---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

Commentary on November 6 News

Dear Readers,

Pro-life forces are making it very difficult for the Obama/Pelosi Democrats to pass their deadly and duplicitous health care bill. Thankfully the Catholic bishops are finally playing a leading role in the attempt to at least stop the abortion funding aspects of the bill, although there is much more that is seriously wrong with the legislation than that.

Read Kathleen Gilbert's excellent commentary on the health care controversy.

The pro-abortion, pro-gay, etc. non-Catholic, "Catholic" left is a huge problem for the struggle to defend life and family. Deal Hudson provides some experienced commentary on this week's TIME article that seems to have been written to generate more division among Catholics at this very crucial time. We hope few will be taken in by the manipulations in the article.

It is surreal to see "Catholic" house lease Nancy Pelosi leading the dirty war against the good while, even now, no Catholic bishop has done anything to effectively hold her to account. And some still wonder why there was such an uproar over the Kennedy funeral. I think Pelosi proves the point. After that funeral she had to believe that there are no real spiritual consequences for pro-abortion, pro-gay militancy. Can you blame her?

Have a great weekend.

Steve Jalsevac
LifeSiteNews.com

 

 Back to Top

---

Pro-Life Dems Hold Out Against Health Bill, Could Push Vote to Next Week

Thousands storm Capitol to protest health care bill's abortion funding, immigration issues

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Although House leadership had vowed to set a vote on the health care overhaul for Saturday evening, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer indicated Friday that the vote may have to wait as they endeavor to scrape up enough support for the bill to pass.

"We're very close. Clearly, things happen. Delay tactics can be employed," Hoyer told reporters on a conference call.  Hoyer said that the ultimate vote on the bill could take place as late as Monday or Tuesday, in time to dodge further delay from Wednesday's Veterans Day holiday. 

Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Republican Leader John Boehner, responded drily to Hoyer's statements. "Nice try Rep. Hoyer, but you can't blame Republicans when the fact is you just don't have the votes," she said.

In addition to spending concerns over the bill - with an estimated cost of $1.2 trillion - the radical expansion of federal funding of abortion in the Obama administration's top domestic priority has emerged as its biggest hurdle.

On Thursday, a clarion call from pro-life Republican lawmakers drew thousands of citizens to Capitol Hill to protest the bill's abortion funding as well as its health coverage for illegal immigrants.  Rep. Boehner's office estimated the crowd at around 10,000.

Family Research Council Tony Perkins denounced the bill at the rally as "a bailout for the abortion industry."

About a dozen protesters criticizing the bill's abortion expansion were arrested at House Speaker Pelosi's office during Friday's rally.  Members of the group were variously charged with unlawful conduct, disorderly conduct, and unlawful entry.

 Back to Top

---

USCCB Condemnation Tears Facade off "Phony" Abortion Compromise for Health Bill

NRLC's Douglas Johnson called the Ellsworth Amendment "a political fig leaf made out of cellophane."

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A sound condemnation from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has helped dash the chances that the latest purported "compromise" on abortion in the health care overhaul proposed by Democrats could be smuggled through as a legitimately pro-life option.

The amendment in question, proposed by Democratic Rep. Brad Ellsworth this week, purports to remove "federal funding for abortion" in H.R. 3962 by hiring contractors to issue checks for abortion - essentially putting one more procedural step between abortion and those who pay for them through the government plan. 

The USCCB memo told congressional staff Thursday that U.S. bishops did not consider the amendment sufficient - that it does not, in fact, address any of the pro-life concerns in the health bill.

"On examination, it is not a meaningful compromise. It addresses none of the substantial criticisms offered by the Catholic bishops' conference and other pro-life advocates for health care reform," wrote Richard Doerflinger, secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the USCCB, in the memo.

In a column discussing the U.S. bishops' attitude towards the health bill, Denver auxiliary bishop James Conley noted that the U.S. bishops' have diligently worked to establish true pro-life language to the bill; but, "as of November 5, all those efforts have failed."  "'Common ground' thinking in Washington apparently has more reality as public relations than as public policy," wrote Conley.

The response by the USCCB may have a significant impact on pro-life lawmakers' resolve to block the abortion-expanding bill: Bloomberg reports that, according to Ellsworth, several pro-life representatives were waiting to hear the bishops' assessment before making up their mind about the language.
 
According to Rules Committee chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, the "rule" or parameters for voting on the House bill will allow a vote on the Ellsworth amendment - but will not allow a vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which would secure long-standing federal policy against abortion funding.  A vote on the rule is expected Friday evening.

"[The Ellsworth amendment] serves no purpose except to assist Speaker Pelosi in peeling votes away from an amendment that would flatly prohibit the public plan from paying for elective abortions," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

Johnson called the Ellsworth Amendment "a political fig leaf made out of cellophane."

"It directs the federal Secretary of Health to hire a contractor to deliver to abortion providers the payments for elective abortions, payments that are explicitly authorized by the bill [on page 110]," he said. "This is a money-laundering scheme -- a federally funded 'bag man' will deliver government funds to abortionists.  This is federal funding of elective abortion."

Pro-life Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) called Ellsworth's proposal equivalent to the government "taking out a contract on the unborn." 

Shortly before Ellsworth introduced his amendment, Smith had warned thousands of pro-lifers tuned into a Stop the Abortion Mandate webcast Monday to be on guard against phony compromises designed to strip support away from the critical Stupak/Pitts amendment. 

(Click here for contact information for elected officials)

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Pro-Life Lawmakers Condemn 'Sham' Health Bill Abortion Compromise 

11,000 on Abortion Mandate Webcast Warned against Phony Compromises in Healthcare Bill 

 Back to Top

---

Health Care Bill Includes Monthly Abortion Premium: House Minority Leader Boehner

By James Tillman

November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to House Republican Leader John Boehner, the government-run health care bill being considered in Congress would include "a monthly abortion premium ... [to] be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan."

On his blog Boehner states that this premium "will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services."

He continues: "Section 213 [of the bill] describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan.  The Commissioner must charge at a minimum 1$ per enrollee per month."

His statement immediately gathered attention among those favoring the health care bill, who denied that Boehner's post accurately portrayed the situation.

According to Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, however, "Boehner's post is perfectly accurate."

Johnson told David Brody of CBN News that "we call it the 'abortion surcharge.'  It is just one more thing illustrating what we've been saying: The bill explicitly authorizes the big new federal government health insurance plan, the public option, to pay for all elective abortions."

Nevertheless, Johnson continued by saying that "even if the Democratic leadership struck out the 'abortion surcharge,' the same fundamental problem would remain:  The 'public option' is a federal agency program, and when it pays for elective abortions, that is federal funding of abortion on demand -- no matter what convoluted cloaking devices the pro-abortion politicians invent to try to conceal what they are doing."

According to Boehner, such funding of abortion makes "Speaker Pelosi's 2,032-page health care monstrosity" an affront "to the American people."

In addition to speaking about the abortion premium, Boehner also states that the Health and Human Services Secretary "is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan."

The current Health and Human Services Secretary is Kathleen Sebelius, a pro-abortion "Catholic" who vetoed several pro-life bills during her time as Governor of Kansas.  She is infamous for having invited the recently murdered late-term abortionist George Tiller and his staff to a party at the governor's mansion in 2007.  Tiller had given significant quantities of money to Sebelius' campaign.

Boehner continues to write that, additionally, the "Speaker's plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions."

Boehner has previously made no secret of his opposition to the abortion-funding Democratic health-care bill.  As he wrote on National Review Online in July, "If a health-care bill doesn't lower costs for middle-class families, but does require them to subsidize abortion-on-demand with their hard-earned tax dollars, one has to ask a fundamental question: For whom was this bill actually written?"

He continued: "Was it written for the millions of Americans who were promised a health-care bill that lowers costs? Or is it really for the radical special-interest and lobbying groups that invested millions to elect a cooperative president and Congress?"

 Back to Top

---

Washington's Pro-Family Amendment Effort Defeated - R-71 Almost Certain to Pass

Microsoft, Google, Planned Parenthood, Nike, T-Mobile funded efforts to retain pro-gay domestic partnerhip law

By Peter J. Smith
 
OLYMPIA, Washington, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A pro-family referendum effort in Washington State to reject a domestic partnership law that gives homosexual couples all the rights and benefits of marriage without the name of "marriage" has ended in defeat. The cash-strapped effort came close, but not close enough to achieve victory at the ballot box in what has been described as a veritable "David and Goliath" contest.

The domestic partnership law had originally been passed by the state's legislature. But pro-family advocates managed to gather enough signatures to put the law to a popular vote. The ballot initative, R-71, if passed would ensure that the partnership law comes into effect.

The latest mail-in ballot results show Washington voters approving Referendum 71 by 52 percent (698,850 votes) to 48 percent (645,701), a lead that pro-family advocates concede would take nothing short of a statistical miracle to overcome.

Larry Stickney, campaign manager for Protect Marriage Washington, the umbrella group of pro-family organizations behind the Reject R-71 effort, told LifeSiteNews.com that they plan to wait it out for the rest of the afternoon (pacific time) to make fully certain of the result and then "probably at that point concede."

"We have been in a slugfest against a well-oiled political machine that had $3 million to spend, and the entire statewide media and political establishment behind them," Stickney said, "and our little rag-tad outfit stood them down pretty well and nearly beat 'em. So we feel pretty good about it."

The Approve R-71 effort received huge corporate donations and endorsements from industry giants Microsoft and Google. Washington Families Standing Together, the chief coalition working to pass the pro-domestic partnership ballot initiative, received donations from groups such as Nike, Planned Parenthood, and T-Mobile, as well as donations from liberal institutions such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the homosexualist Human Rights Campaign.

The most recent data available from Washington State's public disclosure database shows the defeated pro-family effort was heavily out-funded, and therefore heavily outgunned in its advertizing efforts. The public database shows that Approve R-71 forces mustered over $2.12 million dollars to fund their advertizing efforts, while pro-family advocates could only gather about $480,000 to reach out to voters.

Demographics, however, also played a role in the R-71 battle. All the counties east of the Cascades voted overwhelmingly to reject R-71, while the more suburban counties gathered around Puget Sound voted for the referendum.

Critical to R-71's passage was King county, where Seattle is located. Over 249,486 voters (or 67.26%) in King county approved R-71, while 121,458 (or 32.74%) voted to reject it. With R-71 passing in Washington by just 50,000 votes, King county tipped the balance decisively in favor of R-71.

"We're very, very proud of the effort," said Stickney. The Protect Marriage Washington coalition gathered thousands of volunteers and connected hundreds of pro-family leaders in conservative and Christian circles, establishing networks, mailing lists, and e-mail databases that will be critical to the next fight that will likely be over legalizing same-sex "marriage."

"We think that we can now start to compete with the big bucks folks from Seattle on a grassroots level through the use of electronic media, which we've utilized heavily."  

"I think we've proved we can take it right to them and run a genuine conservative issue, dish it out, and either win or be very close to winning," said Stickney, confident that the battle for R-71 was the beginning and not the end for the Protect Marriage Washington coalition. "So we're going to continue to be a genuine Christian organization with a robust faith in God as well as our mission to change the state." 

 Back to Top

---

Dirty Fighting on Abortion Funding: Word-Games and Health-Care Theatrics Boggle the Mind

Commentary by Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Deep in the thick of the health care brawl, the debate over abortion funding continues to grow even more bizarre - perhaps the word is "schizophrenic" - as the once-obscure issue inches closer to center stage.

One side of the abortion lobby, particularly House leadership, is working at fever pitch to break pro-life Democrats holding out for Hyde-amendment language in the health bill.  At the same time another side of the abortion lobby masterfully (either by flat-out doublespeak or uncannily calm forays into "compromise") persists in portraying the health care bill as the very picture of home-grown American values on abortion. 

A few words to cut through this semantic Gordian knot are in order.

First of all, let it be clear that H.R. 3962 explicitly authorizes the public plan to cover abortions.  The bill calls for taxpayer subsidies to go to plans that cover abortions, and every U.S. region will be required to host at least one abortion-funding plan.  This much is not disputed.

We'll focus on the first part: the public plan's abortion coverage.  It is true that insurance premiums, not funds collected from taxpayers, will underwrite the plan's abortions.  But whether you want to call this "government/federal" funding or not (we'll just call the phenomenon "funds appropriated by the government"), the point that pro-life leaders are making about the arrangement is this: the bill's handling of abortion radically alters federal policy by ensuring that Americans are paying for abortions. 

Federal policy under the Hyde amendment operates by the theory, upheld by the Supreme Court, that there is a valid state interest in not encouraging elective abortion.  From this point of view, elective abortion is not just any medical procedure, and is certainly not "essential health care" - as Planned Parenthood feels it should be.  Establishments such as the Associated Press and even Time magazine agree that the bill radically changes this attitude.

Moreover, one would expect President Obama's health bill to alter federal abortion policy in just such a way: in 2007 he assured Planned Parenthood that he considered abortion "essential care" and that it would be "at the center, and at the heart of the [health care] plan that I propose."  Accordingly, Planned Parenthood boasts affectionate ties with the White House over the effort.

But the moment abortion advocates try to sell this package to American citizens - who, as a rule, trend toward a far more conservative position on abortion than the likes of Planned Parenthood - is the moment things begin not to make sense. 

First, war was declared against the use of the term "government/federal funding."  This stems from the bill's deft prohibition of so-called "public" funds for abortion, while leaving intact the reality of the aforementioned funding process. Hence, based upon a technicality, opposition to "government-funded abortion" began to be roundly mocked as false. 

A recent example of such a salvo came in a neat, if seemingly contrived, package presented in a New York Times article. There, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service's assertion that the abortion-funding premiums "may be classified as federal funds or government funds" was conveniently contrasted with a Harvard professor's sniff at the definition as "sophistry."

Altogether, however, the strategy was a brilliant move: pro-lifers, stripped of a term that would allow open discussion of the alarming reality in the bill, were pushed into a corner. 

But the very best example of the word games that are characterizing the Democrat approach to the abortion debate, came from President Obama himself, who in August called the government abortion funding claim a "fabrication" - though FactCheck.org promptly shook its finger at that term. Later that month, he called it a "misunderstanding."  "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," Obama assured.

How does this jive with Obama's assurance to Planned Parenthood in 2007?  Michigan Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak found out.

Stupak has been leading the charge - blocked by Nancy Pelosi and company - to include language in the House bill that echoes the 33-year-old Hyde amendment, and thus restricts government-appropriated funds from abortion.  Wondering why Democrat leadership would not honor the president's anti-abortion pledge, he says, he gave President Obama a telephone call.

Astonishingly, Stupak told CNS News that Obama justified his statement by making a cryptic distinction between a theoretical "our plan"  - which would, supposedly, not federally fund abortions - and the existing plan in the House bill.

"[Obama] said: 'What it says is, under 'my' plan,' meaning the President's plan," Stupak told CNS News, in discussing Obama's August statement.  "And I said, 'With all due respect sir, you do not have a plan. The only plan we have out is the House plan." 

"So, I don't know if it's a game of semantics, or what," said Stupak.

It's this "game of semantics," of apparently purposeful verbal obfuscation, that has been the real spectacle in the past several months.  But especially interesting in the last week or so has been the theatrical performances of Democrat leadership - one feverish eye on the time bomb of public opinion - as they struggle to clear the abortion hurdle.

Enter the Ellsworth amendment, a so-called "compromise" measure that would put government-collected funds at one further remove from abortions by hiring out a contractor to write the checks.  For the USCCB and other pro-lifer leaders - as NRLC's Douglas Johnson eloquently noted - this was about as helpful as a "fig leaf made out of cellophane."

Yet somehow, the amendment seemed to awaken the peaceful, common ground-loving fuzzballs in Capitol Hill's most battle-worn abortion juggernauts.

"[Ellsworth] and others who have strong pro-life positions want to see a strong health-care bill passed, and they are working very hard to find language that achieves what honors their values and the commitment not to have federal funds used for abortion," gushed the 100% NARAL-approved Nancy Pelosi.

"We are concerned," Planned Parenthood vice president Laurie Rubiner explained cordially, "that this new language could tip the balance away from women's access to reproductive health care."

"We are not enthusiastic about his language, but we won't object to it," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the leader of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus.

Contrast this with the reaction to Stupak's attempts to include actual Hyde amendment language.

"There are those of us who want to see health reform passed and those who want to use it for their demagogue issues," fumed Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards about Stupak's efforts.  "Stupak has lost the big picture, in my opinion. He's trying to re-litigate the abortion issue, and it's unfortunate to see."  For NARAL, of course, Stupak's bid is nothing short of a "shameful abortion ban plot."

As for Pelosi, she has not commented directly on Stupak's amendment, but amid a vicious ideological stalemate that has consumed the nation's health care debate, Stupak admitted that the House speaker was "not happy with" her fellow Democrat.

No warm commendation for holding true to his pro-life values?  That's not very like her.

 

 Back to Top

---

TIME Article Setting Burke Against O'Malley Called "Tactical strike" on Behalf of Catholic Left

"A Tale of Two Priests" written by senior editor with history of disparaging Church's Abortion Teaching

By Steve Jalsevac

November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Nov. 5 TIME article pits Archbishop Raymond Burke against Boston Cardinal O'Malley over the issue of Church sanctions against pro-abortion Catholics. The article is said by US Catholic political analyst Deal Hudson to be "a tactical strike" on behalf of liberal Catholics "to divide bishops and to divide pro-life Catholics." Hudson indicates it is no coincidence that the article was published at the same time as Planned Parenthood is also working to divide Catholics on the abortion issue and Catholic US House leader Nancy Pelosi is attempting to ram her abortion paying health care bill through Congress.

The TIME article, "A Tale of Two Priests" was written by senior editor Amy Sullivan who Hudson says has a clear history of writing articles disparaging and misrepresenting the Catholic Church's position on abortion. A LifeSiteNews search for articles written by Sullivan verified Hudson's claim.

Sullivan begins the TIME article with a bang claiming that in his September 18 address at an InsideCatholic event, Archbishop Raymond Burke "charged Boston Cardinal Seán O'Malley with being under the influence of Satan, "the father of lies." Sullivan says, "Burke's broadside at O'Malley was inspired by the Cardinal's decision to permit and preside over a funeral Mass for the late Senator Ted Kennedy."

The TIME writer goes on to imply that Burke and those who agree with him hold an inferior position that "abortion trumps all other teachings" versus that of those "who take a more holistic view of the faith."

Deal Hudson responded to LifeSiteNews about Sullivan's article, stating, "the article is a tactical strike on behalf of the Catholic left. What is that strike? It is an attempt to divide bishops and to divide pro-life Catholics, you know, here go those who support Burke and here are those who don't."

Hudson explained, "first of all, she perpetrates the myth that Archbishop Burke's move to Rome was a demotion which could not be further from the truth, the proof being not only his position as the head of the Apostolic Signatura, but also his recent appointment to the Vatican Congregation for Bishops."

Second, Hudson stated, "it is not news that bishops disagree, but at a time when a prominent Catholic such as Nancy Pelosi is leading the charge, it is all too appropriate that bishops are publicly debating this issue."  He added, "American Catholics would be greatly confused if no bishops were speaking out against her effort." 

Hudson scored Sullivan for failing "to mention that the Catholic landscape in the United States has become so askew that the head of Planned Parenthood assumes the responsibility to lecture Catholics on the necessity of being pro-abortion." The comment referred to the recent email from Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards in response to the USCCB campaign against the health care bill in which she wrote the U.S. bishops "don't speak for all Catholics."

See additional Hudson commentary on the TIME article.

See later LSN Report:

TIME Got it Wrong - Prof. George Opposed Grandiose Kennedy Funeral

See LifeSiteNews Feature page, Kennedy Funeral Scandal

See additional articles by Amy Sullivan and critical commentaries:

The Catholic Crusade Against a Mythical Abortion Bill

Time's Amy Sullivan Misrepresents FOCA Battle, Obama's Abortion Support - NewBusters

The Catholic Choice

Time's Amy Sullivan Plays Up Teddy's Catholicism, Utterly Ignores His 100-Percent Record on Abortion, Gays

Time's Amy Sullivan Snarks About Those 'Furious' Pro-Life Catholics - Media Research Center Bias Alert

 Back to Top

---

New York Gov. Declares Nov. 10 Extraordinary Legislative Session for Same-Sex "Marriage"

By Peter J. Smith

ALBANY, New York, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Gov. David Paterson has convoked an extraordinary session of the New York State Legislature to address the state's soaring budget deficit, as well as to pass legislation that would legalize same-sex "marriage."

Paterson issued a special proclamation Thursday announcing the special session would convene on November 10 at noon. He said the legislature would take up consideration of the Governor's $5.2 billion "Deficit Reduction Plan" - a proposal which promises steep cuts in government spending - along with several other items including the same-sex "marriage" bill already passed by the Assembly.

The fate of same-sex "marriage" rests with the Senate, where Democrats hold a razor-thin 32-30 majority over Republicans. However the effort to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is led by Bronx Democrat and Hispanic minister Ruben Diaz Sr., who has been relentless in his efforts to keep the bill from coming to a vote until next year, when every member of the Senate will be up for re-election and have the consequences of their votes in mind.

Several Democrats have indicated they would vote with Sen. Diaz to block the same-sex "marriage" bill, meaning that Democrat leaders pushing the bill would have to count on peeling away some Republican votes.

However, even though Minority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) has agreed to allow party members a "conscience vote," punishment for voting the wrong way on same-sex "marriage" could come from another source: the newly invigorated conservative movement.

Sen. Malcolm Smith (D-Queens), President pro tempore of the Senate, expressed doubt to the New York Times that the measure would pass if it came to a vote. Sen. Smith said that GOP senators leaning toward supporting the bill "might have been spooked" by conservatives successfully demolishing socially liberal GOP Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava's bid for Congress in the NY-23 special election, whose position on same-sex "marriage" became a campaign issue.

A spokeswoman for Sen. John Sampson (D-Brooklyn), the caucus leader of Senate Democrats, would not tell the Times whether or not Sampson would allow the same-sex "marriage" bill to come to the floor for a vote.

Paterson is seeking to make New York the sixth US state to legalize same-sex "marriage." But his political window of opportunity to successfully rally support behind the legislation has closed sharply since the November election. Voters in the liberal enclave of Maine rejected same-sex "marriage" at the ballot box, reducing the number of states with same-sex "marriage" from seven to six, and some legislators in New Hampshire are proposing that state voters now should get the chance to have a referendum on their own same-sex "marriage" law.

Nonetheless it is Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr. (D-Bronx), who has proved Gov. Paterson's most intractable opponent, vowing to do whatever it takes to prevent the bill from getting to the floor of the Senate this year.

"I have been, I am, and I will be one of the strongest opponents of this bill," Diaz told LifeSiteNews.com in a telephone interview two weeks ago when news of the special session first became public.

While the Bronx Democrat has fought to keep a bipartisan majority in the Senate opposed to same-sex "marriage," he told LSN that he would "not oppose" the bill coming to a vote on the Senate floor in 2010. By then, lawmakers would have on their minds re-election and would be desirous of avoiding their votes on same-sex "marriage" becoming burning a campaign issue.

For that reason, Sen. Diaz said that Gov. Paterson was "desperate" to get the bill passed this year and secure their support for his own election effort.

"I can assure you, that the gay community will say goodbye to anything that has to do with gay 'marriage' next year," continued Diaz. "Whatever they want to do, they want to be sure to do it this year."

See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

New York Governor Says Gay "Marriage" Bill Back on Table for Upcoming Special Session 
LSN Exclusive interview with Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) who is spearheading opposition to the bill in the Senate

Total Breakdown in NY Senate Stalls Homosexual "Marriage" and Abortion Resolution  
  
Fight Erupts Over Backroom Dealing and "Mind Game" in New York Same-Sex "Marriage" Bill 

 Back to Top

---

New Hampshire Same-Sex "Marriage" Law in Crosshairs after Maine's Law Crumbles

By Peter J. Smith

CONCORD, New Hampshire, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Invigorated by their recent victory in Maine, pro-family advocates have now turned their attention to rolling back same-sex "marriage" in New Hampshire, where a law passed by the state legislature in June is set to take effect in January 2010.

Foster's Daily Democrat reports that social conservatives have seized the momentum of victory in Maine, and two options for a referendum will be put forward in the New Hampshire State House come January. The first proposal would repeal the same-sex "marriage" legislation signed by Gov. John Lynch in June. The second proposal would be a state constitutional amendment that would allow voters to have the final say on whether "the state shall only recognize the union of one man and one woman as marriage."

Same-sex "marriage" legislation in its final form passed in the New Hampshire House on June 3 by a vote of 198-176 and was approved by the Senate the same day in a 14-10 vote. The bill had gone through seven emendations over several months, including the insertion of key guarantees on religious freedom, before Gov. Lynch would sign the bill into law.

"The issue was brought forth against the will of the majority of people, by a minority of people who confuse the issue by saying it was an equal-rights issue," Rep. Jordan Ulery (R-Hudson) told the Democrat.

Ulery and four other bill sponsors are behind the repeal initiative and Rep. Dan Itse (R-Fremont) is the driving force behind the constitutional amendment.

Although the bill's original sponsor, Rep. Jim Splaine (D-Portsmouth), says he believes that attempts to hand same-sex "marriage" over to the people will ultimately fail in the legislature, he told the Democrat, "we have a fight cut out for us in January" once the legislature resumes.

Only five states have legal same-sex "marriage" in the United States: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa.

So far 31 states - the latest being the state of Maine - have voted to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Every single state where same-sex "marriage" has been put to a popular vote has seen it voted down.

See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

New York Gov. Declares Nov. 10 Extraordinary Legislative Session for Same-Sex "Marriage"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110604.html

New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex "Marriage": Governor Signs Bill
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060312.html

 

 Back to Top

---

Elderly U.K. Couple in Good Health Commit Suicide, Complain of Assisted Suicide Law

By Hilary White

November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An elderly, but healthy British couple who are thought to have committed suicide together, sent a letter to the BBC just before their deaths complaining about the law prohibiting assisted suicide.

Neither Dennis nor Flora Milner of Newbury, Berkshire, aged 83 and 81 respectively, were ill or disabled, the BBC reports. Instead they wrote that they had merely decided that they wanted to die while they were still able to live in their own home without assistance. Their bodies were found on Sunday morning by friends. Local police have said that the two "unexplained deaths" are "not thought to be suspicious."

The letter to the BBC reads, "We have each reached the point where all the finest available treatment and TLC can no longer attain the desired and acceptable level to support an enjoyable and worthwhile life.

"To force the issue beyond this point would mean for us a living death; we have therefore chosen to peacefully end our lives."

Mr. Milner added a postscript to the letter complaining of how difficult it had been "arranging this so that it does not fail."

"Today we have been denied what we believe to be our basic human right - to terminate our own lives, in our own home, at our own choosing, with our loved ones around us, without anyone having to face any legal possibilities or harassment."

He called the legal situation an "inevitable and ongoing serious human dilemma which needs to be urgently and positively resolved. Please help."

The couple's daughter, Chrissy, told the BBC that her parents had wanted "a good death" and that she and her brother Nigel "fully supported their decision." Milner said that although her parents did not suffer from serious illnesses or disabilities and admitted they were "generally fit and well," she said that they had both suffered from arthritic hips and her mother had macular degeneration.

"We wouldn't have considered, for one moment, trying to talk them out of it," she said.

"It was their choice to go. It was their decision to commit suicide and they had very sound reasons for doing so," she added.

But not everyone in Britain is so sanguine. Fr. Timothy Finigan, a theology professor and founder of the Association of Priests for the Gospel of Life, told LifeSiteNews.com that the case of the Milners, and especially the reaction of their adult children, exemplifies the power which the culture of death has acquired over the minds of people in Britain.

"There are polls," Fr. Finigan said, "that indicate a lot of people have been completely taken in on assisted suicide. But what it really indicates is the complete lack of value of the elderly in our society."

"Old age psychiatrists say that the problems of depression faced by many elderly people are largely because of the fact that they are not valued by their own families or by society as a whole. Wisdom isn't valued, the contributions they make to their own families aren't valued, to the point where they are encouraged to commit suicide."

Suicide, he said, is seen as the easy way out when faced with the difficulties of old age. "If there's an easy way out, and people are saying it's a good thing, it becomes an easy thing to convince people to commit sin."

"They've taken the advice from people in authority, from the media, heard all about the 'hard cases' and heard very little said against it. They have taken all that on board and a lot of ordinary people end up thinking assisted suicide is a good thing."

Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said that the case needs to be investigated by police "to establish whether any other person was involved in the deaths."

"We would like them to look into issues such as possible social or financial pressures the couple might have been under," Tully said. SPUC intends to press the issue with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and urge him to investigate.

SPUC warned that the reporting on the case could spur others to do the same to promote their "pet causes," including the abolition of the UK's assisted suicide law. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of the suicide campaign group Dignity in Dying - formerly known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society - was quoted early by the BBC saying that the case highlights the fears people have about "suffering unnecessarily at the end of life."

Wootton blamed the "lack of a safeguarded choice which can prompt people to take drastic action through fear."

 Back to Top

---

Texas Late-Term Abortionist and Baptist Minister Admits: "Am I killing? Yes, I am"

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

DALLAS, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a jarringly candid statement made to WFAA-TV in Dallas, Texas, late term abortionist and Baptist Minister Dr. Curtis Boyd said that when he performs abortions he is "killing," and he has no issues with it whatsoever.

"Am I killing? Yes, I am. I know that," Boyd said during a video interview with the news station following the opening of the Southwestern Women's Surgery Center abortion facility. By law, Boyd must have a surgery center in order to abort a child more than 16 weeks along.

"We see patients from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and across Texas," Boyd said, admitting that he has performed abortions on girls as young as nine years old.

"The hardest ones are the young girls," he said, saying that girls as young as 9 and 10 years of age have been to his center for abortions.

Boyd opened the first abortion facility in Texas in 1973 following the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision and is the only doctor in North Texas who will perform late-term abortions on women up to six months pregnant.

The abortionist said he was a friend of the late Dr. George Tiller, a fellow later-term abortionist in Witchita, Kansas who was gunned down earlier this year. Like Tiller he professes to be a Christian who prays about the abortions he does.

Boyd told WFAA-TV he is an ordained Baptist minister who has now joined the Unitarian church. He said he prays often.

"I'll ask that the spirit of this pregnancy be returned to God with love and understanding," he said.

Karen Garnett, of the Catholic Pro-Life Committee, who regularly witnesses to life outside the abortion centre, noted to WFAA-TV that Boyd's prayers are "vastly different" from the ones offered by the pro-lifers on behalf of the children he has killed and the mothers they are trying to save from undergoing an abortion.

"We're certainly disappointed to hear any unborn child will be killed by abortion," said Garnett. "But, to hear it's a late-term abortion in Dallas, once again, it's particularly devastating."

 Back to Top

---

New Evidence Contradicts CCHD's Findings on Accused Pro-Abortion Partner

By Patrick B. Craine

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - New evidence has been uncovered by the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry (BVM) which confirms that a partner group of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) that was accused by BVM of pro-abortion activities, but then subsequently defended by the CCHD, is indeed pro-abortion.

Following an August report by BVM which revealed that four CCHD-funded groups were promoting abortion and/or contraception, the CCHD defunded two of the groups, but defended the other two.

According to Bishop Roger Morin, chairman of the USCCB's CCHD subcommittee, in a memo to the U.S. bishops, these two groups "were investigated and, in consultation with the local dioceses, the charges proved to be inaccurate or a misunderstanding had occurred."

However, a new revelation regarding one of these groups, the Women's Community Revitalization Project (WCRP), raises serious concerns about the CCHD's investigative approach, and strengthens BVM's claim that reform is needed in the organization, particularly regarding their grant approval process.

"We have yet to hear an adequate explanation as to how our initial presentation regarding these two groups was flawed," BVM states, saying that they now "have further evidence to support our charge that the Womens Community Revitalization Project (WCRP) should be immediately stripped of all funding by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development."

The original report presented evidence that WCRP is a 'coalition partner' of WomenVote PA, an organization working for abortion 'rights' and promoting access to contraception.

Now, BVM has found that earlier this year WCRP was awarded a grant of $16,400 by the radical feminist funding organization Women's Way.  This group enforces a strict funding policy, which states, among other things, that certain groups are not eligible for funding.

These groups include those that "consider themselves to be pro-life;" those that "do not support a woman's full range of reproductive choices;" those "promoting abstinence-only sex education;" and those "opposing same sex relationships or marriage."

As a Catholic organization, and an arm of the USCCB, however, the CCHD's guidelines prohibit them from funding groups that violate Catholic moral teaching.  So, as BVM explains, "if the Womens Community Revitalization Project is eligible for this grant from Women's Way, by definition they are ineligible for funding by the CCHD."

Rob Gasper, BVM's founder, told LifeSiteNews.com that this new evidence appears to confirm all the more the need for CCHD to reform their approval process.  "We find it difficult to see how such an oversight has occurred," he said, commenting on the fact that CCHD "cleared" WCRP even after BVM's initial report.

"Catholics should know that the WCRP is still scheduled to receive CCHD funding and a portion of whatever they donate on Nov 22 may make its way to this grantee," he added.

LifeSiteNews.com contacted CCHD for comment, but did not hear back by press time.

See Reform CCHD Now website.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Call for Reform of U.S. Bishops' CCHD Bolstered by New Evidence 

Coalition of Catholic Groups Calls for Massive Reform of U.S. Bishops' Social Justice Arm 

USCCB's Social Justice Arm Caught Funding Pro-Abortion/Prostitution Groups: Takes "Decisive" Action in Response 

 Back to Top

---

Vote Pushed Back on Canadian Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Bill to Dec. 2

By Patrick B. Craine

OTTAWA, Ontario, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The House of Commons vote on Bill C-384, which seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, has been pushed back tentatively to December 2nd.

The private members bill, proposed by Member of Parliament Francine Lalonde (BQ-La Pointe-de-l'Île), received its first of two hours of debate on October 2nd.  The second hour was originally scheduled for November 16th, with a vote to follow shortly after.

Lalonde moved the date of the second debate to November 19th a few days ago by trading with another Bloc MP.  She's now traded again, delaying the debate until December 1st at 5:30 p.m., with a vote the next day.

"I think she's trying to create support for her bill," said Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.  "And I think the only way she can create it is by giving her some time, but she doesn't have time."

"The reality is that the support for Euthanasia and Assisted suicide is wide but thin," he wrote in an e-mail yesterday, in reference to polls that have shown widespread support for legalization.  "There is very little public pressure to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide outside of the academic or 'elite' circles. This has become a pet issue of the wealthy and the so-called academic class."

He pointed to the recent Environics poll, which indicated that 61% of Canadians support the legalization of euthanasia, but also that, of that number, only 25% 'strongly' supported it.  72% of those who were 'somewhat supportive' expressed concern that people would be euthanized without their consent.  Further, 69% of respondents wanted the government to prioritize palliative care, and only 18% wanted them to focus on legalization.

While Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.com that the bill will be defeated "without a question," he insisted in his e-mail yesterday that opponents of the bill must "maintain the pressure on members of parliament."

With the change in date, disability rights advocate Steven Passmore has moved his protest to December 1st from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m.  The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is urging people to join Passmore on Parliament Hill at that time.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Canadian Parliament Debates Euthanasia Bill 

New Poll Reveals that Canadians are Conflicted About Legal Euthanasia 

Confusion about Euthanasia Must be Dispelled Says Prominent Anti-Euthanasia Activist 

Anti-Euthanasia Group Questions Survey Suggesting Quebec MDs are Favorable to Euthanasia 

'Is the Quebec College of Physicians Deliberately Confusing Canadians on Euthanasia?' Asks Anti-Euthanasia Leader 

 Back to Top

---

Florida Abortion Facility Closes During 40 Days for Life

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

PENSACOLA, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last Friday, the 38th day of the autumn 40 Days for Life Campaign, the abortion facility at 6700 North 9th Avenue in Pensacola, Florida posted a 'Closed' sign on its door as pro-lifers prayed and kept vigil outside.

Ernie Cyr, the Pensacola 40 Days for Life coordinator, said the local 40 Days for Life team didn't even realize at the time what they were witnessing - the permanent closure of an abortion facility that had been in operation for more than 25 years.

Cyr explained that law enforcement officers went into the clinic on Friday to serve some legal papers, but no one really knew what was going on.

The following Monday, a simple legal notice appeared in the fine-print section of the local newspaper: "As of October 30th, 2009, The Community Health Center of Pensacola will be terminating its practice."

Further investigation revealed that the facility was licensed as a clinical laboratory for blood testing as well as an abortion clinic. However, an investigation by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) determined that the center's lab license had been expired for 413 days - a violation of state law. A retroactive fine of $1,000 per day was imposed, totaling $413,000.

"In lieu of paying the fine, the Community Health Center decided to shut down," said Tiffany Vause, AHCA press secretary.

Vause also said AHCA lawyers had offered the abortion facility a reduced fine as part of a settlement agreement, but they never received a response.

Ernie Cyr said that although the abortion centre staff refused to talk with TV reporters and no information is available on whether they intend to reopen the abortion center, the legal notice in the newspaper suggests that the closure is permanent.

"It's just a complete joy and what a blessing for our community to have this facility close," Cyr told WEAR-TV.

Bernadette Ensley, a University of West Florida student, and head of UWF's Students for Life group, said, "For this to up and close the last weekend of 40 Days for Life is really shocking and great!"

David Bereit, National Director of 40 Days for Life, commented on this latest abortion facility closure in his daily e-mail to 40 Days supporters.

"This now makes FIVE abortion centers CLOSED - facilities where people came to pray outside for an end to abortion during 40 Days for Life. Praise God indeed, for answering your prayers and the prayers of thousands of others!"

"This fall's campaign has been the most incredibly blessed 40 Days for Life effort yet," Bereit said. "There have been 571 lives spared from abortion that we know of this fall," he said. "There have been eight abortion industry employers who have left their jobs. … It's been a most eventful 40 days."

 Back to Top

---

Brooklyn Bishop Criticized for Recorded Message Praising Pro-Abortion Politician

By James Tillman

BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn has come under fire for praising New York Assemblyman Vito Lopez, who supports both abortion and same-sex "marriage," in recorded phone calls sent to voters just days before a highly-contested vote involving a City Council candidate supported by Lopez.

Assemblyman Lopez, however, has been endorsed by the NARAL Pro-Choice New York PAC.  In order to be endorsed by NARAL, a candidate has to answer eleven out of eleven questions in a fashion satisfactory to them, regarding topics such as parental notification laws, comprehensive sex education, Medicaid funding of abortion, and the codification and upholding of Roe v. Wade.

Additionally, Lopez voted to legalize same-sex "marriage" earlier this year.

Allies of the bishop, however, argue that his praise of Lopez neither amounts to an endorsement of all of Lopez' actions nor to a specifically political endorsement of a candidate.

"Do we agree with the assemblyman on same-sex marriage or abortion?" writes Msgr. Kieran Harrington in an article to be published in the diocesan newspaper tomorrow.  "No, of course we don't and the assemblyman is well aware of where we stand.  Does that mean that he ought to be denied the opportunity to be thanked for his assistance?"

The assistance to which Msgr. Harrington refers involved an extremely contentious measure that would have temporarily lifted the statute of limitations on cases involving sexual abuse. Lopez opposed and ultimately helped defeat that measure.

Such a measure would potentially have significantly cost the Brooklyn diocese; similar legislation passed in other states cost hundreds of millions of dollars to churches.

"Because of his stand, Assemblyman Lopez had to face protestors standing outside his office week after week," Msgr. Harrington writes. "The bishop wanted to call every constituent in the assemblyman's community to express our sincere gratitude for his firm and courageous stance."

Nevertheless, others have accused the bishop of yet more convoluted political maneuvering in his support of Lopez.  Councilwoman Diana Reyna, who ran against and defeated the candidate supported by Lopez, Maritza Davila, had opposed Lopez in a dispute over the zoning of a 31-acre parcel called the Broadway Triangle.  Reyna has suggested that the diocese removed a priest from his position as head of a local housing group that opposed Lopez' zoning in return for Lopez' efforts to defeat the child abuse bill.

"If the church wants to honor Assemblyman Lopez, why not do this Nov. 5?" asked Rob Solano, director of Churches United for Fair Housing, according to the New York Times. "Why so close to an election if it's not political?"

Msgr. Harrington, however, dismissed the idea that the calls were meant to influence the election. "His intent was to thank Vito, who has taken the greatest grief for helping us," he said.

The accusations come at the same time as another controversy regarding a political advertisement for a pro-abortion politician in the Brooklyn diocesan paper.  According to Commonweal Magazine Brooklyn's The Tablet recently ran a full-page, color ad for the resolutely pro-abortion Mayor Bloomburg of New York.  The ad featured a picture of Bishop DiMarzio and the mayor in Yankee stadium, each wearing Yankee gear, and said: "Mike Bloomberg: Protecting NYC's Catholic Schools. Fighting for Us."

Msgr. Harrington writes that the Tablet decided to accept political advertising because its previous decision to refuse it had "led to an increasing marginalization of the Catholic voice in the public sphere." Once the decision was made, he said, they knew it would require them "to accept political advertisements from any and all candidates."

"The vast majority of our readers would expect that the bishop of the diocese where two-thirds of city residents reside to have a working relationship with the mayor," he continues.  "We are especially grateful for the assistance of the mayor with respect to education.

"Does that mean that the bishop cannot, at the same time, profoundly disagree with the mayor on the issue of abortion or same-sex marriage?"

Interestingly, Bishop DiMarzio had previously spoken against honoring pro-abortion politicians, writing in The Tablet that Father Jenkins of Notre Dame "made a serious error in inviting President Obama to be the commencement speaker at Notre Dame, and even more so in conferring upon him an honorary degree."  In the same column he quotes the USCCB document, Catholics in Political Life, saying that the "Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles."

To respectfully contact the diocese of Brooklyn, click here.

 Back to Top

---

First Group of "Traditionalist" Anglicans in Britain Votes to Enter Catholic Church

By Hilary White

ROME, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a move that is a surprise to no one, the UK branch of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), the largest of the groups that broke away from the mainstream Anglican Church over the ordination of woman and the latter's support for active homosexuality, has been the first to formally accept the offer of Pope Benedict to enter into communion with the Catholic Church en masse.

Although the TAC is not large, being made up of only 20 or so parishes, the vote by the group to accept the invitation is expected to be a strong symbolic blow to the mainstream Anglican Church in its motherland of Britain, where it has been a leader in the acceptance of woman clergy and homosexuality. It is widely acknowledged that the Vatican's decision to extend its hand to traditionalist Anglicans comes in response to repeated requests, made public last year, by the TAC.

In a surprise announcement on October 20, the Vatican said that a document was being prepared that would create "personal ordinariates" that will allow "traditionalist" Anglicans to come into the Catholic Church in groups while retaining their liturgical and pastoral traditions, including the possibility of a married clergy. William Cardinal Levada, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said that the move had come in response to many requests from Anglicans around the world, clergy, laity and bishops, who objected to the growing acceptance of homosexuality in Anglicanism, especially in North America and Britain.

The website of the TAC in the UK reported last week, "This Assembly, representing the Traditional Anglican Communion in Great Britain, offers its joyful thanks to Pope Benedict XVI for his forthcoming Apostolic Constitution allowing the corporate reunion of Anglicans with the Holy See, and requests the Primate and College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion to take the steps necessary to implement this Constitution."

The leadership of the Traditional Anglican Community in Canada told LSN in an interview late last month that the life and family issues are a major factor in the attraction of the Catholic Church. Bishop Carl Reid of the Traditional Anglican Communion in Canada, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN), "When it comes to issues of morality, especially family and pro-life, our membership is very strongly on the same page as are Roman Catholics."

The pope's offer to Anglicans who adhere to traditionally Christian moral doctrine has infuriated the left in both the secular and religious worlds. Benedict XVI has been attacked most recently by former Catholic theologian and notorious opponent of Catholic moral teaching, Hans Kung, as well as innumerable journalists and editors who see the move as the Vatican turning back the ecclesial clock towards a pre-1960s traditional style. Kung accused Benedict, his former university colleague, of ecclesiastical "piracy" and said that the move undermines the decades-long work of "ecumenical dialogue."

John Allen, the leading American "liberal" Catholic journalist in Rome, gave a more sedate analysis, saying that the invitation to the Anglicans who are in agreement on the nature of truth, doctrine and biblical inerrancy, is indeed part of the pope's greater plan to combat the growing secularist "dictatorship of relativism" that the pontiff has warned is undermining the very structure of our civilization.

"Benedict XVI is opening the door to ... traditionalist Anglicans in part because whatever else they may be, they are among the Christians least prone to end up, in the memorable phrase of Jacques Maritain, 'kneeling before the world,' meaning sold out to secularism," Allen wrote in a column today.

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, an American priest-blogger with connections inside the Vatican, has commented that with this decision (one that was fought by many bishops in his own Church), the pope has earned the title, "Pope of unity."

The Anglicans who may take advantage of the new "canonical structure," Zhusldorf wrote, "are Christians who are separated from clear unity with the Church. Pope Benedict stresses the importance of his role as Pope as being one of promoting unity. It is not just that they a Christians who tend to agree with him. They are separated. He is trying to reintegrate them."

"If we are going to fight the dictatorship of relativism," Fr. Zuhlsdorf continued, "we need a strong Catholic identity. If we are going to evangelize, we need a strong Catholic identity. If we are going to engage in true ecumenism, we need a strong Catholic identity.  Liturgy is the key component in his 'Marshall Plan' for the Church."

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Traditional Anglican Communion "On the Same Page" as Vatican on Life and Family: Canadian TAC Head 

Vatican Guilty of "Divisiveness" for Anglican Reunification Offer: Leftist Critics 

Anglican Acceptance of both Abortion and Sanctity of Life will Allow the Creation of a Gay Church: Gene Robinson 

 Back to Top

---

Quebec Priest Denies Possibility of Sexual Reorientation Therapy on TV

By Patrick B. Craine

QUEBEC, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On a Quebec news program aired Wednesday, infamous pro-abortion and homosexualist Catholic priest Fr. Raymond Gravel argued that homosexuals cannot overcome their homosexual desires, claiming that homosexuality is natural.

"I think we can't come out of homosexuality," stated the priest and former Bloc Quebecois MP, who stepped down from political life last year following an order from the Vatican.  "And those who have tried to come out of homosexuality, nature has caught up to them."

Fr. Gravel was speaking on Dumont 360, hosted by Mario Dumont, the former leader of the Action démocratique du Québec party.  Dumont led Fr. Gravel and Laurent Leclerc, a former homosexual who insists that he successfully underwent reorientation therapy, in a discussion about the possibility of reorientation.

The debate was sparked by a session being held by a Catholic parish, in which parents were supported in developing their children's "heterosexual potential."

Leclerc explained that when he was still homosexual he could not believe that he was born that way.  "At a certain point in my life, it became impossible to me that I was born homosexual," he said.

"I underwent a therapy that is called reparative or restorative," he continued.  "It exists. There are thousands of homosexuals, of people who experienced homosexuality who have undergone this kind of therapy."

But Fr. Gravel dismissed Leclerc's claim.  "And these thousands of people who have come out of homosexuality, where are they?" he asked.  "I have never met any of these people. You're the only one I've ever met."

Rather, the priest insisted that "We have to help [homosexuals] to come to terms with themselves and help them live according to what they are."

Fr. Gravel explained that, in his experience, any man he knew who tried to "come out of homosexuality" had been unsuccessful.

When Leclerc explained the therapy he underwent, Gravel responded by accusing him of calling homosexuality a disorder in need of being healed.  "Therefore we come back to say that homosexuality is a deficiency, therefore a sickness, therefore we can come out of it," he said.

Fr. Gravel went on to claim that sessions encouraging heterosexuality were "dangerous" because they could lead, for example, to a sixth grade child feeling harassed by his parents suggesting that his homosexual feelings were not normal. 

Leclerc criticized Gravel's comments, however, as an example of the prejudice against ex-gays within the homosexual community that prevents some people from identifying as having left the homosexual lifestyle. "There are few people who accept to identify as ex-gay because the homosexual community comes down on us and tells us: no, you're in error.  And that's the new religion," he said.

"My only goal in going to the meeting, and my only goal in coming here tonight was to give hope to people who say to themselves 'I'm not comfortable with this, and there are ways of getting out of it'," he said.

The Catholic Church teaches that "deep-seated homosexual tendencies [are] objectively disordered," as the Congregation for Catholic Education explained in their 2005 instruction denying ordination to men with such tendencies.

A significant body of evidence, including the personal testimonies of numerous men and women, confirm that reparative therapy can indeed be effective.

In June, a meta-analysis of research going back over 100 years was released by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), revealing that treatment for unwanted homosexuality most definitely can be beneficial.  Despite Fr. Gravel's claim, and that of the American Psychological Association (APA), the analysis showed that reparative therapy is effective and generally not harmful. It also demonstrated that pathology has been found to be significantly greater in the homosexual community.

Commenting on the APA's August decision to officially reject reparative therapy, NARTH Vice-President of Operations David Pruden insisted that a neutral look at the research forces one to conclude that "homosexuality is not invariabl[y] fixed in all people, and some people can and do change, not just in terms of behavior and identity but in core features of sexual orientation such as fantasy and attractions."

See the video (in French) here.

To respectfully present your concerns to Fr. Gravel's bishop:

Most Rev. Gilles Lussier
Bishop of Joliette
2, rue Saint-Charles-Borromée Nord
C.P. 470
Joliette, Québec
J6E 6H6

Tel:(450) 753-7596
Fax:(450) 759-0929
E-mail: chancel@diocesedejoliette.org

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Mega Analysis of Over 100 Years of Research Shows Treatment for Unwanted Homosexuality Beneficial 

APA Officially Rejects Reorientation Treatment for Homosexuals 

Catholic Priest Speaks at Quebec Gay Activist Conference 

Canadian Catholic Priest/Politician Says He Supports Abortion on TV Show 

 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.