---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

Texas Bishop Repents Publicly for Catholic Hospital That Was Doing Sterilizations

By John-Henry Westen
 
TYLER, Texas, November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In yet another sign of revival in the Catholic Church in America, a US bishop has taken the rare step of publicly repenting for failing to ensure respect for life at Catholic hospitals under his jurisdiction. 

An anonymous report issued last year revealed that tubal ligations were being performed for contraceptive purposes at Texas Catholic hospitals.  The report cited hospital inpatient discharge data that was reported to the Texas Health Care Information Collection Center for Health Statistics, as evidence for the claim.
 
The report said Trinity Mother Frances Hospital in Tyler had reported 1619 sterilizations, and Christus St. Michael in Texarkana had reported 188 sterilizations between the years 2000 and 2003.
 
Bishop Alvaro Corrada, SJ, initiated an investigation following the report and has today issued a public admission of guilt after finding that Catholic hospitals were in fact illicitly carrying out sterilizations. (See: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008_docs/tylerbishopstatement.pdf) 

"As a Bishop, I am deeply saddened and upset by this news," said the Bishop. He added: "As Bishop of the Diocese of Tyler, I have to admit my failure to provide adequate oversight of the Catholic Hospitals as regards their protection of the sacred dignity of each human person."
 
In the statement the Bishop explained that the hospitals were engaging in "serious mis-interpretation" of Catholic health care directives.  He noted further that he is working "directly with the Catholic Hospitals in the Diocese of Tyler, and with my brother Bishops in the state of Texas, to bring an end to immoral procedures and to put in place some method of ongoing accountability and transparency of monitoring both protocols and actual practices."
 
In the statement the Bishop noted that "in response to their own investigation of the matter, CHRISTUS St. Michael's in Texarkana has discontinued all tubal ligations."  With regard to Trinity Mother Frances, the Bishop explained that it "is a large health care system and is developing plans to protect the sacred dignity of each human person through compliance with an authentic interpretation" of the Catholic health care directives which prohibit "direct sterilization."

To read the complete statement by Bishop Corrada, go to: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008_docs/tylerbishopstatement.pdf

 Back to Top

---

Poll Shows a Solid Majority of Canadians Want Legal Protection for Unborn Children

November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new Environics poll shows a majority of Canadians want legal protection for the unborn child at some point before birth. This is consistent with survey results over the past seven years.

Canada remains the only country in the developed word with no legal limits on abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. Yet, almost 6 in 10 respondents support legal protection for unborn children at some point before birth.  Only 33% support the current situation of protection only after birth. Once again, women polled showed far more support for protection from conception on than men did: 33% versus 24%.

A majority of Canadians support informed consent requirements before an abortion that would be consistent with the informed consent expected and provided before any surgical procedure. Almost two-thirds (65%) of respondents agree that women considering abortion should be informed of the risks and possible consequences of the abortion procedure.

“The hopelessly inadequate information most women receive before an abortion is appalling,” said Dr. Delores Doherty, president of LifeCanada, the group that commissioned the poll. “Many women who have had abortions feel betrayed by the doctors involved in their abortions and some are considering class action suits.”

The poll also asked how Canadians feel about tax dollars funding a procedure that is predominately performed for social reasons, rather than medical necessity. Only 3 in 10 support the current situation of tax funding for most of the roughly 100,000 abortions performed annually. Half prefer public funding only in cases of medical emergencies and two in 10 think payment should be a private responsibility.

“Despite years of polls consistently showing Canadians want changes in our abortion policy, elected officials in every party continue to ignore the issues or worse, shut down discussion and debate,” said Dr. Doherty.  “This is a sad state for a democratic nation. It is past time for our political leaders to acknowledge and take action in line with the expressed will of their constituents. The issue is not going to go away!”

The Focus Canada poll of 2023 Canadians was conducted between September 24 and October 21, 2008. It is considered accurate 19 out of 20 times, with a margin of error of +/-2.2%.  LifeCanada, the national educational pro-life body, has commissioned an annual poll on life issues since 2002.

 Back to Top

---

Interview: Bishop Expands on Why a Bishop "Would Consider It a Privilege to Die to End to Abortion"

Re-Published with permission from St. Louis Review

ST. LOUIS, November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last week, at the annual fall assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, archdiocesan administrator Bishop Robert J. Hermann stated that for any bishop, it would be a "privilege to die tomorrow to bring about an end to abortion." His comments were picked up by media outlets across the country and have been touted in the blogosphere as a courageous statement in the defense of unborn human life.

St. Louis Review staff writer Jennifer Brinker recently met with Bishop Hermann for an interview, in which he reflected on his statement and also answered several other questions relating to the issue of abortion, the bishops' meeting and the recent presidential election.

Q: Let's delve right into the issue at hand. At the recent bishops' meeting in Baltimore, you said this:

"We have lost 50 times as many children in the last 35 years as we have lost soldiers in all the wars since the Revolution. I think any bishop here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow to bring about an end to abortion. If we are willing to die tomorrow, then we should be willing to, until the end of our lives, to take all kinds of criticism for opposing this horrible infanticide."

Could you explain a little bit more about the point you were trying to get across?

A: I think that the way abortion has been presented over the past 35 years so often is that this is something that's horrible, and we need to stop it. But it seems to me that people do not realize that it is 50 million children that we have killed. We have campaigned to save the baby whales, and yet we vote in pro-abortion politicians - which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I feel we need to be in an awareness-raising campaign to open our eyes to really see the destruction that we've brought about. There should be 50 more million Americans in our midst, and anyone under 35 can look around and say, 'Where are they?' And, 'I'm very lucky to be alive.'

We are grateful for all the soldiers who have died to defend our freedom. But at the same time, we aren't making similar efforts to protect the unborn. And so that's my concern - to raise the consciousness of all people to the atrocities that we're committing.

Q: What was the reaction of your fellow bishops after you said this?

A: The reaction was one or two bishops started clapping, but then we moved on immediately (to other business). I received numerous comments from other bishops, thanking me for making this courageous statement. I said any bishop there could have and probably would have made the same statement.

After I had finished, Bishop (Robert) Finn and Archbishop (Joseph) Naumann and Bishop (Michael) Sheridan commented. Archbishop (Charles) Chaput sought me out and commented. So numerous bishops had come up to me and thanked me for the comment. I said we're only doing what we're supposed to be doing, that's all.

Q: What was the thought process going through your mind in which you said, 'Yes, I would do this. I would lay my life on the line.'

A: Very simply: If American youth are willing to go to war and lay their life down to defend our freedoms, then every bishop should be willing to give up his life, if it meant putting an end to abortion. And if we're willing to do that, then we should be totally fearless of promoting this cause without being concerned about political correctness, without trying to build coalitions with pro-choice people.

Q: Can you tell me about some of the personal criticisms that you might have recently encountered in your role as bishop and your willingness to speak out for a culture of life?

A: First of all, perhaps 95 percent of the responses I have gotten have been very positive, very complimentary and very supportive. 

The few negative responses I have gotten have not bothered me one bit, because I see that we're products of a secular society. And what I see very clearly is that the underpinning premise of our society - but unspoken - is that God does not exist. And our culture flows from that thinking.

But we on the other hand, we say, 'Yes God exists, and I believe in God,' but often we act as if he did not exist. We are acting the way we have been conditioned.

I cannot tell you the number of people who have e-mailed me or told me in person, 'This is the first time in my life that I voted contrary to strong feelings.' And there are others asking me how they need to deal with their past voting habits.

I have great empathy and great compassion for people who are influenced by society and are taken in by the big lie that God does not exist. My job is to raise their awareness to, yes He does (exist), and it does make a difference what you believe. It makes a big difference in what you do.

In addition to this premise that God does not exist, we also have to be aware that our warfare is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and the powers and the spirits of this world of darkness, as Paul tells us in Ephesians.

Therefore, behind Planned Parenthood, behind the abortion issue, is the evil one. I often see human beings caught up in this as victims of the evil one who need my prayers and who need my compassion and who need my love. We don't only want to save our children from destruction; we also want to save our adult brothers and sisters from eternal destruction.

Q: Why was it important for the bishops to craft a statement directed toward the administration of President-elect Barack Obama? It heavily addressed perhaps the most pressing issue that currently faces the pro-life movement right now: the Freedom of Choice Act.

A: What makes this so dangerous is that candidate Obama said that one of the first things he would do would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act when he becomes president. And that really frightens us, because it would be undermining all the efforts for the past 35 years of trying to limit the destructive effects of abortion.

The other concern that we have in the next four years is that he may very well have the opportunity to place two more people on the Supreme Court, which could secure the Roe vs. Wade case for many, many years.

Q: During his campaign in Pennsylvania, President-elect Barack Obama said he has taught his daughters with proper morals, on the other hand, "if they make a mistake, I won't want them punished with a baby."

What do you think about that statement?

A: I am very horrified that he would make such a statement, which in effect is saying that he would be willing to see his grandchild killed for the convenience of his daughter.

When he promotes abortion, he is, whether he knows it or not, targeting blacks, because they have been targeted by Planned Parenthood with abortion information and facilities in their neighborhoods. So he and Planned Parenthood together are helping to reduce the African- American population in this country.

Q: I think there are many people, some Catholics included, who still don't understand why Catholic bishops and priests place such importance on abortion over other issues, such as the economy, immigration and the war in Iraq. Could you explain why Church leadership takes this stance that some have called "single-minded?"

A: Pope John Paul has made it very clear that while some people say that the economy, or the war in Iraq or immigration should be of prime consideration. But he said those rights mean nothing if the fundamental right to life is not guaranteed. Before these other rights mean anything, we have to guarantee the fundamental right to life. When someone is denied life, then all the other rights don't mean anything. That's the reason the Church places such a high priority on that.

For an individual to have a proportionate reason to vote for a candidate who supports abortion would be very hard to come by. The only way I could see that happening is if we had one candidate who supports abortion and another one who may mandate abortion ... as they do in China.

Q: We have noticed in the weeks leading up to the election a surge in the number of priests, particularly our young priests, who have spoken out for a culture of life. Is there anything that you would like to say about the courage these men have shown?

A: I am very edified by the growing number of priests, and in a very special way young clergy, who had the courage to speak out from the pulpit so incisively and effectively against the evils of abortion. I think more and more priests are beginning to realize the seriousness of this cause and also see that taking a strong stance receives such tremendous support from our Catholics.

I encourage all priests to continue to pray about the issue, to study the teachings of Pope John Paul II, and Cardinal (Joseph) Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) on this issue, and then address it with love and patience and courage. We do not condemn proponents of abortion; we condemn their beliefs and their practices. We pray for them, and we want their salvation as we desire our own. When we preach pro-life from the pulpit, we're doing everyone in the congregation a great favor by presenting the truth of our faith in a very clear, concise and effective manner. The truth shall set you free.

Q: Is there anything that you could offer to our Catholic readers, which would give them hope for the future? What can they do to get involved in better promoting a culture of life, especially during these next four years?

A: I would encourage them to study the Church's documents - perhaps to start with Pope John Paul's, "The Gospel of Life," ("Evangelium Vitae") and then to follow that up with encyclical, "Humanae Vitae," ("Of Human Life") so they can clearly understand the nature of man and woman and the sacredness of God's calling for man and woman.

The more they study that and begin to live those teachings, the more they're going to come into freedom to promote the Gospel of Life, first of all, by the witness of their very lives. And secondly, they will be courageous in sharing their witness to others.

See the St. Louis Review Online here:
http://www.stlouisreview.com

 Back to Top

---

Italian Government Must Act Fast to Define Food and Hydration as a Human Right to Save Eluana: Prominent Italian Lawyer

By Hilary White, Rome correspondent

ROME, November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Some hope still exists to save Eluana Englaro’s life, but the government must move quickly to overcome political differences and act, a prominent Italian lawyer today told LifeSiteNews.com today.

The greatest hope to save the life of Eluana Englaro is to have the Italian government pass an emergency measure defining food and water as a human right, and not medical treatment, he said. While a group of pro-life advocates have brought a request for a hearing on the subject to the European Court of Human Rights, such an attempt, he said, will almost certainly result in a backlash against the legal concept of the right to life.

Eluana Englaro is a young woman who has been in a state of diminished consciousness since a car accident in 1992. Last week, the highest appeals court of Italy ruled that she may be killed by removal of food and hydration. Despite media reports that refer to her “life support system,” Eluana is not being kept alive by a respirator or any extraordinary medical treatments but is receiving only ordinary food and water through a feeding tube.

Today, LifeSiteNews.com interviewed Luca Silvestri, a lawyer and the son of a well known Roman advocate, at his offices in central Rome. Silvestri, who is strongly pro-life, has been observing the Englaro case closely and said that while some options are still available for Eluana, the legal implications of the decision of the Court of Cassation on November 14th were serious for Italian law and could have repercussions on the international scene. He said that the decision is the first step in the course towards legalised euthanasia for Italy.

Since 1999, Eluana’s father and legal guardian, Beppino Englaro, has been petitioning courts to have her food and hydration removed to “allow her to die,” having argued in court that she had told him once that she would not want to be kept alive artificially if she were incapacitated. In July this year, a Milan Court of Appeal ruled that her father may have the food and hydration tube removed, thereby dehydrating his daughter to death. 

The issue revolves around the definition of “medical treatment” under the Constitution, and whether it includes the provision of food and water. Silvestri explained that under Article 32 of the Italian Constitution, a patient has the right to accept or refuse medical therapies. But this has always been interpreted as specifically excluding food and water, which are not medical treatment, but the ordinary means of sustaining human life. Until the Englaro decision, he said, Italian law did not recognise in any way a “right” for a patient to decide to end his or her own life.

But, he said, “This situation is totally new legal ground,” and the definition of food and water as medical treatment, he said, is the crucial hinge upon which the legal protections of human life in Italy rest. In other countries, including Canada, food and hydration can be considered medical treatment that can be legally removed from incapacitated patients at the request of family or at the orders of doctors. Not so in Italy, until last week’s decision of the Court of Cassation.

The Court’s ruling, said Silvestri, has taken Article 32 in the Constitution and now specifically interpreted it as meaning to include food and water. This has opened the door in Italy for doctors and families legally to kill patients by dehydration, and therefore for legalised euthanasia.

Mr. Englaro’s efforts, however, are being hampered by the decision of the nuns in whose care Eluana has been for 14 years, who refuse to participate in her killing. The Misericordine sisters of Lecco issued a statement this week saying they would refuse to help dehydrate Eluana to death. “Our hope, and that of many like us,” they said, “is that the death by hunger and thirst of Eluana, and others in her condition, will not be carried out.”

But Silvestri said that the refusal of the nuns, and the reported refusal of several other nursing homes in Italy, to participate in Eluana’s killing is not going to be a certain safeguard. “It is obvious,” he said, “that looking around for hospitals or nursing homes, he [Beppino Englaro] eventually will find one that is ready to do this. One that will not present any conscientious objection.”

“It is not easy because something like this has never happened in Italy before, but it’s not impossible.”

The first legal option to save Eluana’s life, Silvestri said, is for someone, possibly the Misericordine sisters, to file a request with the courts that her father will be removed from his guardianship. Many possible people could come forward with such a request, he said, either family members, friends or other interested parties, but as yet, no one has made the attempt.

“The important thing is to try to remove Eluana’s father as guardian,” he said. Silvestri suggested that another possibility is for the sisters to refuse to relinquish physical custody of Eluana when her father comes to remove her from their care, and to file an action to prevent the execution of the Court of Cassation’s decision. These measures, however, are dubious and depend upon the courts.

He confirmed that the Italian courts, as with courts in most other western countries, are “subject to the spirit of the times” and are “moving towards a cultural acceptance of euthanasia.” There is a “masked” and surreptitious movement towards euthanasia, said Silvestri. He fears that the courts are part of a general trend towards a change to establish in law the existence of a “right to determine life.”

The greatest hope, Silvestri said, both of saving Eluana and of safeguarding others in similar situations, is to have the government formally define food and hydration as a human right.

A “decree law” he said, could be passed as an urgent matter in which the government could say unequivocally, “the removal of food and hydration is illegal.” This law would be subject to review and possible amendment by Parliament, but would stand for at least two months.

Silvestri warned, however, that while there is great interest in Parliament in the case and in closing this loophole, divisions within and between parties exist. This is particularly the case in regards to an upcoming “living wills” law, in which there is division on whether to include a “food and hydration” clause. “There is political will to do it,” he said, “but the government might move too slowly.” The majority in the Italian Parliament, however, do not support the idea of including food and hydration as medical treatment.

The other possibility, the case being brought to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, could end up backfiring and doing more damage in the long run, in Italy and in other EU countries. “The situation could be made much worse at the EU Court of Human Rights” he said, with repercussions rippling across the EU member states.

Given the outcome of other such cases at the EU Court, the Englaro decision “would be decided against us, if it goes to the substance,” he said bluntly. And a decision like that would be used as a precedent in other countries for similar cases. “Such a decision,” he said, “would establish the concept in law of a ‘right to suicide’ in all of Europe.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Italian Nuns Refuse to Kill Eluana Englaro
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111701.html

Eluana Englaro to Die by Dehydration after Italian High Court Ruling
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111405.html

Pro-life Advocates Rally in Rome for Italian “Terri Schiavo”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111001.html

Removal of Food and Hydration from Italian Woman “Monstrous and Inhuman Murder”: Vatican Prelate
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111202.html

 Back to Top

---

Grandmother's Account of Traumatizing Experience with Abortion Moves Jamaican Parliamentarians to Tears

By Jonquil Frankham

KINGSTON, Jamaica, November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A recent presentation by a woman who 20 years ago bullied her daughter into having an abortion reduced members of the Jamaican parliament to tears, reports the Jamaica Gleaner. 

Anne Arthur, a grief counselor, told the parliament she has never fully recovered from having bullied her daughter into killing her unborn child. "I drove my daughter to the abortion clinic like a lamb to the slaughterhouse, against her will," Arthur told her audience.

"I pressed my views on her and convinced her that she would be unable to care for the child while studying and an abortion would be the best thing to do, offering her no other solution or help … While my 12-week-old grand-daughter was ripped apart from my daughter's womb, I knew with brutal clarity that I had made the greatest mistake of my life," said Arthur.

Arthur told the parliamentary gathering that she does not support abortion under any circumstances now, even under the usual exceptions of rape and incest. She said that her 41-year old daughter, now married, has had trouble conceiving because of the damage the abortion, which was performed legally in Germany, caused.

Arthur’s presentation was part of a debate over the legalization of abortion in Jamaica. Sections 72 and 73 of the country’s Offences against the Person Act currently punish participation in abortion with a sentence of up to life imprisonment. However, an advisory group established by former Health Minister John Junor found that increases in maternal fatality are purportedly due to illegal and unsafe abortions, as LifeSiteNews reported November 14th. The advisory group pushed for the legalization of abortion as the solution to the problem.

Dr. Doreen Brady West of the Coalition for the Defense of Life, however, told the Jamaican parliament last week that she is doubtful legalizing abortions will decrease maternal mortality. Rather, she argued, illegal and unsafe abortions are very minor contributors to the maternal death rate in Jamaica. The real solution, she said, is in better antenatal care.

The debate over abortion in Jamaica has been emotionally charged and deeply controversial. As reported by LifeSiteNews, graphic video depictions of abortions have been shown to the parliament, prompting some to leave the room and many to avert their eyes in discomfort.

As the Gleaner reported, Arthur maintained that the legalization of abortion in Jamaica would merely result in a dramatic increase in abortions, as happened in both Germany and the United States, and not the protection of expectant mothers.

Previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Jamaica Parliament Views Graphic Abortion Videos While Considering Decriminalizing Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111403.html

Jamaican Nurses Oppose Government Plan to Decriminalize Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050608.html

Jamaican Religious and Civic Leaders Respond to Proposal to Decriminalize Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021109.html

 Back to Top

---

Christian-Founded Dating Website eHarmony Forced to Cater to Homosexuals

By Kathleen Gilbert

TRENTON, New Jersey, November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey man has won a settlement forcing eHarmony.com, a leading dating website founded by Christian Dr. Neil Warren, to offer homosexual dating services through an equivalent website, entitled "Compatible Partners."

The settlement ended a 3-year court battle in which eHarmony was accused of discriminating against homosexuals by operating a setup that did not extend searches to include partners of the same sex. In addition to setting up the new website, the settlement requires eHarmony to advertise its new site on gay websites and include pictures of same-sex matches in the "Diversity" section of the eHarmony website. 

eHarmony will also pay a settlement fee of $5,000 to the plaintiff and $50,000 in court costs.  The settlement acknowledges that eHarmony was not found to have violated New Jersey law.

"Although we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle with the Attorney General since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable," eHarmony explained in a statement, adding that they, "look forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company."

An eHarmony lawyer also told World Net Daily that the legal battle, which began in 2005, had become financially burdensome to the company.

During the dispute last year, Chemistry.com capitalized on eHarmony's exclusivity to male-female couples.  The dating site, which is configured to facilitate homosexual matches, ran an advertisement featuring a man flipping through a magazine featuring semi-nude female models. After a while he closes the magazine and declares, “Nope, still gay.” The ad then declares that he was "rejected by eHarmony." "Who knows why eHarmony has rejected over a million people looking for love?" says a woman's voice, adding that people can come to Chemistry.com “as you are.” 

eHarmony said the ads were misleading and asked to have them removed, but their requests were denied.

Dr. Warren had in past years defended the heterosexual structure of eHarmony as based on compatibility research that dealt only with heterosexual couples.  Warren also argued in 2005 that eHarmony was geared toward legal marriage, and therefore did not pertain to homosexual unions.

The compatibility system foundational to eHarmony was first popularized through Focus on the Family, which gave the exposure that helped launch the website to its current status as one of the most popular dating websites available. 

"No one would have ever dreamed that something like this could happen here," said a MassResistance report in response to the settlement. 

"This is exactly what the homosexual movement had in mind when they pushed so hard a decade ago for Civil Rights laws to include 'sexual orientation,'" it continued.  "It won't end here."

Some pro-family voices are critical of the settlement decision, saying Warren kowtowed too easily to homosexual pressure.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth wrote a strongly-worded letter to Dr. Warren chastising him for having "sold his soul (or at least eHarmony's)."

"You could have set an example to Christians and freedom-loving Americans everywhere by fighting on principle for your company’s First Amendment right not to be bullied into submission by a politically correct state bureaucracy," said LaBarbera.  "Instead, you capitulated.

"In addition to hurting the cause of Christianity, you have damaged the cause of freedom and particularly religious freedom in America. It appears that eHarmony is no longer a 'match' for Integrity."

To view the official settlement, go to: http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases08/pr20081119a-eHarmony-SA.pdf

To contact New Jersey Civil Rights Division:
PO Box 090
Trenton, NJ 08625-0090
phone 609-292-4605
  
New Jersey Attorney General J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo:
P.O. Box 080
Trenton, NJ 08625-0080
phone 609-292-4925

To contact eHarmony.com:
888 E. Walnut Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101
phone 626-795-4814

 Back to Top

---

Brazilian Christian Censored and Fined for Making "Homophobic" Remarks in Book

Judge ordered book pulled from bookstores after three hundred of a total of 600 printed had been sold

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

MATO GROSSO DO SUL, BRAZIL, November 22, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Brazilian Christian has been fined 2,000 reales (834 USD), and his book confiscated for publishing his belief that God condemns and punishes homosexual acts.

Naurio Martins Franca, a resident of the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, is the author of "The Curse of God on the Homosexual: The Homosexual Needs to Know the Divine Curse that is Upon Him".

The book reportedly states the Christian belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, and even "demonic", and warns those who do not repent that "he who continues being a homosexual is defying the power of God and runs a great risk."

Franca's ordeal began last year when a judge ordered his book to be pulled from bookstores after three hundred of a total of 600 printed had been sold.   Following the confiscation, a group of homosexuals burned the book in a protest outside of the International Church of Grace, Franca's church.

"The book is based on the Bible, on the word of God. The law regards it as homophobia, etc.," said Pastor Franca after charges were filed. "What can I do?  The Bible is being usurped through the law of man.  The Bible is the law of God," .

The Bible repeatedly condemns sodomy, in both the Old and New Testaments, including a famous passage in Romans 1, which states that "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Although Franca's attorney reportedly argued at trial that his client had the right to freely express his opinions and religious beliefs, the judge responded that such rights were outweighed by the "principles outlined in the Federal Constitution, which would be the equality and dignity of the human person" and "discrimination is not tolerated", according to a paraphrase by TV Morena.

The censoring of Franca follows a string of other acts of censorship by government authorities, as well as intimidating lawsuits by private individuals, against Brazilian Christians who wish to express their religious beliefs.

In 2007 the protestant organization National Vision for a Christian Conscience (VINACC) was ordered to cease its campaign of affirming heterosexual marriage, calling it "homophobic", despite the fact that the government has failed to pass its so-called "anti-homophobia" law in the nation's Congress.  VINACC eventually lost the case on appeal.

In March of this year, the Brazilian Department of Justice fined the Association of Public Functionaries 14,800 reais (8,559 USD) for "discrimination" for prohibiting members from registering their gay sex partners as "spouses".  In July, a Catholic priest's book denouncing witchcraft was ordered removed from stores by a Brazilian judge.

Other organizations and bloggers have been intimidated with lawsuits for making public objections to homosexual leader Luiz Mott's endorsement of pedophilia and pederasty (see LifeSiteNews coverage at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07083007.html).

Related LifeSiteNews Coverage:

Brazilian Judge: Catholic Priest's Book Denouncing Witchcraft Must be Removed from Bookstores
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08070710.html

Brazilian Government Punishes Dissenters of Pro-Homosexuality Policy
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032702.html

Brazilian Homosexuals File "Hate" Charges Against Brazilian Christians
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07112805.html

Brazilian Gay Groups Launch Multiple Lawsuits to Silence Christian Opposition
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07083007.html

Brazil Attacks Against Family Defenders Backed by Pro-Homosexual Regime of Nation's President
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07073108.html

Brazilian Priests Could Face Jail-time for Saying that Homosexuality is A Sin
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07031904.html

 Back to Top

---

Bush Pushes Ahead with Regulations to Protect Doctors’ Conscience Rights

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON D.C., November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In spite of pro-abortion anger and the looming pro-abortion Obama administration, President Bush is poised to sign regulations that will help protect the rights of doctors and nurses to refuse to perform abortions on moral or religious grounds.

The regulations will enforce existing federal law that requires taxpayer-funded medical institutions not to discriminate against medical personnel who conscientiously object to performing abortions or assisting "in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity," including the distribution of abortifacient contraceptives. 

Pro-life advocates have hailed the regulations as a much-needed reminder to medical establishments of their employee's religious rights under the Constitution. In recent years pro-life doctors frequently claim to have been discriminated against for refusing to perform procedures that went against their consciences.

Abortion supporters, however, continue to wage war against the regulations, denouncing them as a threat to women's access to abortion.

Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced legislation Thursday to halt the regulations, accusing President Bush of "again putting ideology first" in a "last-minute attempt to undermine women's health care." The legislation cites a directive from White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton that discourages the submission of regulation proposals late in an administration.

Though the proposed regulations do not change federal law, both abortion groups and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency assigned to enforce such regulations, complain that they are redundant and will result in a reduction of abortions.

"It's unconscionable that the Bush administration, while promising a smooth transition, would take a final opportunity to politicize women's health," said Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards.

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt sponsored and vigorously defended the regulations throughout the verification process.

"Federal law is explicit and unwavering in protecting federally funded medical practitioners from being coerced into providing treatments they find morally objectionable," Leavitt told the New York Times. 

The religious and civil rights coalition Catholic League released a statement urging President Bush to "move with dispatch" on the regulations, before the Obama administration can snuff them out. 

Catholic League President Bill Donohue noted that the religious rights of Catholic hospitals were soon to be gravely threatened by the Freedom of Choice Act, which would make it illegal for a doctor to refuse to kill an unborn child.  Passing regulations as a last stand for religious rights, says Donohue, will help set up the case against Obama's extreme agenda against life and the civil right to conscientious objection.

"If Obama wants to undo them, it will set up a confrontation he will surely regret," Donohue stated.

See previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Proposed U.S. Government Regulations Strengthen Doctors' Increasingly Threatened Freedom of Conscience
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082204.html

Planned Parenthood in Hysterics over Bush Memo Defining Abortifacient Contraception as Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071604.html

Bush Administration Seeks to Forbid Federal Aid Discrimination against Pro-Life Health Care Professionals
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071508.html

 Back to Top

---

Levant Acquitted after Republishing Letter by Pastor Previously Found to Be “Hate Speech”

By John Jalsevac

November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Prominent Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) critic Ezra Levant is crying foul after the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) dismissed a complaint brought against him for publishing the same letter for which Alberta pastor Steve Boissoin was found guilty of hate speech in late 2007.

The complaint was filed by Edmonton-based homosexual activist and member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton, Rob Wells. Wells, who has also in the past filed complaints against Catholic Insight and the Christian Heritage Party, accused Levant of hate speech for republishing Boissoin’s letter, in which the pastor expressed his disapproval of the homosexualist agenda. The letter was originally published in the Red Deer Advocate.

Levant republished the document on his highly popular blog as an act of protest, following the Alberta tribunal’s decision against the pastor. At the time Levant challenged the CHRC to prosecute him for publishing a letter that the tribunal had previously found to be “likely to incite hatred” against homosexuals.

The Alberta commission, however, has now dismissed the complaint. But Levant is claiming that there is no reason why he should have been let off the hook while Boissoin was forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyer’s fees, and was fined $7,000, ordered to apologize to the complainant in the case and to never again publicly speak about his views on homosexuality.

In a letter sent to Levant’s lawyers, secretary to the Commission Lucie Veillette wrote, “The Commission is of the view that the Respondent is posting this article with the goal of furthering a public debate on freedom of expression.” Hence, she writes, “the file on this matter has now been closed.”  (See: http://ezralevant.com/CHRC%20third%20complaint%20dismissal.pdf )

Levant, however, claims that the Commission’s decision is arbitrary and provides further evidence of its inconsistent methods, in particular its bias against conservatives and Christians. As Levant, who is a Jew, observes, “In the entire history of section 13, stretching back to 1977, not one single Jew, Muslim or gay has been taken before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by the CHRC.”

Instead, he says, “100% of the CHRC's targets have been white, Christian or conservative.”

Section 13 is the section of the Human Rights Act that deals with “hate crimes.” Over the years numerous Christians and conservatives have been prosecuted under this section, including Steve Boissoin, Bishop Fred Henry, Scott Brockie, Fr. Alphonse de Valk, and many others. Most of these individuals have come into conflict with homosexualists by defending traditional Christian teaching on sexual ethics.

Levant claims that in dismissing the complaint the CHRC “came up with a pretend excuse. I was let go because, they said, I had the ‘goal of furthering a public debate.’”

“Of course,” Levant continued, “that's exactly the goal Rev. Boissoin had. And Lynch convicted him.”

On his blog today Levant once again republished Rev. Boissoin’s letter to the editor, making clear that in doing so he has no intention of furthering any public debate, but rather that he is doing so “as a personal insult to (Canadian Human Rights Commission Chief Commissioner) Jennifer Lynch.”

Levant concludes, “It's legal for a Jew like me to publish [Boissoin’s letter]. It's illegal for a Christian like Rev. Boissoin to publish it. That's sick.”

 Back to Top

---

The Death of Catholic Culture and the Election of Barack Obama

Commentary by Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President, Human Life International

November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - It is impossible to speak of a "Catholic culture" in America any longer. A whole segment of the populace who call themselves "Catholics" do not feel bound by any standard of Catholic orthodoxy or sanity. In fact, it is impossible to even speak of a Catholic culture in most parishes!

At a recent "ministry faire" of a large Catholic parish in south Florida, the Respect Life ministry of the parish displayed its pro-life materials next to the table of the "social justice" committee of the same parish. Any commonality between the two ministries was simply in the space they shared. Their worldviews could not have been further apart, but they both call themselves Catholic.

In fact, the "social justice" people were positively aglow about the election of their new messiah, Barack Obama. Several of them were speaking of their plans to attend the Inauguration and were utterly unaware that there would be 100,000 people marching on the nation's Capitol two days later for the right to life of unborn Americans which they had just voted into irrelevancy by electing Obama to the highest office of the land. One of them even expressed shock at the provisions of the upcoming Freedom of Choice Act until he was confronted with the nasty little fact that his messiah had been a sponsor of that pernicious bill in the last Congress. True to form, he steadfastly refused to allow that truth to have any effect on his euphoria. His mind was made up, and he would not let himself be confused by facts. Needless to say, the orthodox, practicing, believing Catholic pro-lifers will not be attending the Inauguration.

How can these two groups sit side-by-side in the same pews and display their ministries in the same space at the same Catholic parish? Simply because this contradiction has been tolerated for years by those in charge of our Church. In this election season neither of these two groups received any guidance about voting according to Catholic principles because, as per usual, there was silence from the pulpit on the issue. The absolute failure of our church leaders to define for us what membership in the Church means - and then to enforce it - has led to the degradation of Catholic culture and the loss of meaning for things that are sacred. When Christ and Belial are considered equal partners in the sanctuary, then nothing in the sanctuary means anything any more and no meaningful standard exists to distinguish a true Catholic from a false Catholic.

The degradation of Catholic culture is largely, but not exclusively, the fault of the clergy. For four decades in the Catholic Church in America we have seen:

1) Liturgical abuses run rampant, aided and abetted by those in charge
2) Two or three generations of Catholics left un-catechized or taught with flimsy, Protestantized fluff passed off as Catholic education
3) Sexual abuse by clergy excused and unaddressed by the hierarchy
4) A blind eye turned to high profile dissent and political class heretics
6) Wholesale attacks on sacred teachings that receive virtually no response from our pastors (and if it weren't for Catholic Answers, EWTN and the Catholic League we would have no defense whatsoever)
7) The succumbing of our Catholic institutions of higher education to the ravages of political correctness, and the list goes on.

In the face of all this, should we be surprised that 54% of "Catholics" voted for Barack? Hardly.

The battle for Catholic culture begins with us, and there is no time like the present to don the armor of spiritual warfare. We either believe and practice what the Church teaches or we live as part of the shadow church, falsely trading on the Name Catholic for its benefits without at the same time shouldering the crosses that this entails.

There is, however, great hope for the future because the battle has already been engaged: new Catholic colleges are springing up to replace the old decrepit houses of heresy, new religious orders with abundant vocations and orthodoxy have arisen, home schooling families and strong lay movements are abundant now. Only when we take back our beloved Church from the false Catholics and clerics will our Church be able to stand up and rebuke the storm winds of paganism that are building faster than we care to admit.

This project is not without its price, however. The cost of being a true believer will undoubtedly be much higher than ever before in our lifetime. Starting now and into the next generation we as Catholics will have to show the world not only what we believe but that we are willing to lay down our lives for it as a witness to the truth.

 Back to Top

---

Letters to the Editor for Friday, November 21, 2008

Dear Editor,

Thanks for letting us know about the GoodSearch.  I'm using it now with Lifesitenews.com as the recipient.
 
Mark Price
Winnipeg, Manitoba

____________________________________

Dear Editor,

Thank you for all the great stories you are covering!  I am very interested in ALL!  One certainly does not get these stories or insights from other media.  God bless your efforts! 

Paula Huss
Coon Rapids, Minnesota

____________________________________

Re: University of Calgary Once Again Attempting to Censor Campus Pro-Life Club
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111906.html

Dear Editor,

I have just one suggestion for the brave pro-life students at the University of Calgary. 

Along with the compelling display of the atrocities of abortion, show the global connection for the general lack of respect for life by including in your display pictures of the violence in Dafur. Then, maybe, the officials of the University would leave you alone and allow you your rights of freedom of speech.

May God Bless you,
Ann Leatherman
Memphis, TN

____________________________________

Dear Editor,
 
Maria Shriver's interview in the Washington Post saying that she considers herself "a Catholic in good standing," and that "I pick and choose" whatever she wants to believe, is the same old problem we have encountered with these "Cafeteria Catholics." That's right: they pick and choose.
 
It frustrates us Catholics who are taught by our Church to believe and keep the commandments, and yet who have to watch some "Catholics" who do not abide by the teachings of the Church get away with it.
 
It is very clearly stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 2272 and in the Canon Law of the Church that whoever procures or helps procure an abortion, that person is excommunicated "latae sententiae." 
 
We would like for the Church to excommunicate all of them. This way we'll believe that our Church is true to her beliefs and does not accept these "tepid" people in our ranks. Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, etc. Why doesn't the Church do it? Could it be because of money? I want to believe not.
 
If the priests would tell this from all the Catholic Church pulpits, I'm afraid that they know that at next Sunday Mass, half the people will not show up. Is it about money?
 
Sincerely,
Enrique J. Canton
Coral Gables, Fl

____________________________________
 
To write a letter to the Editor: E-mail your letter to . Write "letter to the editor" in the subject line. Include your name, city and province or state of residence, as well as your phone # (the phone # is for our use only, and will not be published). Please note that all letters are subject to editing. LifeSiteNews.com will publish letters to the editor at its discretion, giving priority to the most concise, insightful and timely submissions.

 Back to Top

---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.