Sarah Terzo

Ultrasound images save lives, change hearts: here’s the proof

Sarah Terzo
By Sarah Terzo
Image

February 7, 2013 (LiveActionNews.org) - Ultrasounds before abortions are routine in some abortion clinics. In others, they are performed only under certain circumstances.

Former Planned Parenthood worker Catherine Anthony Adair said the following in an interview:

At the time I worked for Planned Parenthood ultrasounds were only done if the woman was unsure of the dates of her last menstrual period, or if the doctor ordered one.

Women were not given the option of viewing the ultrasound.

In reality, ultrasounds before abortions are good medical practice. Besides verifying the length of the pregnancy, which determines what technique of abortion and what instruments are used, an ultrasound is one way to verify that a woman does not have a tubal or ectopic pregnancy. A woman may test positive for pregnancy, but really have a situation where the unborn baby is developing in the fallopian tubes and not in the womb. If this is not discovered, the tube can rupture, which is a major medical complication that can end in death. There have been a number of instances over the past several decades of women who have gone to abortion clinics, left thinking they were no longer pregnant, and then later died from a burst ectopic pregnancy. Some victims of this type of tragedy include Gladyss Delanoche Estanislao, 28; Sherry Emry and Yvette Poteat, both 26, and Angela Satterfield, 23. These women all died when abortion providers failed to diagnose their ectopic pregnancies.

In most cases, when ultrasounds are performed, women are not shown the images unless they specifically ask to see them, and sometimes not even then. Numerous former abortion providers have attested to this, including Dr. Joseph Randall, who was quoted saying:

They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn’t want to have an abortion. (1)

The fact that Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups oppose any legislation that would allow a woman the option of seeing the ultrasound screen further attests to this pattern. Even in cases where the law states that the woman does not need to look at the ultrasound but must merely be given the option, Planned Parenthood has been contentious.

One pro-choice author, commenting on a proposed law in Louisiana which required a woman to see an ultrasound image of her baby before aborting it, called the ultrasound a “torture weapon” (2).

Referring to a bill supported by Rick Perry that would allow women who choose a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn baby before going through with an abortion, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said the following:

Why is Rick Perry so cruel to women? … Rick Perry is running for president, and if he wins, you can bet he’ll force this dangerous agenda on every woman in every state. If we don’t stand up to him now, women may suffer the consequences for years to come. (3)

In Planned Parenthood’s world, allowing a woman to see an image of her baby on the ultrasound screen is a “dangerous agenda.” Many women who have abortions do not know the truth about fetal development. To quote Catherine Anthony Adair again:

We never discussed fetal development. The baby was referred to as the ”contents of the uterus” or a “clump of cells.” on the rare occasion a woman asked about the size of the baby, I would tell her it was about the size of the tip of my pencil, regardless of how many weeks into her pregnancy she was.

Jewels Green, another former clinic worker, said:

When explaining the abortion, the word ‘baby’ was never used, rather ‘contents of the uterus’, ‘the pregnancy’, or “products of conception” were the preferred terms to refer to the fetus.

The language of abortion counselors is often crafted carefully to avoid any reference to the baby. Even the term “fetus” is not always used. A 2012 NPR radio program interviewed abortion workers at a facility in England. In the interviews, the clinic workers never mention the word “abortion.” Rather, abortions were referred to as “treatments” – e.g., “the treatment room,” “treatment counseling,” etc.

Click "like" if you want to end abortion!

Ultrasounds cut through all this evasive rhetoric. They show the reality of the unborn baby. As for abortion providers’ statements that ultrasounds are “cruel” and “torture weapons,” anyone who has listened to women who regret their abortions has heard, over and over again, “I wish I’d had more information.” “If I’d known what abortion would really do to my baby, I wouldn’t have had one.”

Sometimes a woman who has had a past abortion gets pregnant again and is confronted with a picture of her new baby on an ultrasound screen. Then the lies are exposed, and she has to bear the full brunt of the knowledge of what she has consented to. Abortion providers may be able to avoid the truth when counseling women, but they will not be there to shield the woman from the truth for the rest of her life. Eventually, many of the women who are lied to in abortion clinics will learn the facts about fetal development, and the abortion providers will not be there to help them when this happens. Many times, the experience leads to depression and self-loathing.

So why do abortion providers avoid showing ultrasound images to women? Perhaps this is because up to 78% of women to see an ultrasound of their babies choose not to have abortions (4).

When abortion-minded women see ultrasounds of their babies at crisis pregnancy centers, amazing things happen. Here’s a story from one crisis pregnancy center worker in New Jersey. A woman (we’ll call her Gina) had been in the waiting room of the crisis pregnancy center while several of her friends encouraged her to keep the baby. When she came in for the appointment, however, she said:

No one can change my mind about getting an abortion! Not my friends in the waiting room and not that girl who just came in, and definitely not you.

The worker relates:

“I let Gina know that was not my intention to force her not to abort but rather to present her with her options so she could make the best, most well-informed decision.”

Gina and I met for about an hour and it was such a pleasant time. I got to know her and her family dynamics, life objectives, and relationship with the father of her baby. I reviewed information on abortion with her and invited her to listen as I discussed the options of parenting and adoption so that she could truly make the best decision for herself. She welcomed the opportunity and afterwards thanked me for helping her to think about the pregnancy from other perspectives. But even after our time together, Gina was firm in decision to abort.

Then Gina had an ultrasound, and it was life changing!

Immediately after looking at the monitor, Gina looked at our nurse and me and said, “Yo, that’s it! That’s my baby!” (This was the first time she identified “it” as a baby.) “I can do this!” It was such a turn of events…” (5)

Gina carried the pregnancy to term and kept her child.

The Woman’s Choice Network is a pro-life organization that helps women who are facing unplanned pregnancies and encourages them to choose life.

In 2011, the network assisted more than 1,500 women. Of the 172 who saw their sonogram when considering abortion, 123 continued the pregnancy.

“The sonogram is just the first step. It’s day one of a two-year journey. Most of the work we will do comes after the sonogram,” Ms. Scheuring said, citing baby supplies, mentoring, assistance finding child care and other help.”

“We really leave it up to them, and we do have an occasional woman who doesn’t want to look,” she said. “But almost every woman, most every boyfriend and almost every weepy grandma in the room looks at that screen. They want to see. And the most common response we hear is ‘We had no idea.’” (6)

It should be noted that this pro-life facility, like most pro-life facilities, offers women ongoing help after they decide to continue their pregnancies. This is in contrast to abortion clinics, which take the woman’s money, do the abortion, and send her home.

In another article, a married woman who became pregnant at age 39 after she had already had all the children she wanted weighed abortion and decided she would probably keep the baby. But:

Unfortunately, she says, her maternal instincts did not respond to reason: when a young friend placed her baby in her arms, she found herself looking with distaste into “a little scrunched face inspiring no tenderness, only intense tedium at the thought of tending him. What was I going to do with the baby I couldn’t return to his mother?” ….she was not sure – despite her reservations – what it would cost her emotionally to have an abortion if something were wrong. When told she had as much chance of having a miscarriage from the amniocentesis as she did, at her age, of having a Down syndrome child, she hoped for the miscarriage: “That is until, lying on the table where the procedure was to take place, I saw the ultrasound scan on a television monitor above me reveal the perfectly shaped head of the child I carried. I wanted that baby!” (7)

Pro-life author Randy Alcorn recounts the following story, told to him by pregnancy center workers, in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments:

Barb came to Cobb Pregnancy Services Tuesday wanting a verification of pregnancy so she could get an abortion. She was 16 weeks pregnant. Janet, her counselor, put in a video [The Eclipse of Reason] that showed the abortion procedure for a baby of this age. When Janet returned to the room, Barb was looking down and said “I can’t have no baby.”

Janet shared her regret concerning an abortion she’s lived with for more than 25 years. She then got permission to call me to do an ultrasound and show Barb her baby. The little girl was most cooperative to show even her mom’s untrained eye that she was alive, very active and doing well insider. She opened and closed her mouth, had hiccups, laid-back as if in a beach chair, stretching her little legs. She even held up hands so Barb could count her fingers

Barb was visibly touched. When the scan was over, I asked Barb what her plans were. She replied “I am going to have my baby.” I asked if the scan had made a difference, she said, “Big time. I just came in here to get a pregnancy verification so I could go have an abortion.” (8)

A woman who was considering abortion after a pregnancy resulting from rape agreed to a free ultrasound at a pregnancy center:

She was blinking. She was just hanging out, looking around, sucking on her thumb. … It was so realistic, so lifelike. It looks like you can just reach right in there and pick up the baby.

I know they have a heartbeat at 4 to 6 weeks, but it still doesn’t feel as real to you until you see a human. It amazed me.

She kept her baby.

“I never thought I could love or bond with a child [who] was conceived under such horrible circumstances, but that’s where we don’t give God enough credit,” Oliver said. “I look at her, and I don’t even see him. She’s beautiful and perfect.” (9)

Another crisis pregnancy center worker recalls a woman who came running into the pro-life center sobbing after a Planned Parenthood worker accidentally allowed her to see the ultrasound screen before her abortion. Immediately upon seeing her baby on the screen, the woman knew she could not go through with the abortion and sought refuge in the pro-life clinic (10).

On November 2, 2012 the organization 40 Days for Life, which arranges prayer campaigns and protests outside abortion clinics, told the following story:

A woman had made the long drive from another county for an abortion appointment. She was one of the first to arrive that day, walking past the vigil participants and into the building.

As she was leaving, the volunteers noted that she might have been inside long enough for the abortion. They also noted that she was crying, so one of them asked her, “Is there anything I can do to help?”

“I couldn’t do it,” the woman said. “They were doing an ultrasound, so I asked if I could see it. At first they refused, telling me ‘you don’t really want to see it.’ But I insisted ‘yeah, I do want to see it, because if I can see it … maybe I won’t do it.’”

She was right. Once she saw her nine week baby on the ultrasound screen, she knew that she couldn’t go through with the abortion. (11)

Ultrasounds are a liability to abortion clinics in another way as well. Clinic staff can be disturbed by the picture of the baby on the ultrasound screen. By now, many people in the pro-life movement have heard the story of Abby Johnson, the Planned Parenthood director who became pro-life after watching the abortion of a 13-week-old unborn baby on the ultrasound. A lesser-known story is that of Joan Appleton, who had a similar experience. When talking during a conference in Chicago, Illinois sponsored by the Pro-Life Action League about the reason she left her abortion clinic, she said:

And I too had seen an ultrasound abortion. It was, we did first trimester, this was late first trimester, probably early second trimester, really we could look to 13.7 weeks. Give or take. I can’t remember offhand what the specific problem was, but we wanted to do the abortion by ultrasound, to make sure that we did indeed get the entire, all the baby. The terminology was that we wanted to make sure we had the entire pregnancy. I handled the ultrasound while the doctor performed the procedure, and I directed him while I was watching the screen. I saw the baby pull away. I saw the baby open his mouth. I had seen Silent Scream a number of times, but it didn’t affect me – to me it was just more pro-life propaganda. But I couldn’t deny what I saw on the screen. After that procedure, I was shaking, literally, but managed to pull it together, and continue on with the day.

Unlike Abby Johnson, Appleton did not leave her job immediately – but this incident was pivotal in convincing her that abortion was wrong.

Dr. Stuart Campbell performed abortions for years, but the new, vivid, 3-D ultrasound images changed his mind:

Even a fetus lying there dead doesn’t convey the horror that one experiences seeing a baby moving its arms and legs, opening its mouth, sucking its thumb, and then thinking, gosh, somebody wants to, you know… It looks so vital. It has changed my view. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. (12)

Dr. Campbell no longer performs abortions.

Dr. Randall, quoted before, testified to the following:

I think the greatest thing that got to us was the ultrasound. At that time, the ultrasound, or soundwave picture which was moving, called a “real-time ultrasound,” showed the baby on TV. The baby really came alive on TV and was moving. And that picture, that picture of the baby on ultrasound bothered me more than anything else[.] … We lost two nurses. They couldn’t take looking[.]

He said this at the “Meet the Abortion Providers” conference sponsored by the Pro-Life Action League.

The phenomenon of abortion clinic workers leaving after seeing ultrasounds has been so prevalent over the past several decades that major medical publications have addressed the problem.

According to an article in ObGyn News:

[Abortion clinic] Staff members also may be affected by sonographic images and may need opportunities for venting their feelings and reconfirming their priorities[.] (13)

Alison Herwitt, NARAL Pro-Choice America’s director of government relations, told a reporter the following while discussing a bill that would allow government grants to crisis pregnancy centers to purchase ultrasound machines:

They don’t want them to go to Planned Parenthood, where they’ll get their full range of options. They just want them to go to crisis pregnancy centers, where women will be exposed to this weapon at taxpayers’ expense. (14)

Perhaps inadvertently, Herwitt has spoken the truth. Ultrasounds are a powerful weapon against the lies and deceit of the abortion industry.

1. “Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet” New Dimensions October 1990
2. Janet Hadley “Abortion: between Freedom and Necessity” (Great Britain: Virago Press, 1996) 150
3. Maggie Haberman “ Richards: Perry ‘so cruel’ to women” Politico, Sept 1, 2011
4. Adam Cohen“The Next Abortion Battleground: Fetal Heartbeats” Time Ideas October 17, 2011
5. Melissa Fischer “Gina’s Decision” Heartbeat Newsletter (First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, New Jersey) Summer 2012, p2
6. Ann Rodgers “Women’s center in Pittsburgh’s North Side welcomes ultrasound machine” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette August 18, 2012
7. Faith Abbott “a Tale of Two Women” Human Life Review, Spring 1993 in Tamara L Roleff. Abortion: Opposing Viewpoints (San Diego, Greenhaven Press, 1997) 111 to 112
8. Audrey Stout, Marietta Georgia, e-mail to Randy Alcorn February 12, 2000 Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000) 199
9. Karla Dial “Bringing Good Things to Life”Citizen June 2003
10. Roderick P Murphy. Stopping Abortions at Death’s Door (Southbridge, Massachusetts: Taig Publishing 2009) P194
11. 40 Days For Life Blog http://40daysforlife.com/blog/?p=3755
12. Stuart Campbell “The Hidden Wonders of New Life” The Tablet October 7 2004
13. ObGyn News, Quoted in Rachel M MacNair, PhD. Achieving Peace in the Abortion War (New York: iUniverse, 2009) page 59
14. Karla Dial “Bringing Good Things to Life

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org. Sarah Terzo is a pro-life author and creator of the clinicquotes.com website. She is a member of Secular Pro-Life and Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.


Featured Image
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

,

UK Assisted Suicide Bill nears House of Lords approval: urgent action requested

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

Pro-life advocates are calling for “urgent” action from the public on a bill that proposes to license doctors to supply lethal drugs for patients designated “terminally ill”. Lord Charles Falconer’s bill, introduced into the House of Lords on May 15th, is now headed for second reading and a possible vote in the House of Lords on July 18th.

If it is approved in the House of Lords, the bill, that seeks to “enable competent adults who are terminally ill to be provided at their request with specified assistance to end their own life; and for connected purposes,” will pass on to the House of Commons. 

It proposes that doctors be allowed to provide deadly drugs to patients who are “terminally ill” and have “a clear and settled intention to end his or her own life,” who have “made a declaration to that effect” and are over 18. A patient can be given lethal drugs who “as a consequence of that terminal illness, is reasonably expected to die within six months.”

“The attending doctor of a person who has made a valid declaration may prescribe medicines for that person to enable that person to end their own life,” the bill says.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children is asking concerned citizens to “ask as many people as possible to write to Peers,” adding that instead of emails, “short, preferably hand-written letters, relating personal experiences and concerns, are likely to be most effective.”

They warn that the Falconer bill has a better chance of passing than previous assisted suicide bills since changes in the composition of the House of Lords under Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron’s appointments.

The Falconer bill, they said, “poses a major threat,” with many more ‘Cameron’ appointees reflecting anti-life attitudes. “Although previous bills, such as Lord Joffe's bill, have been defeated in the Lords, this vote could be much closer,” SPUC said.

A long-serving Labour Party politician and former Chancellor under Tony Blair, Lord Charles Falconer has refashioned his political career to become the parliamentary front-man for Britain’s euthanasia movement. This is the fourth bill proposing to legalize assisted suicide to come before the House of Lords since Lord Joffe’s bill was repeatedly rejected by the Upper Chamber. The anti-euthanasia advocacy group Care Not Killing said, “Lord Falconer’s current bill is not considered to be much different from Lord Joffe's, which was defeated 148-100 in 2006.”

Baron Joffe had been working to legalize assisted suicide through the House of Lords since 2003 when he brought forward his Private Member’s Bill “Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill”. Lord Joffe brought the same bill forward again in 2005. That version was defeated in May 2006 by a “motion to delay,” which was supported 148 – 100.

Concerned parliamentarians have put forward an Early Day Motion calling for the summary dismissal of the Falconer bill. The motion quotes a 2014 report from the US state of Oregon on their Death With Dignity Act that showed the “number of deaths through physician-assisted suicide has tripled” since the bill came into effect “and increased by 43 per cent between 2012 and 2013.”

The motion is particularly concerned that “61 per cent of those who received lethal drugs in Washington in 2013 gave as a reason for seeking assisted suicide being a burden on family, friends or caregivers,” and noted that when the bill was being promoted in that state, the public was repeatedly assured that it would only be applied to terminally ill patients.

It warns that “a corresponding change in UK law would endanger the lives of the most vulnerable in society.”

The anti-euthanasia advocacy group Care Not Killing has asked supporters to ask parliamentarians to support the Early Day Motion. They warn that in places where assisted suicide or euthanasia has been legalized, such as Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland, there has been an “incremental extension” of euthanasia, to the point where many activists have warned that the practice is “out of control.”

“A major factor fuelling this increase is suicide contagion,” Care Not Killing said.

“Any change in the law to allow assisted suicide (a form of euthanasia) would inevitably place pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others,” they continued.

“These pressures would be particularly acutely felt at a time of economic recession when many families are struggling to make ends meet and health budgets are being slashed, especially when fears about the NHS are actually fuelling support for assisted suicide. The so-called right to die can so easily become the duty to die.”

The bill has generated some vocal opposition. On June 29th, Mark Davies the bishop of the Catholic diocese of Shrewsbury tied the assisted suicide proposal to the “widespread concern about the ill-treatment of the aged and those at the end of life in some of our care homes and hospitals.”

“It seems all the more incomprehensible, then, that we would be considering a change in the law to diminish the protection given to those most vulnerable.”

In a pastoral letter, Bishop Davies condemned efforts to present assisted suicide as a matter of “compassion”. “It is far from compassionate to remove the legal protections provided for some of the most vulnerable members of society.”

“If Parliament allows exceptions to the laws which protect the very sanctity of human life, it would be impossible to predict where this will end.” He likened it to the legalization of abortion in most of the UK in 1967 “in limited and exceptional circumstances” that has grown to an abortion industry, killing nearly 200,000 a year.

“It might sound reasonable to speak of “choices at the end of life” – as the campaigners for euthanasia do – but what choice will be left for many?” Bishop Davies said.

Click here for help in contacting a member of the House of Lords.


Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

,

Why is this UK Catholic diocese funding an agency that does gay adoptions?

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

Some UK Catholics say they are concerned that their diocese has been collecting funds through annual parish and diocesan-run school initiatives for an adoption agency that severed ties with the Church in 2008 after it began openly facilitating adoptions to homosexual couples.

“Most ordinary Catholics in Clifton parishes have no idea they are donating to an organization that is not a bona-fide Catholic adoption agency,” one Catholic parishioner from the Diocese of Clifton told LifeSiteNews, under condition of anonymity.

The Clifton diocese, under the leadership of Bishop Declan Lang, lists CCS Adoption in its online directory as a “caring” organization to “promote the welfare of children and young people” that is “guided by the values of the Catholic Church.”

In April, the diocese organized its annual appeal for the adoption agency. Announcements for a special collection appeared in local parish bulletins.

“Clifton Children’s Society’s Annual Appeal takes place today,” stated an April 27 bulletin from Our Lady Help of Christians Catholic Parish in Bath. “Please give generously to the collection. … They need to find many more adoptive families.”

‘Gay is not a factor’ in adoptions

In 2007, Britain’s Labour government passed sexual orientation regulations prohibiting religious groups or individuals from refusing to provide goods and services to homosexuals. Catholic adoption agencies were forced to choose between compromising their faith convictions, contravening the law or closing their doors.

CCS Adoption opted for the first option, changing its name from Catholic Children’s Society (CCS) to Clifton’s Children Society (CCS) in 2008. However, since the acronym is the same, only those who are aware of the formal name change would be aware that the agency is no longer Catholic.

On its website, CCS Adoption states that “whether you are heterosexual, lesbian, or gay is not a factor” in beginning the adoption assessment process.

On its Facebook page, CCS explicitly encourages homosexuals to adopt through its promotion of the “LGBT Adoption and Fostering week” that includes “information evenings” for gays and lesbians. It also promotes on its Facebook page an LGBT network called “New Family Social.”

“Sexuality isn’t a barrier when it comes to making a difference to vulnerable children and young people,” CCS Adoption states in a February 6 Facebook post promoting an LGBT information night.

A 2010 government report of CCS Adoption gave the organization its highest “outstanding” rating for promoting “equality and diversity.”

“The managers, trustees and staff were united in wishing to provide a service to gay and lesbian couples,” the report stated. “Two same-sex couples are in the process of making applications, which is very positive,” stated the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED) report. 

Bishop: I ‘admire their work’

Bishop Lang, who has headed the diocese since 2001, told LifeSiteNews that to his knowledge CCS Adoption does “not facilitate adoptions of children to homosexual couples.”

“This [is] a separate Trust with its own board of Trustees. I am not a Trustee of the Society nor is it part of the Diocesan Trust,” he said. In order for the adoption agency to “continue its good work in supporting families,” he explained, “their Trustees decided to operate an open policy and abide according to the law of the land.”

The bishop said he has “come to admire their work over the years in which I have been acquainted with the Society.”

“They are inspired by their Christian and Catholic faith and their primary concern is for the good of the children who are to be adopted,” he said.

“If you have any further concerns regarding Clifton Children’s Society, I suggest you write to their Chair of Trustees,” he added.

LifeSiteNews submitted evidence to Bishop Lang that CCS Adoption does in fact facilitate adoption of children to homosexual couples and asked for further comment, but received no response.

Agency guided ‘by the values of the Catholic Church’

In its Statement of Purpose, CCS Agency says that it is “conscious” of its role within the diocese and its “debt to the Catholic community who support its work financially.”

“Therefore, good relationships with parishes, priests, schools, volunteers and supporters throughout the Diocesan area are essential in order to promote interest in and awareness of our work,” it states.

The agency also states that in working for the “welfare of children” it will be “guided by respect and love for all people and by the values of the Catholic Church.”

LifeSiteNews asked the agency how it can claim to be "guided by the values of the Catholic Church" while promoting homosexual adoption and placing children with homosexual couples, but they declined to comment.

Vatican: Same-sex adoption means ‘doing violence’ to children

The Catechism of the Catholic Church urges the faithful to accept those with same-sex attraction “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” adding that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

However, the Catholic Church also affirms the need for ‘just’ discrimination when it comes to same-sex unions or same-sex adoption.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2003, wrote that experience shows “the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons.”

“They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood,” the congregation continued. “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.

“This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.”

‘We must obey God rather than men’

Anthony Ozimic of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children called Bishop Lang’s response to LifeSiteNews a “contradictory mess of convenient platitudes.”

“If CCS’ ‘primary concern is for the good of the children who are to be adopted,’ then why is CCS encouraging homosexual adoption, which the Catholic Church teaches clearly is contrary to the good of children?” he asked.

The diocese’s “free pass” to CCS “endangers the children who will be adopted by homosexuals via CCS,” he said. The diocese is not only “letting these children down, but even bankrolling the violation of their right to a mother and a father.”

“Bishop Lang says that CCS decided to ‘abide according to the law of the land.’ Both His Lordship and the CCS seem to have forgotten that the Apostles taught that ‘We must obey God rather than men,’” he said.

While it remains unclear how many dioceses across the UK continue to financially support secularized agencies formerly under their jurisdiction that facilitate adoptions of children to homosexual couples, it is clear that the practice is not uncommon. 

For instance, the Diocese of Arundel & Brighton in southern England fundraises for Cabrini Children's Society which, in response to the government’s Sexual Orientation Regulations, switched the word “Cabrini” with “Catholic” in its name in 2008. The agency states on its website that it is “interested in families from all backgrounds” including “heterosexual or homosexual” ones. 

The diocese continues to list the agency on its website under its “Catholic Societies and Organisations” tab and has listed fundraising events for the agency in a 2010 newsletter and a 2011 Catholic Schools Service bulletin

The Catholic parishioner from the Diocese of Clifton told LifeSiteNews that there should be more oversight regarding the kind of organizations funded through parish collections.

"It seems to me that the Bishop of Clifton has a responsibility to be vigilant in ensuring that official collections taken in parishes in his diocese are not used to fund organizations that are acting in a way that is seriously contrary to the Church's teaching,” the source said.  


Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

,

Singapore archbishop: ‘I am not at liberty to change the truth’ about sexual relationships

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski
Image
"I am not at liberty to change the truth as revealed in sacred scripture and that which is taught by the Magisterium of the Church," said Archbishop William Goh.

SINGAPORE – In a pastoral letter addressed to Catholics with same-sex orientation issued on July 3rd, the Archbishop of Singapore William Goh apologized if he had hurt anyone with the way he expressed himself in a previous pastoral letter on the family, which had also addressed homosexuality. However, he again strongly reaffirmed the Church's teachings on sexuality, and announced the formation of a new ministry dedicated to helping individuals with same-sex attraction to live a sexually chaste lifestyle.

"I apologize if my initial statement conveyed insensitivity as, from your feedback, I have come to realize that there is much variation in thought and lifestyle within this community," Archbishop Goh said. However, he stressed that "as the Bishop of the local Church which is a part of the Universal Catholic Church, my primary responsibility is to instruct the Faithful in accordance with the teachings of the Universal Church."

"I am not at liberty to change the truth as revealed in sacred scripture and that which is taught by the Magisterium of the Church, with regards to sexual relationships between those of the opposite sex, same gender, or any other issues e.g. divorce, contraception, abortion etc.” he said. “What I wrote was not new but simply a restatement addressed to the Catholic Faithful."

The archbishop was referring to a June 21 pastoral letter where he explained the Church’s position is with regard to the family.

"The Catholic Church has always maintained, and continues to maintain, that the family, comprising a father, mother and children, remains the basic building block of society," Archbishop Goh wrote in that letter.

He had also written that the Church believes that when God created man and woman, He had intended for them to "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it."

While the Church treats each individual, regardless of his sexual orientation, with sensitivity and respect, he said, "she upholds the view that LGBT sexual relationships are not in accordance with the plan of God."

"This kind of lifestyle should not be promoted by Catholics as it is detrimental to society, is not helpful to integral human development and contrary to Christian values," the archbishop had written.

He explained that the Church urges compassion and respect for homosexuals, but added that "she believes that there are ways to ensure justice and the protection of their dignity without the risk of endangering the future of the marriage institution, family and society."

In his follow-up July 3rd letter, Archbishop Goh highlighted issues arising from same-sex unions, especially the impact on children adopted and raised by same-sex couples.

"Same-sex union which evolves into the adoption and formation of children in an environment where a partner of the other gender is not represented, is contrary to the natural laws of God, and would ultimately be destructive to society and detrimental to the world and future generations," he wrote.

"This is what I was referring to in my initial statement when I used the terms ‘detriment’ and ‘destructive’. They do not refer to the individual but the consequences of such a union on society and future."

The archbishop noted that the "Church does not disapprove of a loving relationship between same-sex individuals that is chaste and faithful," and emphasized that he is "not indifferent to your pain and frustration."

"Same-sex inclination in itself is not a sin but as love often seeks to express itself physically, the challenge to be chaste and faithful to the divine plan of God is ever present," he said.

In order to help individuals in the "difficult journey to remain chaste today," Archbishop Goh revealed the formation of a pastoral initiative for Catholics with same-sex attraction.

"I have tasked the Catholic Medical Guild and the Family Life Commission to set up a pastoral group (currently being formed) for those with same-sex orientation to journey together in faith, in support of one another, so as to live out God’s call to chastity," the archbishop said. He concluded that God's grace is available for all people to "be able to live the Gospel faithfully and authentically, regardless of our sexual orientation."

The full text of Archbishop Goh's "Pastoral Letter To Catholics With Same-sex Orientation" is available here.

In an earlier "Pastoral Letter on the Catholic Church's Position on Sexuality" that addressed concerns over a government-sponsored "Frequently Asked Questions on Sexuality" website, Archbishop Goh stated that the Church will continue "to engage and work with the relevant authorities to ensure that the marriage institution and family values are upheld so that our children can be formed in an environment that is holistic, nurturing, caring and loving."

"Because the future of Singapore society and humanity at large passes by way of the family," Archbishop Goh stressed, "every Catholic should endeavor to save and foster the values and requirements of the family. This call is urgent and important because if the family is destroyed, then our society would become fragmented."

Contact info:

Most Rev. William Goh, DD, Archbishop of Singapore
Archbishop's House,
31 Victoria Street
Singapore 187997
Email: archbishop@catholic.org.sg


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook