexual orientation? We want BSB to show us the specific data that supports here in Burnaby School District that we need to highlight the LGBTQ group.
Next, let's look at policy 5.45 carefully. I have learned from the Parent’s Voice that requests for additional information to understand the full and serious implications of draft policy 5.45 and they have not received an adequate response from Burnaby School Trustees. Furthermore, school trustees have stated they will not accept public input after an imposed June 03 deadline." The board states the policy has been going on for 2 years but only allow the public, including student and parents, to have one month's time for input without adequate background info. My question is why in such hurry while the policy has raised so much questions and confusions from the public? For example: Teachers are encouraged to embed and integrate LGBTQ issues into existing curriculum in age-appropriate ways.
What kind of LGBTQ issues would be embedded in to existing curriculum? The BCTF per their website flyer,: “DayOfPinkSecondary.pdf, suggests to teachers, “Show the film Milk or Brokeback Mountain to your class, and discuss how homophobia affected the central character’s life. I am told that in this film there are graphic scenes of homosexual men having sex. Is this the kind of LGBTQ material that Burnaby Schools intend to add to the curriculum of our high school children?
Has Burnaby School Board done any literature review as to what is the appropriate age to introduce such to school students? Is there any related academic study/report reviewed? Why can't school board provide information as required? Well there is no reply from School Board yet.
Furthermore, per the Feb 22 Board of Education minutes, the Burnaby School Board has “approved the formation of a 17 person standing committee”. This appears to be the continuation of this the LGBTQ Ad-Hoc committee, on a permanent basis! The Burnaby School Board appears to be very secretive about this committee, and has not included information about this new committee in their website’s recently added “background information” section. As far as I can tell from the web site background section, they have not disclosed information about the existence of the committee, who is on the committee or how the members are chosen. Their terms of reference suggest a strong agenda to continue to implement further curriculum changes complete with goals, an action plan, and a schedule.
So what exactly is the agenda and objectives of the newly approved LGBTQ standing committee? We really don’t know! However, in the Feb 26th Burnaby Now interview of Ad Hoc committee member Debra Sutherland, she makes the statement, “this is just the beginning”, referring to policy 5.45. Given that most Burnaby parents have not been including in the development of this policy, this statement causes us great concern!
I really appreciate Burnaby School Boards’ determination to care and to protect the LGBTQ kids. We who oppose this policy also love and care about LGBTQ children. LGBTQ are human like us and they deserve respect and honor. We don’t want any students to be bullied or discriminated. But I do have to make it extremely clear. Acceptance and tolerance is about accepting a person as who he is, but it's not about accepting all the ideas in the world. Hence there is saying "Agree to disagree." Understanding this, we can always live happily with people who are different from us.
There is an excellent article in The Burnaby Now, by Ben Seebaren, a retired school teacher, in the May 18th issue titled “New policy has weaknesses”
Quote: To develop policy and curriculum to affirm behaviours that are morally or religiously unacceptable or questionable contradicts the multicultural and race relations policy Number 6.40 in which the board approved "the goal of promoting positive human interactions, including interactions which are free from divisive attitudes based upon race, ethnic roots, national origin or religious affiliation." There is a danger that "anti-bullying" policies and curricula will discriminate against religious students who believe that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong. ”End of quote.
Schools have the responsibility to provide a safe and secure environment for ALL students; it’s WRONG to adopt policies that make inherent judgments towards people, regardless of their idea towards what they prefer. Otherwise it’s against Teacher’s ethnic and policy 6.40.
Reading this policy as it is, it can be used to label people who holds the concept of the family as founded on the life-long commitment of one man and one woman to one another in marriage and on their commitment to the welfare of their children as “perpetuates negative stereotypes and is dangerous to individuals and communities” This is discrimination!
It is also very disturbing to read some of comments from the news media towards students and parents who opposed this policy. Those comments already showed discrimination, bully and hatred. I agree with Chair Larry Hayes’ comment “Do the right thing”. But a policy in its draft form that already stimulated discrimination, bully and hatred, that against teacher’s ethnic, that contradict to policy 6.40 is not “the right thing” and should be stopped immediately. Schools should implement and uphold the well-thought-out, already existing policies.
I would like to appeal to the Burnaby School Board:
Please create a policy that encourages all students to show respect to the LGBTQ community, and similarly encourage respect of all Ethic, Cultural, and Faith-based students!
As per the universally accepted Golden Rule, we need to teach our children to love their neighbors as themselves.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Homosexual relationships and acts have been admired, as well as condemned, throughout recorded history, depending on the form they took and the culture in which they occurred.
It is one of the three main classifications of sexual orientation, along with a heterosexual and a homosexual orientation, all a part of the heterosexual-homosexual continuum. Pansexuality may or may not be subsumed under bisexuality, with some sources stating that bisexuality encompasses sexual or romantic attraction to all gender identities.
Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectionate attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality.
Bisexuality may be a difficult topic to comprehend. Many of us are taught to look at almost everything in the universe as a duality: male and female, light and dark, hot an cold, moral and immoral, etc. This is also seen with human sexual orientation. Most view it as existing in two forms: heterosexuality and homosexuality. But human sexuality is a little more complex than that. One cannot squeeze the full range of human sexual feelings and behaviors into only two classifications.
Heterosexism, however, denotes the "system of ideological thought that makes heterosexuality the sole norm to follow for sexual practices". As a bias favoring heterosexuals and heterosexuality, heterosexism has been described as being "encoded into and characteristic of the major social, cultural, and economic institutions of our society" and stems from the essentialist cultural notion that maleness-masculinity and femaleness-femininity are complementary.
Queer theory's main project is exploring the contesting of the categorization of gender and sexuality; identities are not fixed – they cannot be categorized and labeled – because identities consist of many varied components and that to categorize by one characteristic is wrong.
Queer theory, however, has been criticized in a myriad of ways (Jagose, 1996). One set of criticisms comes from theorists who are sympathetic to gay liberation conceived as a project of radical social change. An initial criticism is that precisely because ‘queer’ does not refer to any specific sexual status or gender object choice, for example Halperin (1995) allows that straight persons may be ‘queer,’ it robs gays and lesbians of the distinctiveness of what makes them marginal. It desexualizes identity, when the issue is precisely about a sexual identity (Jagose, 1996).
No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.
Prenatal androgens may therefore influence adult human sexual orientation in both sexes, and a mother's body appears to 'remember' previously carried sons, altering the fetal development of subsequent sons and increasing the likelihood of homosexuality in adulthood.
Many educated Catholics know that the Church bases her moral teaching on Natural Law, but few educated after the 60′s know what that means. It all begins with Romans 1:18-21:
Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.
"What is the difference between a gay and a straight man?" with the answer being, "Six beers." Could it really be true that homosexual and heterosexual males become one after the consumption of only six alcoholic grain beverages?
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Battleground Burnaby - Gays vs Hateful, Bigoted, Immigrant, Asian, Christian, Muslim, UnCanadian, Flat-Earthers
The draft policy:
The purpose stated in bold at he beginning of the policy document is laudable and even consistent with Catholic teaching (Catechism 2358) but the rest of the written policy document is rife with problematic statements.
Under the heading "Objectives", they fail to list heterosexual, or straight as sexual orientations. If those are not orientations, what are they? If they are, then why are they excluded from the list in the very policy that states its purpose is to foster inclusion, and diversity, REGARDLESS of orientation?
Objective "g)" it uses the expression "true identities". Since when is a sexual preference a "true" identity? It's an appetite. This statement also ignores those who do not necessarily want to be labelled as gay, or those that are questioning, but instead encourages "outing".
The most odious part of the policy is the definition of "HETEROSEXISM" it contains. The definition flies in the face of observable reality and ignores common usage of English terminology. It also makes clearly false and unsupported statements, which coming from an educational body is very disconcerting.
"Heterosexism refers to the mistaken assumption that all people are heterosexual and that heterosexuality is superior and the norm by which all other sexual orientation and gender identities are measured. Heterosexism perpetuates negative stereotypes and is dangerous to individuals and communities."
1) It is clearly a "mistaken assumption" that "all people are heterosexual", but who on earth actually thinks this? The inclusion of this ridiculous assertion seems intended solely to make the "mistaken assumption" statement true. Having now lead people to accept the "trueness" that this is a "mistaken assumption", they then append false statements and an unsubstantiated assertion to it.
2) It declares that it is also a "mistaken assumption" that heterosexuality is normal. When is 95% of the population abnormal?
3) It declares as a "mistaken assumption" that heterosexuality is superior. Heterosexuality is biologically natural, and transmits life bringing new humans into being, thereby perpetuating our species. Gay sex ignores nature, fails to transmit life, does not bring new people into existence, and frequently leads to disease, psychological problems, and death. Which is superior?
4) It then declares that heterosexism "perpetuates negative stereotypes and is dangerous, yet there is no evidence to back up this statement. Homosexuality however is clearly documented to be dangerous.
The policy contains a section called "Parent Programs" which contains a laughable statement based on the fact that parents appear to have been deliberately excluded from the policy development process. Where is there any demonstrated attempt to increase parental awareness? So far the actions are opposite to the words.
Statement "(g)" under "Learning Resources, Curriculum Resources and Library Resources" it calls on teachers to identify "gender bias". No more girls with dolls or boys playing ball allowed. Only grey neuters participating equally in all activities will be allowed.
Statement "(e)" which shows in the document as a second "(d)" under "Counselling and Student Support", states that the counselling staff are required to "ENCOURAGE" gay clubs. It does not say they are to allow, or support them, it specifically states they are to encourage them.
There is ample local press on the situation, with the Gay press trying to frame this as a gay-friendly, anti-homophobia, safety and equality policy, and labeling their opposition as indoctrinated, bigoted, immigrant, flat-earthers. Why did Xtra make the (journalistically invalid) point of identifying the race and creed of opponents? How is the race and creed of local parents germane to this Xtra article? This is blatant race-baiting.
Perhaps they are trying to rally anti-immigrant, anti-Asian, anti-Christian, pro-Canadian sentiment to their cause, but their effort so far has only led to these sentiments being expressed almost exclusively by gays.(note the comments made by Gay readers of the Xtra article)
"... parents and citizens, many of them members of Burnaby’s Willingdon Church and nearly all of Asian descent,..."
Then the local MSM picks up on the race issue started in the gay press, ratchets it up and exposes it to the larger metropolitan community.
"...a case of immigrants bringing intolerant views into Canada and undermining Canadian values — a textbook illustration of what's wrong with our vaunted cultural mosaic."
The same article also calls for indoctrination, and repeats the anti-immigrant rhetoric.
"When parents and community leaders believe homosexuality is unnatural, it's essential for schools to provide counter-education so our society can evolve out of bigotry. And it's not just ethnic groups promulgating intolerance."
Same paper, same day - truth to power?
Click here for more articles:
in answer to that question, most people would say that it is living a life that is harmonious with our natural environment, avoiding causing environmental harm, respecting the balance of the natural environment, and using things as nature presents them. A decision to go green includes managing what goes into and out of your own body since it too is a part of our natural environment.
So what is the nature of the body?
The human body consists of several interdependent biological systems, each with a distinct function. One of these sytems is the reproductive system. The NATURE of this system is to create new members of the human race through male/female coupling. The result of these couplings are new, highly dependent creatures that require care and nurturing for up to 20 years before thay are ready to assume adult roles in the human animal kingdom. That's nature. No denying it.
Disregarding this obvious fact in nature is at the core of gay sex. By ignoring the reproductive purpose of the reproductive system, and using it as a personal amusement park, routinely invading the digestive system with reproductive organs, and vice versa, transferring bodily fluids, toxic chemicals (condoms and lubricants), and manufactured articles, it is readily observed that increased occurences of disease and death run rampant in the gay community.
"The study found gay men were also more likely to get cancer..."
So gays turn to manufactured, polluting solutions to reduce the inherent physical risks of practicing their obviously unnatural activities. In so doing they may reduce certain risks to themselves, but they increase the dangers to others and contributre to the destruction of the planetary eco-system. Gay activities and gay "safety paraphernalia" are anything but "Green".
Condom users should be required by law to use medical waste disposal services.
"...chemical additives are mixed to form a paste. This paste is then blended with the liquid latex in a process called compounding.
" ...both carcinogenic and immunosuppressive substances when introduced into the body."
"...you are going to have a wrapper to dispose of. These foil wrappers will not biodegrade, nor can they be recycled."
"The condoms are then immersed in the powdering tank. In powdering a mixture of magnesium carbonate, cornstarch, and anti-bacterial chemicals..."
PS: Condoms have a 15% failure rate.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
"The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000."
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
"Fascination with sex is as old as the human race; it is vitally important to all of us. Not surprisingly, we live in a world which pays a great deal of attention to human sexuality. But with so many voices and opinions about sex, it is often confusing to know how we are to use this precious gift."
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
What is a fool?
What to do with one...
1 Corinthians 5:12
1 Thessalonians 4:11
The Arsenal of Fools
...the “new McCarthyites” in their determination to suppress any opposition.
...homosexual group “All Out,” which has created an online petition to urge PayPal to dump Severo and nine other PayPal users as purveyors of “hate” and “extremism.” Severo’s site expresses love of homosexuals and a concern that homosexual behavior is destructive to those who participate in it.
Right now we urgently need anyone who opposes the current homo-fascism to contact PayPal and urge them not to cave in to Gay Lobby pressure. Our very future as a free society depends on stopping this new, politically correct tyranny,” he added.
...an expert witness who was to testify on Pilkington’s behalf received several “menacing” phone calls that included threats and intimidation
Violent, homosexuals and lesbians are being tacitly supported in recent anarchistic, destructive rampages.
Scientists refuse to even try to find the truth of the matter...
Two years after Canadian Blood Services created a $500,000 grant to research if and when gay men can safely donate blood, not a single scientist has applied to do the work. And officials are baffled by the reluctance.
So scientifically unsupported gay claims use political pressure and...
The result was that thousands of Canadians were infected with HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood.
A FEW "HORRIFIC OPINIONS":
The concept of homosexuality as a permanent orientation is, however, without
scientific validation; the notion is entirely politically grounded. One effect of this new view has been to understate the medical and societal harm produced by the promiscuous sexual practices typically associated with homosexuality.
...the public has been left largely in the dark about the extent of the medical problems associated with homosexual activity because of the influence of pro-homosexual political agendas. Some even believe they are being "compassionate" by not disclosing vital health information for fear of offending homosexuals.
...recently conceded by the homosexual newspaper New York Blade News:
Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . .
This study illustrates the large excess in mortality among homosexual men over the last decade, with the excess accounted for by deaths from HIV-related diseases.
The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:
Anal Cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhea, Viral hepatitis types B & C, Syphilis
Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown.
These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence
There is evidence of a strong association between suicide risk and bisexuality or homosexuality in males.
During the 1960s and early 1970s, some argued that homosexuals were as mentally healthy as heterosexuals. However, confronted by considerable evidence from the late 1990s onward that homosexuals and bisexuals are at least two- to three-fold more likely to manifest mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders compared to heterosexuals, homosexual activists and homophiles have promptly started blaming stigma, prejudice, and victimization for elevated psychiatric morbidity among nonheterosexuals. Preliminary considerations suggest that elevated psychiatric morbidity among nonheterosexuals is not readily explicable in terms of stigma, prejudice and victimization.
We are spending $3 billion federal dollars annually in the U.S. on a disease that is largely preventable.
Two medical students at Cardiff University studying existing data on the relationship of marriage to health have concluded that “stable, long term, exclusive relationships” lead to “more healthy lifestyles and better emotional and physical health,” and have a marked effect on longevity.
Recent laws, policies and public funding aimed at reducing the rate of suicide, addiction, partner abuse, and STI’s by granting more sexual freedom have not diminished those statistics. In fact, there has been an increase since the beginning of the ‘rights’ movement in the early 70’s, and it’s getting worse, not better.
While the overall rates of HIV infection may have stabilized, a closer look at the trends reveals that the majority of new infections are still occurring among gay and bisexual men, and specifically among African Americans in that population.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
"...the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing..."
In PR: Any press (even bad press) is good press.
...none of the networks covered the story Tuesday morning. The New York Times did not cover the story...
This invisibility seems to be effective on about 60% of the population, especially on the coasts.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
"The reason the board called GSA's sex clubs was not that they thought the members would have sex. That's another falsity which was invented by activists. Show us where a board member actually stated this. The actual reason the board called this a sex club was because GSA's aim to create a false, crotch-centric anthropology where the core of one's identity is the genitals. That low view of the human person is rightly rejected as too constraining and too limiting by Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church which he founded through St. Peter. You say you want true freedom? You wont find it in Pride Day placards and GSAs. The Catholic Church invites all people to larger, more beautiful vision of humanity than the LGBTTIQQ2SA myopia between the legs.
What the Church actually says:
Homosexual unions are...
Help for homosexuals who desire to live as Christians
"Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition."
FYI: The Catholic Church's teachings simply and consistently reflect nature.
Whereas the common teaching of homosexualists is to use condoms which often contain toxic pollutants such butadiene, styrene, vinyl acetate, and acrylic monomers. Not very much in tune with nature - definitely not as "green" a teaching.
The belief that synthetic rubber birth control has the ability to cure any and all of humanity’s ills is a bedrock belief of the progressive movement.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
"A standard would imply a judgment based on a set of feelings and opinions and moral codes, the latter two themselves based on consideration, understanding of context, and something we might call “wisdom.” The CBSC would respond that they were responding to a complaint – so let’s get it right, and rename them the Canadian Broadcast Reflex Council."
Why didn't the CBSC do anything when the CBC published this article, wherein they describe a performance of the following as "the toast of the great white way..."
The SECULAR authorities aren't being fooled though
"...New York Catholic college that it has distanced itself too far from the authority and teaching of the Catholic Church to merit government recognition as a sectarian institution..."
"... fund-raising likely to begin in March or early April, said officials involved in the planning."
Thursday, November 4, 2010
"...confront the all-out attack...
“Pro-life efforts in the UK and western Europe”
John Smeaton, SPUC director,
International Pro-Life Conference, 29 October 2010, Ottawa, Canada
Archbishop Raymond Burke, prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the supreme court of the Catholic Church, spoke powerfully about the pro-life movement in an historic speech earlier this month to the World Prayer Congress for Life in Rome. He said: “Notwithstanding the grave situation, in our world, of the attack on innocent and defenceless human life and on the integrity of marriage as the union of man and woman in a bond of lifelong, faithful and procreative love, there remains a strong voice in defence of our littlest and most vulnerable brothers and sisters, without boundary or exception, and of the truth about the marital union as it was constituted by God at the Creation. The Christian voice, the voice of Christ, transmitted by the Apostles, remains strong in our world. The voice of men and women of good will, who recognise and obey the law of God written upon their hearts, remains strong in our world ...”
Archbishop Burke, very soon to be a cardinal, continued: “We, therefore, must never give up in the struggle to advance a culture founded on the choice of life, which God has written upon our hearts, and the victory of life, which Christ has won in our human nature. In fact, we witness every day the commitment of God-fearing brothers and sisters who advance the cause of life and the family in their homes, in their local communities, in their homelands and in the world ... ”
Without doubt Archbishop Burke was referring to the worldwide pro-life movement which is made up of people of all faiths and none – and the archbishop was also referring to the particular audience he was addressing at the World Prayer Congress for Life. That Congress, incidentally, was attended by 400 people, principally from Europe, both east and west Europe. A substantial proportion of those 400 people were pro-life leaders.
As a pro-life campaigner who has worked in a well-known political pro-life group, of all faiths and none, for the past 37 years, I want to pay tribute to Human Life International and to Helpers of God‟s Precious Infants, Catholic bodies which are principally responsible for building pro-life groups in countries around Europe. They belong to that part of the pro-life movement which is characterised not only by an unequivocal and absolute defence of the right to life but also by a clear understanding of the relationship of the right to life to the truth about the conjugal act and its essentially procreative nature. This understanding is the foundation stone of a pro-life movement in Europe which is beginning to have a real impact in the European institutions.
This understanding of pro-life work – linking unequivocal defence of the right to life to the truth about the transmission of human life through the marriage act – must become the foundation stone of the pro-life movement worldwide.
As Archbishop Burke put it in his speech in Rome: “The attack on the innocent and defenceless life of the unborn has its origin in an erroneous view of human sexuality, which attempts to eliminate, by mechanical or chemical means, the essentially procreative nature of the conjugal act.
The error maintains that the artificially altered conjugal act retains its integrity. The claim is that the act remains unitive or loving, even though the procreative nature has been radically violated. In fact, it is not unitive, for one or both of the partners withholds an essential part of the gift of self, which is the essence of the conjugal union. The so-called „contraceptive mentality‟ is essentially anti-life. Many forms of so-called contraception are, in fact, abortifacient, that is, they destroy, at its beginning, a life which has already been conceived.”
Archbishop Burke concluded that, because the pro-life and pro-family movement exists in the world, the struggle for human life and for the family “is full of hope”. Archbishop Burke‟s recognition of the existence and importance of the pro-life movement may seem in one way to be an unremarkable observation on the part of such a senior Vatican official. Maybe so. Nevertheless, I believe it‟s one small significant step towards the pro-life movement‟s goal of getting church leaders and religious leaders of good will in every country around the world on the side of the pro-life fight. The pro-life movement cannot win the pro-life battle on its own. As Pope John Paul II put it in Evangelium Vitae, number 2, “The Gospel of God‟s love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and indivisible gospel”.
Realism makes us acutely aware that we are, like Archbishop Burke, “full of hope” in a world dominated, even persecuted, by the culture of death.
To begin with the world‟s most powerful politician: President Obama. He and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State confirmed that the Obama administration will be promoting legalised abortion on demand throughout the world, in particular targeting adolescents in their worldwide abortion drive. Hillary Clinton, Obama's appointee as US Secretary of State, has made it clear that when the Obama government speaks of universal access to “reproductive health”, it's a term which includes access to abortion.
The Obama administration is not going to allow health professionals' conscientious objection to abortion to get in their way. "Universal access" to "reproductive health", to which the Obama government declares itself to be committed, cannot be "universal" if troublesome pro-life health professionals object in conscience to participating in abortion cases or referring them to colleagues.
Obama‟s and Clinton‟s pro-abortion allies at the United Nations have been in top gear. Only last month at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Ban Ki Moon the UN Secretary General, and Navanethem Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, launched a report “on discrimination against women, in law and practice, and how the issue is addressed throughout the United Nations human rights system”. In that report they called for the policing of nations worldwide to “address the refusal of physicians to perform legal abortions”.
In the meantime, the anti-life lobby has intensified its campaign in the European institutions. A report on conscientious objection in medicine was debated earlier this month in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe consists of elected representatives from the legislatures of the 47 member-states of the Council of Europe. (Please note that the council is entirely separate from the European Union, a body which includes 27 European nations.) The report‟s focus was conscientious objection to abortion, contraception, IVF and euthanasia.
If the report had been passed, Council of Europe member-states, that‟s 47 European nations, would have been put under pressure effectively to abolish in law and practice conscientious objection within medicine.
Thankfully, instead of a pro-abortion victory, the tables were turned, and there was an important pro-life victory instead. Prior to the Council of Europe debate the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in the UK, of which I am the national director, sent detailed briefings to pro-life supporters and to every Catholic bishop in the 47 nations of the Council of Europe. We urged them to lobby their political representatives to vote against this deadly report opposing conscientious objection. In addition the European Centre for Law and Justice published an invaluable commentary which was circulated widely. Finally, I know that the Holy See worked hard behind the scenes to bring about a good outcome.
The outcome of the debate was radically opposite to the outcome anticipated by the pro-abortion lobby. The pro-abortion report was entitled: “Women‟s access to lawful medical care: the problem of unregulated use of conscientious objection,” By way of contrast, the final resolution on the report was headed “The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care”. The resolution is not perfect but it represents a huge setback for our opponents. It also presents a major new challenge to the pro-life movement in Europe and, perhaps, worldwide.
When championing and promoting the right to conscientious objection “in lawful medical care”, we must point out clearly to politicians, the media, and to all the relevant professional groups and academic bodies, citing authoritative scientific and medical evidence, that abortion, euthanasia, IVF and human embryo research are not examples of medical care.
When medical professionals kill human beings at the beginning of life or at a vulnerable moment later in life, they are not practising medical care.
On that clear understanding, the pro-life movement, aided by church leaders throughout the world, need to run great campaigns in support of conscientious objection – by doctors, nurses, pharmacists, educationalists and any professional person or other person who may be under pressure to co-operate with anti-life practices. In running such campaigns, the pro-life movement is not seeking to impose religious beliefs on the rest of the world.
On the contrary, the pro-life movement represents humanity‟s consensus on the right to life. Those who oppose abortion and other anti-life practices are seeking to uphold solemn international human rights agreements and to promote ethical practice in medicine and science.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR) recognizes the primacy of the right to life. The Preamble together with Article 3 makes it clear that the right to life is equal and inalienable and extends to “all members of the human family”. Article 6 specifically deals with the issue of persons by stating that "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law".
Article 2 asserts “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property birth or other status”– which scholars tell us is a list which was intended to be exhaustive, so that never again, after the horrors of the 2nd World War, could human beings be treated as non-persons, forcibly deprived by governments of human rights.
To dispel all doubt about the status of the unborn child in international human rights agreements, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child reiterates the right to life expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, the Preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states “childhood is entitled to special protection and care” and “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.
This injunction is one of the strongest in human rights statements regarding the requirement to protect life in the womb.
In addition, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history, ratified by nations representing populations of all faiths and none. Humanity‟s consensus, reflected in the human rights agreements mentioned and others, crosses all boundaries of race and religion.
Despite all of this, however, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently sought to avoid ruling on whether the right to life before birth is protected under Article 2. Since the first case involving abortion was heard, its approach has been to view the question as an issue falling within the “margin of appreciation” granted to individual States.
Yet this position has become increasingly difficult for the Court to maintain. In the case of Vo v France (2004), a case which was not directly related to legalised abortion, the Court was forced to recognise the obvious, that the child before birth “belongs to the human race.”1 Nevertheless, it insisted that the question of when life begins was a matter for individual States2. Inevitably its lack of commitment to natural law interpretation of Article 2 has resulted in the Court moving toward recognition of a right to abortion, or at least access to abortion where abortion is lawful.” In other words “Yes” the unborn child is a member of the human race, but “No” it is not a person and therefore not entitled to protection under Article 2.
In 2007, in Tysiác v Poland, the Court found that Poland's restrictions on abortion breached the right to privacy of a woman who had been denied an abortion because an eye condition from which she suffered was judged to be an insufficiently grave threat to her health to permit an abortion under Polish law. Time does not permit an examination of the conflicting medical evidence or the questionable interpretation put on it by the Court. But the ruling in this case elevated the secondary and conditional right to privacy in Article 8 above the fundamental right to life protected by Article 2.
The Court then found, within Article 8, the right to access abortion. The significance of this ruling was summed-up by the Spanish judge, Javier Borrego Borrego, in his dissenting opinion when he said: “Today the Court has decided that a human being was born as a result of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to this reasoning, there is a Polish child, currently six years old, whose right to be born contradicts the Convention.
“I would never have thought that the Convention would go so far, and I find it frightening.”
Last year the European Court heard A, B & C v Ireland. Three international pro-life bodies made a joint submission to the European Court of Human Rights in this matter: the European Centre for Law and Justice, the Alliance Defence Fund on behalf of the Family Research Council in the US and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in the UK. In that case three women under the guidance of the Irish Family Planning Association complained to the Court that Irish Constitutional protection for children before birth violates their right to have an abortion.
While the European Convention requires that all cases should first be heard in the national courts, this case, almost unnoticed even in Ireland, sidestepped the normal procedures and was directed to the Court‟s Grand Chamber, a forum from which there is no appeal. The judgement is expected sometime in 2010.
The outcome of this case could have devastating consequences and not just for Ireland. There are already powerful interests within the United Nations which try to use human rights agreements to promote abortion on demand. If the European Court of Human Rights rules against Ireland, then no country in the world would be safe from the international abortion lobby.
So this case is also a threat to the right of sovereign, democratic nations to govern themselves.
The pro-life movement must call upon governments and human rights institutions to return to the original meaning of these documents which were drafted in response to the atrocities revealed by the Nuremburg Tribunals. To do this, we must become more familiar with international agreements which were intended to protect all human beings at every stage of life.
In this connection, I commend to you an important international internet-based project entitled “Amnesty for Babies”. Politicians at the federal and state level are invited to sign an on-line petition urging the world‟s governments to uphold their obligations under international agreements to respect the right to life of the unborn. This is a great initiative because it gives politicians, working in a practical way to overcome anti-life legislation, the chance to oppose absolutely and unequivocally, all direct abortion.
It upholds the right to life of unborn children, without exception, just as international agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, do. Please speak to me or to Jim Hughes during this conference if you want more information about this.
Let me mention a few other things about Europe – good and bad. Northern Ireland, which forms part of the United Kingdom, has successfully resisted Britain‟s pro-abortion legislation for the past 44 years. It has been SPUC‟s and the pro-life movement‟s biggest success story. I won‟t go into the whole history. Suffice it to say that courageous Protestant leadership has saved not only Northern Ireland, but the whole of Ireland, from legalized abortion. Ian Paisley, the former first minister of Northern Ireland, said he would walk with the Pope on the abortion issue – and SPUC has worked closely and successfully with the protestant leadership in our battle of pro-life resistance. In recent months, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has successfully taken the British government to court over its attempts to introduce legal abortion through the back door.
The battle continues ... but 44 years on, the British Abortion Act 1967 does not apply to Northern Ireland, and earlier this year the power to legislate on the issue was devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly which has for several decades been overwhelmingly pro-life.
The Republic of Ireland is under intense attack – as my comments on the case currently before the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates. Its Government, its judiciary, and its media, are clearly, strongly, anti-life. They have been working for years to undermine Ireland‟s constitution – which the Irish people famously voted in 1982 to include complete protection for the unborn.
The Government and the Supreme Court does this by means of its policies and perverse judgements on abortion, IVF and abortifacient birth control drugs and devices.
However, ordinary Irish citizens, by a simple slender majority, have even resisted their own Catholic bishops‟ advice to the Irish people which effectively urged Irish citizens to compromise and to permit legalized abortion. There‟s a powerful faithful pro-life Catholic remnant in Ireland, in my view the biggest pro-life, Catholic faithful remnant in the world – albeit a minority. That minority is the yeast that leavens the bread.
Ireland also, with its constitutional ban on abortion, leads the world in its care for mothers-to-be.
According to the World Health Organization 2009 report, Ireland had the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world, with 1 in 100,000 deaths. What does that tell us about legalized abortion when the UK rate is 8 in 100,000 deaths and the rate in the US is 11 in 100,000?
And we must never forget the witness of Ireland‟s leading obstetricians and gynaecologists. On 1st April 1992, Professor John Bonnar and four other leading obstetricians and gynaecologists, said in a letter to the Irish Times: “As obstetricians and gynaecologists, we affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of the mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child.”
Europe‟s Ireland remains a bright beacon to the world in its unequivocal, absolute, defence of the sanctity of human life. That‟s the goal towards which the pro-life movement must openly work.
Having said that, Malta is the only country in Europe which is listed on the BBC‟s website as prohibiting abortion in all circumstances. Tragically, protection for Irish babies was undermined - not by the Irish people - but by a perverse decision of the Supreme Court in the X case in 1992. The Supreme Court, contrary to all reasonable expectations, allowed abortions in the case of threatened suicide.
Then last year, on 15th December 2009, the Irish Supreme Court once again ruled in a decision, contrary to all reasonable expectations, that embryos outside the body are not protected under Ireland's constitution. As Pat Buckley, of European Life Network Ireland, and a member of SPUC‟s staff team, commented at the time: "The judges' interpretation of article 40.3.3 excluding human embryos from protection is wrong.
This decision treats human embryos as if they are mere property, when in fact they are equal members of the human family. International human rights law does not exclude human embryos from the equal right to life upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights instruments. There is no genetic difference between an embryo inside or outside the body. The right to life, which is inalienable, does not change according to location.”
I want to turn now to human rights relating to the family, to marriage, and to parents as the primary educators of their children, particularly in relation to the situation in Europe.
I commend to you in this connection an important talk, given in Qatar, by the distinguished US attorney and bioethicist, William L. Saunders Jnr, who is speaking at this Congress, entitled "Human Rights, the Family and the Education of Children". Mr Saunders explains how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted so that it upholds marriage between a man and a woman, the family founded on marriage, and parents as the primary educators of their children.
Article 26 (3) states: 'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children'
And William Saunders says: As article 16 recognized the priority to the state of the family founded upon marriage, article 26 recognizes the priority of the wishes of parents regarding the education of their own children over any designs of the state. Remember, per article 16, the State is obligated to protect the family. If the State presumes to usurp the rights of parents to choose the education of their own children, it damages the family, violates its own obligations, and undermines the foundation of a just society and State."
William Saunders‟ important talk explains the historical significance of the Universal Declaration's insistence on parents as the primary educators of their children. Quoting Professor Mary Ann Glendon, former US ambassador to the Holy See, William Saunders points out that the UDHR‟s protection of parents is rooted in the world‟s bitter experience of Nazi Germany and was “influenced directly by recollections of the National Socialist regime's efforts to turn Germany's renowned educational system into a mechanism for indoctrinating the young with the government's programme”.
"In other words" William Saunders comments "one of the most important lessons drawn by the framers of the Declaration from the experience of the Second World War was that parental choice in education is a fundamental plank of international peace and security".
For many years in Britain, our government has been pursuing a policy of providing access to abortion and birth control drugs and devices to children under the age of sixteen without parental knowledge or consent, thus contravening the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Similar policies are being pursued by the Spanish and Portugese governments and, no doubt, others too.
Tragically, over 60 years on from the Universal Declaration and the Second World War, it seems that the lessons have not been learned, and similar pressures are developing in Ireland and, without doubt, throughout Europe.
This is World War Three and it's primarily a war on the unborn and on parents as the primary educators of their children.
Sadly, the situation is made even worse by church leaders who appear to have imbibed the spirit of the age. While the teaching of the Catholic Church is that there is a congruence between faith and reason on matters such as homosexual adoption, Catholic church leaders in England and Wales were prepared to refer homosexual couples to other adoption agencies - thus putting children at serious risk.
In addition, tragically, in Britain, induced abortion and birth control drugs and devices are provided to children at school, including Catholic schools, under the age of 16 without parental knowledge or consent. This is happening with the co-operation of the Catholic authorities.
Britain is witnessing the fulfilment of the prophetic message of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI's historic encyclical which celebrated its 40th anniversary two years ago. Speaking about the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual intercourse he wrote: "Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law.
Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone."
When Pope Paul VI wrote these words, he was referring to governments imposing birth control practices on whole societies. His words apply, tragically, with terrifying consequences for our families, to Catholic bishops in England and Wales, who co-operate with the British government policy of imposing birth control practices on families like mine.
Moreover, the use of contraceptive drugs and devices by so many Catholics, which may, according to the manufacturers, cause an early abortion, is draining the pro-life movement of the support of the community most likely to support the battle against abortion. Couples who may be turning a blind eye to the practice of abortifacient birth control in the intimacy of their married lives may well find it difficult to support our unequivocal campaigns against abortion, IVF, human embryo research and euthanasia.
This is one of the reasons why I said earlier: “This understanding of pro-life work – linking unequivocal defence of the right to life to the truth about the transmission of human life through the marriage act – must become the foundation stone of the pro-life movement worldwide.”
The artificial separation of the unitive and procreative elements of sexual intercourse is not only the basis of contraception, it's also the basis of early abortion and in vitro fertilisation. It underpins today's culture of death.
Let me turn again to Archbishop Raymond Burke‟s historic speech to the World Prayer Congress for Life in Rome earlier this month. He said: “A most tragic example of the lack of obedience of faith, also on the part of certain Bishops, was the response of many to the Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI, published on July 25, 1968. The confusion which resulted has led many Catholics into habits of sin in what pertains to the procreation and education of human life.”
I am quoting the good Archbishop Burke because the pro-life movement in Canada and around the world receives much of its support from Catholics – and the failure of Catholic bishops to teach their flocks on matters relating to the fundamental right to life is directly responsible for great confusion and, consequently, for the failure of the overwhelming majority of Catholics, both clerical and lay, to provide truly effective resistance to the greatest legalized slaughter of human beings in the history of the world. Countless millions of unborn children are being killed each year and the policy of very many Catholic bishops is contributing hugely to this deplorable situation.
Let‟s hear what Archbishop Burke had to say in Rome: “Catechesis is a most fundamental responsibility which the Bishop exercises on behalf of the good of the faithful entrusted to his care, ultimately, of their eternal salvation ... Pope John Paul II declared „It is therefore the duty of every Bishop to give real priority in his particular Church to active and effective catechesis. He must demonstrate his personal concern through direct interventions aimed at promoting and preserving an authentic passion for catechesis‟”.
Archbishop Burke continues: “Obedience to the Magisterium is a virtue and is attained through obedience. When the shepherds of the flock are obedient to the Magisterium, entrusted to their exercise, then the members of the flock grow in obedience and proceed, with Christ, along the way of salvation. If the shepherd is not obedient, the flock easily gives way to confusion and error. The shepherd must be especially attentive to the assaults of Satan who knows that, if he can strike the shepherd, the work of scattering the flock will be made easy.
I affirm that my own archbishop, the archbishop of Westminster, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, was not being obedient to the magisterium when he said on BBC television that he did not know if the Catholic Church would eventually sanction gay unions. I affirm that Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic bishops of England and Wales are not being obedient to the magisterium in their co-operation with the British government policy of providing children at Catholic schools with access to abortion. I affirm that Archbishop Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelisation is not being obedient to the magisterium when he stands by the original wording of his article in L‟Osservatore Romano last year which implied that there are difficult situations in which doctors enjoy scope for the autonomous exercise of conscience in deciding whether to carry out a direct abortion.
These are far from isolated examples. I hear in country after country throughout Europe about the disobedience of bishops to the magisterium and everyone knows that the flocks are well and truly scattered, not least on abortion, IVF, human embryo research, euthanasia and issues relating to homosexuality.
In his historic speech in Rome, Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the Catholic Church‟s supreme court, empowered Catholics and all people of good will to be scandalised, and to speak publicly about the scandal, of Catholics “who claim to be practising their faith but who refuse to apply the truth of the faith in the exercise of politics, medicine, business and other human endeavours ...”
He said: “One of the ironies of the present situation is that the person who experiences scandal at the gravely sinful public actions of a fellow Catholic is accused of a lack of charity and of causing division within the unity of the Church ... What causes wonderment in such a society is the fact that someone fails to observe political correctness and, thereby, seems to be disruptive of the so-called peace of society.
“Lying or failing to tell the truth, however, is never a sign of charity. A unity which is not founded on the truth of the moral law is not the unity of the Church. The Church‟s unity is founded on speaking the truth with love.
The person who experiences scandal at public actions of Catholics, which are gravely contrary to the moral law, not only does not destroy unity but invites the Church to repair what is clearly a serious breach in Her life. Were he not to experience scandal at the public support of attacks on human life and the family, his conscience would be uninformed or dulled about the most sacred realities.”
I believe that it‟s an essential part of the mission of the pro-life movement in Europe, in Canada, and throughout the world, in the words of Archbishop Burke, “to experience scandal at public action of Catholics which are gravely contrary to the moral law” and “speaking the truth with love” to build unity within the church on the moral law. May I commend, in particular, whilst I‟m in Canada, the extraordinary charity demonstrated by the team which runs and supports LifeSite, one of the pro-life movement‟s greatest gifts to the modern world.
I believe that the values of Nobel Prize Winner Mother Teresa who said in her acceptance speech: ""[T]he greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion" will prevail over the values of Nobel Prize Winner, Barack Obama who has called for abortion on demand to be legalized throughout the world.
Through our work in the years ahead, the dignity and inviolability of every human life will once again be reflected in people's consciences and national law, just as it's deeply entrenched in universally-binding human rights agreements.
On the other hand, the values of the pro-abortion, pro-human embryo research lobby, reflected in the callous rhetoric of choice which tramples on human lives, born and unborn, will be consigned in the not so very distant future to a tragic chapter of human history.