The Truth About Swine Flu Alarmists And Their Calls For Mandatory Vaccination – Global Warming Lies Are Rebutted By Meteorologist – Perverse Curriculum Being Forced On Students – Kennedy Can’t Be Defended For His Pro-Baby Killing Stance - ObamaCare Violates Catholic Social Teaching - Recent NRLC Rebuttals To Misinformation About The Pro-Abortion Health Care Bills

 

 

 

 

[LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH] If the Tyrants Make You Take It!‏

From:

 Mary Ann Kreitzer (kreitzr1@shentel.net)

Sent:

Sun 9/20/09 8:00 AM

 

 

What to do If You Are Forced to Take Swine Flu Shot

I've posted only the first part of a four-part interview. If you want to see the rest, go to the link above.



 

 

[LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH] More on Swine Flu: Mandatory Shots?‏

From:

 Mary Ann Kreitzer (kreitzr1@shentel.net)

Sent:

Sun 9/20/09 8:00 AM

 

 

According to medical critics, the swine flu vaccines being prepared by the millions of doses are poorly tested, contain dangerous ingredients, and are likely to be ineffective. Add to that the fact that that the flu strain so far has proven milder than the normal variety, which leads one to ask -- Why? Why all the scare-mongering and hype over the swine flu when it's less severe and shorter?

I don't think I want to be a guinea pig for the CDC and the drug companies. You can boost your immune system by improving your diet, getting plenty of sunshine and exercise, and taking vitamin D. Before you take the shot, do the research and make an informed decision.


Exposed: The Swine Flu Hoax

Eighteen Reasons Why You Should NOT Vaccinate Your Children Against The Flu This Season

Half of GPs in U.K. refuse swine flu vaccine over testing fears

N.J. Mandatory Flu Shots for Preschoolers Cause Outrage

WV Hospital Early Adopter Of Mandatory Flu Shots

Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret Exposed

--
Posted By Mary Ann Kreitzer to LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH at 9/20/2009 08:00:00 AM

 

 

 

 

For the benefit of the long suffering State College PA residents who are on my mailing list in reference to the latest global warming lies that are prepping for Comrade Obama's push to pass his horrendous ‘cap & tax’ bill that appeared in the 9/20/09 Sunday edition of our local PRAVDA USA, The Centre Daily Times, see the following links exposing the well known fraud that is man-made global warming which you will never see from the Obama propagandists at The CDT! -  Gary L. Morella
 
 
AUDIONETDAILY
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Congressman: 'We gotta stop' climate bill
GOP's Carter says Democrats misleading Americans on true tax burden of 'cap-and-trade'
--WND



 
 

North Pole ice-free ... in March 1959
Meteorologist debunks crisis mentality of climate-change alarmists
--Accuweather


 http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=39454465001&channel=VBLOG_BASTARDI&title=Some%20Extra%20Post

 

The Hysterical Claims of Gore's Green Goblins Debunked by Physics Professionals as 31,000 Scientists Reject 'Global Warming' Agenda

 

Boy, This Global Warming is Really a Huge Concern, NOT!!!

 

The Days Of The Life Of A Delusional Megalomaniac, With An Implanted Teleprompter, Who Makes Fun Of The Special Olympics – Sorry, Al, Global Warming Simply Not Happening

 

Flash: Obama’s Teleprompter Identified - It’s Easy To Predict A Global Financial Crisis When You Caused It Which Is What Obama’s Teleprompter Soros Did! – Global Warming Running Out Of Hot Air

 

A Farcical Report Courtesy Of The Environmentally Insane Based On Global Warming Climate Change Lies That Have Been Refuted By Thousands Of Sane Scientists

 

Demographic Winter Exposing The Lies Of The Population Control Gore/Global Warming Crowd Is A Crisis That We Can’t Ignore

 

Global Warming Arguments Lack Proper Evidence, Logic

 

The Fact That Human Production Of CO2 Causing Global Warming Or Climate Change Is The Biggest Deception In History Matters Not To The Communist Ideologues Who Are Destroying America From Within

 

Outrage Over Pro-Sodomite Anti-Religious Bigot Jennings Appointment At Dept. Of Education - "Obama's Global Warming Bill Is 'Patently Absurd'"

 

Had Enough Change For The Worse Yet? - Obama Has Never Been About ‘Confidence For The People’ But Rather ‘Control Of The People’ - The Left's Global Warming Denier Deniers

 

$10 Per Gallon Gas Prices Destroying the Economy to Appease the Gore Green Goblin Climate Fantasies are Insanity

 

Google’s Obama-Led Solar-Energy Hype Defies Reality - EPA's Own Research Expert 'Shut Up' On Climate Change - What The Liberal Media Aren't Telling You About Obama's Healthcare Plans - IG Fired To Avoid Embarrassing Obamas - Staged Questions For Obama Alarm Beat Reporters

 

Climate Change Gestapo Coming To Your Home - H.R. 2454 Is A 1400-Page Promise To Audit Every Aspect Of Your Home And Life – Man-Made Climate Change IS A MYTH

 

Comrade Obama’s Deadly ‘Doctors’- Smooth-Talking Charlatans Then And Now - Euthanasia Advocates Authored Part Of Obamacare - Obama Plan Needs '$13,000/Family' Tax Hike - Town Hall In Missouri Mocks 'Climate Change Myths' - Town Halls Burst With Obama 'Plants' - The Moral Poverty Of The Southern Poverty Law Center Exposed

 

 

 

 

 

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
WorldNetDaily
'Gay' curriculum challenges students' faith 
'Does your religion encourage choice or reinforce gender expectations?'
--WND


 
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
'Gay' curriculum challenges students' faith
'Does your religion encourage choice or reinforce gender expectations?'


Posted: September 19, 2009
11:15 pm Eastern


By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Scene from "Bikini," one film in the "Youth in Motion" curriculum


A homosexual advocacy initiative claims that over 250 California schools have registered to show their students a curriculum of films that encourages teens to rethink their sexuality, society and even religion.


The curriculum includes videos made by a San Francisco group calling itself "the best in LGBT media," and includes a clip in which a boy "comes out" by wearing his mother's bikini and another that uses Native American spirituality to depict bisexual individuals as "two-spirit" people.


The accompanying discussion guides also encourage students to evaluate their religious traditions based on whether they encourage "choice" in sexuality or "reinforce gender expectations."


The program, called "Youth in Motion: Empowering students through LGBTQ film," is a joint effort between the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and Frameline, which describes itself as a nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender media arts.


"Our goal is to give student activists and teachers new tools to educate their peers about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender history and culture (and have fun doing it!)," states the curriculum's website.


The curriculum comes in several packages designed for middle and high school students, including "Gender Matters," which encourages children to think of sexuality outside the male/female dichotomy, and "In the Family," which takes a critical slant on traditional marriage laws.


 Each of the curriculum packages includes videos, discussion guides and action points for classroom use – some of which are certain to raise eyebrows:


The "Gender Matters" package, for example, includes a film called "Two-Spirit People," which teaches teens that some Native American religions honor individuals who "embody feminine and masculine qualities" as "a third gender, beyond man and woman," capable of being "a conduit between the physical and spiritual world."


"Does your culture, religion or family have any similar coming-of-age rites of passage (quinceañera, bat/bar mitzvah, prom)?" the discussion guide asks. "Do these cultural events encourage gender choice or reinforce gender expectations?"


In the "In the Family" curriculum, students are invited to create coloring books for even younger children based on what they've learned from the videos. The curriculum holds up "Girls Will Be Boys Will Be Girls" as "a cool example of a fabulous gender coloring book."


One group keeping a close eye on how this curriculum will be used is the Pacific Justice Institute, a legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights and other civil liberties.


Brad Dacus, PJI's president, told Focus on the Family's CitizenLink.com, "These pro-homosexual 'tolerance' films, shown to children as young as 12 years old in the seventh grade are a clear breach of parental trust."


PJI is encouraging concerned parents to stay informed and to ask their school districts if the films will be shown.


Apparently, PJI's warning stems from the reality that the videos can legally be shown in California schools without informing the parents.


"School districts in California cannot require parental consent for films that include mention of LGBT people or issues," the curriculum's website boasts, "only instruction or materials that explicitly mentions human reproductive organs and their functions fall under consent laws for sex education."


In a statement, however, PJI reminded parents that discover the films are scheduled to be discussed in their children's schools that they have the ability to have their children excused from the discussion.


Furthermore, Dacus said in the statement, "PJI will continue to investigate whether any opt-out laws are being violated by the showing of these films. Any parents whose opt-out requests are denied by their child's school should contact PJI immediately."

 

 

Leaked Document Outlines Radical Sex Group's Plan to "Change the Way Americans Think about Sex"


Group to push "education" in orgies, masturbation, sadomasochism

By Kathleen Gilbert


SAN FRANCISCO, California, September 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A San Francisco sex group's four-year strategic plan, aimed to "change the way Americans think about sex" by desensitizing mainstream American culture to aberrant sexual practices, has been leaked.


The document reveals a well thought out strategy to acclimatize the American public to everything from the practice of sadomasochism to orgies and every other "consensual" sexual behavior besides.


"CSC will be taking the lead in framing the sex positive discourse in our culture," writes the Center for Sex and Culture in its 2007-2011 strategic plan.  "In this ambitious vision of the future, certainly more than five years distant, CSC will have accomplished the difficult task of changing the way Americans think about sex. 


"People will feel more comfortable with their sexual desires and society at large will be more accepting of a wide range of attitudes regarding sexuality."


CSC says its mission is "to provide non-judgmental, sex-positive sexuality education and support to diverse populations" by means of educational initiatives that include "hands-on, practical skills-building events."  The group currently offers several workshops related to homosexual, orgiastic, and sadomasochistic sex, and other "non-mainstream sexualities," and advertises a monthly erotic reading circle as well as an annual web-broadcasted "Masturbate-A-Thon."


CSC's goals in advancing the "sex positive revolution" include a comprehensive plan to expand the group via marketing, the formation of regional and national partnerships with local groups, as well as the development of a "sex positive" curriculum that would "appeal to both professionals and lay-persons."  In addition, the group says it plans to launch a formal internship program to "add legitimacy to CSC in the academic world," and expressed interest in instigating a "Sexual Attitude Reassessment" program.


The group was founded in 1994 as an offshoot of the San Francisco sex toy shop Good Vibrations by Carol Queen and Robert Morgan Lawrence, both of whom tout Ph.D.s in "education in human sexuality." 


Queen, who has described herself as "a sex worker and a practitioner of alternative sexualities," has written and spoken copiously on the topic since at least 1975, including "lesbian and gay identity, gay rights, sadomasochism, group sex, bisexuality, prostitution, pornography, sex work, sex toys, alternative relationship structures, erotic writing, and safe sex." 


She is credited with coining the term "absexual," first used in a chapter of Queen's book "Real Live Nude Girl" entitled "Dirty Pictures, Heavy Breathing, Moral Outrage, and the New Absexuality." The term "absexuality" applies to those who are supposed to be sexually stimulated by moving away from sexuality, such as by promoting abstinence.


"These disparate anti-porn, anti-gay activists unite in the particular form their relationship to sexuality takes," wrote Queen.  "Their voyeuristic, judgemental peeping on other forms of sex is, in fact, these peoples' sexual orientation."


While Queen's group says it has seen rapid growth and listed several opportunities for expansion, it listed as threats the "rise of conservatism and social evangelism" and state and federal-level preference for abstinence education.  Following President Obama's recommendations, however, Congress has recently gutted federal abstinence education funding while increasing spending for explicit sex education and condom distribution.


In an appended interview with CSC board member and lesbian activist Nikole Pagan, Queen and Lawrence discussed CSC's message as fighting "the way our culture often poses sex as dangerous."


Queen also indicated that CSC intending to indirectly help dismantle various state laws against sexual perversion.


"The work that we do is sort of … groundwork for getting those inappropriate, in our opinion inappropriate, laws out of the way," she said.  "We make the discussion happen for other people who are in a position to make laws."


Dr. Judith Reisman, an internationally-recognized expert on sexuality, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) this week that the term "sex positive" means "all bets are off: pansexuality, usually including pedophilia and sadistic sex as well any ages, so long as 'consent' is provided."


Reisman's research was responsible for revealing the fraudulent foundations of Dr. Alfred Kinsey field of "sexology," that largely spurred on the sexual revolution in America in the 1960s.  Reisman showed that Kinsey's research into sexual attitudes collected data from prostitutes and prisoners that was then extrapolated to the general public. 


The devastating effects of Kinsey's research have matured into the multifaceted attacks on human sexuality that have achieved mainstream acceptability in recent years, including birth control, explicit sex education, homosexuality (including same-sex "marriage") - and, perhaps in years to come - the broad embrace of all sexual deviations represented by such groups as CSC.


Perhaps the CSC's only stated holdout against a total devolution into sexual abandonment is the occasional mention of limiting activity to "sexual choice that is consensual."  The admission reflects the ethos of the abortion and homosexual rights movement, which has long hoisted the banner of an unlimited right to privacy within the bounds of the involved parties' wishes.


Reisman warned that, while the term "consent" may convey a compelling argument to a conservative audience, the true meaning of the term in a Kinseyan understanding is far more bleak


"'Consent' means the offender perceives the victim as consenting," said Reisman.  "A child then can be seen to 'consent' if it screams, cries, and such but if the molester determines these hysterics are signs of orgasm (as did Kinsey)."


Much of Kinsey's research is now known to have been based upon records kept by an anonymous pedophile source referred to as "Mr. Green," who claimed to have molested hundreds of infants and young children from 1917 to 1948.

Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

 

 

Fr. Thomas Euteneuer: No Deal, Fr. Rosica

From:

 spiritandlife-bounces@lists.hli.org on behalf of Spirit & Life e-Newsletter (spiritandlife@lists.hli.org)

Sent:

Sat 9/19/09 4:41 PM

To:

Spirit & Life (spiritandlife@lists.hli.org)

 

Spirit & Life®

"The words I spoke to you are spirit and life." (Jn 6:63)
Human Life International e-Newsletter
Volume 04, Number 31 | Friday, September 18, 2009

..................................................................................

www.hli.org

No Deal, Fr. Rosica

Fr. Thomas Rosica, director of the Salt and Light Catholic Television Network in Canada, recently wrote a shameless condemnation of pro-life people who objected to the August 28th Canonization in Boston, more commonly known as the funeral of Senator Edward Kennedy. Fr. Rosica had a problem with good Catholics being scandalized by the public funeral of a man who lived his life utterly rejecting the Church's core principles. There was absolutely no recognition of the heroism of the thousands of faithful Catholics who have stood on the front lines of this battle for many decades or of the marvelous contribution that we have made to saving babies and witnessing to the Truth of Christ. Unfortunately, Father's criticism simply feeds the flames of anti-life sentiment against pro-lifers and ultimately against the sanctity of human life.

Now, the first of his many ironies was that, in condemning pro-lifers, Father was attempting to convince his readers not to condemn anyone. He reads the Scripture passage, "judge not lest ye be judged" with a bit of jaundice. He called pro-lifers all kinds of names that could have come right out of Planned Parenthood's verbiage for us, and he even insinuated in a subsequent interview that, of all people, EWTN's Raymond Arroyo was somehow part of this "uncharitable" problem in the Church because Raymond spoke out forcefully against the Kennedy scandal. Then he attacked the best pro-life news organization in the business, LifeSiteNews, saying that they were doing "the work of the devil" in shining the spotlight on this travesty. If this is the Gospel model of non-judgmentalism, I am reading the Good Book wrong.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Luther pastor who was killed in the Nazi Holocaust, called this kind of sell-out "cheap grace" because it costs the pious churchman absolutely nothing to say it. In fact it must apparently feel real good because so many of them indulge in it. Let these churchmen try disciplining "Catholic" dissenters who scandalize Christ's faithful, and they would see the value of their grace increase in proportion to their suffering at the hands of these renegades.

Worst of all is that people with this strange ethic of non-judgmentalism apply a standard of mercy to public Catholic reprobates that is never applied to the aborted children who will not get a funeral or graveside service offered by prelates reading pious sentiments from a very strange gospel book. What Fr. Rosica's denunciations have thus highlighted for us is the extent to which the "judge not lest ye be judged" ethic reigns in ecclesiastical circles, and for that reason our Church is in trouble. Those who come out of a non-judgmentalism Gospel ethic, lay and cleric alike, will have nothing to offer our suffering souls in the darkness that is even now hovering over our Church like a black shroud. The pagan world is already coming after all that we hold dear and sacred, and if the murder of pro-lifer James Pouillon last week is any indication, they will soon be doing so with a vehemence that we have not experienced in our land since the days of the North American Martyrs.

To the ethic of hypocritical diatribes that defame pro-lifers, I can only say, "No deal, Father Rosica." Anyone who will use "non-judgmentalism" against faithful Catholics needs to wake up and smell the gunpowder on Jim Pouillon's pro-life t-shirt. The Church stands with all men and women of good will against the increasingly pagan and violent culture that militates against us and our values. Those who use this ethic to keep the Church totally unprepared for battle need more than a re-reading of Scripture. They need a good kick in the back end and a refresher course on Catholic bravery which St. Paul tells us makes us "strong, loving and wise." (2 Tim 1:7-8)

Sincerely,


Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International

 

 

 

 

Final Thoughts On The Funeral Of Ted Kennedy - Public Sin Calls For Public Repentance

 

 

 

White House Still Refusing to Endorse Abortion-Excluding Language in Health Care Bill

By Kathleen Gilbert


WASHINGTON, D.C., September 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Despite the Obama administration's repeated dismissal of the controversy over abortion funding in the health care reform bill, a confrontation between White House officials and Americans United for Life (AUL) Thursday revealed what pro-life leaders have been warning all along: that the White House is unlikely to put its money where its mouth is and support language in the bill that would explicitly prevent taxpayer funds from going to abortion and abortion providers.


Consonant with the warnings of pro-life forces, the outcome of the meeting helped clarify the extent of President Obama's commitment to supporting the stated health care interests of the abortion lobby.  Organizations such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL have called repeatedly for the "right" of abortion to be broadly expanded through the bill.


President Obama has in recent weeks been attempting to allay concerns about abortion and his health care plans, calling it a "fabrication" that the bill would use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions.  However, pro-life organizations such as the Family Research Council and the National Right to Life Committee have pointed to language in the current form of the House bill explicitly calling for abortion coverage in the public plan, as well as taxpayer subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortions. The analysis of these groups has been backed up by other non-pro-life groups, including the Associated Press and the non-partisan FactCheck.org.


More recently, Obama claimed in a Sept. 9 address to a joint session of Congress that "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."


AUL president and CEO Charmaine Yoest met with senior White House officials Melody Barnes and Tina Tchen after Dr. Yoest called on the White House to clarify President Obama's recent statement of support for keeping abortion funding out of health care reform. 


After the meeting, Dr. Yoest stated that the White House remained noncommittal on explicit language excluding abortion from the health care bill.


"We remain deeply concerned about abortion funding and the abortion mandate in health care reform," said Yoest in a statement Thursday.  "Ms. Barnes reiterated the President's statement about opposing abortion funding in his address before Congress last week but the White House would not commit to language that explicitly excludes abortion from health care reform." 


Dr. Yoest provided the White House with a brief from the Americans United for Life legal team that documents why anything less than an explicit ban on abortion funding and coverage will ultimately allow government-funded abortion.  


The AUL president also delivered a petition with over 39,000 signatures from pro-life Americans telling President Obama to veto any bill that does not specifically forbid mandating insurance companies to cover abortion.  The petition also urges the President to veto any bill that could make taxpayers responsible for directly or indirectly paying for abortion.


"The reality on the Hill right now is that the health care bills do include abortion funding," Yoest continued.  "Without a specific statutory amendment that includes an explicit ban on federal funding and coverage, taxpayers will be paying for abortion."


White House Public Engagement director Tina Tchen, with whom Yoest met last night, in July personally updated a gathering of Planned Parenthood staff of president Obama's plans for health care and assured them of his commitment to "women's health."


On August 12, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards gushed over her organization's close relationship with the White House on the issue of health care reform following a private meeting.  "Just left the White House meeting on women's health care - they appreciate all the mighty PP supporters speaking up for reform in the states!" said Richards on Facebook and Twitter.


As pointed out in a fact check of Obama's statements to Congress published by House Minority Leader John Boehner September 10, Obama made no secret of his commitment to expanding abortion through health care prior to his ascension to the presidency.


During the Q&A session of a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, then-senator Obama said that abortion was "essential" care that would be "at the heart, and at the center of" his plan for health care reform. 


"President Obama has never retracted this vow, and the health care reform bill moving through the House would help him make good on it if enacted into law," said Boehner.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Planned Parenthood Continues Boasting Close Ties with White House on Obamacare Bill 
Obama Calls Abortion Funding in Healthcare Legislation a "Fabrication" 
AP Confirms Health Bill Radically Opens Federal Funds to Abortion 
Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com



 

 
Another Bishop Says ObamaCare Violates Catholic Social Teaching

By Peter J. Smith


CAPE GIRARDEAU, Missouri, September 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Another Catholic bishop has stated that too many aspects of President Barack Obama's health care reforms violate basic and necessary Catholic social principles, such as respect for human dignity, safeguarding human life, conscience protection, and the principle of "subsidiarity."


"Health care reform is a very complex issue, with many important peripheral issues, such as cost and how to pay for it, economic impact, the role of the federal government, abortion, euthanasia, tort reform, etc.," writes Bishop James Vann Johnston of Cape-Girardeau and Springfield, Missouri. "But as such, health care reform is particularly important in that, as Catholics, we understand the principles that should be at the very heart of this delicate work."


Johnston says that of all the ways "to skin the health-care cat," President Obama's proposed reform raises serious and troubling questions for Catholics, such that the bishop says he cannot in good conscience support it.


"To begin, one must recognize that the provision of health care is rooted in our recognition of the basic dignity of every human person, made in God's image. Individuals and society both have inherent obligations to protect, respect, and promote the human person and his/her good."


Johnston goes on to observe that the Catholic Church has been involved in health-care since the first century A.D. following the example of the Good Samaritan, and that "one out of six hospital beds in the US today is in a Catholic hospital." However, he says, health-care reform needs to take into account respect for human dignity, safeguarding human life, and conscience protection.


Johnston points out that a recent and disturbing incident of conscience violations illustrates "how real is the threat of federal power to coerce health care providers, employers, and individuals into participating in actions contrary to conscience and Catholic teaching." Johnston is referring to the Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which "took action against Belmont Abbey College, a small Catholic college in North Carolina, for removing coverage for abortion, contraception, and voluntary sterilization from their employee insurance plan after they were inadvertently included." 


Guaranteeing the basic principle of "subsidiarity" is also essential to health-care reform, writes the bishop. That means delivering health-care to a patient through social channels most proximate to his situation, ensuring his basic rights and fundamental dignity are respected, providing him the treatments and loving care that he needs, and protecting him from a centralized bureaucracy that does not care for him. "One might consider this the principle of social dignity," says Johnston.


Johnston quotes the Catholic Catechism to emphasize that subsidiarity is "opposed to all forms of collectivism" and "sets limits for state intervention." He explains, however, that "the higher order" of central government does have a role in health-care reform; but it must only play a very limited and supporting role, not a dominant one, so as not to run the risk of crushing all the other necessary functions and expressions of society and trampling on the individual.


"Government may also be needed to see that no one, especially the working poor and the most destitute and forgotten, falls through the cracks," writes Johnston.
"But, the essential element of the principle of subsidiarity is the protection of individual freedoms from unjust micromanagement and manipulation by the state."


In conclusion, the bishop states that he can not support President Obama's reforms, because the proposed plans for restricting the way health-care is delivered violate these fundamental Catholic principles.  "May all those engaged in this issue craft a plan that provides universal health care that is affordable to all, distributes costs equitably, and above all, safeguards human life from conception to natural death and the freedom of conscience," writes Johnston in conclusion. "We must never forget as then-Card. Ratzinger stated, 'There is only one morality à, the morality of God's commandments, which cannot be temporarily suspended in order to bring about a change in the status quo more quickly.'"


See Bishop James Vann Johnston's Letter "Skinning the 'Health Care Cat'"
See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:
Bishop Doran Weighs in Against Obama Health Care Overhaul 
Kansas Bishops Criticize Healthcare over Abortion, Failure to Respect Subsidiarity 
Bishop Aquila Holds the Line against Abortion-Promoting Health Care Reform  
Bishop Nickless: "No Health Care Reform is Better than the Wrong Health Care Reform" 

Bishop Vasa: No Support for "Fatally Flawed" Obamacare Bill 
Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com



Vatican: the State Must Respect Parents' Wishes in Religious Education

By Patrick B. Craine


September 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Congregation for Catholic Education has released a new document in which they call on public authorities to respect the religious and educational freedoms of parents in school curriculums, emphasizing that schools ought to provide for the proper moral and religious formation of students according to the student's faith.


"In a pluralistic society, the right to religious freedom requires both the assurance of the presence of religious education in schools," the document states, "and the guarantee that such education be in accordance with parents' convictions."


The letter, dated May 5th, was addressed to the presidents of the Catholic bishops' conferences and signed by Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, Prefect of the Congregation, and Secretary Jean-Louis Bruguþs, O.P.


Such a letter was needed, they indicate, because of growing debate about "the nature and role of religious education."  In particular, they write, they must address the fact that in certain instances states are beginning to replace religious education programs with courses in comparative religion or in "religious ethics and culture."


"If religious education is limited to a presentation of the different religions, in a comparative and 'neutral' way," they write, "it creates confusion or generates religious relativism or indifferentism."


"The right of parents are violated, if their children are forced to attend lessons or instructions which are not in agreement with their religious beliefs," they write, quoting Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom, "or if a single system of education, from which all religious formation is excluded, is imposed upon all."


This letter from the Congregation was of particular importance to Catholic parents in Quebec, Canada, where the province has imposed a mandatory course, spanning grades 1 to 11, in 'ethics and religious culture' that purports to survey the world's religions in a completely neutral fashion.


In an August 31st decision, a Quebec judge denied Catholic parents the right to exempt their children from the course, basing his judgment on one theologian's interpretation of Catholic teaching.  This theologian argued that the course was acceptable because the Church values instruction in other religions, and expects parents to ensure their children's formation in their own faith.


The judge was presented with the Congregation's letter, but dismissed it in favor of his preferred theologian's interpretation.


In the letter, the Congregation does affirm the Church's teaching that "parents, having given life to their children, are their primary and principal educators," without, however, limiting this parental right merely to instruction in their own faith.  They also recognize the important role of the state in education, but stress that its role is to assist parents. "In this primary task, parents need the subsidiary help of civil society and other institutions," they write.


The Congregation reiterates the parents' canonical requirement to send their children to a school where they will obtain a Catholic education, or, if this is not possible, to ensure such an education by other means (Code of Canon Law 798).


The Congregation, further, reminds bishops especially of their canonical duty to provide means for their faithful to obtain a Catholic education.  "The whole Christian community, and particularly the diocesan Ordinary," they write, "bear the responsibility 'of arranging everything so that all the faithful have a Catholic education' (c. 794 º2) and, more precisely, of having 'schools which offer an education imbued with a Christian spirit' (c. 802)."


The freedom of Catholics to develop their own schools, the Congregation asserts, is a matter of subsidiarity, and the Church must be afforded authority over Catholic instruction.  "This principle [of subsidiarity] excludes any 'kind of school monopoly'," they say, quoting Vatican II's Declaration on Christian Education.


Again quoting the Declaration, they write, "The public power ... must see to it, in its concern for distributive justice, that public subsidies are paid out in such a way that parents are truly free to choose according to their conscience the schools they want for their children."

To view the letter click here
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Quebec Decision against Exemption from Mandatory Religious Relativism Course under Heavy Fire
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09091608.html
Vatican Cardinal Criticises US for Not Funding Catholic Schools
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07112305.html
Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

 

 

 

They Say, We Say‏

From:

 nrlc@nrlc.org

 

 

 

 

Sent:

Fri 9/18/09 6:27 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a congressional update from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), issued on Friday, September 18, 2009, at 4 PM EDT. Please forward this update to any appropriate pro-life lists. For further information, visit the NRLC website at:

http://www.nrlc.org/
and
http://www.stoptheabortionagenda.com/


 

They say, we say:
Recent NRLC rebuttals to misinformation
about the pro-abortion health care bills

 

WASHINGTON (September 18, 2009) -- The pro-abortion public relations machine is in full throttle in support of the abortion-related components of the health care bills that are being pushed by the White House and top congressional Democrats.

1. A detailed outline of Senator Max Baucus' proposed health care bill was released on September 16. The proposal has many objectionable components pertaining to both abortion and rationing. The initial NRLC statement on the bill is here. A follow up release on the "death spiral" provision is here.

2. Over the last few days, a number of websites, including Huffington Post, The Hill, and RHRealityCheck.org, have published an essay by Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-Ca.) titled, "The Truth About the Capps Amendment." We recommend that you read the piece on RHRealityCheck.org, here. That site has a permissive comment policy, and NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson has challenged Rep. Capps in a detailed rebuttal.

3. The Baltimore Sun ran (twice!) an op ed by Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) President Cecile Richards, titled, "Plan Wouldn't Fund Abortion," most recently on September 13. A rebuttal by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson titled "Planned Parenthood's Hidden Agenda on Health Reform" was submitted to the Sun but ignored. However, on September 16, the Winona (Mn.) Daily News, which also ran the original Richards piece, published the rebuttal, under the title "What Does Cecile Richards Really Want?," here.

4. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus did her bit for the Capps Amendment in a column that ran in the Post on September 9, and subsequently in some other papers. National Review Online published a rebuttal by NRLC's Douglas Johnson here, also on September 9.

5. Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy and advocacy for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), posted an essay titled "Bridging the Divide on Health Care for Women," dated September 9, 2009, on Daily Kos, and on RHRealityCheck.org, where a detailed rebuttal by NRLC's Douglas Johnson was posted, here.

6. Veteran pro-abortion activist Frances Kissling posted an essay on several websites, "Exploiting the Health Care Debate to Restrict Abortion." The thrust of Kissling's essay was that the pro-abortion side had already compromised enough and that no further concessions should be made to the right-to-life side. A rebuttal by NRLC's Douglas Johnson was posted on RHRealityCheck.org on September 16, here.

7. On September 11, http://www.politifact.com/ examined in detail, and rated as "True," the following statement by House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Oh.): "During his quest for the presidency, now-President Obama declared that everyone deserves access to reproductive health care that includes abortion, and vowed that this 'right' would be at the heart of his health care reform plan if elected president." It is here.

8. In light of some of the press coverage of recent days, it is evident that NRLC's September 8 "duped media" advisory remains timely and should be required reading for journalists who are covering the congressional fight.



 


 

 

For further information:
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
Washington, D.C.
202-626-8820
Legfederal@aol.com

 

To contact us by mail:
National Right to Life, Inc.
512 10th St., NW
Washington, DC 20004-1401

 

http://www.nrlc.org/ahc
http://stoptheabortionagenda.com
 

 

 

 

How They Hate those Nasty Pictures! Except the Ones ... 


Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:03:43 -0700
From: kreitzr1@shentel.net
Subject: [LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH] How They Hate those Nasty Pictures! Except the Ones ...

false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 border=0 v:shapes="EC_EC_BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5382853112453140274"> border=0 v:shapes="EC_EC_BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5382853221633024370">

A friend of mine, who prefers to remain anonymous because of her husband's job, sent me the following commentary which I think is spot on.

When we see photographs of the Nazi death camps,how does it make us feel? (obviously, horrified).

When we see these photos, do we get angry with the photographers or the activist groups who are showing them to us? (No, we are thankful to them for revealing the atrocities).

Do you think the Germans during WW II (the ones that were left after the Jews, Priests, etc. fled or were exterminated) would have been angry with such photos being shown to them? (Possibly)

Do you think the Germans of the day would have denied that such crimes could be perpetrated by their government? (possibly) Why? (Because they would likely not want to look in the mirror. They would not want to admit that such atrocities could be going on under their noses.)

Why, when Americans are confronted with photos of aborted unborn babies, do they get angry at the activists who are showing the photos to them? Why do they not feel the same horror they do when They see the photos of crimes committed against the Jews? (The obvious answer is because they don't want to look in the mirror. It is easier to vent anger at the deliverer of the message than to acknowledge the silent holocaust that is occurring in our midst.)

To look in the mirror is to admit shame and guilt.

**********



--
Posted By Mary Ann Kreitzer to LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH at 9/18/2009 12:53:00 PM
 
 
 

The Holocaust Of Our Time

 

THE HOLOCAUST OF OUR TIME by Gary L. Morella

 

here have been many people who are reluctant to compare the Jewish Holocaust with the killing of babies in the womb, the holocaust of our time. I don't understand this for the following reasons.

Holocaust means "a thorough destruction." How anyone could say that a holocaust is not occurring when babies are brutally killed in their mothers' womb defies description. I would invite anyone who identifies themselves as "pro-choice" to watch a film on embryoscopy to see the fully formed transparent baby at four weeks with the heart clearly beating and then to watch a film on abortion where baby parts are cavalierly deposited into trays. This isn't about a person's "choice"; it's about life and death. A child is not a "choice" except in a desensitized society that calls the removal of a fully term baby from the womb by its feet and the subsequent sucking out of its brains "dilation and extraction."

Simply put, the human embryo is not potentially a new human being, but a new human being full of potential. Everything needed for the adult person is already biologically present with the formation of the first cell. This is recognized by the vast majority of medical schools

The theological perspective, beginning with the light which Revelation sheds on the meaning of a human life and on the dignity of the person, supports and sustains human reason in regard to these conclusions, without in any way diminishing the validity of contributions based on rational evidence. Therefore the duty of respecting the human embryo as a human person derives from the reality of the matter and from the force of rational argumentation, and not exclusively from a position of faith.

From the juridical point of view, the core of the debate on the protection of the human embryo consist in the recognition of fundamental human rights by virtue of the presence of a human being. The right to life and to physical integrity from the first moment of existence, must be respected. Recent findings of human biological science recognize that in the zygote (the cell produced when the nuclei of the two gametes have fused) resulting from fertilization, the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted.

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.

Many are complaining about an exhibit at Penn State which shows babies killed in the womb. I ask why not show this. Why not show the horror which man is capable of perpetrating on his fellow man to learn from history, sadly a history which we're still living. Why not educate our students as to what they are really standing for when they say that they are "pro-choice?"

Not only do I see a comparison with the "legalized" killing of babies in the womb since Roe v. Wade and the Jewish Holocaust. I see the former exceeding the latter by an order-of-magnitude. Both were the results of "man-made" laws whose results are tragic but not unpredictable since man has no law except that rooted in the Natural Law given to him by Almighty God. This moral foundation is necessary in society else anarchy reigns as what happens when A's unlimited freedom conflicts with B's? In the absence of a universal absolute law, just what can be appealed to? Thus, saying that "it's the law" is specious as Dred Scott can attest to in regard to slavery being the law of the land upheld by the Supreme Court. Both result in the brutal killing of human beings on a scale measured in the millions with the former ongoing for over 25 years.

I would challenge those who hold to a "pro-choice" position to answer the following question. Where would you be if your mother didn't receive the Grace from God to believe that you, in her womb, at the earliest of pre-natal stages had an inalienable right to life?