News

On April 2 LifeSiteNews, the Interim’s daily on-line news service, broke the story on the $135,000 support (over 4 years) for a pro-abortion, pro-lesbian women’s march by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP). It was also reported that the same March for Women 2000 was endorsed by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and the   Catholic Women’s League (CWL).

CWL members and leaders across the country have begun asking their national leadership to explain its endorsement and to distance itself further from the march’s goals of abortion and lesbian rights and other radical feminist stances. Catholic lay people and priests have contacted their bishops to register their shock and dismay over the endorsement. Noteworthy was the decision by numerous priests and faithful to withhold funds from Development and Peace to protest their donation to the March 2000.

CWL national president Sheila Pellerin reacted within days of the LifeSite story. On April 6 she wrote a letter to the Canadian Coordinator of the World March asking for the withdrawal of one of the “demands” of the march, namely “the right to free, public abortion services.”

“We are concerned that the inclusion of this demand will lead to the loss of participation of   thousands of women,” said Pellerin. “With so much poverty and violence against women, it is unfortunate that the articulation of the one issue that could divide us was retained.”

Congratulations for this endeavour are due however, not to Pellerin, but to faithful CWL members across the country who have pressured the move. Moreover,  Pellerin intends to retain   her endorsement of the march even if the demand for abortion is not removed from the march’s objectives. She also failed to address the march’s especially strong lesbian aspect and other serious problems with the march objectives.

The reaction from the CCCB has so far been little to none despite the fact that various bishops were shown the incontrovertible evidence of the march’s policies which strongly contradict a number of vital Catholic principles. The Catholic Register, which covered the LifeSite expose on April 10 reported that the move to get the CCCB to endorse the march was initiated by CCCB general secretary Msgr. Peter Schoenenbach. The letter of endorsement for the March was approved by the CCCB executive committee, including Bishops Jacques Berthelet, Andre Gaumond and Brendan O’Brien.

The most disturbing reaction however came from the CCODP. In a letter dated April 11, the bishop’s official social justice agency uses deceptive language to avoid just criticism over their funding of the pro-abortion, pro-lesbian march. In the letter, CCODP Executive Director Fabien Loboeuf writes: “Development and Peace and the CCCB support the International demands of the World March (not the demands of the Canadian Women’s March Committee which refer to abortion; there is another set of demands by the Federation des femmes du Quebec which does not mention abortion).” This is, however, a moot point since the demand for abortion does not use the word “abortion” but refers to abortion as control over “reproductive function.”

“The International demands contain no reference to abortion,” the CCODP letter continues, but do refer to women’s right to control over “her body and reproductive function.” The Letter says “this particular demand is based on a broad set of concerns, which include the cry of women in the South for an end to forced sterilization, forced abortion, genital mutilation and forced marriage.” While all that may be true, the statement by itself is a   misrepresentation of truth since the language especially refers to the “right” to abortion.

International committee confirms March’s abortion objective

A letter from the International (not the Canadian) coordinating committee confirms the facts.  The march letter comes in response to a pro-life group’s request to have a pro-life presence incorporated into the March of Women 2000. Diane Matte, Coordinator for the Coordinating Committee of the World March of Women, wrote that a meeting of the coordinating committee   held on January 28 “unanimously decided that the demand to have a ‘pro-life’ contingent at the World March is unacceptable to us since the anti-choice position defended by your organization is in clear contradiction with the objectives pursued by the march.” The revealing letter notes further that “the pro-life suggestion is “specifically” at odds “with one of our world demands”, “namely: . . . all States must recognize a woman’s right to determine her own destiny, and to exercise control over her body and reproductive function.”

Demonstrating unwavering commitment to abortion as a key demand of the march, the letter concludes, “We believe that the most respectful way to avoid pointless discussions and confrontations is for you not to pursue your idea to organize a ‘pro-life’ contingent.”

The March of Women 2000, is more an educational exercise than an actual march which was launched March 8, and will continue until October 17, 2000. Coincidentally, the desecration of Montreal’s Mary Queen of the World Cathedral by 20 pro-abortion, anti-poverty feminists took place on March 7, the day before the start of the national March of Women 2000.

While it has given $135,000 of church collected funds to the Women’s March, the CCODP has not contributed anything to the Annual March for Life in Ottawa which protests the over 2 million children killed by abortion in Canada.

For more see LifeSite’s earlier coverage: 
CANADA’S CATHOLIC CHURCH SPONSORS RADICAL FEMINIST MARCH
DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE GAVE $110,000 TO ABORTION MARCH

Links:

The statement on the “demands” for the March on the Canadian site is obviously pro-abortion as it includes the statement, “We won the right to control when and if we choose to have children with the decriminalization of abortion and contraception.” (Link no longer live)

And pro-lesbian “rights” as it says, “We must respect and promote the human rights of lesbians.” (Link no longer live)

Alarmingly LifeSite discovered that the Canadian site even includes an action item to lobby Canadian politicians against including the traditional definition of marriage in Bill C-23. (Link no longer live)