The Sanctity Of Life Of A Bishop Or The Sanctity Of Life Of An Unborn Child?

Following are excerpts from a speech by John Smeaton of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) at the annual Legatus Summit. I urge you to read the entire speech, comprising 13 pages, for very rare and valuable insight into our current pro-life challenges. Which one of us would not wish to be privy to what John Smeaton said was “the fruit and conclusion of my four decades of work at the national and international level in the pro-life movement”?

But neither must we be slow ... neither must we be slow ...not in begging, not in pleading, but in insisting at the highest level within the Church that bishops are appointed who will uphold the teaching of the Church in opposing the greatest crime against children in history, the wholesale killing of children in the womb, and who will defend and assist parents in protecting the innocence of their born children.

…

Let’s not kid ourselves. The pro-life movement, however hardworking, however well-informed, however blessed and strong we may be in our initiatives, the pro-life movement cannot defeat the culture of death on our own.

…

But we cannot defeat the culture of death, which threatens constantly to overwhelm us, on our own. Pro-life organizations and the wider community must be fortified by unequivocal, unyielding voices of Catholic Church officials and bishops throughout the world.

Tragically, some of the most pernicious influences where legalised abortion is concerned come from officials within the Catholic Church.

…

I appeal today to church leaders in the United States and to church leaders throughout the world, to church leaders in Rome, to all Catholic Bishops in the World, as the chief executive of the oldest pro-life organization in the world, I appeal to you remember the words of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (82) that you “... are the first ones called to be untiring preachers of the Gospel of Life”. Silence, and silence includes equivocal or half-hearted words, in the face of the daily slaughter, the maiming of mothers’ and fathers’ lives, simply will not do…the silence and equivocation that we have seen for the most part on the part of the Irish bishops over the past 40 years as Irish mothers have travelled to Britain for abortion. If it were Catholic priests or Jews who were being killed, or threatened with being killed, by national laws in Britain or in other parts of the world, would we expect, any day of the week, ever to enter a Catholic Church for Mass without the matter being mentioned, or being prayed about at that Mass?” Would we not be denouncing, and rightly denouncing, the killing of Catholic priests or Jews, in every pulpit in the world—notwithstanding the past sins and scandals associated with members of the Catholic Church? The Jew, the priest, the unborn child are all created in the image and likeness of God.

Also, in the spirit of friendly dialogue, I implore all Catholic bishops throughout the world to speak out clearly and categorically that politicians who vote for and publicly support abortion legislation such as that just passed by the Irish Parliament, must publicly retract and refute the position they have adopted before receiving the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Holy Communion in Whose image every unborn child targeted by wicked abortion legislation is made? It’s an absurd rationalization to suggest that bishops speaking up clearly and categorically on the public sacrilegious reception of the Holy Eucharist is turning the Sacrament into a battleground or circus, as has been claimed. I ask you again, if Catholic priests or bishops were targeted by the legislation passed by the Irish Parliament, for example, so that they could be executed with impunity, would you or would you not say publicly that politicians who voted for or who supported such legislation, without apologizing, retracting and refuting their position, may not go forward to receive Holy Communion? What is the difference in God’s eyes between the sanctity of life of a priest or a bishop or the sanctity of life of an unborn child?

…

Throughout Britain, Ireland and Europe, 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 in Europe is contributing hugely to this deplorable situation.

…

We mustn’t think that pro-life organizations on their own, all of them marching in perfect step with each other, can achieve anything definitive against the culture of death on our own. We must do everything we possibly can, not least by prayer and fasting, to involve church leaders in the war against the culture of death. I was delighted that the bishops on the Bishops’ panel at the Convention yesterday spoke about the need to work in partnership with the laity. The only thing I would add, Your Excellencies, is that we need your leadership. You have the charism, the grace of your ordination as bishops, and of the sacrament of your priesthood, and when you speak the truth you speak to Catholics and to non-Catholics with inspiring authority.

…

… the Catholic laity throughout the world must start burning with righteous indignation…

Thanks to LifeSiteNews for posting this speech online. Their report on the Legatus event is located here.

Mr. Smeaton provided some powerful commentary as well on recent statements by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Nigeria, noting particularly that, “Standing up against the worldwide homosexual agenda is crucial for the protection of children.”

Thank God for Mr. Smeaton and for the Legatus team. They are examples to the rest of us neither to be cowed by the daunting task of holding Bishops accountable nor by the enormity of the evil that we face down.

As I’ve said many times before, when the Catholic Bishops of Canada and the world take seriously their duty and their authority, the demon of abortion will be bound and unborn children will be safe once more. In the meanwhile, common folks must act.

Dublin Archdiocese Demands LifeSiteNews Article Naming Archbishop Diarmuid Martin Be Taken Down

One week ago, on Monday February 3, I posted on this blog a recent LifeSiteNews interview, a YouTube video, with Bernadette Smyth, Director of Precious Life in Ireland. The LifeSite report accompanying that video included the following account by Ms. Smyth:

…one bishop even “brought Enda Kenny Holy Communion to his seat after he signed this bill in, instead of Enda Kenny coming to the altar to receive, which he should have been denied…because he is in opposition to the Church.”  Ms. Smyth identified this bishop as Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin.

This was quite an explosive revelation, I thought at the time, and certainly warranted a blog posting. A couple days ago I reviewed that same posting to listen to the video once again, and to my surprise, found the YouTube video was now tagged private. I returned to the LifeSiteNews website and found what appeared to be the same video interview but after looking at it I realized it had been scrubbed of all reference to the Holy Communion encounter with Archbishop Diarmuid Martin and Enda Kenny. The text of the report had also been scrubbed of any such reference.

Obviously something had hit the fan. I send along a message via the Combox to Steve Jalsevac at LifeSiteNews:

It appears that the reference to Archbishop Martin providing Holy Communion to Enda Kenny at his seat during Mass has been scrubbed from the original video. I wonder if you could tell me why this portion of the video was deleted? Was the information provided by Bernadette Smyth not accurate?

His response:

We received a call from the archdiocese demanding that the article be removed. For now we have removed reference to the archbishop pending further independent investigation by ourselves.

I trust that LifeSiteNews will indeed do the follow up investigation that will either confirm or refute Ms. Smyth’s testimony, regardless of her motives or intentions. If true, then we shall have more to say to Archbishop Martin.

Which Came First: Cohabitation Or Contraception?

As you probably know, a debate in the Catholic Church over divorce and remarriage is heating up.

The recent Vatican questionnaire really brought the full extent of the rebellion in focus. All according to plan, I feel sure.

What sparked the title of this blog posting was this quote:  

The responses to the questions showed that cohabitation before marriage and contraception are almost universally accepted. As they are not considered “sinful”, they are therefore not usually considered something to be confessed.

It came from a story in last week’s The Tablet about the results of the Vatican questionnaire from England and Wales.

I have recently noticed that Catholic Priests and Bishops seem to be placing more and more focus on the phenomenon of cohabitation than ever before. Have you noticed too? I think it’s a convenient cover for them since they can now point to cohabitation as one of our greatest challenges rather than ever have to bring up contraception. Of course, nobody ever cohabitates without fornication (or adultery). And nobody fornicates without some kind of contraception.

The Bishops have doomed the West to a moral and demographic collapse due to their failure to uphold Catholic teaching on artificial contraception. They avoid the subject like a plague. Their chickens are coming home to roost in a big way in the USA with the HSS mandate and same sex “marriage” tsunami.

But let’s not be confused about the real culprit here and which came first.

FLASHBACK: The Future, It's In Our Hands

From an Editorial, The Telegram, October 10, 2007.

Appropriate, given today’s headlines.

___________________________________________

The Future—It’s In Our Hands

“I question The Telegram’s claim of being unbiased. Their editors, columnists and even their volunteer editorial board rarely, if ever, offer contrary views to the steady diet of pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, amoral bias of their commentary…Their acceptance of a few letters to the editor hardly qualifies as balancing the scales…surely there should be room for one [outspoken] pro-life minded columnist.”

With that rant, I ended my letter to the editor a little more than a year ago. Today, The Telegram is making me eat my words.

People are reluctant in our day to raise the subject of morals—unless of course it’s their kind of morals. Take for instance the recent comments about Danny Williams’ plan to give $1000 for every new child born in the province. Many scorned the plan, saying it would be abused and lead to more “unwanted children” and besides, the government has no business in our bedrooms. Yet some of these same self-proclaimed family planning “specialists” insist that not only must government legally protect the right to “terminate” these “products of conception” but that government must use taxpayer money to finance the destruction of the “unwanted” pre-born children resulting from their own bedroom activities.

Don’t misunderstand. It’s not that I agree with Danny’s bizarre approach to the problem of a “dying race.” Imagine—paying some mothers to create children while at the same time paying other mothers to violently destroy nearly a thousand new budding unborn lives just months away from residency. It’s a strange way to prove he is concerned about population growth but when Bishops and pastors would rather busy themselves with politically correct issues such as AIDS, poverty and the environment, what’s a premier to do? Indeed, forty years of outrageous sexual license in our society testifies to the far greater cowardice of today’s religious leaders. Honestly Danny I feel for you but, again, it’s just skewed morals at work.

Nevertheless, give this premier his credit—he rightly sees the future of Newfoundland and Labrador endangered by depopulation “choices.” Likewise I’m concerned about the future and I see dangers too. I’ve been accused of being a one issue guy. I admit it’s true. But the issue is not abortion.

The issue is our future—that of my children and grandchildren. That future will be best guarded by those who believe an accounting for their actions in this life will be demanded in the next. I hope we’ve just elected some politicians with such beliefs.

We’re back to morals again aren’t we? If lying, stealing, cheating and adultery are still not legitimate choices, why should pornography, gambling, sex outside marriage and all manner of sexual perversion be acceptable for our future?

The fact is that all of these choices are downright dangerous to our future because they destroy the fabric of our society. They represent selfish behaviour which paves the way for our province’s greatest challenges: abortion, sexual perversion and promiscuity, sexual assault and violence, school bullying, the home care crisis which is simply another ugly expression of elder abuse, corrupt politicians, STD and VLT epidemics. These all expose a crisis regarding respect for the life and presence of our fellow man.

I thank The Telegram for the opportunity in the coming months to share my views on the above subjects which touch the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians daily. It will be my goal to place the subject of right morals front and centre where it belongs. 

by Eric Alcock

Mother Teresa Featured In United Nations LGBT Campaign

Marielena Montesino de Stuart won't stand for it.

And, not being one-sided at all, she also exposes the “fruits” of the socialists in the Vatican.

UPDATED: Perhaps Henry VIII Was Right After All!

There's a battle brewing in the Catholic hierarchy over marriage, divorce, remarriage and Holy Communion. This video provides some context.



There's more context here.

UPDATE: Some Canadian perspective from National Post.

Population Plunge Predicted For Newfoundland And Labrador

This is no surprise to anyone who has been listening over the past two decades.

Over Newfoundland and Labrador's good-news story of economic renewal looms a demographic dilemma: a population plunge that's projected to be the most dramatic slide in the country.

The Conference Board of Canada's most recent long-term forecast predicts the province's population will fall from about 527,000 now to 482,000 by 2035.

"We're going to see much weaker economic prospects for Newfoundland over the next 20 years and that will have an effect on the population," said Marie-Christine Bernard, associate director of the board's provincial forecast.

"I would say it's going to be a difficult situation for the province."

The glorious myth of Sterile Sex is unravelling. The Pope said Nope! And we didn’t listen.

Read the full CBC story here.

Canada’s Catholic Bishops Debated The Denial Of Holy Communion To Renegade Politicians

This is a FLASHBACK and an important reminder, for the record.

When did that debate take place? Back in October 2006.

__________________________________________ 

U.S. Cardinal, Canadian Bishops Discuss Politicians, Communion

CORNWALL, Ontario (CNS) -- U.S. Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick told Canadian bishops that the subject of dissenting Catholic politicians receiving Communion was a "ground zero" issue for the church in America.

Cardinal McCarrick, the retired archbishop of Washington who led a task force examining Catholics in public life for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that the politicians and Communion issue prior to the 2004 U.S. presidential election was the crux of a "struggle to identify the real Catholic Church in the United States."

"In a sense, I fear it diverted us from the fundamental concern for the life and dignity of the human person that are so central in the teaching of the Holy Fathers," he said. Instead, the debate devolved into charges that those who denied Communion were outside the practice of the church or that those who refused to deny Communion were "cowards or sycophants."

Cardinal McCarrick spoke to Canadian bishops Oct. 17 when they discussed Catholic politicians, church teaching and public life as part of their Oct. 16-20 annual plenary meeting in Cornwall.

"Some bishops were criticized for a failure of nerve or a failure to adhere to church teaching because they chose not to deny holy Communion," the cardinal said. "Others were accused of manipulating the sacrament for partisan purposes because they indicated they would deny holy Communion."

The U.S. bishops concluded that "you could not be accused of being less than Catholic if you did not deny Communion, nor should you be accused of being lacking in pastoral judgment if you did," he said.

In 2004, the U.S. bishops adopted the statement "Catholics in Public Life," developed by Cardinal McCarrick's task force. The statement urged the bishops to use courage in clearly laying out church teaching, but it also urged prudence regarding their own local circumstances and indicated they could "legitimately make different judgments" when it came to eucharistic discipline.

Cardinal McCarrick said the church has a threefold role with politicians: to "teach fearlessly," to "dialogue honestly" and to "act lovingly."

Honest dialogue is meant to keep the door open, he said, pointing out the need to work with politicians and other public officials rather than alienate them. For example, money is needed for Catholic hospitals, charities and education, he said.

"We are not just another constituent or community leader, we are their pastors and teachers," said Cardinal McCarrick. "Our concern is not politics, nor just particular policies, but their faith and even their salvation.

"These dialogues are not about winning votes, but saving souls," he said.

The cardinal said dialogue has often helped Catholic politicians move to more centrist positions. For example, some who were initially in favor of partial birth abortion changed their minds, he said.

Canadian bishops raised concerns about party platforms and party discipline that enforce an anti-Catholic agenda.

Bishop Paul Marchand of Timmins, Ontario, pointed out that some Canadian parties will "kick out" politicians that do not support same-sex marriage.

Cardinal McCarrick said the Democratic Party has lost much of its traditional Catholic support because of its pro-abortion platform. He said Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee, was "terrible on the question of life."

Bishop James Wingle of St. Catharines, Ontario, said some people were perceived as doctrinaire even when providing reasonable arguments.

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, Alberta, said that simply wearing a Roman collar makes a "barrier go up." He asked about how bishops should deal with Catholic politicians who openly show contempt for church teaching.

Cardinal McCarrick said that if, after dialogue, he had reached an impasse with a Catholic politician who continues to publicly defy church teaching, then that politician should not receive Communion.

"Sometimes you have to do it," he said, but first one must clearly, courageously and with love lay out the teaching.

Bishop Paul-Andre Durocher of Alexandria-Cornwall, Ontario, pointed out that not only are Catholic politicians dissenting from church teaching, but so is the Catholic electorate. The bishops may be standing up for church teaching but not representing what Catholics actually believe, and the politicians know that, he said.

Cardinal McCarrick said the church has lost control of the teaching instruments of society: Fewer children go to Catholic schools than used to; preachers such as the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen are gone. The Catholic teaching that had mass appeal is gone, the cardinal said. He said Catholics must develop ways to reach people through the media.

Archbishop Thomas Collins of Edmonton, Alberta, said confrontations with politicians "going astray" over moral teaching might "scare away anyone who might want to be a Catholic politician."

He asked if there were ways of "celebrating the mission of the vocation of politician." They lead difficult lives, working very hard, spending lots of time away from home, he said, noting "they have massive pastoral needs."

"The political life is as tough as the life of a priest," said Bishop Nicola De Angelis of Peterborough, Ontario.

Cardinal McCarrick suggested regular meetings with politicians, Catholic Bible studies for legislators, prayer groups and similar activities to show politicians that "we are with them" and to let them know "we think it is an important way of life."

 --------------------------------------------------------------

RELATED:

A Bishop explains the terms under which he denies Holy Communion

Canon 915: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin by Archbishop (now Cardinal) Raymond

Open Letter to the Catholic Bishops of Canada

FLASHBACK: Archbishop Collins Of Edmonton Would Withhold Communion