Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

,

Westminster Archbishop reaffirms ‘intention and purpose’ of gay Masses

Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

LONDON, March 5, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a statement released late last month the Catholic archbishop of Westminster “reaffirmed” the “intention and purpose” of the 2007 Pastoral Provision for ministry to homosexuals while suggesting that the way it is being carried out may be under review. The Provision established the notorious “gay” Masses, held at a parish in the Soho district of London that have drawn heavy criticism for the past five years.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols wrote in the statement that the foundations of the Pastoral Provision are “the moral principles concerning chastity and the Church’s teaching on sexual activity, and the pastoral care of Catholics who are of same-sex orientation.”

However, while expressing support for the idea behind the masses, he said that currently “consideration is being given to the circumstances in which these Masses are celebrated to ensure that their purpose is respected and that they are not occasions for confusion or opposition concerning the positive teaching of the Church on the meaning of human sexuality or the moral imperatives that flow from that teaching, which we uphold and towards which we all strive.”

The statement has received a mixed reception among Catholics who have campaigned against the Masses. Critics have complained repeatedly to the archdiocese and have sent written and photographic evidence to Vatican officials that Catholic teaching on sexuality is ignored or openly contradicted at the Masses. Participants at the Masses, they say, make no secret of their lack of interest in giving up homosexual activity.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

Daphne McLeod of the campaign group Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice told LifeSiteNews.com that the scandal of the Soho Masses is the worst-kept secret in the British Church, and participants at the Masses, “don’t even pretend to be chaste.” She said members of her group regularly attend the Masses and have spoken with participants who say that they have never heard from the pulpit that they should not indulge in homosexual activity.

The criticism has stung Catholic leadership in England, and publicly both Nichols and his predecessor Cormac Cardinal Murphy O’Connor have insisted that the Masses are aimed to welcome those who struggle with same-sex attraction and intend to live chaste lives according to the teaching of the Church. In a BBC interview in 2010, Bernard Longley, a former auxiliary of Westminster and now archbishop of Birmingham called the objectors “judgmental” and Archbishop Nichols said that they should “hold their tongues”.

But McLeod defended her group’s position, saying, “We are just reacting to the facts we’ve been given” by regular participants at the Masses. “They walk up to communion hand in hand. They never hear from the pulpit they shouldn’t do it. They have talked to us and said, ‘We don’t know it’s wrong, the priest never tells us’.”

“We’re not being judgmental,” she added. “They tell us quite openly what they’re doing.”

Some prominent British Catholic bloggers and commentators have praised the statement, calling it “good news.” Joanna Bogle, an author and well-known Catholic personality wrote on her popular blog that the statement indicates that Archbishop Nichols may be coming around.

“A new approach seems to have been signaled about something in London which has been all wrong for too long,” she said. “Things look set to change… This is good news and what happens next needs our prayers.”

Deacon Nick Donnelly, who runs the “Protect the Pope” blog, also welcomed the statement, calling it “good news” and saying that it “signifies an important shift in [Nichols’] position on the Soho Masses.”

“Before the Holy Father’s visit the archbishop expressed, in intemperate language that those Catholics concerned about public dissent at the Soho Masses should ‘hold their tongues’. Now 18 months later Archbishop Nichols has admitted the concern that the Soho Masses could be occasions for confusion and opposition to the Church’s teaching and needs investigating. This is exactly the claim made by Daphne McLeod and Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice,” Donnelly wrote.

But McLeod said that so far there is no concrete indication in the statement of any plans to change the current situation.

The organizers of the Soho Masses, who are open about their goals to change Catholic teaching and accept homosexual behaviour as normal, have also warmly welcomed Nichols’ statement.

Quoting New Testament passages on “speaking the truth in love,” Terrence Weldon, a member of the Soho Mass Pastoral Council, wrote in a piece for the liberal Catholic magazine The Tablet, “These verses epitomise the importance of the Soho Masses. For this reason I am glad that the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, has this week reaffirmed his support for the Masses and also comfortable with his reminding that they must not oppose or confuse church teaching.”

“Gay men and lesbians know the benefits to mental health of living the truth, by coming out honestly in the truth of their lives. The closet is a lie. We need to be honest, and that includes honesty in Church,” Weldon wrote.

He denied that the Mass is used as an occasion for “sexual hook-ups,” but admitted that “the question of celibacy is not directly discussed or even raised.” There is only, “a tacit understanding of the Church’s teaching, including its teaching on conscience.”

On the comments section of the article, Martin Pendergast, a former priest currently living in a civil partnership with another man also commented, “Those of us who have been long-committed members of the Church, and are involved in other parishes, find our participation in the Soho Masses community a source of nourishment for our other commitments.”

Pendergast is another member of the Soho Masses Pastoral Council and is a well-known figure in the homosexualist activist community whose “partner” is the former head of the Catholic bishops’ charitable organisation CAFOD. Pendergast is a founding member of the “Cutting Edge Consortium,” a political lobby group that opposes opt-outs from Equality legislation that would allow churches to refuse to ordain or hire active homosexuals. 

Despite her group’s misgivings, McLeod told LSN that some of the wording in the statement is clearly intended to be conciliatory. She said that although it has seemed their efforts have been fruitless, the statement’s language possibly indicates that Nichols is under some pressure from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to clean up the scandal.

“We all wondered about it,” she said, “and we can only think that he’s under pressure from Rome. This makes us very hopeful.”


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