Hilary White

The life and family stands of a few of Pope Francis’ new cardinals

Hilary White
Hilary White
Image
Image
Image

ROME January 17, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – This past weekend, the Vatican announced Pope Francis’s choices for his first consistory, the men he has chosen to raise to the Sacred College of Cardinals. The list of new names includes 19 bishops, of whom three are already over the age of 80, making them ineligible to vote in an election of a new Pope.

Several of these bishops are well known for their strong stances on the issues that are dearest to pro-life and pro-family activists.

Among the 16 Cardinal Electors, Pope Francis’s replacement in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Archbishop Mario Aurelio Poli, has been described as the most “Bergoglista” of the group, that is, the one most in line with the pope’s own priorities. Archbishop Poli has most recently opposed the imposition of “gay marriage” on Argentina, and as head of the Catholic archdiocese of the nation’s capital, is said to be maintaining a “respectful but distant” relationship between the Church and the leftist government.

In 2012, Poli denounced the intention of the government to decriminalise abortion. In a homily, Poli said, “We ask God to have mercy on those who are the life line to the culture of death.” Speaking to a group of pilgrims at a shrine to the Virgin Mary, Poli added that decriminalising abortion “is threatening the lives of the most vulnerable and defenseless children who are the unborn”. 

“Despite our warnings, the raising of the voice of the Church, our legislators were deaf. We will continue praying, asking the Virgin to protect all pregnant mothers,” he said.

Another new cardinal-elect who has long been of interest to the pro-life community is Andrew Yeom Soo-jung, the archbishop of Seoul, the capital of South Korea. Archbishop Yeom was prominent in his opposition to the work of an internationally known embryo researcher. In 2005, at the height of the furore over the work of Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk, (which was later discredited as fraudulent) then-bishop Yeom was the head of a committee launched by the Archdiocese of Seoul that raised 10 billion won (US$9.6 million) to fund adult stem-cell research.

Last year, Archbishop Yeom spoke strongly against a proposal by the Korean National Commission of Bioethics to legalise euthanasia. “My opinion on Euthanasia coincides with that of the Catholic Church: I am against it. Death should be a natural process,” the Archbishop Yeom told AsiaNews in August, 2013.

Instead of legalised euthanasia, he suggested practical assistance for patients, including comprehensive hospice and “financial support for the dying patients.” Without these changes, he warned, the recommendation “may cause negative result of approving the contempt for human life”.

Of the three older cardinals on Pope Francis’s list, 95-year-old Fernando Sebastián Aguilar, a theologian and former Archbishop of Pamplona, Spain, stands out as a fierce opponent of abortion throughout his long career. As early as 1985, the year the Spanish government changed the abortion law, Archbishop Sebastián, as secretary general of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, warned that legalising abortion would create a “license to kill” for civil servants whose moral authority it would also “degrade.”

Legalisation, he said, would cause a “demoralization of the Spanish people.” It “facilitates and encourages people to resolve issues that may arise through the expeditious and cruel formula of attacking the weakest.” The “essential reality” of abortion, he said, is “the violent suppression of a helpless human being.”

The reception of the cardinal’s red hat is an event that tends to launch a mere bishop or archbishop, a prelate who is often of only local or national interest, into the stratosphere of global newsworthiness. The source of this increased importance comes from the cardinals’ function as an advisory body and, as such, they are understood to be the highest rank of prelate below the pope himself. But their most important function is the election of a new pope. As such, a pope’s choice of cardinals is always looked upon by Vatican-watchers as one of the most important ways he signals the priorities of his papacy.

Many are observing that the list of Francis’s first consistory has much to do with the economic condition of their locations, with most coming from the developing world. Indeed, most of the names are obscure even in Catholic media and the pope seems to be using the choices to focus attention on his project of elevating his concept of reaching to the peripheries.

Notable also is the absence from the list of a number of politically important or ancient Catholic sees such as Venice, Brussels, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. 

When the cardinal emeritus of a major “red-hat” see is still under 80, his successor’s elevation to the College is often, though not always, delayed, and this is the situation with both Philadelphia and Los Angeles. But not for Archbishop Andre Leonard, the head of the archdiocese of Brussels who replaced the now 80 year-old Godfried Cardinal Danneels. Archbishop Leonard has made international headlines for his strong opposition to abortion and “gay marriage,” and for this has suffered the wrath of opponents who have on several occasions physically attacked him in public.

The pope has also hinted that there will be no formal reception for the actual consistory on February 22nd, normally a lavish public affair where Rome dignitaries and ordinary lay people alike can meet the new appointees. In a letter addressed to each of them released by the Vatican today, Francis told the new cardinals-elect that their role is to be one of “service” and warned them not to hold the traditional lavish parties. They should avoid any response that smacks of “high society or hold celebrations that have nothing to do with the gospel spirit of austerity, sobriety and poverty,” the pope said.


Advertisement
Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion AbortionInstruments.com
Image
Uterine Currette AbortionInstruments.com
Image

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Paul Wilson

The antidote to coercive population control

Paul Wilson
By Paul Wilson

The primary tenet of population control is simple: using contraception and abortifacients, families can “control” when their reproductive systems work and when they don’t – hence the endless cries that women “should have control over their own bodies” in the name of reproductive health.

However, in much of the world, the glittering rhetoric of fertility control gives way to the reality of control of the poorest citizens by their governments or large corporations. Governments and foreign aid organizations routinely foist contraception on women in developing countries. In many cases, any pretense of consent is steamrolled – men and women are forcibly sterilized by governments seeking to thin their citizens’ numbers.  (And this “helping women achieve their ‘ideal family size’” only goes one way – there is no government support for families that actually want more children.)

In countries where medical conditions are subpar and standards of care and oversight are low, the contraceptive chemicals population control proponents push have a plethora of nasty side effects – including permanent sterilization. So much for control over fertility; more accurately, the goal appears to be the elimination of fertility altogether.

There is a method for regulating fertility that doesn’t involve chemicals, cannot be co-opted or manipulated, and requires the mutual consent of the partners in order to work effectively. This method is Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Natural Family Planning is a method in which a woman tracks her natural indicators (such as her period, her temperature, cervical mucus, etc.) to identify when she is fertile. Having identified fertile days, couples can then choose whether or not to have sex during those days--abstaining if they wish to postpone pregnancy, or engaging in sex if pregnancy is desired.

Of course, the population control crowd, fixated on forcing the West’s vision of limitless bacchanalia through protective rubber and magical chemicals upon the rest of the world, loathes NFP. They deliberately confuse NFP with the older “rhythm method,” and cite statistics from the media’s favorite “research institute” (the Guttmacher Institute, named for a former director of Planned Parenthood) claiming that NFP has a 25% failure rate with “typical use.” Even the World Health Organization, in their several hundred page publication, “Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers,” admits that the basal body temperature method (a natural method) has a less than 1% failure rate—a success rate much higher than male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps or spermicides.

Ironically, the methods which they ignore – natural methods – grant true control over one’s fertility – helping couples both to avoid pregnancy or (horror of horrors!) to have children, with no government intervention required and no choices infringed upon.

The legitimacy of natural methods blows the cover on population controllers’ pretext to help women. Instead, it reveals their push for contraceptives and sterilizations for what they are—an attempt to control the fertility of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.


Advertisement
Featured Image
United Nations headquarters in New York Shutterstock.com
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

New development goals shut out abortion rights

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Co-authored by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A two week marathon negotiation over the world’s development priorities through 2030 ended at U.N. headquarters on Saturday with abortion rights shut out once again.

When the co-chairs’ gavel finally fell Saturday afternoon to signal the adoption of a new set of development goals, delegates broke out in applause. The applause was more a sigh of relief that a final round of negotiations lasting twenty-eight hours had come to its end than a sign of approval for the new goals.

Last-minute changes and blanket assurances ushered the way for the chairman to present his version of the document delivered with an implicit “take it or leave it.”

Aside from familiar divisions between poor and wealthy countries, the proposed development agenda that delegates have mulled over for nearly two years remains unwieldy and unmarketable, with 17 goals and 169 targets on everything from ending poverty and hunger, to universal health coverage, economic development, and climate change.

Once again hotly contested social issues were responsible for keeping delegates up all night. The outcome was a compromise.

Abortion advocates were perhaps the most frustrated. They engaged in a multi-year lobbying campaign for new terminology to advance abortion rights, with little to show for their efforts. The new term “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which has been associated with abortion on demand, as well as special new rights for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT), did not get traction, even with 58 countries expressing support.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite this notable omission, countries with laws protecting unborn children were disappointed at the continued use of the term “reproductive rights,” which is not in the Rio+20 agreement from 2012 that called for the new goals. The term is seen as inappropriate in an agenda about outcomes and results rather than normative changes on sensitive subjects.

Even so, “reproductive rights” is tempered by a reference to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which recognizes that abortion is a matter to be dealt with in national legislation. It generally casts abortion in a bad light and does not recognize it as a right. The new terminology that failed was an attempt to leave the 1994 agreement behind in order to reframe abortion as a human rights issue.

Sexual and reproductive health was one of a handful of subjects that held up agreement in the final hours of negotiations. The failure to get the new terminology in the goals prompted the United States and European countries to insist on having a second target about sexual and reproductive health. They also failed to include “comprehensive sexuality education” in the goals because of concerns over sex education programs that emphasize risk reduction rather than risk avoidance.

The same countries failed to delete the only reference to “the family” in the whole document. Unable to insert any direct reference to LGBT rights at the United Nations, they are concentrating their efforts on diluting or eliminating the longstanding U.N. definition of the family. They argue “the family” is a “monolithic” term that excludes other households. Delegates from Mexico, Colombia and Peru, supporters of LGBT rights, asked that the only reference to the family be “suppressed.”

The proposed goals are not the final word on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will be submitted to the General Assembly, whose task is to elaborate a post-2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals next year.

Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook