ROME, December 18, 2015 (LifeSiteNews)
– A heated exchange regarding global warming and magisterial teaching
between a top Vatican official and various other presenters ended a
December 3 Acton Institute conference in Rome. Argentinean Bishop
Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, a close advisor to Pope Francis and the
Chancellor of both the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences stressed that the pope’s declarations on the gravity of global warming as expressed in the encyclical Laudato Si’ are magisterial teaching equivalent to the teaching that abortion is sinful.
Father
Joseph Fessio, SJ, the founder of Ignatius Press who obtained his
doctorate in theology under Joseph Ratzinger prior to his elevation to
the pontificate, told LifeSiteNews, “Neither the pope nor Bishop Sorondo
can speak on a matter of science with any binding authority, so to use
the word ‘magisterium’ in both cases is equivocal at best, and ignorant
in any case.” Fr. Fessio added, “To equate a papal position on abortion
with a position on global warming is worse than wrong; it is an
embarrassment for the Church.”
The conference, "In
Dialogue with Laudato Si': Can Free Markets Help Us Care for Our Common
Home?" was held at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross with
over 200 attendees including members of the media, professors, and
students of the Pontifical Universities.
The controversy was sparked when in his address Bishop Sorondo spoke of “global warming” saying that in Laudato
Si “for the first time in the Magisterium” Pope Francis “denounces the
scientifically identifiable causes of this evil, declaring that: ‘a
number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent
decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases released
mainly as a result of human activity.’” He repeated the point later,
saying, “faith and reason, philosophical knowledge and scientific
knowledge, are brought together for the first time in the pontifical
Magisterium in Laudato Si'."
These
points were contradicted in the presentation by Acton Institute founder
and President Father Robert Sirico who said it is “important to
underscore the distinction between the theological dimension of Laudato
si’ and its empirical, scientific, and economic claims.” He explained,
“The Church does not claim to speak with the same authority on matters
of economics and science… as it does when pronouncing on matters of
faith and morals.”
Quoting
the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine to support his point, Fr.
Sirico said: “Christ did not bequeath to the Church a mission in the
political, economic or social order; the purpose he assigned to her was a
religious one. . . . This means that the Church does not intervene in
technical questions with her social doctrine, nor does she propose or
establish systems or models of social organization. This is not part of
the mission entrusted to her by Christ” (CCSD 68).
Father Joseph
Fessio: “To equate a papal position on abortion with a position on
global warming is worse than wrong; it is an embarrassment for the
Church.”
When
asked in a question and answer period that concluded the conference
about the weight of the pope’s opinions regarding global warming in Laudato
Si’, Bishop Sorondo distinguished between infallible statements and
statements of the pope’s “Ordinary Magisterium.” The distinction is
important because ex-cathedra statements are in Catholic teaching
“infallible” or never in error and require absolute adherence by all
Catholics, while some of those in the “Ordinary Magisterium” could be in
error but nonetheless teachings to which Catholics should submit “in
mind and will.”
However, even asserting Pope Francis’ reflections on global warming in Laudato
Si’ are part of his Ordinary Magisterium would propose a grave
challenge to all those scientists who have asserted global warming is a
hoax.
Comparing
the Pope’s teaching on global warming to the Church’s teaching on
abortion, Bishop Sorondo said the “judgement must be considered
Magisterium – it is not an opinion.”
“It
is under Ordinary Magisterium,” he explained, “that abortion is a
grievous sin – this is Ordinary Magisterium because there is not the
revelation of it.” So there is an assumption of “moral doctrine,” he
continued, that even though the majority opinion is contrary, we accept
that “abortion is a grievous sin” is Magisterium.
This
led to a heated exchange with panel presenters at the conference,
especially journalist Riccardo Cascioli, who objected to the suggestion
that Catholics must submit to pronouncements on “scientific theories”
rather than “faith and morals.”
Sorondo
retorted by saying, “When the Pope has assumed this, it is Magisterium
of the Church whether you like it or not -- it is the Magisterium of the
Church just as abortion is a grievous sin – equal (it is the same)… it
is Magisterium of the Church... whether you like it or not.”
Pope Francis in Laudato
Si’, says, “The Church does not presume to settle scientific questions
or to replace politics,” and that he seeks to “encourage an honest and
open debate” (para 188). Nevertheless Bishop Sorondo seemed to oppose
the contestability of global warming theories.
When
Cascioli suggested Catholics could follow their consciences on the
theoretical scientific matters, Sorondo rejoined, “If you were a
scientist and had a serious (difference of) opinion,” then you could
follow your conscience, “but since you are a journalist it is better you
follow the opinion of the Pope!” Cascioli reminded the bishop that he
too was not a scientist, to which Sorondo replied, “But I am in the
Academy of Science of the Pope.”
When
Fr. Sirico suggested that there are other experts or scientists with
different opinions on the matter of global warming, Sorondo fired back,
“But don’t follow them, follow these. Just like in philosophy, there
are many philosophers.. But the Magisterium of the Church follows the
philosophy of the being, the person. There are many who say the person
does not exist – the Pope does not follow them.... I say it is
Magisterium.”
Fr.
Fessio was unabashed in his criticism. “Bishop Sorondo is unknown to
me, and – judging by this statement – eminently worthy of that
ignorance,” he commented. “The best I can say of his remarks is that
they seem to have been unprepared.”
Translations from Italian were done by Maria Dalgarno.
Only 6 days left! Can you donate just $5 for PRO-LIFE?
Help us reach our critical Christmas campaign goal today,
and help us reach 60 MILLION people with the pro-life and pro-family
message in 2016!
Share this article
Advertisement
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
December 18, 2015 (LifeSiteNews)
– One of the most influential evangelical Christian leaders in the
United States says the sexual revolution began with the widespread
availability of birth control. Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, made the remarks Saturday on David Wheaton's "The Christian Worldview" radio show.
“We are clearly at a very important turning point, but you have to go
back to the early twentieth century when sexual revolutionaries largely
funded an effort to separate sex and procreation, and that was birth
control," Dr. Mohler said.
"Most Christians seem to think today that birth control was just
something that came along as something of a scientific or medical
development," Mohler said. "They fail to see that it was driven by moral
revolutionaries who knew that you couldn’t have a moral revolution, you
especially couldn’t have a sexual revolution, unless you could separate
sex and babies.”
In recent years, evangelical Christians and observers in general have
taught the harms inflicted by birth control - from the potential
abortifacient properties of some forms of contraception to the way it
has unleashed promiscuity and inhibited true intimacy. Author Mary
Eberstadt, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told LifeSiteNews that when she wrote her 2012 book on contemporary sexual mores and their consequences, Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution, "I was just blown away by" the accuracy of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae.
She said the subsequent rise of commitment-free sex destroyed
marriages, spread diseases, and led to the nation's skyrocketing rate of
illegitimate births.
Dr. Mohler, who released the new book We Cannot be Silent in October, said the second major development that undermined the family was the no-fault divorce "revolution."
In the six year period between 1977 and 1983, 39 states passed laws
allowing either party to end a marriage for any reason, or no reason.
"That was massive," he said. "Evangelical Christians just didn't recognize it for what it was."
"You can't have anything like same-sex 'marriage' until you redefine marriage, eliminating it as a lifelong covenant," he said.
Degrading marriage led to a "massive spike in cohabitation among heterosexuals."
“One kind of sexual misbehavior leads to the rationalization of another," he said. "Thus, we couldn’t have the Obergefell
decision that came this June, we couldn’t have the legalization of
same-sex 'marriage,' if there hadn’t been a lot of sexual revolution
before we got there.”
Dr. Mohler went on to answer a question he is frequently asked:
Whether faithful Christians should attend the same-sex "wedding"
ceremony of a friend or relative.
"Absolutely not, because to participate in a same-sex 'wedding' in any way is uniquely to give an affirmation of it," he said.
While he encouraged faithful Christians to "establish a relationship"
with homosexuals in order "to share the Gospel," he said that "going to
a [same-sex] 'wedding' is the one thing we can’t do.”
(The following BABY DOE FOLK SONG BOOK is dedicated to the 2016 Washington MARCH FOR
LIFE coming up in January,2016. They should sing while they march BLL)
1.) THE ANSWER IS IN THEIR OWN DNA (Tune: "...blowing in the wind")
When does an embryo become
a new human being
The answer,my friend, is in it's own DNA
the answer is in it's own DNA
When does the embryo get
its own DNA
The answer,my friend,is when the sperm
enters the egg
The answer is when the sperm
enters the egg
How many days must an embryo live
before you can call her a girl ?
The answer,my friend,is in her DNA
the answer is in her DNA
How many months must a fetus live
before you can call her a girl ?
The answer,my friend,is in her DNA
the answer is in her DNA
How many days must an embryo live
before you can call him a boy ?
The answer,my friend,is in his DNA
The answer is in his DNA
How many months must a fetus live
before you can call him a boy ?
The answer,my friend ,is in his DNA
The answer is in his DNA
When will the judges change Roe v Wade
and end this holocaust
The answer,my friend,is knowing DNA
The answer is knowing DNA
2.) ROE MUST GO (Tune: Michael,row the boat ashore,alleluia...)
ROE MUST GO,ROE MUST GO
A-L-L- E- L-U-I-A
ROE'S HOLOCAUST MUST END
A-L........................
3.) WHERE HAVE ALL THE BABIES GONE ?? (Tune:Where have all the flowers gone...)
Where have all the babies gone
long time since Roe
Abortion has killed them all
This we should know
When will we ever learn
When will we ever learn
4.) THE DNA TELLS ME SO (Tune:The Bible Tells Me So...)
Fertilization starts a new human being
They call it an embryo
This I know,because the DNA tells me so
This I know,because the DNA tells me so
Yes,it is a new baby girl
Yes,it is a new baby boy
This I know,because the DNA tells me so
This I know,because the DNA tells me so
5.) ABORTION KILLS BABIES (Tune: Happy Birthday to You.....)
December 16, 2015 (LiveActionNews) -- Author Sue Hertz wrote the book Caught in the Crossfire: A Year on Abortion’s Front Line. She
interviewed both pro-lifers outside abortion facilities and abortion
facility workers and doctors. She also included her observations of
staff and abortion workers in the book. At one point, she observes a
first trimester abortion.
The abortion she describes was performed by suction and is known as
an aspiration (or suction) abortion. In this type of abortion, the
cervix is dilated with metal rods and a medical instrument called a
cannula attached to a tube is inserted into the womb. The tube is
attached on the other end to a suction machine, and when the machine
turns on, the preborn baby is pulled out in pieces.
The dismembered body parts are sucked into a jar which sometimes has a
cheesecloth sack to catch the fetal parts. The abortionist then scrapes
the lining of the uterus to get out any pieces of the baby or placenta
he may have missed. This is the most common abortion procedure in the
United States.
Hertz describes what the doctor did after the procedure she witnessed was complete. She says:
… [the doctor] removed from the glass jar the cheesecloth sack which
caught the fetal parts, dumping the parts into a basin at the end of the
table, between [the patient’s] feet. “Two legs, two arms, two fists, a
skull, a backbone, a placenta. “We’ve got it” he announced.
The doctor needs to carefully search through the parts to
make sure that every part of the baby has been removed. An arm or leg
left behind could cause a terrible infection. In very rare, but
horrifying cases, women have actually passed an arm or leg of their aborted child that was left inside them days after the abortion.
The diagram below illustrates an abortion by suction: This is how Planned Parenthood describes this type of abortion on their website:
A tube is inserted through the cervix into the uterus. Either a
hand-held suction device or a suction machine gently empties your
uterus. Sometimes, an instrument called a curette is used to remove any
remaining tissue that lines the uterus. It may also be used to check
that the uterus is empty.
This is the extent of the information Planned Parenthood wants it’s
patients to know. “Gently emptied” is a stunning euphemism. It is a
nice, sugarcoated way to describe a brutal procedure that tears apart a
baby. It reassures the woman considering abortion. What could be more
benign than a uterus “gently emptied” of “tissue”?
Planned Parenthood is struggling to convince us that there’s nothing
to see here, only “tissue” and a womb that is “gently emptied.” The fact
that this “gentle” emptying tears apart a baby limb from limb is
completely avoided. A woman reading this description would have no idea
about what abortion was going to do to her preborn baby.
Reading this description, it is not surprising that Planned
Parenthood fights so hard to close pregnancy resource centers and keep
their patients from going there. These centers tell women what the
abortion will do to their child – not to mention what the abortion can
do to the women themselves. Planned Parenthood doesn’t mention it, of
course, but abortion has risks for the mother. One in 10 women have complications. These may include:
hemorrhage
infection
ripped or perforated uterus
cervical injury
embolism
anesthesia complications
convulsions
chronic abdominal pain
cervical injury
endotoxic shock
Rh sensitization
More insidious are complications in future pregnancies. In these
cases, a woman may go through her abortion without detectable
complications and think that everything went fine. But damage to the
body can lead to infertility or inability to carry a baby to term.
The cervix is meant to open slowly over hours during labor, not to be
wrenched open in seconds by metal instruments. Dilation of the cervix in
an abortion clinic can cause cervical incompetence, in which the
cervix, which is supposed to hold the baby safely in the womb, gives way
too soon in a future pregnancy, possibly causing a stillbirth, miscarriage, or premature delivery. The scraping of the uterus can cause scar tissue to form, which can prevent a woman from getting pregnant at all, or even cause a tubal pregnancy, which can be fatal.
A suction abortion is a brutal procedure that kills a baby and can
scar a woman. Pro-choice groups and abortion providers like Planned
Parenthood sugarcoat the procedure and describe it in terms designed to
raise no red flags in a woman’s mind. There is a stark difference
between what actually goes on in a suction abortion and what Planned
Parenthood is prepared to reveal. Reprinted with permission from Live Action News.
Only 7 days left! Can you donate just $5 for PRO-LIFE?
Help us reach our critical Christmas campaign goal today,
and help us reach 60 MILLION people with the pro-life and pro-family
message in 2016!
Share this article
Advertisement
Michael O'Brien painting on the approaching nativity Michael O'Brien
Editor’s note: LifeSiteNews is pleased to
bring you this truly inspirational story of an artist who in his 20s
decided to give all his talents to serving God and the Church, at the
huge cost of being completely rejected and shunned by the world. It is a
profound story of faith, the kind that moves mountains. May our faith
in God’s providence over each and every one of us increase this Advent.
December 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews)
– I was very successful as a young artist in my early 20s. For example,
the first exhibit of my work in a major gallery in Ottawa, paintings on
nature and on human scenes, no overtly religious matter, was a complete
success. There was a lot of media attention and promises of another
show to follow.
In a year or two following that, as I was working towards a new show,
it struck me in my heart, and my wife confirmed it, and was a moving
factor behind me considering this question, why not do the impossible
thing? Why not simply paint for Christ and his Church, without regard
for the consequences?
By that point we were expecting our first child and I said, "No, it's
a beautiful dream, but we're married now, we're expecting our first
baby, and we have to be responsible. I have to feed you."
And my wife said, "Do we or do we not believe in God? Do we or do we
not believe that the Lord of Providence is at work in our lives?" And I
said, "But of course we do." So,
on May 1, 1976, my wife and I went to our local parish in a little
village in the Rocky Mountains and we put my paintbrushes under the
altar — it was the feast of St. Joseph the Worker — and we made a prayer
on our knees before the Blessed Sacrament, asking St. Joseph to pray
for us, to take hold of this very, very fragile dream and very, very
small life and do whatever God decides. So we consecrated my work
entirely to the service of the Lord and his Church. And so began many
years, decades of incredible movements of providence and incredible
opposition. There are just too many stories to tell you.
‘Get Lost’
I had to travel around the country with my art because we were living
in such a remote area. When I went back to the old galleries that had
once seen me as the golden child or the cash cow and I showed them my
new explicitly Christian work, they said, "We love your style very much,
but you must understand that the art-buying public is no longer
interested in this worldview." Which was a nice way of saying, "Shape up
to the revolution or get lost."
So, I got lost for about two decades. I kept trying, kept applying
for shows at major galleries. They loved the technique in all my work,
but regarding the subject matter, their endless refrain was, in effect,
"If you would simply delete the Christian content, or adapt it to
contemporary tastes, we would be very happy to give you a show."
Michael O'Brien One
year there were 11 such galleries that conditionally offered me a show,
turned me down, offered me a show, cancelled the show. One gallery
closed permanently just before my show was to open, another's curator
was fired and the show cancelled, and at a third, the curator had a
nervous breakdown and the gallery shut down…..it went on and on, a
constant bizarre struggle. The net result was there was no exhibition of
my explicitly Christian work.
Finally I realized that this was going nowhere. So I just tried to
survive by painting commissions. A few years before this, I had received
something interiorly, a story that erupted in my imagination. Was it a
grace or was it just good old Irish imagination? I just didn't know, but
because it was so compelling, so powerful, it was becoming obsessive
and I had to get it out of my head. I wrote it down and it sat on a
shelf for about a year.
Advertisement
Eventually I got the idea of sending it to a publisher in Canada. It
was the same situation: Publisher after publisher said, "We love your
writing style, love this story. However, the reading public is no longer
interested in this world view." By which they meant orthodox
Catholicism. The book was not heavy-handed didactic, nor were my later
books. They were just telling stories in which the reality of God's
presence, the reality of the mysterious movements of the providence in
human lives, was part of the story, as it is in reality. Its title was A Cry of Stone, but it wasn't published until more than twenty years later.
Then came about twenty years of collecting rejection letters for my
novels and from art galleries, all of them subtly offering success if I
would only adapt the faith dimension to a more "contemporary" worldview.
But always there was an inner thread in me that said, "No, I'm not
going to play by the world’s rules. This is how they are corrupting
nearly everything. The lie controls most of contemporary culture, and
I'm not going to cooperate." Michael giving this talk to invited guests in home of LifeSite board member. Steve Jalsevac/LifeSiteThe
temptation to compromises can come in many different forms, and so they
did for me. But in the end, I always felt profound disgust at what was
being done to us, the tyranny of the lie that covers the whole Western
world. And I said to myself, “If I am never published I have done my
best. I was here. It cannot be said that Christian culture was not
present. It was here. And it was rejected. It was ghettoized. But we
spoke the word that was given to us, and we lived it, in season and out
of season.”
Part of coming to terms with this insane impossible life was to face,
as a husband and father, the pain of being a failure. To be unable to
provide security for my family, and throughout most of those 40 years,
even comfort. We lived very simply. We still try to live very simply.
‘Trusting in God's hands’
But this material poverty is only the surface of things. The deeper
work that God does in all of us, regardless of our circumstances in
life, is to take us to a more profound level of dependence on him. It
can lead us to a condition of spiritual childhood, to become very little
and trusting in God's hands, to do our part and to let him do the
rest.
Eighteen years after writing my first unpublished novel, the general
manager of Ignatius Press called me up one day because he had seen my
collection of paintings on the Rosary, which my wife and I had
self-published, and were distributing almost by hand. Ignatius Press had
come across the book and had decided to distribute it.
In our phone conversation, the manager asked me if I had written anything else. And I said, "Well, yes, but you wouldn't be interested in it."
At this point I had written my novel Father Elijah. I was so
discouraged about the whole thing, even though I knew I would never
give up, never stop painting or writing according to what I was inspired
to write or paint, I had come to believe that my work would never find
an outlet. It would never find a place in the mainstream or anywhere in
culture. So you can hear how the demon of discouragement, as St. Francis
of Assisi would call it, had worked on me for many years.
I didn't want to waste anymore time building up false hopes. Ignatius
Press, this dazzling star of orthodoxy in the U.S. was doing a
phenomenal work, yes, but they didn't publish fiction at that time.
However, the manager said, "Well, we might be interested. Why don't you
try us? Send us the manuscript."
Advertisement
I said, "I have to be frank: I'm going to send you the manuscript,
and you are going to reject it. And I am going to lose $10 for postage
that I do not have to spare." He said, "Send us the manuscript and we’ll
send you the $10," which he promptly forgot to do. I should add that
years later he slapped a ten dollar bill in my hand with a grin, and we
both had a good laugh.
A few months after submitting my manuscript of Father Elijah,
Ignatius Press sent me a contract for the publication of the book,
which appeared in 1996. Since then my other novels have been published,
and also my nonfiction.
‘We must never lose hope’
It was a very important lesson for me, looking back in hindsight, to
see that we must never lose hope, and that if we are given a particular
grace or calling, we must be willing to persist through, at times, very
dark waters, understanding that there will come temptation for false
relief from trials.
Some temptations are obvious. But there will come an alternative kind
of temptation—to simply pursue a good life, a good faithful Catholic
life, but to leave unfulfilled the particular calling and path that God
has given you. Technically, no sins have been committed, but something
is lost, some fruitfulness for souls is lost to the world. We cannot
measure — this we must keep in mind always — we cannot measure what the
success or failure of our efforts is. It is not our task to measure
them. That is God's business.
Our task is to be faithful to the inspirations, guided by reason and
discernment always, but at the core is going forth in the face of the
culture of death, in a dark time, with the light of Christ within us, in
Christian hope. That willingness, the Lord can work with. That, the
Lord can make fruitful, if we would only trust. I'm not talking about
feelings of trust. Feelings of trust come and go. But the choice
to trust, to put one step in front of another, as we cross the desert
of the modern age. There, in the desert, many surprises await us.
Scripture says the Lord is a God of surprises. And he certainly has been
so in my life.
Anyway, I could go on and on and on. I would say, above all else, we
must trust in the Lord in all circumstances. Trust in him absolutely.
Entrust your whole life to him in prayer. And trust especially when
there seems very little reason, on a human level, to trust. For that is
often when he is doing his greatest work: On the cross. That is often,
perhaps always, the very place from which fruitfulness comes. Born in Ottawa in 1948, Michael O’Brien is the author of
twenty-eight books, notably the novel Father Elijah and eleven other
novels, which have been published in fourteen languages and widely
reviewed in both secular and religious media in North America and
Europe. His essays on faith and culture have appeared in international
journals such as Communio, Catholic World Report, Catholic Dossier,
Inside the Vatican, The Chesterton Review, LifeSite and others. For
seven years he was the editor of the Catholic family magazine, Nazareth
Journal. He lives with his wife Sheila in Barry’s Bay, Ontario. This story is based on a video recorded talk given by Michael
O’Brien on May 28, 2015 in Fort Worth, Texas. Corrections to the text
have been made by Michael O’Brien. Michael became a member of the
LifeSite board of directors this year. Read and see the beginning 18 minutes of this talk by Micheal here
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews)
– Not enough teenagers are being taught about condoms, artificial birth
control, and other "skills" "needed to avoid HIV, other STDs, and
unintended pregnancy," says a new government report.
Every other year, the CDC surveys the nation's high schools and
middle schools. Last Wednesday, it released the results of the 2014
School Health Profiles Survey at the National HIV Prevention Conference.
The results covered a wide variety of health behaviors, including a
section on sexual education.
The sexual education results were unsatisfactory, said a press
release, which noted that "fewer than half of high schools and only a
fifth of middle schools teach all 16 topics recommended by ... [the CDC]
as essential components of sexual health education."
Those topics include, but are not limited to, "benefits of being
sexually abstinent" and how important it is to use "condoms consistently
and correctly," as well as using condoms "at the same time as another
... [form of] contraception" and the "importance of limiting the number
of sexual partners."
Students from 6th through 12th grades should also be receiving
education on "how HIV and other STDs are transmitted"; the "health
consequences of HIV, other STDs, and pregnancy"; and the "efficacy of
condoms," as well as how to gain access to, and "how to correctly use,"
condoms, according to the CDC.
The study examined the percentage of schools in each state that
taught each recommended area of sexual education, then took the median
of each state for its national assessment.
The benefits of abstinence were most often taught to middle-school
students, with a median of 77 percent of the middle schools surveyed. A
median of 75 percent of schools taught "[h]ow to create and sustain
healthy and respectful relationships," while education on how HIV and
other STDs are transmitted and "health consequences of HIV, other STDs,
and pregnancy" were taught 75 percent of the time.
Schools least often taught "how to obtain" and "how to correctly use"
condoms, at 27 percent and 23 percent. Seventeen percent of middle
schools taught all 16 recommended aspects of sexual education.
For high school students, STD prevention topped the list, with 95
percent of schools teaching "[h]ow HIV and other STDs are transmitted"
and about the "[h]ealth consequences of HIV, other STDs, and
pregnancy." Abstinence was next at 94 percent.
Sixty percent of high schools taught "[h]ow to obtain condoms," and
54 percent taught "[h]ow to correctly use a condom," the two
lowest-taught areas of the 16 CDC-recommended areas of education.
Forty-six percent of high schools taught all 16 aspects of sexual
education.
The CDC also assessed what percentage of schools taught high school
students to use seven contraceptives, including the IUD and others that
double as abortifacients. Sixty-six percent taught how to "the pill," 61
percent the "patch," 58 percent the "ring," 61 percent the "shot," 55
percent implants, 60 percent the IUD, and 49 percent emergency
contraception.
Advertisement
Forty-three percent of schools taught all seven methods of birth control.
Nineteen large urban communities were also sampled, though New York
City was notably excluded. While the urban communities' median numbers
were often within five percent of the national median, both middle
schools and high schools were far more likely to teach students about
condoms.
In a press release, the director of the CDC's National Center for
HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and Tuberculosis Prevention said, "We
need to do a better job of giving our young people the skills and
knowledge they need to protect their own health. It's important to teach
students about healthy relationships and how to reduce sexual risk before they start to have sex."
The press release cites condoms and other forms of artificial birth
control – including abortifacients – as "essential topics in HIV, STDs,
pregnancy prevention, and other health subjects," calling them
"age-appropriate topics for middle and high schools based on the
scientific evidence for what helps young people avoid risk."
A CDC media spokesperson did not provide LifeSiteNews information on
whether the CDC recommends informing students of the side-effects of
contraception or the abortifacient potential of some contraceptives.
However, LifeSiteNews was told that the "CDC does not recommend the
selection of a specific curriculum, but recognizes the authority of
local school districts to make sexual health education curriculum
decisions."
"CDC emphasizes that all sexual health education should be medically
accurate and consistent with scientific evidence. It should allow
students to develop and demonstrate developmentally appropriate sexual
health-related knowledge, attitudes, skills, and practices. It should
also be consistent with community values, and developed with the active
involvement of parents.
"What is critical is that our students get age-appropriate
instruction across key areas of sexual health in both middle and high
school in order to develop the skills they need to be healthy in
adulthood."
Advertisement
Cardinal Peter Turkson speaks at a Vatican press conference Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews
December 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews)
– After sparking controversy during a BBC interview outside the UN
climate change talks in Paris last week, Cardinal Peter Turkson is
regretting use of the term “birth control” when what he meant was
spacing of births or “responsible parenthood.” Speaking to Aleteia’s Diane Montagna,
Cardinal Turkson said, “When I used the phrase ‘birth control,’ what I
had in mind was the Church’s own traditional teaching about responsible
parenthood. So wherever anyone reads ‘birth control’ in the BBC
interview, they should understand it as meaning ‘responsible
parenthood.’”
During the BBC interview,
Turkson, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace, said that “birth control” could “offer a solution” to the impacts
of climate change. "This has been talked about," he said, "and the Holy
Father on his trip back from the Philippines also invited people to
some form of birth control, because the church has never been against
birth control and people spacing out births and all of that. So yes, it
can offer a solution."
Cardinal Turkson explained to Aleteia that the BBC reporter had used
the expression “birth control” and he was responding in kind, but “my
intention was to present the Church as not inimical or opposed to the
idea of spacing births,” he said.
Another controversial aspect of the BBC interview was the cardinal’s
suggestion that Pope Francis himself had called for “control of birth.”
Speaking of difficulties such as water and food shortages that are said
to come from overpopulation and climate change, he added, “The amount
of population that is critical for the realisation of this is still
something we need to discover, yet the Holy Father has also called for a
certain amount of control of birth."
The cardinal was referencing Pope Francis’ in-flight interview on the
return from Manila where the pope urged “responsible parenthood,” and
chastised a woman as irresponsible for having seven children by
C-section. The pope said Catholics should not breed “like rabbits.”
Addressing this point with Montagna, Cardinal Turkson called the
pope’s use of the expression ‘breeding like rabbits’ “unfortunate”.
Those “unfortunate” remarks of the pope received some of the most
severe backlash from Catholics and resulted in Pope Francis’ first
public walkback of his statement. In comments to the Italian bishops’
newspaper Avvenire shortly after the pope’s in-flight interview, Vatican
Archbishop Giovanni Becciu said,
“The Pope is truly sorry” that his remarks about large families “caused
such disorientation.” Archbishop Becciu said the pope “absolutely did
not want to disregard the beauty and the value of large families.”
The
Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today condemned the decision of
Norfolk County Superior Court Justice Douglas H. Wilkins in Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy, which
granted summary judgment to a homosexual man who sued the Catholic
school---administered by the Congregation of the Sisters of Saint Joseph
of Boston---after it reversed a decision to hire him upon learning that
he had contracted a civilly recognized marriage with another man.
In June, 2013, Michael Barrettof Dorchester applied for the position of Food Services Director at Fontbonne
Academy in Milton. On July 9, 2013, following an interview during which
Barrett responded affirmatively to a question about his support for the
principle that all employees of the Catholic school should be
"ministers of the mission," Barrett was offered and accepted the
position for which he had applied.
Later
that same day, Barrett completed a new hire form in which he listed his
civil husband as an emergency contact. On July 12, 2013, Barrett was
informed that he could not be hired because his homosexual relationship
was incompatible with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Barrett, represented by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, (GLAAD), brought suit against Fontbonne Academy, alleging discrimination in employment.
In finding for Barrett, Judge Wilkins---a Governor Deval Patrick appointee who served as First Assistant Attorney General under Attorney General L. Scott Harshbarger---ruled
that the Catholic school violated Massachusetts anti-discrimination
law, was not exempt as a religious institution from that law, and
enjoyed no constitutional protections in this matter.
The
Catholic Action League called Judge Wilkins decision "a frontal assault
on religious freedom, an appalling subordination of the First Amendment
to the Massachusetts gay rights law, and a victory by homosexual
activists in their campaign to coerce Christians into compliance with
same sex marriage."
Catholic
Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle made the following
comment: "Religious liberty is guaranteed not only by the Free Exercise
clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but even more
broadly, by Article II of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts
Constitution. Religious freedom consists not merely of the right to
worship, but of the right of religious institutions to govern their
internal affairs free of state interference."
"Judge
Wilkins's decision would compel Catholic institutions to hire those who
reject and despise Catholic teaching, fatally impairing the
constitutionally protected right of those institutions to carry on their
mission. This is precisely the sort of 'excessive entanglement' of
government with religion decried and prohibited by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman."
"The
judge's ruling does underscore two facts---the charade-like character
of the religious exemption to the 1989 Bay State gay rights law, which
we warned against at the time, and the prophetic nature of the
dissenting opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas in Obergefell, which held that same gender marriage will have 'potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"
(The leftist,progressive,communist national media is going bonkers over Trumps temporary stop to
Muslim immigration until we find out what the "hell"is going on in the world and our country.
In Europe there are Muslim enclaves that are "no go zones" for the police and firemen.They have
permitted Muslims to come and go,back and forth to Islam countries,So,you get Paris massacres
and now San Bernadino,Calif. The national media never told the American people about what was
going on in Europe because of political correctness,or diversity. As Trump says we don't know who
is in our country,who came over the Mexican border,who overstayed their visas,etc,etc,etc. BLL)
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Host of "Focal Point" on American Family Radio, 1-3pm CT, M-F www.afr.net
If we want police officers in America to be able to wear their police
uniforms in their own cars without fear, we'd best do something about
unrestrained and unvetted Islamic immigration.
France has 751 Muslim "no-go" zones, where ambulances won't go without a
police escort, and where police won't go without backup.
Now we are finding out that Scotland Yard is banning police officers
in the UK from wearing their uniforms in their own cars on the way to
work, for fear that they'll get their heads cut off by followers of the
religion of peace.
This is far from an unrealistic fear. Just two years ago, British army
soldier Lee Rigby was killed as he was walking down the street in
uniform in broad daylight by two Muslim men, who ran him down with their
car and then hacked him to death with knives and meat cleavers.
Donald Trump yesterday pointed out the dismal reality that no-go zones
are now a reality in the UK. "We have places in London and other places
that are so radicalised that police are afraid for their own lives."
For his truth-telling, a government-sponsored petition has been launched
to ban him from entry to the UK. As of this morning, it had reached
250,000 signatures, the threshold for the issue to be taken up and
debated by Parliament. Signatures are being added at rate of seven per
second.
The hypocrisy here is glaring to a spectacular degree. If Trump
advocates a ban on immigration, why, that's horrible, no good and very
bad. When Parliament advocates banning him from immigration, why that's
most excellent.
Trump has been blistered by British authorities who want to assure folks
that there is nothing to see here, move along. Scotland Yard is
insisting "Trump could not be more wrong," and Home Secretary Theresa
May last night rejected his claims, insisting, "I can assure you that
Donald Trump has got it absolutely wrong. The police in London are not
afraid to go out and police the streets."
Chancellor George Osborne told members of Parliament, "I think the best
way to defeat nonsense like this is to engage in robust democratic
debate and make it clear his views are not welcome."
A candidate for mayor in London added to his version of "robust debate"
by calling Trump "an appalling creature" and "one of the most malignant
figures in modern politics." For good measure he added that Trump is "an
utterly repellent figure."One MP said, "He's a hate preacher and
therefore not welcome round here."
Robert Gordon University did its bit by stripping Donald Trump of the honorary degree it had bestowed on him.
I see. So the way the UK apparently engages in "robust democratic
debate" is to tell Donald Trump to shut up and not show his face within a
thousand miles of their shores. I see a lot of "robust" in that, but I
don't see much "debate."
But alas for the head-in-the-sand Yard and the head-in-the-sand
Secretary, and the head-in-the-sand Chancellor, police are telling a
much different story, and backing Trump's claims to the hilt.
From the Daily Mail:
Serving police officers today backed Donald Trump's claim that some
Muslim communities in the UK are no-go areas because of extremism.
Several Met officers have said the 'Islamification' of some parts of the
capital requires 'extra vigilance' and they can't wear uniforms for
safety reasons...
[O]ne serving officer said today Trump had 'pointed out something
plainly obvious, something which I think we aren't as a nation willing
to own up to'.
Another policeman said that he and other colleagues fear being terror
targets and spoke of the 'dire warning' from bosses not to wear a
uniform 'even in my own car.'
[O]ne serving officer in west London said: 'Islamification has and is
occurring,' adding: 'You have to have extra vigilance in certain parts
when you are working.'
A Lancashire Police officer told MailOnline: 'There are Muslim areas of
Preston that, if we wish to patrol, we have to contact local Muslim
community leaders to get their permission.'
One officer from Yorkshire said on the online forum Police.Community:
'I'm not allowed to travel in half blues to work anymore IN MY OWN CAR
as we're 'All at risk of attack' – yet as soon as someone points out the
obvious it's 'divisive.'
He added: 'In this instance he (Trump) isn't wrong. Our political
leaders are best either ill-informed or simply being disingenuous.
'He's pointed out something that is plainly obvious, something which I
think we aren't as a nation willing to own up to – do you think a US
Police Department would ban officers from wearing their uniforms under
jackets etc due to FEAR of their cops being killed by extremists?
'We implement half measures such as 'No-one is allowed to come into work
half blues, even in your own cars because if you get beheaded it'll be
your own fault.
'It would be seen as un-American, un-democratic, not the done thing... In the UK though we accept it'.
One female officer in the Met said if a police officer was attacked it would be written off.
She said: 'Even if one of us did get killed or dragged off in a van. It
would just be reported as a 'one-off incident' and no reason to change
the 'British style of policing...'
Another Met officer who resigned this year said: 'I was a PC in the Met
for 11 years – I resigned as I couldn't handle it anymore.'
'Whilst provocative Trump's comments does carry some weight. PCs are not
permitted to even come to work in 'half Blues' (just wearing trousers
and shirt) for fear of attack whilst going to work. That is a directive
from Scotland Yard.
'PCs have come out to find police cars having the brake lines cut and sometimes their own personal cars damaged'.
Another serving police officer agreed and said: 'Same here regarding the
dire warnings of wearing half blues even in my own car and I'm not in
London'.
The stunning reality is that there are Muslim ghettos in some British
cities where the police are never called. Why? Because they handle
everything internally according to the dictates of Sharia law. Who knows
how many honor killings, or female genital mutilations, or sex
trafficking of minors, or forced marriages occur there?
Tom Winsor, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, said in 2014 (emphasis mine), "There
are some communities born under other skies who will not involve police
at all. I am reluctant to name the communities in question but there
are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves. There are cities in the Midlands where the police never go because they are never called. They never hear of any trouble because the community deals with that on its own. They just have their own form of community justice."
"Their own form of community justice" is just a euphemism for Sharia
law, which does not honor a single cultural value we cherish in the
Christian West.
Because the police "get close to zero" calls in these areas, said
Winsor, "They don't know what injustices are being perpetrated. It's
almost a closed book because we can't go there so we don't know. It
could be anything from low-level crime right up to murder..."
If we want to see where we in America are headed, we need only look at
Europe. First it was in France, now it's in England. It doesn't take
blinding insight to realize we're next.
Hamtramck, Michigan now has a city council that is majority Muslim. The
call to Muslim prayer is broadcast five times a day over the entire
city, with the first blast launching at 6 am every day whether Christian
residents are offended by it or not.
Am I saying Hamtramck is a no-go zone? Of course not. Am I saying that
if something isn't done, it will become one? If there is anything to
learn from Europe, the answer to that question is an unequivocal yes.
Concern over untrammelled Muslim immigration is not bigotry, it's common
sense. Anyone who loves America and is thinking clearly and objectively
has reason to worry. This is not Islamophobia, for there is nothing
irrational about our fear of Islamic fundamentalism.
No, it is Islamorealism. And whether you agree with Mr. Trump or not,
it's time to bleed the mindless hysteria out of this debate.
Name-calling is not debate, disagreement is not hatred, and the truth is
not hate speech.
Bottom line: it already looks like England is not just a gun-free zone
but on its way to becoming a brain-free zone to boot. Let's not follow
ttHEhem there.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association
or American Family Radio.)
Presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton wants the Helms Amendment, which prohibits foreign aid for
abortions, amended with a rape exception.
The use of rape as a weapon of war is particularly heinous. ISIS
jihadists actually abduct and intentionally impregnate women, as a means
of spreading Mohammedanism and facilitating the domination of Islamic
rule.
We deeply empathize with those women who have been so inhumanly abused, but we still say the murderous violence of abortion is never the answer to the violence of rape.
Pro-life speaker Rebecca Kiessling told LifeNews that forcing Americans to pay for abortions would just victimize women in conflict areas a second time.
Kiessling points out that "most people don't put a face to this issue – for them abortion is just a concept."
Indeed, Kiessling gives a face to the issue of what compromising politicians call "the hard cases." Kiessling herself was conceived by rape, when her birth mother was abducted at knife-point by a serial rapist.
Kiessling says that those who truly believe in the sanctity of human
life understand that "every child conceived in rape is worthy of
protection."
She says true pro-lifers know that the conceived baby is innocent,
and intentionally made by God in His image, even if his or her father
was a rapist.
Besides, Kiessling says, the destruction of abortion doesn't help the mother.
"Rape victim mothers need real help, not abortion," Kiessling said.
"Justice is served by punishing the perpetrator, not the innocent
child."
Advertisement
Sarah Terzo of Live Action News says rape exceptions give the message "that their lives should not be protected – that their lives are not valuable." "If it's relevant that unborn children feel pain, then why is it not
relevant that children conceived in rape also feel pain?" Kiessling told
Terzo.
Elizabeth Reed told Terzo,
"I was 15 years old, raped by a person I trusted, kicked out of my home
by my mother, and homeless. And yet, I chose life and adoption for my
daughter[.] ... Whenever someone says they are pro-life 'except in cases
of rape' I feel directly like they are saying to me that my experience
was useless – that I should have aborted her and moved on – that her
life doesn't matter, and she's not worthy of what I went through.
"When they say things like, 'No woman should be forced to carry a
rapist's child,' I feel slapped in the face," Reed said. "My daughter
wasn't the rapist's child – she is mine."
"I know that rape is traumatic, first hand," Reed concluded. "I
understand the plight of women who have been abused, but my daughter was
a picture of hope to me[.] ... In ALL things, God works for the good.
Even tragedy."
Kiessling noted that in war-ravaged Congo, victims of rape are provided health care for themselves and their babies. Women are also given counseling and childcare for their children conceived in rape.
In December 2014, two dozen groups
in the U.S. called for an executive order allowing tax dollars for
abortion for women victims of rape in war or conflict. Earlier this
year, 81 Democratic lawmakers urged the president to create a rape exception to the Helms Amendment.
But Students for Life's website
asks, "Should a child die for the crimes of his or her parent?" and
explains, "A woman, violated in a sexual assault, should be surrounded
by love and support. If that assault results in pregnancy, aren't there
now two people affected by the assault? Two people in need of protection
and care?"
Right to Life of Michigan's website
notes that fully half of women impregnated by rape do not abort their
children. "Life is precious in every circumstance," they say. "It is absolutely indisputable that the life within the womb is a
unique human being," according to the pro-lifers of Michigan. "To say
that this irreplaceable life can be deliberately destroyed for any
reason denies the intrinsic humanity of the unborn."
