The Editors

An open letter to the students of St. Peter’s Catholic High school

The Editors
The Editors

“The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience.”
        - Mother Teresa

Dear students,

Many of you have come to our website in the last few days to write comments defending your civics teacher, Mr. Searle, and to vent your frustration about the cancellation of this week’s trip to Ohio.

Firstly, it’s worth observing that at no point did LifeSiteNews.com call for the trip to be cancelled. It is unfortunate that one misguided decision to include a strong partisan element has scuttled what otherwise may have been a memorable educational experience. And secondly, we have never questioned Mr. Searle’s teaching abilities or character. Your comments have made it abundantly clear that Mr. Searle is a charismatic and well-liked teacher.

Quite simply, the controversy over this trip is about whether students at a Catholic high school should be travelling to support Barack Obama, the most extreme pro-abortion President in American history: the same President who has been strongly condemned by the country’s Catholic bishops for attacking freedoms of conscience and religion, especially those of Catholics.

When we first reported on the trip, we spoke to one mother who expressed concerns that Obama is pro-abortion. However, many of you have dismissed this mother’s concerns, arguing that the president’s views on this issue are irrelevant and that the purpose of the trip was not to “support abortion.” Some of you have even made the claim that one can be both Catholic and “pro-choice.” We can understand how you might have come to those views. But we regret that your Catholic schools have failed in their duty to equip you with the truth about abortion – the greatest civil rights issue facing our generation.

The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is murder. It does so not based upon some abstract theological argument, but rather on the basis of modern science, which demonstrates conclusively that human life begins at the moment of conception, and that from conception forward life is simply an ongoing process of development.

The greatest threat to “abortion rights” today is not the pro-life movement, but the widespread availability of the ultrasound, which has opened a window into the womb, exposing the undeniable truth that the preborn child is as human as any of us – and therefore possesses the basic human right not to be killed. Is it any wonder, then, that abortionists have gone to great lengths to make sure mothers do not see an ultrasound image of their child before undergoing an abortion?

Every year in Canada some 100,000 unborn children are killed through abortion. In the United States, the number is much higher. If indeed abortion is murder, then there is no more pressing issue facing us today, because no other issue involves such a massive loss of innocent human life.

As well, we must consider the welfare of the mothers of these babies, who are often pressured into abortions by unsympathetic boyfriends and husbands, and who are often traumatized as a result. Many fathers, too, have been negatively affected by abortion, especially in the heart-breaking circumstance when they have wished to keep and care for their child.

While Mr. Searle is a popular civics teacher, we humbly submit that he has failed in one important duty as a civics teacher at a Catholic school if he has not informed you about Mr. Obama’s positions on critical moral issues such as abortion.

Here are a few key facts that you should know about the sitting U.S. president:

→ Mr. Obama voted three times while a senator in the Illinois senate against a bill that would have protected babies born alive after failed abortions from being abandoned and left to die. The bill was introduced after a nurse at an Illinois hospital witnessed living babies being taken to a utility room in the hospital, and then left on a table to die. Obama expressed concerns that supporting the bill would somehow restrict legal abortion. However, even after an amendment was introduced to the bill, explicitly stating that the bill would in no way affect abortion rights, he still voted against it, effectively voting to protect infanticide. It may sound too horrific to be true, but unfortunately, it is. You can find out more here. A later federal version of the bill was passed with the overwhelming bi-partisan support of Republicans and Democrats – putting President Obama on the extreme fringe even of his officially pro-abortion party.

→ Mr. Obama opposed a federal ban on the so-called “partial-birth abortion” procedure. In a partial-birth abortion, a fully-formed baby is mostly born, with only his head still remaining in his mother’s birth canal. Scissors are then used to puncture a hole in the back of the skull, into which a suction device is inserted, which vacuums out the baby’s brains, killing the baby. The skull is then crushed and the body of the baby is removed and discarded. Even though numerous medical organizations testified that there is no conceivable medical reason for a partial-birth abortion, Obama opposed the legislation, saying it should include “exceptions” for the health of the mother.

→ Mr. Obama has also expressed support for so-called “late-term” abortions, in which fully-formed, living babies into the third trimester of pregnancy are literally ripped apart, limb-by-limb. You can read one former abortionist’s description of this process here. Be warned, the descriptions are gruesome, graphic, and heart-rending.

→ Recently top Obama aides were asked to name any abortion restrictions that the president supports. They could not think of a single one.

→ Earlier this year the Obama administration issued a new rule that requires nearly all employers to provide contraception, sterilizations and drugs that can cause early abortions to their employees free of charge. All of these things violate Catholic moral teaching. Since then, dozens of Catholic employers have sued the Obama administration. The U.S. bishops have strongly spoken out against the rule, calling it an unprecedented attack on freedom of religion in the United States. Despite the massive backlash from Catholics, Obama has continued to defend the rule, and refused to consider allowing those who object on moral grounds to opt out.

→ On his very first day in office, President Obama rescinded a rule called the Mexico City Policy, which forbade U.S. foreign aid money from going to groups that promote or perform abortions.

This is really only the tip of the iceberg of Mr. Obama’s abortion activism. During the current presidential campaign, the president has made abortion rights a central element of his platform, mentioning his support for abortion and the country’s #1 abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, wherever he goes.

In short, it is not possible to argue that Mr. Obama’s abortion support is simply one among many issues the president supports. It is an issue of life and death for millions of unborn babies, whose only crime was being conceived. One can try to argue that it’s ok to support a pro-abortion candidate despite his support for abortion (the Catholic Church would disagree), but certainly it is impossible for any voter or political activists with a moral conscience to simply ignore the issue as inconsequential.

As Pope Benedict said in 2006, abortion is “today’s gravest injustice.”

There are other issues as well that should be of grave concern to Catholics or any voter of good will, including Mr. Obama’s support for embryonic stem cell research, which exploits human life at its earliest stages, as well as his support for same-sex ‘marriage.’ Any discussion about political candidates in a Catholic school should include an analysis of the candidates’ stance on these issues.

We sincerely hope that Mr. Searle and other teachers at your school will renew their dedication to the school’s mission to impart an authentically Christian worldview to their students, equipping you to make a positive difference in a world that is all too hostile to the fundamental values of life, family, faith and freedom. And certainly we encourage you, students at a Catholic school, to spend some time researching the truth about abortion and other key moral issues.

Sincerely,
The LifeSiteNews.com team

Just $5 for PRO-LIFE?

If each person who read this donated just $5, LifeSite would surpass our critical fall campaign goal. Please, donate today!


Share this article

Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Sandra Cano, ‘Mary Doe’ of Doe v. Bolton, RIP

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Image

Sandra Cano, the woman whose divorce custody case morphed into a Supreme Court decision extending the “constitutional right” to an abortion throughout all nine months of pregnacy, has passed away of natural causes.

Cano was “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, the other case settled by the High Court on January 22, 1973. In 1970, at 22, Cano saw an attorney to divorce her husband – who had a troubled legal history – and regain custody of her children. The Georgia resident was nine weeks pregnant with her fourth child at the time.

Cano said once the attorney from Legal Aid, Margie Pitts Hames, deceptively twisted her desire to stay with her children into a legal crusade that has resulted in 56 million children being aborted.

“I was a trusting person and did not read the papers put in front of me by my lawyer,” Cano said in a sworn affidavit in 2003. “I did not even suspect that the papers related to abortion until one afternoon when my mother and my lawyer told me that my suitcase was packed to go to a hospital, and that they had scheduled an abortion for the next day.”

Cano was so disgusted by the prospect that she fled the state.

Yet the legal case went on, winding up before the Supreme Court the same day as Roe v. Wade. The same 7-2 majority agreed to Roe, which struck down state regulations on abortions before viability, and Doe, which allowed abortions until the moment of birth on the grounds of maternal “health” – a definition so broad that any abortion could be justified.

All the justices except Byron White and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed that “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age” are all “factors [that] may relate to [maternal] health.”

“I was nothing but a symbol in Doe v. Bolton with my experience and circumstances discounted and misrepresented,” Cano said in 2003.

Two years later, she told a Senate subcommittee, “Using my name and life, Doe v. Bolton falsely created the health exception that led to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion... I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care. I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind.”

On the 30th anniversary of the case, she asked the Supreme Court justices to revisit the ruling that bears her pseudonym, but they denied her request. “I felt responsible for the experiences to which the mothers and babies were being subjected. In a way, I felt that I was involved in the abortions – that I was somehow responsible for the lives of the children and the horrible experiences of their mothers,” she explained.

By that time, both Cano and Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, opposed abortion and implored the Supreme Court to overturn the rulings made in their names. Both also said their pro-abortion attorneys had misrepresented or lied about their circumstances to make abortion-on-demand more sympathetic.

"I pledge that as long as I have breath, I will strive to see abortion ended in America,” Cano said in 1997.

Priests for Life announced last week that Cano was in a hospital in the Atlanta area, in critical condition with throat cancer, blood sepsis, and congestive heart failure.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“My heart is broken that Sandra will never witness an end to abortion,” Janet Morana said. “She never wanted to have an abortion. She never had an abortion, and she certainly never wanted to be a part of the Supreme Court decision, Doe v. Bolton, that opened the gates for legal abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason.”

“Sandra’s work to overturn that devastating decision that was based on lies will not end with her death,” Fr. Frank Pavone said. “When life ultimately triumphs over death, Sandra will share in that victory.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

First we killed our unborn children. Now we’re killing our own parents.

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

In a culture that elevates transient pleasure as a “value,” while reducing “value” itself to a subjective and utilitarian status, I suppose it should not be surprising that the worth of human beings is now constantly in question.

We once lived in a culture that drafted laws to protect “dependents”: the very young, the very old, and the disabled. This was done in recognition of the fact that a human being’s increased vulnerability correspondingly heightens our moral responsibility to that human being.

Now, however, the exit strategists of the Sexual Revolution are burning the candle at both ends - abortion for children in the womb, euthanasia and “assisted suicide” for the old. Both children and elderly parents, you see, can be costly and time-consuming.

We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.

I noted some time ago that the concept of “dying with dignity” is rapidly becoming “killing with impunity,” as our culture finds all sorts of excuses to assist “inconvenient” people in leaving Planet Earth.

There is a similarity to abortion, here, too—our technologically advanced culture is no longer looking for compassionate and ethical solutions to the complex, tragic, and often heartbreaking circumstances. Instead, we offer the solution that Darkness always has: Death. Disability, dependence, difficult life circumstances: a suction aspirator, a lethal injection, a bloody set of forceps. And the “problem,” as it were, is solved.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.

There is something chilling about the intimacy of these killings. As Gregg Cunningham noted, “Ours is the first generation that, having demanded the right to kill its children through elective abortion, is now demanding the right to kill its parents through doctor-assisted suicide.” The closest of human relationships are rupturing under the sheer weight of the selfishness and narcissism of the Me Generation.

The great poet Dylan Thomas is famous for urging his dying father to fight on, to keep breathing, to live longer:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Such sentiment is not present among the advocates of euthanasia. In fact, the tagline “dying with dignity” is starting to very much sound like, “Now don’t make a fuss, off with you now.” Consider this story in The Daily Mail from a few days ago:

An elderly husband and wife have announced their plans to die in the world's first 'couple' euthanasia - despite neither of them being terminally ill.

Instead the pair fear loneliness if the other one dies first from natural causes.

Identified only by their first names, Francis, 89, and Anne, 86, they have the support of their three adult children who say they would be unable to care for either parent if they became widowed.

The children have even gone so far as to find a practitioner willing to carry out the double killings on the grounds that the couple's mental anguish constituted the unbearable suffering needed to legally justify euthanasia.

… The couple's daughter has remarked that her parents are talking about their deaths as eagerly as if they were planning a holiday.

John Paul [their son] said the double euthanasia of his parents was the 'best solution'.

'If one of them should die, who would remain would be so sad and totally dependent on us,' he said. 'It would be impossible for us to come here every day, take care of our father or our mother.'

I wonder why no one considers the fact that the reason some elderly parents may experience “mental anguish” is that they have come to the sickening realization that their grown children would rather find an executioner to dispatch them than take on the responsibility of caring for their parents. Imagine the thoughts of a mother realizing that the child she fed and rocked to sleep, played with and sang to, would rather have her killed than care for her: that their relationship really does have a price.

This is why some scenes in the HBO euthanasia documentary How To Die In Oregon are so chilling. In one scene, an elderly father explains to the interviewer why he has procured death drugs that he plans to take in case of severe health problems. “I don’t want to be a burden,” he explains while his adult daughter nods approvingly, “It’s the decent thing to do. For once in my life I’ll do something decent.”

No argument from the daughter.

If we decide in North America to embrace euthanasia and “assisted suicide,” we will not be able to unring this bell. Just as with abortion and other manifestations of the Culture of Death, the Sexual Revolutionaries work hard to use heart-rending and emotional outlier examples to drive us to, once again, legislate from the exception.

But for once, we have to start asking ourselves if we really want to further enable our medical community to kill rather than heal. We have to ask ourselves if the easy option of dispatching “burdensome” people will not impact our incentive to advance in palliative care. And we have to stop simply asking how someone in severe pain might respond to such a legal “service,” and start asking how greedy children watching “their” inheritance going towards taking proper care of their parents.

And to the pro-life movement, those fighting to hold back the forces of the Culture of Death—the words of Dylan Thomas have a message for us, too.

Do not go gentle into that good night…
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Advertisement
Featured Image
Luka Magnotta http://luka-magnotta.com
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

,

Gay porn star admits dismembering ex-lover and molesting his corpse on film

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

Montreal gay porn actor Luka Magnotta admits killing and dismembering his ex-lover and molesting his corpse on film, but pled not guilty on Monday to all five charges filed against him.

Magnotta shocked the world in June 2012 by allegedly killing and cannibalizing a 33-year-old university student from China, Jun Lin, then posting a video of his actions and the results online. He later hid some of the dismembered parts in the garbage, but also mailed parcels containing body parts to political offices in Ottawa and schools in Vancouver.

He was charged with first-degree murder, committing an indignity to a body, publishing obscene material, mailing obscene and indecent material, and criminally harassing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other MPs.

Magnotta's lawyer Luc Leclair is basing the not guilty plea on the defendant having a history of mental illness, thus making him not criminally responsible.

Crown prosecutor Louis Bouthillier said he intends to prove that Magnotta planned the alleged murder well before it was committed.

"He admits the acts or the conducts underlying the crime for which he is charged. Your task will be to determine whether he committed the five offences with the required state of mind for each offence," Quebec Superior Court Justice Guy Cournoyer instructed the jury, according to media reports.

However, some authorities have pointed out that Magnotta’s behavior follows a newly discernible trend of an out-of-control sexual deviancy fueled by violent pornography.

Click "like" if you  say NO to porn!

Dr. Judith Reisman, an internationally-recognized expert on pornography and sexuality, told LifeSiteNews in 2012 she believes Magnotta’s behavior “reflects years of brain imprinting by pornography.”

“His homosexual cannibalism links sex arousal with shame, hate and sadism,” said Reisman. Although cannibalism is not as common as simple rape, she added, “serial rape, murder, torture of adults and even of children is an inevitable result of our ‘new brains,’ increasingly rewired by our out-of-control sexually exploitive and sadistic mass media and the Internet.”

In their 2010 book “Online Killers,” criminology researchers Christopher Berry-Dee and Steven Morris said research has shown “there are an estimated 10,000 cannibal websites, with millions ... who sit for hours and hours in front of their computer screens, fantasizing about eating someone.” 

This underworld came to light in a shocking case in Germany in 2003, when Armin Meiwes was tried for killing his homosexual lover Bernd Jürgen Brandes, a voluntary fetish victim whom Meiwes picked up through an Internet forum ad seeking “a well-built 18- to 30-year-old to be slaughtered and then consumed.”

After the warrant was issued for his arrest, Magnotta was the target of an international manhunt for several days until he was arrested in Berlin, where police say he was found looking at online pornography alongside news articles about himself at an Internet café.

The trial is expected to continue to mid-November, with several dozen witnesses being called to testify before the jury of six men and eight women.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook