John Westen

, ,

Vatican clarifies: Pope did not express support for homosexual civil unions during Q&A

John Westen
John Westen

ROME, January 6, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After some Italian journalists reported that remarks about a lesbian fiancee made by Pope Francis during a Q&A showed that the pope is open to the homosexual civil union legislation currently being considered in Italy, the Vatican has issued a statement denying those media reports. 

The reports are the latest in a spate of media portrayals that paint Pope Francis as open to homosexuality, which reached its apex with the selection of Pope Francis as person of the year by the homosexual activist magazine The Advocate

A Vatican clarification issued today to Vatican radio noted, however, that the pope did not take a position on the civil unions legislation in his remarks, which predated the debate in Italy. 

The text of the Q&A session, which occurred on November 29, was released this past Friday in the Jesuit Journal La Civilta Cattolica

During that Q&A, the pope recalled a complex situation he encountered while in Buenos Aires. “I remember the case of a very sad little girl who finally confided to her teacher the reason for her state of mind: ‘my mother’s fiancée doesn’t like me,’” he said. (In Italian the word used indicates that the fiancée was female). 

The pope spoke of the challenges that educators face in evangelizing in a complex world. “How can we proclaim Christ to a generation that is changing?” he asked. “We must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them.” 

In today's statement, the Director of the Holy See’s Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, explained: “In his conversation with religious superiors, the pope offered the consideration that the situation in which education of children takes place today is very different than in the past, because [these children] live in many difficult family situations, such as parents who are separated, anomalous new unions, sometimes including homosexual unions, and so on.” 

Fr. Lombardi called the media’s portrayal of the pope’s remarks as an “opening to gay couples” a "stretch" and "paradoxical," “because even the small concrete example made by the Pope about (a girl who is sad because her mother’s girlfriend does not love her) alludes to the suffering of children ...”

The Vatican spokesman concluded, “The pope absolutely did not express himself on the debate that reopened in Italy only a month later, and whoever recalls the positions manifested by him in precedence in Argentina on the occasion of analogous debates knows well that they were completely different from those that some now seek surreptitiously to attribute to him.”

John Allen, one of the world’s best-known Vatican reporters who is granted access to the Vatican like few others, was given the full text of Fr. Lombardi’s response.  Allen, however, questioned Fr. Lombardi’s portrayal of Pope Francis’ position on homosexual civil unions. 

“Lombardi’s reference to the pope’s position in the past during ‘analogous debates’ in Argentina begs the question of what, exactly, that position really was,” says Allen.

Allen added: “When Argentina became the first Latin American nation to approve gay marriage in 2010, then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio expressed strong opposition. However, former officials of the Argentine bishops’ conference, friends of Bergoglio, and journalists who covered the debate all say that behind the scenes, Bergoglio expressed openness to some form of civil partnership as an alternative to full marriage rights.” 

However, other diocesan officials in Argentina have refuted such claims, calling them false. 

Meanwhile, some mainstream media and homosexual activist publications are suggesting that Pope Francis’ shift in emphasis and tone on the matter of homosexuality are revolutionary.  Unlike his predecessors, who were attacked by the media for noting the immorality of homosexual acts, thus far in his pontificate Pope Francis has not made any similar statements.  He did, however, in his first encyclical - co-authored by Pope Benedict - note that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

Nevertheless, Pope Francis has not shied away from engaging the topic of homosexuality. 

During an in-flight interview returning form Rio, in response to a question about homosexual priests, he famously said: “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?” 

Then, during the first off-the-cuff interview that was published in Jesuit magazines, he said:

A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?'

We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that… The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

The pope explained his purposeful avoidance of the hard teachings of the Church on homosexuality and other matters in those same interviews.  He was asked by a reporter on the return voyage from Rio’s World Youth Day why he did not mention abortion and gay ‘marriage,’ even though in Brazil legislation was under consideration on both matters. 

“The Church has already spoken quite clearly on this.  It was unnecessary to return to it, just as I didn’t speak about cheating, lying, or other matters on which the Church has a clear teaching!” he responded.

When the reporter retorted, “But the young are interested in this ...” he added, “Yes, though it wasn’t necessary to speak of it, but rather of the positive things that open up the path to young people.  Isn’t that right!  Besides, young people know perfectly well what the Church’s position is.” 

The reporter asked her last follow up: “What is Your Holiness’ position, if we may ask?”

The pope replied, “The position of the Church.  I am a son of the Church.” 

 

The text of Fr. Lombardi’s statement follows:

“In his conversation with religious superiors, the pope offered the consideration that the situation in which education of children takes place today is very different than in the past, because [these children] live in many difficult family situations, such as parents who are separated, anomalous new unions, sometimes including homosexual unions, and so on. Education and the proclamation of the faith naturally can’t ignore that reality and must be attentive to the good of the new generations, accompanying them with affection starting from their concrete situation, in order not to provoke negative reactions contrary to openness to the faith.

“This point about the educational responsibilities of the church, which in a sense is fairly obvious, was made on Nov. 29 in entirely general terms, [but] has been placed by various Italian media outlets in the context of the question raised in recent days of recognition of civil unions of homosexual couples.

“The stretch is completely self-evident, so much so that in some cases it seems the pope’s remark is being instrumentalized. To speak of an ‘opening to gay couples’ is paradoxical, because the pope’s comment is completely general and because even the small concrete example made by the pope in this regard (a young girl who was sad because the female fiancé of her mother doesn’t love her) alludes to the suffering of the child …

"The pope absolutely did not express himself on the debate that reopened in Italy only a month later, and whoever recalls the positions manifested by him in precedence in Argentina on the occasion of analogous debates knows well that they were completely different from those that some now seek surreptitiously to attribute to him.”


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