Alan Yoshioka

Toronto Catholic group: ‘Reclaim the rainbow!’

Alan Yoshioka
By Alan Yoshioka
Image

June 15, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The stripes of the rainbow surround us. Little decals on storefronts, triangular logos on the noticeboards of liberal churches, flags, bumper stickers. Pro-family folk may feel positively screamed at: “Diversity! Tolerance!” The rainbow is meant to send a message that certain people are welcome, and if others of us feel shut out, well, that’s just the price of inclusiveness, isn’t it?

We may be tempted to resent the intrusion: first they took the word “gay,” and now they’ve taken the rainbow. Well, without resentment or malice towards anyone, our group aims to take the symbol back.

We are Reclaim the Rainbow – Toronto (RTRT), and we are a policy group of Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and who have experience of same-sex attraction either in ourselves or in our loved ones. We came together in response to the disparagement of the Courage Apostolate by the president of the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association (see coverage here), and we’ve been cooperating with parent advocates to fight for the integrity of the Catholic schools in our province.

Naturally we have a particular interest in the symbolism of the rainbow, which has often been in the news as some students and staff have seized opportunities to display it within Catholic schools. Whatever the gay press may have suggested, by the way, it’s not true that rainbows are flatly banned at St. Joseph Catholic Secondary School in Mississauga. But it is true that Catholic institutions have every right to prohibit promotion of ideologies hostile to Catholic doctrine, and that’s exactly what the rainbow flag is intended for—whatever pretense to the contrary may be made by people trying to cover their tracks.

Properly the rainbow symbolizes God’s covenant love, his promise never again to send waters to wipe out all living creatures on earth. Most people who are a bit biblically literate know that. But only recently did I notice that in blessing Noah and his three sons after the flood, God twice tells them, “Be fruitful and multiply.”

In other words, we need to understand the rainbow in light of the Creation story and the divine intention of human fruitfulness. Bearers of rainbow flags typically love to proclaim the value of diversity, as if diversity itself were somehow productive. At the same time, many deride the need for sexual difference, complementarity, for a true marriage to exist. The finite creature cannot adequately represent God by himself, but the male and the female together – when they live as friends and as a society, and most particularly when in marriage they offer to God their potential for fruitfulness – together represent God better than either could as individuals.

It’s not, of course, that fertility is necessary for marriage. So often, revisionists point to elderly or otherwise infertile couples as a supposed counterexample to the Christian insistence that two people of the same sex cannot marry each other. As it happens, through the mysteries of divine providence my wife and I ourselves still have not been able to conceive after nearly two years of marriage. Yet nonetheless our complementarity is undiminished as a sacramental sign of God’s presence. Throughout Scripture, salvation history is repeatedly depicted as a courtship between God/Christ/the Groom who is continually wooing and purifying Israel/the Church/his Bride.

We share with gay advocates at least the principle that people who experience homosexual inclinations “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity” (CCC 2358). But in countering the insults and other affronts to human dignity that many people have experienced in connection with their sexuality, gay pride is neither necessary nor desirable. Those of us in RTRT who once affirmed homosexual acts as a positive good have seen the lie for what it is. Having experienced firsthand the damage that results from dismissal of the Church’s wisdom about human sexuality, we of all people long to see schools convey the fullness of truth handed down from the apostles.

Towards that end RTRT offers a program of staff training, school assemblies, parish nights, parental support. Schools should ensure that counselling referrals go through the Courage chaplaincy to reliable therapists and priests. We aim to transform school cultures so that “inclusiveness” isn’t just a buzzword – and especially that it isn’t used to silence authentic moral teaching.

Christopher West introduces one compilation of Blessed John Paul II’s writings on the theology of the body by using the notion of the “ethics of the sign.” He writes, “If it is possible to be a ‘sign’ of God’s love, it is also possible to be a ‘counter-sign.’ If it is possible to speak the truth with the body, it is also possible to speak a lie.” So too the rainbow in its most prevalent use today serves as a counter-sign.

In the current environment it is only rarely possible to use the rainbow without risk of scandal; without careful explanation on our part, bystanders may infer from it our support for gravely disordered acts. But with prayer, perseverance, and the grace of God, some day this misappropriation will give way to the victory Christ has already won.

For more information, visit Reclaim the Rainbow - Toronto’s website here.


“Reclaim the Rainbow – Toronto is a policy group of Toronto Catholics who have experience of SSA, same-sex attraction, either in themselves or among their loved ones, and who are loyal to the Magisterium. Its membership partly overlaps with Courage Toronto (established in 1986) and EnCourage Toronto (which will soon be active); however, as a policy group it is separate from them and will continue to be. Courage and EnCourage maintain their own purpose, which is for pastoral and peer support. They are the only Church-approved apostolates dealing with SSA.”


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