Personal Comment from
[email protected] The recent passage of the Civil Partnership Bill in Ireland has seen the immediate launching of a campaign for marriage equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples as well as the advancement of the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender, Queer) hedonist hydra which appears to be little more than front for a Libertarian Left assault of social values and norms relating to sexuality. Those supporting Civil Partnership – but calling for a Conscience Clause – are now being accused of homophobia despite supporting civil partnership and regardless of the fact that the tail end of the LGBTQ agenda is not about homosexuality – BTQ. Subscribe to the Family & Life Personal Update online at: http://www.familyandlife.org/ezine-order.php Family & Life Home Page http://www.familyandlife.org/Index.html PERSONAL UPDATE No. 103. July 2010: 13th Jul 10 Bishops Protest But Gay Agenda Marches On Guilty Secret: My Daddy’s Name is ‘Donor’ Baby Aborted at Catholic Hospital in Phoenix Obama Nominates Fan of NHS Health Rationing Obama and Biden Coerce Kenya over Abortion ‘The Permanent and Vital Foundation of Celibacy’ How Religious Freedom Can Exist in a Secular State The Scandals of Misdiagnosis and Unnecessary Scans Ten Nations Join Italy in Crucifix Case—Where’s Ireland? FREE BOOK: Incredible Gift—the Sacrament of Penance Bishops Protest But Gay Agenda Marches On Despite the imminent threat to the institution of marriage in Ireland posed by the Civil Partnership Bill, the Irish bishops have been remarkably muted in their opposition. In what looks like a too-little-too-late intervention, they referred to it in the statement issued at the end of their summer meeting in Maynooth. They spoke of the leaflet Why Marriage Matters which they produced in March. This may have been distributed in some parishes, but many Catholics around the country have never seen or heard of it. The bishops appealed to members of the Oireachtas to consider the points made in their leaflet, especially that the proposal “is not compatible with seeing the family based on marriage as the necessary basis of the social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and State. Nor does it ‘guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded’.” They also called for greater conscience protections for churches and individuals, including specifically civil registrars. Finally, they asked that a free vote be permitted on the Bill. Bishop Christopher Jones of Elphin, the chairman of the Bishops’ Department of Pastoral Care, went on the Morning Ireland programme on RTÉ radio next day to explain and defend the bishops’ position. The government, which by now has shown itself utterly committed to the Civil Partnership Bill and all that it represents, reacted with fury to the Bishops’ statement. Taoiseach Brian Cowen insisted that the government would push the measure through as soon as possible. The most egregious intervention, however, came from Green Minister John Gormley. Speaking on RTÉ radio’s News at One, he argued, in effect, that the bishops should be denied the right of any citizen to comment on matters of public concern. Referring to the bishops’ intervention as “Church interference”, he said that the Church “should concentrate its efforts on looking after the spiritual needs of its flock, and not intrude into temporal or State matters”. In other words, you can practice your faith behind closed doors (for the time being, at any rate). When RTÉ’s Seán O’Rourke pointed out that the bishops have a democratic right to participate in this debate, the minister refused to address the point and instead made irrelevant observations about the undemocratic nature of Church structures. The words of Cardinal Francis George of Chicago in a recent interview with John L Allen of the National Catholic Reporter are worth quoting in this context: “A central point seems to be the idea that making a judgment about a law is a purely political matter in which the bishops shouldn’t be involved, and ultimately I don’t think that can be sustained. If the bishops have a right and a duty to teach that killing the unborn is immoral, they also have to teach that laws which permit and fund abortion are immoral. That’s clear in Evangelium Vitae and the whole corpus of Catholic social teaching. Law is normative. It talks about what is right and wrong to do, at least legally, and so it enters into a moral universe. “Where someone draws the line on what the bishops ought to say, I think, often depends on where they’re coming from politically. As you know, some argued that the bishops shouldn’t be saying that health care reform is a moral imperative—that this was a political question in which we shouldn’t be involved. Striking the right balance is a pastoral challenge, and I think we tried to do our best to stay on the level of principle, without getting into the arcane policy details which are not our prerogative.” The minister also asserted that the Bill is not unconstitutional, but that is surely a matter for the Supreme Court to decide. He bemoaned the fact that what he called full “marriage equality” would require a constitutional amendment, and in a clear indication of where he would like to see Ireland going, he spoke approvingly of the same-sex “marriage” law recently introduced in Iceland. (This, by the way, is a country whose people have so far given up on society that a political party founded as a joke recently garnered 35% of the vote). Days later, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that there is no right to same-sex “marriage” in the European Convention on Human Rights. The next week the government gave further evidence (if any were needed) of its devotion to the radical sexual agenda when it indicated it would be bringing in legislation to provide special rights for people who have undergone “sex change” operations. The government dropped its appeal against a court ruling that found Ireland’s existing law to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. A dentist, Donal “Lydia” Foy, who wishes to have his birth certificate altered to say that he is female, had sued the Registrar General in 1997. Foy, from Athy in County Kildare had married in 1977 and is the father of two children. Justice Liam McKechnie decided in 2002 that Foy’s birth certificate could not be altered. In a subsequent ruling in 2007, however, Justice McKechnie decided that Ireland was in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A “gender recognition group” has been set up to advise Social Protection Minister Éamon Ó Cuiv on the changes to the law required by the government’s U-turn. This advisory group held its first meeting on May 6th. John Gormley’s Green colleague, Minister of State for Equality, Human Rights and Integration, Mary White, told a symposium in UCC that the group was expected to make a recommendation on the proposed legislation within six months. Under its terms of reference it is to propose heads of a Bill to provide for a process for legal recognition of the “acquired gender” of persons suffering from gender identity disorder who have undergone sex change surgery. The law will provide for a register of such persons and the issuing of birth certificates which will disguise the sex they were born. It is expected that the law will also permit a transgender person to marry someone of the same sex. If it follows the British model transsexuals will be permitted to “marry” persons of the same sex even if they have not undergone genital mutilation surgery. Addendum: Justice McKechnie, who was also responsible for the ruling in the Miss D abortion case, was last month nominated by the government to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. [back to top] Guilty Secret: My Daddy’s Name is ‘Donor’ Donor Insemination (DI), sometimes known as Artificial Insemination or just AI, is where a man directly or via an agency supplies his sperm to a woman, not his wife or partner, to make her pregnant. DI has been around for centuries in one form or another. The Levirate Law in Israel (Deut. 25: 5-10) obliged a man to father a son with his brother’s wife, should his brother die without male issue. Infertility has always been considered a misfortune, a disgrace and sometimes even a curse. Prior to the medical advances in the 19th century, it was thought to be exclusively a woman’s failure, one that justified her replacement, divorce and a lot worse in some cultures. While the modern era brought a better understanding of the causes of infertility—as much a male as a female problem—even today, despite the advances of medicine and better social awareness, couples still feel disgraced and humiliated when they discover they have a fertility problem. In modern times, the first medically-directed sperm donation took place in 1884 at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, USA, even though the gynaecologist did not inform his patients at the time. The husband was only told after the pregnancy was confirmed, but his wife was never to know how her child was conceived. In most western countries up to the Fifties, DI was carried out secretly and unofficially by a handful of doctors, well aware of their peers’ disapproval and the certain hostility to such a procedure, should their activities become publicly known. Doctors deliberately kept no records, no doubt to protect all parties from the risk of legal action. This changed in 1954 when theBritish Medical Journal carried the first comprehensive account of the procedure. A furious debate ensued, and in some jurisdictions legislators passed laws that declared the practice equivalent to adultery and the child born of it illegitimate. It was 20 years before American law legalised the procedure and the first sperm bank was opened. Today, DI is part of the profitable fertility industry. It is offered as a routine treatment for male infertility, an increasing problem in the West. The clinics assure donors that, as well as being paid, they will never be identified (in most countries) and will have no obligations to the children that may result. The number of people born of DI continues to increase, and in recent years the procedure has been offered to healthy women who wish to exclude male participation as much as possible, either because they choose to be single mothers (“choice mothers”) or are in lesbian partnerships. For some people, DI is an unmixed blessing of modern reproductive medicine, and they cannot understand the continuing opposition of the Catholic Church to the practice, or even the voicing of doubts about its benefits. The First Study of DI Persons Elizabeth Marquardt is a member of the Commission on Parenthood’s Future, a group of leading family experts, set up by the Institute for American Values, New York, USA. She has just published the first study of people conceived through DI, My Daddy’s Name is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived through Sperm Donation. It is based on a survey of 485 18 to 45 year-olds conceived by anonymous sperm donors. Marquardt’s study revealed that all is not well in the lives of DI-conceived adults. She found that two thirds of her sample believed that they had a right to know their biological parents, 44 percent agreed that “it is wrong to deliberately conceive a fatherless child”, and 48 percent experienced sadness when they see “friends with their biological fathers and mothers”. These people remain troubled by a permanent sense of loss and confusion about who they are, and their inability to discover and contact their biological fathers. Compared to both adopted children and those born to two biological parents, DI children were more likely to have behavioural problems—drugs, alcoholism, trouble with the police—to experience anger and frustration at being unable to know and contact their biological fathers or to discover their siblings. Not everyone welcomed Dr Marquardt’s efforts to draw attention to this issue. For one thing, her conclusions challenge the “reproductive rights” of adults and the not uncommon belief that fathers don’t really matter. For many others, DI persons have no business complaining. A common reaction to the unhappiness of children born of DI is, “You’re lucky to exist. Stop complaining.” Fertility professionals are aware of their obligations to the donors and women customers, but have given little attention to the needs of the resulting children. Not so long ago, doctors used to advise parents that adopted and DI children were better off knowing nothing of their biological origins. Guilty Family Secrets Some things don’t change, even in a country like Britain where anything goes in reproductive technology. Men and women who find themselves sterile still feel deeply unhappy and ashamed. When the overriding desire for a child eclipses everything else—as is often the case— DI may seem like a perfect solution to the problem. Later, the moral ambiguities emerge and may remain with both parents for the rest of their lives. DI can become the “guilty secret”, kept from friends, family and—in many cases—the growing child. It matters little that breezy experts expound the wonders of reproductive technology. It matters little that the law declares that the donor is not “a parent” and the child is not illegitimate. Parents may sense that the procedure has violated their married love. No amount of white-coated technology can completely make this troubling fact vanish. Then there is the thorny decision whether to tell the child or maintain the pretence. The “if”, and then the “when” and the “how”. I’m sure that many parents resolve to tell their DI child from day one. In the meantime, as the years go by, the decision is postponed as the baby becomes a teenager who is loved by his or her father and mother. Revealing the secret has become a daunting decision. How will she react to this double whammy? That this loving man isn’t her father? That her real father is “donor”—a nameless young man who was short of money (and morals) 15 years ago, who, once he had supplied “the product”, didn’t give a further thought to what might follow and probably wouldn’t want to know his child today. Perhaps he is happily married with a wife and children, and also has a secret of his own—that he has X number of children somewhere out there. Is it surprising that many parents continue with their subterfuge and finally decide never to tell their DI child the truth? Better she never knows, but is it? Unfortunately, the truth can suddenly come out in the wrong way—during a family row, at a parent’s death or in a medical emergency. Why is Caroline Resentful? Certainly, some DI people are devastated by this revelation, even when transmitted with care and tact. They become angry with the man they thought was their father, their mother and the unknown donor who didn’t care. Take the case of Caroline Halstead, conceived by DI, and now married and expecting her second child. Twenty-five years on, the act that gave her life was “brief, impersonal and utterly bereft of emotion” but continues to cause her lasting heartache. She struggles to accept that she was the “product of a scientific process rather than a loving union”. “I was conceived in a Petri dish by artificial insemination at a Harley Street clinic in London”, she says, describing the fertility treatment her mother sought when her husband was diagnosed infertile. “In my view, it is a horrible, clinical way to be conceived. All my life I’ve felt as if I’m only half a person.” Her mother told her about her biological father in her early years, but swore her to secrecy. It became their guilty secret, and opened a rift between them. Maybe men are less affected by DI than women; maybe they look on reproduction as mere mechanics. Maybe, a donor is just a donor, and what matters in a father or mother is love, as Marquardt’s critics say. Yet, biology matters a great deal; indeed the whole fertility industry wouldn’t exist if parents weren’t set on having their own biological child rather than adopting. Blood donors are happy to save lives; sperm donors show no enthusiasm to meet their offspring. Can we put it in plain and simple words? Biology matters. Natural justice requires that you conceive the child in the beauty and dignity of the married love of a man and a woman. The problem today is that adult wishes and needs drive the assisted reproduction industry and legislators with little regard to the child’s best interests. The law is increasingly being used to permit adults to form a family of their own design and making. As Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE) commented, “In the name of reproductive rights, our society has decided that a father can be anyone or nobody. But did anyone ask the child how they feel about this?” Biological origins do matter. At the end of the day it should be clear that children need—and have a right to—two biological parents. Addendum: Since 2005 British law allows donor offspring to identify their biological parents when they reach the age of 18. This change of law has caused a national shortage of donors, leading many would-be parents to travel to foreign countries where donors are guaranteed anonymity. [back to top] Baby Aborted at Catholic Hospital in Phoenix Below this item, our editor, David, provides a comment on the direct abortion late last year of an 11-week baby at St Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona. The facts are these: The hospital, owned by Catholic Healthcare West and staffed by the Sisters of Mercy, says its ethics committee, including Sister Margaret McBride, president of the hospital, okayed aborting the baby on the grounds that the mother was gravely ill. (She had pulmonary hypertension.) The hospital insisted, “In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination [read, ‘killing’] of an 11-week pregnancy [read, ‘baby’]”. But Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix said in a statement on May 14 that: An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child… We always must remember that when a difficult medical situation involves a pregnant woman, there are two patients in need of treatment and care, not merely one. The unborn child’s life is just as sacred as the mother’s life, and neither life can be preferred over the other. Bishop Olmsted added, referring to Sister Margaret, “If a Catholic formally co-operates in the procurement of an abortion, they are automatically excommunicated by that action.” A statement from the Diocese of Phoenix explained: She gave her consent that the abortion was a morally good and allowable act according to Church teaching. Furthermore, she admitted this directly to Bishop Olmsted. Since she gave her consent and encouraged an abortion she automatically excommunicated herself from the Church. On June 7, Joan Frawley Desmond of the National Catholic Register quoted Fr John Ehrich, medical ethics director of the Diocese of Phoenix: One thing we must always remember is that no physician can predict what will happen with 100% accuracy. We will never be able to eliminate all risks associated with pregnancy. What we should not do, however, is lower risks associated with pregnancy by aborting children. It is not better for a woman to have to live the rest of her existence knowing that she had her child killed because her pregnancy was high-risk. [David adds] Dr Paul Byrne, an eminent obstetrician at St Charles Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, was not impressed with the medical justification put forward by the ethics committee of the Catholic hospital in Phoenix. While admitting that he had no direct knowledge of the specific case, he stressed that a truly Catholic doctor has two patients when presented with a pregnant mother. “We do not impose death on the baby”, as happened in this case. A Catholic doctor should simply state: “We don’t do abortions; we treat the mother and the baby.” He was sceptical about the claim of the Phoenix doctors that the mother’s life was in danger. Pulmonary hypertension is not a condition that suddenly takes the mother’s life away, he said. Proven treatment exists, he continued, to control the problem until the baby can survive outside the womb. Dr Byrne stated, that in his 40 years as an obstetrician he has never come across a case where pulmonary hypertension was a life-and-death emergency and demanded an immediate abortion. He admitted that for many American doctors abortion is now a routine procedure, and a seemingly easy solution to problems that may crop up in a pregnancy. In some Catholic hospitals, doctors—Catholic and otherwise—have little understanding of pro-life ethics, and just opt for abortion with little reflection. When physicians recommend direct abortion, they often lack proper educational formation. They lose focus on what is good: justice and charity. [End] [back to top] Obama Nominates Fan of NHS Health Rationing Dr Donald Berwick is Obama’s nominee to direct the Department of Health and Human Services’ gargantuan Centre for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Pro-life Republicans in the US Senate, however, oppose Berwick. That is because he admires the British National Health Service—and, ominously, its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, (NICE), whose name belies its cruel mission of rationing extended care and medical treatment for elderly Britons and those with chronic diseases. Berwick, a Harvard professor, chirps, “I am romantic about the National Health Service. I love it.” He calls the NHS “generous” and “just” and charges that US health care is in “the darkness of private enterprise”, is “bloated”, and has “tremendous excess capacity”. He says, “NICE is not just a national treasure, it is a global treasure”. Berwick opines, “There needs to be global budget caps on total healthcare spending for designated populations.” And he wants to see that “rational collective action overrid[es] individual self-interest”—in other words, say pro-lifers, government takes power over the individual. Dr Hal Scherz, a Georgia pediatric surgeon who opposes Berwick, quotes him: The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80% of the total health care bill out there. There is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation…. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. Dr Scherz decries Berwick’s “vision for statist health care” and says, “He seeks not broad-based, bottom-up decision-making but top-own edicts from elite panels of enlightened and, of course, ‘global’ thinkers like himself that preempt decisions now made by doctors and their patients.” Dr Scherz calls Berwick “totally out of touch with his former peers and the patients that they treat every day” and concludes, “Dr Berwick will not be there with us at the patients’ bedside looking them in the eye and telling them that the life saving treatment that they need is not approved…” Dr Scherz says, “…government panels—because they lack the information built into market-based systems— make far less wise decisions than individuals making their own choices and benefiting competition”. He concludes that Berwick and his allies “are not about better health care but an avarice for power”. Late news: Berwick's views have sparked serious opposition, so the White House announced on July 6 that Obama would take the rare step of placing him in his post by recess appointment, thus bypassing the Senate during its summer recess and avoiding a possible rejection of him. [back to top] Obama and Biden Coerce Kenya over Abortion Not content with promoting abortions in the USA, Obama has been exporting them overseas. Early on, he ended the Mexico City Policy founded by President Reagan, which saved the lives of millions of babies by forbidding US funding of groups that commit or promote abortions. Now, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are using their muscle to pressure Kenya to approve a new pro-abortion constitution. Obama and Biden are brazenly offering US aid dollars to Kenya on the depraved condition that the proabortion constitution be approved. The Reverend Patrick Mahoney, a longtime pro-life activist, condemns that stipulation and says: This is a gross trampling of human rights… and it should now be clear to every person of faith and good will that Mr. Obama has no regard for the dignity of human life and no commitment to social justice. To link economic aid with abortion is a betrayal of all the America stands for and once again shows the extreme and radical pro-abortion policies of this administration. [back to top] ‘The Permanent and Vital Foundation of Celibacy’ Priestly celibacy today is constantly “threatened and questioned”, to use Pope Benedict XVI’s own words, and the scandals of clerical abuse have only added to the clamour against this Gospel-based tradition. Freely-chosen celibacy is a scandal of a different kind for agnostic humanists, and even for many Christians in the West who since the Vatican Council have constantly talked of “moving past” the rule of celibacy. For these people, celibacy is unnatural, inhuman and impossible, and the cause of the Church’s many problems. In the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II was so unhappy with the openly dismissive attitude to celibacy shown by some Catholic writers that he withdrew the subject from discussion. In 2005 Pope Benedict allowed the issue of ordaining mature married men (viri probati) to be discussed at the 11th Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist. Unexpectedly, the bishops of the Catholic Oriental Churches where married priests are permitted were the most vocal in warning their brother bishops against any relaxation of the current rule in the Latin Church. Since they are familiar with the problems that come with married diocesan clergy, their advice was heeded. The Synod’s final resolutions advised Pope Benedict to emphasise the connection between priesthood and celibacy, and not to go down the road of allowing a married clergy, despite an acute shortage of priests in some countries. Since then, Pope Benedict has returned to the theme of priestly celibacy on a number of occasions. In his 2007 Apostolic Exhortation following the synod, he was strongly in favour of a celibate priesthood, and couched his “rethinking” as follows: “I reaffirm the beauty and the importance of a priestly life lived in celibacy as a sign expressing total and exclusive devotion to Christ, to the Church and to the Kingdom of God, and I therefore confirm that it remains obligatory in the Latin tradition. Priestly celibacy lived with maturity, joy and dedication is an immense blessing for the Church and for society itself” (Section 24). On Thursday, June 10, in St Peter’s Square, the eve of the closing of the Year for Priests, the Pope answered five questions on the priesthood from priests from five continents; a priest from Europe asked a question about “the profundity and authentic significance of ecclesiastical celibacy”. The Pope’s thought on this topic can be pieced together from these and other discourses. (See: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/june/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20100610_concl-anno-sac_en.html.) The overriding problem in Western culture today is a spreading forgetfulness of God, “in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel…”. “The present moment of this world seems sufficient…in this way we close the doors to the true greatness of our existence”. “The supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the successor of Peter” in the modern world “… is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai, that God whose face we recognise… in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen.” This was Pope Benedict’s central theme on his visit to Germany in 2006. He was only too aware that in parts of his native country non-baptised people are a majority of the population, for whom “the God of faith seems to belong to the past”. The Kingdom of God Made Present While conceding that the Church needs to speak about many issues like world poverty, the plight of immigrants, marriage and the family, and her own internal structure, “her true and—under various aspects—only theme is God”. The Pope went on to define the essence of the Kingdom of God. It is distinct from the “better world” of humanitarian progress, so much in evidence in today’s economic and technological world. The Kingdom is not an event that is yet to happen in some uncertain future date. It is not a reality helped by God who can then be dispensed with. It is God himself, made present among men and in a perfect way in the person of Jesus Christ. Benedict then connects the making present of God to the priesthood and celibacy. Since the priest is called to be “a man of God” (I Tim 6; 11), he must live “with and by God” in a special manner, whose outward sign is celibacy. The Pope goes back to the Old Testament event when Joshua allocated a portion of the land of Canaan to each of the Twelve Tribes except the Tribe of Levi. Its members were priests, whose “land” was God himself. Their material needs were to be met by the other eleven tribes, but in return the priests made God present in the worship of Israel, the Ark of the Covenant, and later the temple in Jerusalem. The bishops and priests of the New Testament, appointed to take the place of the Apostles, shared the same basic understanding of their priesthood. The priest, today and in every age, “must know God from within and bring him to men and women; this is the prime service that contemporary humanity needs”. This service is the context of priestly celibacy that gives it meaning and purpose within the Church. “Prayer is not a marginal aspect. It is the priest’s ‘profession’ to pray, also in representation of those people who do not know how to pray or do not find the time to pray.” Celibacy, the Pope said, is an anticipation “of the world of the resurrection”. It is the sign “that God exists, that God is part of my life, that I can base my life on Christ, on the future life”. The life of a priest, not dependent on family, property or a recognised function in society, is sustained by God alone in an extraordinary manner. The meaning of celibacy as an anticipation of the future is precisely to “open these doors… to all men and women who are in danger of forgetting our true destiny”. For this reason, the Pope continued, celibacy “is a great scandal” to non-believers. Not only for today’s world, “in which God has no place”, but even for many Christians, for whom “God’s future is no longer considered, and the now of this world alone seems sufficient.” “For the agnostic world, celibacy is a great scandal because it shows that God is considered to be real and is lived as a reality… Celibacy is a definite ‘yes’… giving oneself into the Lord’s hands… Thus it is an act of faithfulness and trust, an act which presupposes the faithfulness of marriage. … Thus celibacy confirms the ‘yes’ of marriage with its ‘yes’ to the world to come… We pray to the Lord to help us free ourselves from secondary scandals, to make this great scandal of our faith present: the trust, the power of our life founded in God, in Christ Jesus.” What is the difference between celibacy and simply not getting married. Increasingly common today? Not getting married is fundamentally different, pointed out the Pope. “The avoidance of marriage is based on a will to live only for oneself, of not accepting any definitive tie, to have the life of every moment in full autonomy, to decide at any time what to do, what to take from life; and therefore a ‘no’ to the bond, a ‘no’ to definitiveness, to have life for oneself alone.” In contrast, celibacy is the opposite: it is a definitive ‘yes’. It is to let oneself be taken in the hand of God, to give oneself into the hands of the Lord, into his ‘I’ . And therefore, it is an act of loyalty and trust, an act that also implies the fidelity of marriage.” If, due to excessive activity or a false understanding of the priest’s purpose, “this centrality of God in a priest’s life is lost”, then problems will inevitably follow, and it is clear that the Pope believes that these two aberrations played a major role in the upsurge of abuse over the past 40 years. Celibacy is often justified on the pragmatic argument of pastoral availability. A married priest would have to divide his time between his parish and family. Benedict treats that argument as very secondary. Celibacy “cannot mean being deprived of love, but must mean letting oneself be consumed by passion for God…” On the question about the shortage of vocations, Benedict warned against lowering the bar. “There is a great temptation to transform the priesthood into a normal profession, into a job that has its working hours… like any other profession…” [back to top] How Religious Freedom Can Exist in a Secular State We’re often told, of course, that we live in a secular democracy and that we have no right to “impose” our views on others who may not share them, especially if those “views” are in any way religiously inspired. But this is only one understanding of the secular state, and an exceptionally narrow one at that. It would be hard to find a more secular state than Communist Cuba, but it was precisely there that a Vatican archbishop recently explained how a secular state can co-exist with authentic religious freedom. Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, of the Holy See’s Secretariat of State was visiting the Caribbean island nation to mark 75 years of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the Holy See. He pointed out that the basis for legitimate secularity is contained in the teaching of Christ to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. It is strange, therefore, that this principle of the proper sphere of influence of the state has come to be seen as hostile to the role of the Church and Christianity. The ancient Roman state conflated man’s obligations to God and to the state, so it was Christian teaching that carved out the possibility for the exercise by civil society of its proper functions. This, however, does not mean the silencing or sidelining of Christians. A secular state must be founded on a proper understanding of human rights, and among these is the right to religious liberty. The archbishop explained that secularity has a “purely negative practical value—of non-interference.” Religious liberty, on the other hand, implies “a positive activity in order to defend, protect and promote with justice the concrete contents—not of religion—but of its manifestations with social relevance.” Addressing the inadequate and simplistic understanding that some influential people have, Archbishop Mamberti explained that “Secularity, neutrality or separation are, hence, in themselves insufficient to define in a complete way the attitude that the state must have in relation to the creed of its citizens.” When such an understanding is applied, it tends to turn “neutrality into agnosticism and separation into hostility.” When the state loses a sense of its proper role it not only tends to suppress religion, but seeks to replace it. Thus, “paradoxically the state becomes a confessional state and no longer authentically secular, because it would make of secularity its supreme value, the determinant ideology, in fact a sort of religion, including its civil rites and liturgies.” In words that have a special relevance for Ireland, the Vatican diplomat declared that “for a state to say it is secular cannot mean to want to marginalise or reject the religious dimension or social presence of religious confessions. On the contrary, it should be the task of the state to recognise the key role of religious liberty and promote it positively.” The archbishop concluded by quoting the words of Pope John Paul II when he visited Cuba in 1998: “The State, while distancing itself from all extremes of fanaticism or secularism, should encourage a harmonious social climate and a suitable legislation which enables every person and every religious confession to live their faith freely, to express that faith in the context of public life and to count on adequate resources and opportunities to bring its spiritual, moral and civic benefits to bear on the life of the nation.” John Gormley might like to exclude all religions but radical environmentalism from the public square, but if Christians are prepared to stand up and defend their rights he will not succeed. [back to top] The Scandals of Misdiagnosis and Unnecessary Scans The revelation that women around Ireland almost lost their babies due to misdiagnosis of miscarriage has shocked the country. The first case to come to light was that of Melissa Redmond from Donabate in County Dublin. Her unborn baby was nearly aborted after a doctor mistakenly diagnosed that the foetus had died. She went to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda for a scan last July when she was eight weeks pregnant. The doctor who performed the scan told Mrs Redmond that her baby had died and she gave her abortion drugs to take before a dilation and curettage procedure, scheduled for two days later, to remove the foetal remains from her womb. Deeply upset by this news, Mrs Redmond, who had given birth to two children and had also suffered four previous miscarriages, felt that something was wrong with the diagnosis. Fortunately, she sought a second opinion from a local GP before taking the abortion drugs she had been given. This confirmed her suspicion that her baby was, in fact, still alive. Mrs Redmond said that the female doctor who performed the hospital scan “wouldn’t even listen to my concerns”. She went on to give birth to a healthy baby. Following the Redmonds’ disclosure of their ordeal, other similar cases came to light. In 2006, Martha O’Neill Brennan from Athenry was told by Dr Declan Egan of Galway University Hospital that her baby had died and she was scheduled for a D&C. It was only when she insisted on having a second scan before the operation that would have aborted her baby that it became clear the baby was still alive. These cases have led to calls for safeguards to be put in place to prevent such errors in the future. Ireland is acknowledged to be the safest place in the world to give birth (or to be born), but these shocking incidents show that we cannot afford to be complacent. It is vital that the highest standards be maintained in our maternity units and that expectant mothers can have the utmost confidence in their doctors and other medical staff. What is the Purpose of Early Scans? But these revelations prompt other, serious, questions. Why are so many women having scans so early in pregnancy? In most cases they serve no useful purpose and, while the bulk of scientific research indicates that scanning is harmless, several studies have suggested that ultrasound may have slightly harmful effects. Most research has focused on older machines, but the more modern ones are significantly more powerful. Many of the scientists who have conducted research in this area recommend that further enquiry is warranted. Scanning and prenatal testing have become very common in recent years because they are used to screen for conditions such as Down Syndrome. The reason these conditions are screened for is not to ensure that children born with them get the special care that they need, but rather to ensure that they do not get born. The recent abortion statistics for England and Wales show how relentless is this attack on unborn babies who might be disabled. Where England goes, Ireland tends to follow, for better or worse, and sometimes quite blindly. The guidelines of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—practically impossible to join if you are opposed to abortion—recommend early scanning, but they are designed precisely for an environment where abortion is an everyday occurrence and disabled babies are seen as problems to be disposed of. Irish doctors should not simply adopt such guidelines without caveats. If the pro-abortion assumptions that underlie such guidelines are not challenged, they will corrode the pro-life ethos of the Irish medical profession. [back to top] Ten Nations Join Italy in Crucifix Case—Where’s Ireland? The most troubling case presently before the European Court of Human Rights is ABC v. Ireland, the IFPAsponsored attempt to torpedo Ireland’s abortion laws. But that is not the only front on which the radical left is attacking. Another important case is that of Lautsi v. Italy. You may recall that last year the Court ruled in favour of a Muslim who objected to the presence of Crucifixes in Italian schools. The decision caused outrage in Italy and public officials announced that they would simply defy the court. Now Italy has appealed to the court’s Grand Chamber. In an unprecedented move, ten other member states of the Council of Europe (the court is a Council of Europe, not an EU body) have joined with Italy in her appeal. The countries backing religious freedom for Christians are Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, Romania, and Russia. Notable by her absence from this list is Ireland. But then, of course, our Minister for Justice is a “republican”, who “leaves his religion at the door”. [back to top] FREE BOOK: Incredible Gift—the Sacrament of Penance PS Are your confessions as good as they should be? For example, are you scrupulous in what you confess— or not conscientious enough? Do you confess too infrequently, or perhaps too often? Are your confessions giving you peace and helping you make progress? Do you truly understand and appreciate the wonders of this sacrament? Do you wonder what the priest is thinking when you confess? Whatever your answers, you can now improve your confessions dramatically and make them the soulhealing, peace-giving encounters with Christ that you—and He—want them to be! You’ll find all the secrets in The Untapped Power of the Sacrament of Penance: A Priest’s View, by Fr Christopher J Walsh, who’s a seminary spiritual director and a theology professor. You’ll discover… …how few Catholics confess regularly these days in the USA, unlike pre-Vatican II days; four reasons for this shocking change; why so many practicing Catholics seem not to appreciate this vital sacrament; the author’s wonder at “the mercy of a God Who is willing to use weak, sinful men as His instruments in forgiving sins and reconciling human beings to Himself”; why confession is making a comeback; why many people’s confessions are superficial or confused today; and 16 proven ways to bring people back to confession. The incredible gift: the Sacrament of Penance You’ll also learn what the Church’s goal in reviving confession should not be; five flaws in how people confessed before Vatican II and in how priests heard confessions then; a cardinal’s prayer that priests should say before entering the confessional; how the author calls himself “a sinful penitent” who depends “on this absolutely remarkable gift of divine mercy and grace”; and how sinner, saint and everyone in between need confession. You’ll read, too, six reasons why confession is unique among the sacraments; why it’s crucial to seek not just forgiveness but spiritual advice in confession; two priests’ secret for getting more people to confess; the incredible powers the Risen Christ gave His priests at Pentecost; how the Holy Spirit works in wonderful, “unpredictable” ways in confession; how He is moving powerfully “below the radar screen” in our world today; an amazing example of young people’s hunger to confess; and how this sacrament is like a lamp shining the light of God’s grace and healing into the “spiritual darkness” of your soul. Fr Walsh also tells how a confession in a pub caused a spectacular change in a man; 12 blessings and advantages of this sacrament; why it’s “perfectly suited to modern needs”; the three equally important actions God performs in your soul during confession, and Bible verses that illustrate them; key Church teachings about this sacrament; three ways many parents keep children from acquiring the habit of frequent confession; how today’s “victim” mentality relates to this sacrament; and three proven secrets for overcoming habitual sins. Secrets of maximising your forgiveness, healing and growth in confession You’ll also learn how a famed atheist praised the role of the confessor; how a confessor distinguishes between “objective” sin and your “subjective” sin; why it’s wrong to deny individual responsibility for sin; what to ask yourself if you don’t know what to confess; the Bible verse that sums up a penitent’s proper attitude; three consoling insights from the Parable of the Woman Caught in Adultery; and three qualities to look for in choosing your regular confessor, including one you can’t ignore. This unique book goes on to describe “disastrous misinterpretations” of Church teachings on confession by many priests and laity since Vatican II; the author’s favourite, amusing example of a “spontaneous” confession; why “basilicas, shrines and other pilgrimage sites are especially good places” to confess; why priests should offer confessions after wedding rehearsals; how today’s young people face “a frighteningly secular and pagan environment”; what situations “magnify the consolations” of confession “a hundredfold”; and how a priest’s experiences in New York on September 11, 2001, dramatised the immense value of the sacrament. Did Bill Clinton think about becoming a priest? Plus, you’ll explore the many reasons why people avoid confession, and why they’re all wrong; why it’s good to feel shame for your sins, but that should never keep you from confession; an analogy that’ll help the guilt-ridden; why we must confess serious sins individually; why we must hide nothing; a Bible passage that’ll help those too ashamed to confess; why priests shouldn’t be gruff with penitents; why penitents should feel free to ask questions; advice for those who rarely confess; why it’s OK to confess the same sin(s) time and again; and why the old list-of-sins method is still all right. Fr Walsh relates, too, how dissenters sowed confusion about morality after Vatican II; Catholics who confess venial sins but think cohabiting is all right; how both scrupulous and lax Catholics have a dangerous view of Christian morality; how Jesus took morality far beyond the Commandments; four questions and five Gospel verses to examine your conscience by; what the answer revealed when a priest asked young Bill Clinton whether he’d considered the priesthood; and four Bible verses that show we must humbly admit our “moral unworthiness” before God. You’ll also read why some funeral Masses today are “more like canonisation liturgies”; four reasons why the notion of sin is so “devalued” today; what many Catholics have replaced “admission of sinfulness” with; how Jesus never said to be “a good person” but to be something radically different than that; five compelling reasons why Catholics confess to a man, not to Christ directly; how some people misunderstand the word “mediator” as it applies to the priest, and a down-to-earth analogy that clarifies it; how an Irish nun’s childhood confession has blessed her whole life; and how the Sacrament of Penance helped a nation endure Communist oppression. Amazing graces that flow through the Sacrament of Penance What’s more, you’ll learn who said, “If one really understood the greatness of a priest, one would die, not of fear but of love”; what the “Leper Priest’s” heroism reveals about the wonder of the priesthood; moving stories of special, even amazing graces people receive in connection with confession; how God also forgives sins outside the Sacrament of Penance; an appalling “failure of Catholic catechesis” in the last 50 years; what Christ’s words “bind” and “loose” really mean; how confession removes the excommunication that abortion brings; and three terrible effects of mortal sin. The author also explains four bad effects of venial sins and four reasons to confess them often; an insight about Purgatory from the Sacrament of Penance; how confession supports addiction therapies; the priest’s many duties in the confessional, and how he should counsel various penitents; what priests think and feel during confessions (you’ll be fascinated); why absolution isn’t enough and doing “penance” is crucial; programmes that help aborted mothers find healing; seven ways to be healed after confessing; four steps to a good confession, and proven tips for doing them well; wisdom from popes, saints, spiritual writers, master confessors and the Catechism about confession; the hero-priest who gave his life to administer this sacrament; and much more. St Faustina called the Sacrament of Penance a “wonderful and inconceivable miracle of mercy”. This concise (160 pages) but insight-rich volume will help you appreciate and love this gift as never before—and love the One Who gave it to us as well. You’ll find yourself receiving more peace through confession and advancing more rapidly in your spiritual life. Every Catholic (and other Christian) will learn and benefit from this book—especially those confused by the dubious catechesis of recent decades. The Untapped Power of the Sacrament of Penance: A Priest’s View sells for €10.35 (ST£8.55), excluding postage, handling and packaging. But IT’S YOURS FREE AS OUR THANK-YOU GIFT for your offering of €40 or more (or £30 or more). PPS SAVE TIME! To receive your FREE GIFT more speedily, simply phone through your donation to our office right now at (353) 1 855 2145, or fax it to (353) 1 855 2474, or e-mail your credit card details to me at
[email protected] Remember, you can also donate quickly and easily through our online service at www.familyandlife.org THANK YOU, and may you receive more graces than ever through the awesome mystery of confession! [back to top]