Matthew Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent

, ,

Full translation of Pope Francis’ (Cardinal Bergoglio) 2005 pro-life homily

Matthew Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent
Matthew Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent

Homily of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos AIres and Primate of Argentina, given during a mass in honor of the Holy Protector of Pregnant Women, Saint Raymond Nonnatus (August 31, 2005).

Translated by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman of LifeSiteNews.com, March 15, 2013

When one listens to what Jesus says: Look, "I send you, I send you like sheep amongst the wolves," one wants to ask: "Lord, are you joking, or do not have a better place to send us?" Because what Jesus says is a little chilling: "if you proclaim my message, they are going to persecute you, they are going to slander you, they are going to set traps to deliver you to the courts and to have you killed.  But you must continue forward.  For that reason, take care, Jesus says, and be astute, be clever like the serpent but very simple like doves," joining the two things.

The Christian cannot allow himself the luxury to be an idiot, that's clear. We don’t have the luxury to be fools because we have a very beautiful message of life and we’re not permitted to be fools.  For that reason, Jesus says, "Be astute, be careful."  What is the astuteness of the Christian?  In knowing how to discern who is a wolf and who is a sheep. 

And when, during this celebration of life, a wolf disguises himself as a sheep, it's knowing how to smell him. "Look, you have the skin of a sheep but the smell of a wolf." And this, this mandate that Jesus gives us is very important. It's for something very great.  Jesus tells us something that attracts our attention, when someone asks him: "well, why did you come into the world?" "Look, I come to bring life and for that life to be in abundance, and I am sending you so that you can advance that life, and so that it will be abundant."

Jesus didn't come to bring death, but rather, the death of hatred, the death of fighting, the death of calumny, that is, killing with the tongue.  Jesus did not come to bring death, the death that He suffered for defending life.  Jesus came to bring life and to bring the abundant life, and he sends us out, carrying that life, but he tells us: "Care for it!" Because there are people who have what we are hearing about today, who aren't involved in the Gospel:  the culture of death.  That is, life interests them insofar as it is useful, insofar as it has some kind of utility and if not, it doesn't interest them.  And throughout the world, this weed has been planted, of the culture of death.

I was reading a book a while back, where this disturbing phrase was found: "In the world of today, the cheapest thing is life, what costs the least is life" -- which is, therefore, the most disregarded thing, the most dispensable thing.

This elderly man, this elderly woman, are useless; discard them, let's throw them in the nursing home like we hang up the raincoat during summer, with three mothballs in the pocket, and let's hang it in the nursing home because they're now disposable, they're useless.

This child who is on the way is a bother to the family. "Oh no, for what? I have no idea.  Let's discard him and return him to the sender."

That is what the culture of death preaches to us.

This child that I have at home, well, I don't have time to educate him. Let him grow up like a weed in the field, and this other child who doesn't have anything to eat, not even little shoes to go to school, and well, I'm very sorry, but I'm not the redeemer of the whole world.

That's what the culture of death preaches. It's not interested in life.  What interests it? Egoism. One is interested in surviving, but not in giving life, caring for life, offering life.

Today, in this shrine dedicated to life, in this day of the patron saint of life, Jesus again says to us: "Care for it! I came to bring life, and life in abundance, but care for it!  You are going to be surrounded by wolves; you are to be the ones to defend life, to care for life.

Care for life! What a beautiful thing one sees -- which I know! -- that a grandfather, a grandmother, who perhaps can no longer speak, who is paralyzed, and the grandson or the son comes and takes their hand, and in silence cherishes them, nothing more.  That is caring for life.  When one sees people who take care so that this child can go to school, so that another doesn't lack food, that is caring for life.

Open your heart to life!  Because the egoism of death, the egoistic culture of death, is like the weed in the field, that weed, that grass or black weed, or that hemlock, is growing, it is invading and kills the trees, kills the fruit, kills the flowers, kills life.  The weeds.  Remember that once Jesus spoke of that.  He said: "When the seed is life, it falls in the middle of the weeds, and the thorns choke it, " the thorns of egoism, of the passions, of wanting everything for one's self.  Life is always giving, gives itself, and it is costly to care for life. Oh how it costs! It costs tears.

How beautiful is caring for life, allowing life to grow, to give life like Jesus, and to give it abundantly, not to permit that even one of these smallest ones be lost.  That is what Jesus asked of the Father: "that none of those whom You have given me be lost, that all of the life that You gave me to care for, might be cared for, that it might not be lost."  And we care for life, because He cares for our life from the womb.  We have it in the motto for this year: "From the womb you were our protector." He cares for us and he teaches us that.

We (modern society) don't care for life.  Because there is an ethical order of caring for life, we simply care for life. Jesus teaches us to care for life because it is the image of God, who is absolute life.  We cannot announce anything else but life, and from the beginning to the end.  All of us must care for life, cherish life, with tenderness, warmth.

But it is a road that is full of wolves, and perhaps for that reason they might bring us to the courts, perhaps, for that reason, for caring for life they might kill us.  We should think about the Christian martyrs.  They killed them for preaching this Gospel of life, this Gospel that Jesus brought.  But Jesus gives us the strength.  Go forth!  Don't be fools, remember, a Christian doesn't have the luxury of being foolish, I'm not going to repeat, an idiot, a fool, he can't give himself the luxury.  He has to be clever, he has to be astute, to carry this out.

When one speaks of these things of the culture of life, to which we are called, one feels the sadness that, in these hearts, and even from childhood, the culture of death has been sown.  Egoism is sown in them, the "well, and what does it matter to me what happens to others" is sown in them. Who am I to care for others?  This statement, do you remember who made it first? Cain.  "Am I the one who must care for his brother?"  This criminal statement, this phrase of death -- it is a shame that even from childhood people grow up with this thinking that this egoistic thinking in inculcated within them, that men and women are formed in this way.  I said it once and I'll repeat it -- we could place it as a nickname -- I, me, mine, with me, for me, everything for one, give nothing to others, because to give life is to open the heart, and to care for life is to expend one's self in tenderness and warmth for others, to have concern in my heart for others.

Today we're going to bless the messengers of life.  They are those who are going to carry the images of Saint Raymond Nonnatus to people's homes.  They are going to go to people's houses, and each time the image arrives at a house, it's not for saying "Oh how lovely! I have it to myself." Rather it is to remember that I have to struggle for life, to care for life, that there shouldn't be even one child who doesn't have the right to be born, there shouldn't be even one child who doesn't have the right to be well fed, there shouldn't even be one child who doesn't have the right to go to school. 

How many children are working to recycle cardboard?  I see them in the center of Buenos Aires.  They don't go to school.  They are exploited by their parents.  And who provokes the parents to exploit their children?  The culture of death.  There shouldn't be one child who doesn't grow up, who doesn't live his adolescence open to life.  There shouldn't be any adult who doesn't concern himself with what others are lacking, with what others need to have more life, and with ensuring that there isn't even one elderly person put into storage, alone, discarded.

Caring for life from the beginning to the end. What a simple thing, what a beautiful thing.  Father, is that why there are so many wolves who want to eat us?  Is that why, tell me?  Who did Jesus kill? No one.  He did good things. And how did he end up?  If we go down the road of life ugly things can happen to us, but it doesn't matter. It's worth it.  He first opened the way.

So, go forth and don't be discouraged.  Care for life. It's worth it! So be it.

Note: This text was translated from a transcript of the original Spanish text published by the Argentinean Catholic Information Agency (AICA)with the following URL: http://aica.org/aica/documentos_files/Obispos_Argentinos/Bergoglio/2005/2005_08_31_SanRamonNonato.htm


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook