Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent

, , , , ,

Sarkozy loss in French Presidential election would lead to dramatically leftward social changes

Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits
Image

PARIS, France, May 1, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) -  The French presidential election next Sunday could result is a dramatic political realignment of French political control to the left. Rapid advancement of social leftist goals such as same-sex marriage, greater access and full funding of abortion, legalized euthanasia, suppression of parental rights regarding education of their children and religious persecution would likely occur with a leftist win.

The election designates the country’s president for the next five years. The second round will oppose Nicolas Sarkozy, the incumbent head of State, runner-up - with 27.18% of the vote - to socialist candidate François Hollande in the first round. Hollande was 1.5 points ahead, with 28.63% of the vote.

While a large proportion of France’s laws and regulations are now made in Brussels in the name of the European Union - and interfere with practically everything, from the size of septic tanks for houses located in the countryside, to immigration and asylum policies or changes to value added tax - societal affairs such as abortion, euthanasia, schooling and marriage law remain largely within the competence of the member States. As do labor legislation, fiscal law, family policy and other domains to which pro-life and pro-family electors are sensitive.

The result of next Sunday’s vote is still quite open, given the uncertainty on the transfer of votes from electors who favored one of the other eight candidates in the first round.

On the left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon - 11.1% in the first round, with a largely communist and revolutionary rhetoric - has openly called on his electors to vote for François Hollande and although he is not officially asking for anything in exchange, the sheer weight of his first-round result is expected to induce Hollande into radicalizing his left-wing stance if he is elected.

Mélenchon is a self-proclaimed admirer of Robespierre who personally organized and watched over the genocide of the “Vendéens”, catholic peasants in the West of France who rose up in arms to defend persecuted priests, their local rights and the traditional political order during the French Revolution and its secularist dictatorship.

Mélenchon is not so far removed from Hollande himself who has promised to inscribe the law of separation of State and Church of 1905 into the French Constitution, should he be elected to the presidency. The beginning of the XXth century in France saw the exile of religious orders, the confiscation of church buildings and assets, the tracking of Catholic officers in the French army and other restrictions on religious liberty which declined in the common effort of World War I. Enshrining the largely unapplied law of 1905 in the Constitution is seen by many as a declaration of open hostility to Catholic and Christian rights, in the name of securalism.

Apart from heavy taxation, massive State spending and extended rights for the non-European immigrant population - including voting rights for those immigrants in local elections and political overtures to the Muslim population - François Hollande’s program contains many unacceptable promises from the pro-life viewpoint.

He has promised the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia, albeit in guarded tones. The French senate can be expected to vote for such a measure since the socialists gained a majority there last September. The National Assembly is expected to follow suit in the legislative elections next June if François Hollande wins on Sunday.

All of these potential developments would create a dramatically dangerous new political situation for France since, until now, the Senate acted as a brake on leftwing policies even under socialist presidents with a majority in the National Assembly.

François Hollande has also promised to make abortion more widely available and to create abortion centers in all State hospitals. 80% of abortion costs are paid for by the State budget; he has promised to drive up that figure to 100%. He wants to make contraception free and anonymous for minors. He has promised to legalize embryo research, homosexual “marriage” and homosexual adoption.

Hollande also wants to make schooling compulsory at three years of age (against the currently age six) and has committed himself to reducing State funding of Catholic schools and reversing legislation that allows parents to choose a State school outside their particular territory.

Attempts by socialist representatives to put an end to tax deductions for donators to independent school funds (a growing number of schools which receive no public subsidy whatsoever) are expected to be implemented and, under socialist governance, to succeed.

Fearing such threatening, radical developments, pro-life and Christian voters are expected to pronounce themselves “against” Hollande next Sunday with a “Sarkozy” vote, even though the incumbent president is far from an ideal candidate from their point of view.

Sarkozy has sent out signs of sympathy to the homosexual lobby during his campaign, promising to transform the current civil union contract (“PACS”) into a more marriage-like commitment to be concluded in the townhouse. But - under growing pressure from the conservative population - he has promised not to legalize homosexual “marriage” and has spoken out clearly against same-sex parenting and adoption. He has also committed himself against euthanasia, promising not to modify the largely acceptable “End of Life” act voted into law in 2005, which includes some room for “euthanasia by omission” in allowing withdrawal of feeding tubes (but not of hydration).

Sarkozy, a liberal, is not expected to thwart freedom of education in France more than it already is.

The “Sarkozy vote” is being promoted by Catholic groups and the small but active conservative press as the lesser of two evils, or even the lesser of two “worses”, experience having shown that under Sarkozy’s first period of office the right to life and the stability of natural marriage neither progressed nor receded.

What has changed, though, is the increased pressure from traditional values forces on Sarkozy who cannot hope to be re-elected without a massive transfer of votes from the electors of Marine Le Pen of the Front national.

Le Pen’s unprecedented score of 17.9% on April 22nd has spurred Sarkozy to speak about patriotism, the French identity, family values, national frontiers and other themes which he already brought to the fore during his campaign to try to limit Marine Le Pen’s vote. During his major rally at the Trocadéro in Paris today, Sarkozy even proclaimed the “Christian identity of France” - receiving wild applause.

Marine Le Pen is the only candidate who has promised more support for French families and stay-at-home parents, a partial stop to public funding of abortions - although she does claim to favor the “right to abortion” - and to move out of the European Union which promotes and imposes hate-crime laws, anti-discrimination laws and a homosexualist agenda which heavily influence French law-making.

Pro-lifers and promoters of traditional values have had no real champion during these presidential elections, but on the positive side some of their themes have gained public visibility and recognition.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, speaks to Thomas McKenna of Catholic Action Insight. Catholic Action Insight
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

Catholics shouldn’t sue one another: Cardinal Burke comments on Fr. Rosica’s lawsuit against blogger

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

ROME, March 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Citing Scripture, Cardinal Raymond Burke told an interviewer this week that Catholics should not sue each other: “Our Lord in the Gospel and St. Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians instruct us not to take our disputes to the civil forum, that we should be able, as Catholics, to resolve these matters among ourselves.”

The cardinal’s comments to the Traditionalist Catholic website Rorate Caeli follow an uproar in the Catholic media world last week when it was revealed that Vatican spokesman Father Thomas Rosica has threatened to sue a Canadian blogger for defamation in the civil courts.

Cardinal Burke, who served under Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis as the head of the Vatican’s highest court, is a noted expert on canon law. He told Rorate Caeli, “Unless the blogger has committed a calumny on someone's good name unjustly, I certainly don't think that that's the way we as Catholics should deal with these matters.”

“I think contact should be made. I presume that the Catholic blogger is in good faith, and if there’s someone in the hierarchy who is upset with him, the way to deal with it would be first to approach the person directly and try to resolve the matter in that way,” Burke added.

Fr. Rosica, a Canadian Basilian, is the English language press officer for the Vatican and founder of the Toronto-based Salt and Light Television network.

He sent the legal letter to David Domet, a Toronto music composer and part-time Catholic blogger who has long criticized what he says are Fr. Rosica’s departures from Catholic orthodoxy. The priest’s lawyer told Domet to remove nine separate items from his blog and apologize, but added that this would not necessarily remove the threat of the civil action.

The conflict was covered in a feature by Michael Voris’ Church Militant TV, and the internet’s Catholic blogger world exploded with indignation. So furious was the backlash that it got coverage by the US conservative news site, Breitbart. This followed dozens of blog posts, nearly unanimously calling the threatened legal action of a well-placed priest against a lay pensioner a “PR disaster” for Rosica. 

The uproar has launched Domet’s small blog, Vox Cantoris, into the international limelight, and has earned Fr. Rosica an avalanche of criticism. “Though Rosica publicly defends the right to freedom of speech and press, he is attempting to silence the blogger who has criticized him,” Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, wrote for Breitbart.

Among Domet’s criticisms of Fr. Rosica is his apparent support for the proposal by Cardinal Walter Kasper to allow divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, and others in “irregular” sexual unions, to receive Holy Communion.

Fr. Rosica has also recently come under fire for comments he made a year ago, in a lecture in Windsor, Ontario, in which he argued that Catholic doctrine could change. (See video below. Quotes can be found at 48:12.)

“Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines?” Fr. Rosica said in the lecture, which was posted to Youtube. “No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love.”

Fr. Rosica continued: “Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small-minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world.”

In the Rorate Caeli interview, Cardinal Burke refuted the idea that the Church can change its “pastoral practice” without changing doctrine.

“I think it’s very important to address a false dichotomy that's been drawn by some who say, ‘Oh no, we’re just changing disciplines. We’re not touching the Church's doctrine.’ But if you change the Church’s discipline with regard to access to Holy Communion by those who are living in adultery, then surely you are changing the Church's doctrine on adultery.”

“You’re saying that, in some circumstances, adultery is permissible and even good, if people can live in adultery and still receive the sacraments. That is a very serious matter, and Catholics have to insist that the Church’s discipline not be changed in some way which would, in fact, weaken our teaching on one of the most fundamental truths, the truth about marriage and the family,” Cardinal Burke said.

Fr. Rosica recently criticized Cardinal Burke on his Twitter account by posting an article by Washington, DC’s Cardinal Donald Wuerl on “dissent” in the hierarchy, saying, “Cardinal Wuerl’s response to Burke (and dissenters).”

The priest has also had a confrontational relationship with the pro-life movement for years.

In 1996, Fr. Rosica called the police on pro-life advocates who were leafletting in protest at a lecture by famous dissident Gregory Baum at the University of Toronto’s Newman Centre.

In 2009, Fr. Rosica wrote against objections to the lavish Catholic funeral for US Senator Ted Kennedy’s in Boston. He excoriated the pro-life movement for what he called their lack of “civility.”

“Civility, charity, mercy and politeness seem to have dropped out of the pro-life lexicon,” Fr. Rosica wrote. “To recognize and bring out the sin in others means also recognizing one’s self as a sinner and in need of God’s boundless mercy.

“Let us pray that we will become more and more a people, a church and a community overflowing with mercy.”

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Greg Rohrbough, J.D.

Duck Commander Phil Robertson’s CPAC speech was viral in so many ways

Greg Rohrbough, J.D.
By

Last week, the winner of the 2015 Citizens United/CPAC Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award was “Duck Commander” Phil Robertson, paterfamilias of the Duck Dynasty Robertson family. In doing so, they were giving Phil the CPAC stage for a speech, knowing that he would speak his unvarnished thoughts. One doubts they expected his topic.

After bringing out his heavily-duct-taped Bible and telling politicians to keep theirs with them, Phil went on the offensive – against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). He quoted the federal Centers for Disease Control, which estimates that more than 100 million Americans now have a sexually transmitted infection.

“I don’t want you to become ill. I don’t want you to come down with a debilitating disease. I don’t want you to die early,” Robertson said.

Phil’s solution? One older than Christianity, as old as common sense itself. “If you’re disease-free, if she’s disease-free, you marry. You keep your sex right there. You won’t get sick from a sexually-transmitted disease!”

Logic and mathematics would seem to agree. According to Robertson, his goal was to show love to the listeners. But several left-wing websites didn’t see it that way.

“He certainly used his speech to hate very well. I guess that's the criteria. Who can say the sickest, most vile things about center-left Americans wins!” according to John Amato of Crooks & Liars.

The Huffington Post took offense at his attributing the rise in STDs to the beatniks and hippies.

To their credit, MSNBC acknowledged Phil’s numbers, saying, “For the record, Robertson’s [sic] has his numbers correct. A CDC report from February of 2013 estimated more than 110 [million] cases of sexually transmitted infections in America with about 20 billion [sic, MSNBC’s number] new infections each year at a cost of ‘nearly $16 billion in direct medical costs.’”

The network site then blasted him for comparing ISIS to the Nazis, Communists, and Imperial Japanese.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Robertson clearly didn’t care what MSNBC thought, though. “You want a Godly, Biblical, medically safe option? One man, one woman, married, for life,” he said.

“What do you call the 110 million people who have sexually transmitted illnesses?” he continued. “It’s the revenge of the hippies! Sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll have come back to haunt us in a bad way!”

But the big question is – is Phil right or wrong? According to the CDC’s website, “Almost every sexually active person will acquire HPV [Human Papillomavirus] at some point in their lives.”

“Sexually active” would seem to indicate activity with new or multiple partners, rather than this Duck Doctor Phil’s Prescription.

But still – “Almost every…person.” That’s quite a few – the website also says, “about 79 million Americans are currently infected with HPV. About 14 million people become newly infected each year.” While it is the most prevalent venereal disease, HPV is only one of many.

Generally, HPV’s symptoms are more a painful nuisance than life-threatening – genital warts, often only appearing years after the initial infection. But there are also life-threatening illnesses such as cervical cancer, which HPV causes.

Much more frightening, however, is the specter of HIV/AIDS. According to the CDC, there are about 1.2 million people currently living with HIV, and as many as 50,000 new cases a year, with 63 to 66 percent of those being “MSM,” or “Men who have Sex with Men.” Sadly, the lion’s share of new HIV infections is found in the 13-24 age group; despite being 16 percent of the nation’s population, they account for 26 percent of all new infections, with 72 percent of those being young MSM. While HIV is treatable, there is still no cure.

Although HIV, as well as the current increase in syphilis and hepatitis, are primarily targeting homosexual males, heterosexuals with multiple partners are by no means off the hook. As well as HPV, herpes, drug-resistant gonorrhea and chlamydia are on the rise, as well. The year 2013 saw 1.4 million cases of chlamydia and 820,000 new cases of gonorrhea, and the CDC estimates that one person in every six in the U.S. between the ages of 14 and 49 has herpes.

Criticize Phil all you like, folks – he doesn’t mind. He’s only saying this because he cares.

Listen to him again: “I don’t want you to become ill. I don’t want you to come down with a debilitating disease. I don’t want you to die early.”

“And if you hate me because I told you that,” he said, “I told you, my love for you is not contingent on how you feel about me. I love you anyway. I don’t want you to see you die early or get sick. I’m trying to help you, for cryin’ out loud! America, if I didn’t care about you, why would I bring this up?”

From this CPAC attendee’s perspective, Phil’s speech was not only important from a physical health perspective, it also, along with that duct-taped Bible of his, reminds us of the words of Charles Spurgeon: “A Bible that’s falling apart usually belongs to someone who isn’t.”

Greg Rohrbough, J.D., has been director of government relations for the Meredith Advocacy Group since 2006.

Advertisement
Featured Image
CBC video screenshot
Steve Weatherbe

Former abortionist who failed to kill unborn baby hit with $1 million lawsuit: baby was born with hole in heart

Steve Weatherbe
By

OTTAWA, March 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Ontario mother of a baby born by mistake is suing the former doctor who botched her abortion for $1 million for his “gross negligence” and “medical malpractice.”

Tania Brown already had four children when she went to Dr. Michel Prevost in Almonte, Ontario in early 2011 for a medical (or pharmaceutical) abortion to prevent a fifth, which her doctor had advised might have birth defects. Several months later she suspected Prevost’s one-two punch of methotrexate (a poison to kill the baby) and misoprostol (to expel the corpse a week later) had not worked. An ultrasound confirmed a beating heart.

Too late for an abortion now, she gave birth, in May, to a baby with “a smaller brain; he had a hole in his heart; he had something wrong with his palate.” She gave him up for adoption.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Dr. Prevost relinquished his medical licence earlier this month with the certainty that if he didn’t, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons would expel him after an investigation found him “incompetent in his practice of obstetrics and gynecology.”  They looked into 28 abortion cases, two so badly “botched” that the babies survived.

Small wonder the whole business sent Brown into a “debilitating depression,” but her lawyer Ralph Lee told the CBC the case “brings up larger issues…the issue of a woman’s access to abortion.”

Basically, Prevost couldn’t get the dosages right. Methotrexate, MedicineNet.com warns, “has infrequently caused serious (sometimes fatal) side effects.” These include severe azotemia (too much blood urea nitrogen), severe blood infection, stomach and intestinal bleeding, and perforation.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook