Breaking News - Women for Faith & Family

Posted May 3, 2010

USCCB News Release

10-085
April 30, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vatican Approves New Version of Roman Missal, Bishops to Decide When to Implement in Dioceses, Parishes

Date for implementation still to be set
Educational preparation vital for priests, parishioners
First major change to Mass in decades

WASHINGTON—The Vatican has given its “recognitio,” or statement of acceptance, of the proposed U.S. version of the new edition of the Roman Missal. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) now must decide when to authorize its use in dioceses and parishes in the United States.

In a letter from Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, dated March 25, 2010, (Protocol Number 269/10L) the text of the English translation of the Roman Missal, third edition, has been approved with the required recognitio.

In addition,a series of adaptations and proper texts for the Dioceses of the United States also has been approved. Cardinal Francis George, OMI of Chicago, USCCB President, was in Rome to attend meetings of the Vox Clara Committee, of which he is a member, and received the decrees personally. The complete text of the Roman Missal is still undergoing final editing by Vatican officials. It is expected to be forwarded to Conferences of Bishops later this spring, at which time it will be prepared for publication.

Bishop Arthur Serratelli, Chair of the Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship, voiced gratitude for the approval.

“I am happy that after years of study and review, the Congregation for Divine Worship has concluded its work and provided us with a text that will enable the ongoing renewal of the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy in our parishes,” he said.

In the coming weeks, the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship will offer to Cardinal George its recommendation regarding the date of the implementation of the new translation. Once the final decision is made, Cardinal George will announce the date to the bishops. It is also expected that a suggested implementation timeline and process will be offered to the bishops for implementation within their dioceses.

The receipt of the recognitio marks the beginning of the proximate preparation for the implementation of the Roman Missal. During the time leading up to actual first Sunday of use of the new text, pastors are encouraged to make use of the wide variety of resources available to prepare parishioners for the reception of the new text. Some of these resources have been made available already in the remote preparation, while others are being released now, including the Parish Guide for the Implementation of the Roman Missal, Third Edition, from USCCB Publishing. In addition, the Office of Divine Worship has launched Website to provide up-to-date information about the Missal: www.USCCB.org/romanmissal.

Msgr. Anthony Sherman, Director of the USCCB Secretariat for Divine Worship, said work already is in progress so that priests and congregations will be prepared for the first substantial changes in the Mass in decades.

“A great effort to produce the new Roman Missal for the United States of America is underway now among the publishers of liturgical books, along with the other necessary resources by publishers of liturgical music and catechetical resources,” he said. “Even as that work is underway a full–scale implementation of catechesis for the new Missal should be taking place in the parishes, so that when the time comes, everyone will be ready.”

Currently the Office of Divine Worship is leading a series of workshops for clergy and diocesan leaders as a first step in preparation for the changes.

Posted April 21, 2010

Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, Rice Hotel, Houston, Texas, September 12, 1960

Archbishop Chaput & James Hitchcock Responses - RE: The JFK Houston speech.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1342971?eng=y

Posted April 16, 2010

The Vatican web site has a new section - responses to sex abuse crises, with
links to pertinent docs from Holy See.

ABUSE OF MINORS.THE CHURCH'S RESPONSE

Posted October 9, 2009

USCCB News Release

09-201
October 8, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Bishops’ concerns include abortion, conscience, immigrants, affordability
Reaffirm commitment to work for reform that respects life and dignity of all

U.S. Bishops: Current Health Care Bills Violate Essential Principles; Will Seek Changes Or Have To Oppose

WASHINGTON—Three chairmen of the bishops’ committees working on health care reform urged the U.S. Congress to improve current health care reform legislation, expressing their “disappointment that progress has not been made on the three priority criteria for health care reform” cited in their previous letters.

The October 8 letter from Bishop William Murphy, Cardinal Justin Rigali and Bishop John Wester reiterated the bishops’ main concerns: that no one should be forced to pay for or participate in an abortion, that health care should be affordable and available to the poor and vulnerable, and that the needs of legal immigrants are met.

Bishop Murphy, Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Wester chair the U.S. bishops’ committees on Domestic Justice and Human Development, Pro-Life Activities and Immigration, respectively.

The bishops reaffirmed their commitment to working with Congress and the Administration toward genuine health care reform, but stated, “If final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill.”

“We sincerely hope that the legislation will not fall short of our criteria,” wrote the bishops. “However, we remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has advocated for health care reform for decades. The bishops wrote that “Catholic moral tradition teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential to protecting human life and dignity. Much-needed reform of our health care system must be pursued in ways that serve the life and dignity of all, never in ways that undermine or violate these fundamental values. We will work tirelessly to remedy these central problems and help pass real reform that clearly protects the life, dignity and health of all.”

The full text of the letter can be found online at: www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-10-08-healthcare-letter-congress.pdf

Posted September 30, 2009

USCCB News Release

09-189
September 30, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

USCCB Pro-Life Committee Chairman Releases Statement For Respect Life Sunday

WASHINGTON—In a statement to mark Respect Life Sunday, October 4, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia called attention to those who are most vulnerable in recent debates on health care reform – the unborn, the poor, the elderly and the immigrant – and called upon Catholics to “examine how well we, as a nation and individually, are living up to our obligation to protect the rights of those who, due to age, dependency, poverty or other circumstances, are at risk of their very lives."

Cardinal Rigali chairs the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Cardinal Rigali noted that the lives of the unborn are those most at risk in America and “despite the opposition of 67% of Americans to taxpayer-funded abortion, all current health care proposals being considered by Congress would allow or mandate abortion funding, either through premiums paid into government programs or out of federal revenues."

Noting that the unborn are not alone in being under attack in current proposals, Cardinal Rigali called for health care that recognizes the humanity of the immigrant. “How can a just society deny basic health care to those living and working among us who need medical attention? It cannot and must not," he said.

Cardinal Rigali also addressed a dangerous and false cultural attitude that some persons are not worth protecting because of their perceived “low quality of life." He stated that “death is not a solution to life’s problems. Only those who are blind to the transcendent reality and meaning of human life could support killing human beings to mitigate economic, social or environmental problems."

“The antidote to such myopia is to recover an appreciation for the sanctity and dignity of each unique human being," he said.

Begun in 1972, the Respect Life Program stresses the value and dignity of human life. It is observed in the 195 Catholic dioceses in the United States. This year's theme is "Every Child Brings Us God’s Smile." The full statement follows and may be found online at www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/09rigali-stmt.pdf.

STATEMENT FOR RESPECT LIFE SUNDAY
Cardinal Justin F. Rigali
Chairman, USCCB Committee on Pro-life Activities
September 29, 2009

Respect Life Sunday, this year celebrated on October 4th is a day set aside for Catholics in the United States to reflect with gratitude on God’s priceless gift of human life. It is also an occasion to examine how well we, as a nation and individually, are living up to our obligation to protect the rights of those who, due to age, dependency, poverty or other circumstances, are at risk of their very lives.

In the current debate over health care reform, it has become evident that a number of Americans believe that the lives and health of only some people are worth safeguarding, while other classes of people are viewed as not deserving the same protection. Such an attitude is deplorable, all the more so in the context of health care. Sanctioning discrimination in the quality of care given to different groups of people has no place in medicine, and directly contravenes the ethical norms under which Catholic hospitals and health care providers operate.

Unborn children remain the persons whose lives are most at risk in America: Over one million children each year die in abortion facilities. The Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 rendered states powerless to halt this killing. Thankfully Congress and most states acted to prevent public funding of abortions (with narrowly defined exceptions). Yet despite the opposition of 67% of Americans to taxpayer-funded abortion, all current health care proposals being considered by Congress would allow or mandate abortion funding, either through premiums paid into government programs or out of federal revenues.

It bears repeating: Abortion – the direct, intentional killing of an unborn girl or boy – is not health care. Abortion robs an innocent child of his or her life, and robs mothers of their peace and happiness. For 25 years, the Project Rachel post-abortion ministry of the Catholic Church has helped women move beyond their grief and remorse after abortion, helping them find peace by accepting God’s forgiveness and by forgiving themselves and others involved in the abortion decision. Abortion funding can only increase the number of dead and grieving.

Unborn children are not the only human beings disfavored under current proposals. Many people insist that undocumented persons living and working in the United States should not be allowed in any new system to purchase health-care coverage, and that poor legal immigrants be denied coverage for the first five years they are in the United States. Do immigrants forfeit their humanity at the border? How can a just society deny basic health care to those living and working among us who need medical attention? It cannot and must not.

While most Americans agree that those who cannot afford health insurance should have access to health care, some commentators have gone so far as to suggest offsetting the cost of expanded coverage by curtailing the level of care now given to elderly Americans. Other pundits have suggested that treatment decisions should be based not on the needs of the elderly patient, but on the patient’s allegedly low “quality of life" or the cost-effectiveness of treatment calculated over the patient’s projected lifespan. Such calculations can ignore the inherent dignity of the person needing care, and undermine the therapeutic relationship between health professionals and their patients.

It should not be surprising that the neglect, and even the death, of some people are offered as a solution to rising health care costs. Population control advocates have long espoused aborting children in the developing world as a misguided means for reducing poverty.

Some environmentalists now claim that the most efficient way to curb global climate change is to make “family planning" more widely available in the developing world. They report that an average of 2.3 pounds per day of exhaled carbon dioxide can be eliminated from the atmosphere by eliminating one human being. As used by population control advocates, the innocuous term “family planning" includes abortifacient contraceptives, sterilization, and manual vacuum aspiration abortions.

Oregon, where health care for low-income patients is rationed by the state, has denied several patients the costly prescription drugs needed to prolong their lives, while reminding them that the assisted suicide option is conveniently offered under Oregon’s health plan.

Many scientists justify the manipulation and killing of embryonic human beings in stem cell research, based on unsubstantiated hopes of finding new cures. Yet the facts increasingly show this approach to pose risks to patients, and to women who may be exploited to provide eggs for the research.

Death is not a solution to life’s problems. Only those who are blind to the transcendent reality and meaning of human life could support killing human beings to mitigate economic, social or environmental problems.

The antidote to such myopia is to recover an appreciation for the sanctity and dignity of each unique human being. One could begin by spending a day with a young child. The average child is a wellspring of joy and giggles, capable of daring leaps of imagination, probing curiosity, and even reasoned (though sometimes self-centered) appeals for justice. Children delight in God’s creation and love their family unconditionally. God gave every human being these marvelous aptitudes, and children can help us recover and appreciate them anew.

Since the advent of widespread contraception and abortion, a cultural hostility to children has grown. They are often depicted as costly encumbrances who interfere with a carefree adult life. No fewer than six recent books are dedicated to defending the childless-by-choice lifestyle – for selfish reasons, or to counter "overpopulation," a thoroughly discredited myth. In fact, if married couples were to have more children, Medicare and Social Security would not be hurtling toward bankruptcy. Since 1955, because of fewer children and longer life spans, the number of workers has declined relative to the number of beneficiaries, from 8.6 to only 3.1 workers paying benefits to support each beneficiary. Without substantially more young people to enter the work force as young adults, in 25 years, there will be only 2.1 workers supporting each beneficiary. Eliminating our young does not solve problems even on pragmatic grounds. It adds to them.

Children, and those who are dependent on us due to disability or age, offer us the opportunity to grow in patience, kindness, and love. They teach us that life is a shared gift, not an encumbrance. At the end of life, we will be judged on love alone. Meanwhile, in the midst of so many challenges to life, we look to "Christ Jesus our hope" (1 Timothy 1:1), who offers to all the world a share in his victory over death.

Posted July 18, 2009

News Release on the WFF Day of Recollection with Bishop Robert Hermann, July 18, 2009

Posted April 27, 2009

Declining Notre Dame: A Letter from Mary Ann Glendon
http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2009/04/27/declining-notre-dame-a-letter-from-mary-ann-glendon/

By Mary Ann Glendon
Monday, April 27, 2009, 9:32 AM

April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame

Dear Father Jenkins,

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon

Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things, she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.

WASHINGTON—Writing to all members of Congress on September 19, Cardinal Justin Rigali warned against enactment of the proposed “Freedom of Choice Act” or “FOCA” (S. 1173, H.R. 1964).

“Despite its deceptive title,” he wrote, “FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.”

Cardinal Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, wrote that under FOCA “abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women.” While some have said the bill would simply codify the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, he added, supporters of FOCA say it “would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies” that are now in effect because they do not conflict with Roe. These include bans on public funding of abortions as well as “modest and widely supported state laws” protecting women’s safety, informed consent and parental rights.

With his letter, Cardinal Rigali enclosed a legal analysis by the bishops’ Office of General Counsel documenting the extreme legal impact of FOCA.

“Members of both parties have sought to reach a consensus on ways to reduce abortions in our society,” wrote Cardinal Rigali. He cited laws restricting and regulating abortion, and “bipartisan legislation providing practical support to help women carry their pregnancies to term, such as the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 2407, H.R. 3192),” while noting evidence that programs promoting access to contraception do not generally reduce abortions.

“However,” wrote Cardinal Rigali, “there is one thing absolutely everyone should be able to agree on: We can’t reduce abortions by promoting abortion…. No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions.”

Cardinal Rigali urged all members of Congress “to pledge their opposition to FOCA and other legislation designed to promote abortion,” so that “we can begin a serious and sincere discussion on how to reduce the tragic incidence of abortion in our society.”

BISHOPS RESPOND TO HOUSE SPEAKER PELOSI’S MISREPRESENTATION OF CHURCH TEACHING AGAINST ABORTION

WASHINGTON--Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, have issued the following statement:

In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.

In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law." (No. 2271)

In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.

These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.

Related: Catholics and Politics

Posted October 11, 2007

Statement from Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, S.T.D.
Regarding Teen Pregnancy Conference at the College of the Holy Cross

Click Title for complete statement.

"A controversy has arisen at the College of the Holy Cross that has resulted from the College’s renting space for a conference sponsored by the Massachusetts Alliance on Teen Pregnancy. The conference involves workshops presented by members of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. Both organizations promote positions on artificial contraception and abortion that are contrary to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. ...

"Both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice are notorious for their policies and practices that directly reject the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception and abortion. The College of the Holy Cross should recognize that any association with these groups can create the situation of offering scandal understood in its proper theological sense, i.e., an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. Certainly it is understandable how people of good will could interpret the college’s allowing presentations to be made by such groups as truly scandalous.

"I strongly contend that the confusion and upset to the Catholic faithful and others that flow from the perception that the administration of the College of the Holy Cross supports positions contrary to the fundamental moral teaching of the Church must be avoided. To deny Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice a forum in which to present their morally unacceptable positions is not an infringement of the exercise of academic freedom but a defensible attempt to make unambiguously clear the Catholic identity and mission of the College of the Holy Cross.

Posted August 22, 2007

http://www.mocureswithoutcloning.com/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Curt Mercadante
August 22, 2007 (314) 825-4478

Missourians Launch Campaign to Prohibit Human Cloning

Initiative Would Protect Proven Cures and Treatments

JEFFERSON CITY, MO – A coalition of concerned Missouri citizens, doctors, and academics today launched the “Cures Without Cloning” (CWC) initiative to prohibit human cloning in Missouri. Dr. Lori Buffa, of St. Peters, Missouri, filed proposed ballot language with the Secretary of State’s office this morning.

“The Missouri Constitution currently allows for human cloning. It allows for the same cloning method that created Dolly the Sheep,” said Dr. Buffa, who serves as chair of CWC. “This initiative will ensure this dangerous, unproven, unnecessary practice is prohibited, and allow us to focus on safe research that leads to lifesaving cures and treatments.”

The initiative would amend the Missouri Constitution to prohibit the practice of human cloning, and would prohibit taxpayer funding of human cloning experiments. Specifically, the coalition is seeking to place the following language in the Missouri constitution:

Section 38(e) 1. It shall be unlawful to clone or attempt to clone a human being. Researchers may conduct stem cell research to discover cures for disease and develop stem cell therapies and cures, provided that the research complies with the limitations of this section and, in addition, the limitations of Section 38(d).

2. For all purposes within this constitution:

(1) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” includes the creation of or the attempt to create, by means other than fertilization of a human egg with human sperm, a new human organism that is virtually identical genetically to an existing or previously existing human organism or human orgnisms.

(2) “Human organism” means human life in any stage. Human life begins with an initial stage, when a single human egg cell receives a complete set of forty-six chromosomes, and continues through any subsequent stages of embryonic, fetal, postnatal, and later development.

3. No taxpayer dollars shall be expended:

(1) to clone or attempt to clone a human being; or

(2) to research or experiment using a human organism, or any part of a human organism, derived from cloning or attempting to clone a human being.

“As a doctor, I have grave concerns about experimentation with human cloning. It is unproven, dangerous, and outside the mainstream of society,” said Dr. Buffa. “We should continue to search for cures and treatments using stem cell research. And we should embrace the exciting promise of cures and treatments that proven, safe research can bring - and we should do so by resoundingly rejecting the practice of human cloning.”

Cures without Cloning (CWC) is leading a broad-based, statewide coalition of grassroots organizations committed to prohibiting the cloning of human beings in Missouri. Interested citizens are invited to visit www.MOcureswithoutcloning.com for more information.

Posted April 30, 2007

The Respect Life Apostolate of the Archdiocese of St. Louis reports the Komen Foundation for breast cancer supports Planned Parenthood; suggests
alternatives.

St. Louis Archdiocese - Respect Life Committee statement -http://stlprolife.org/KomenfortheCure.html

Position Statement on Susan G. Komen for the Cure
Issued 7 June 2006; revised 29 March 2007

The Respect Life Apostolate of the Archdiocese of St. Louis acknowledges the beneficial work of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, formerly known as the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, in the area of breast cancer detection, prevention, research and treatment. Due to its policy allowing affiliates to offer financial support to abortion providing facilities and its endorsement of embryonic stem cell research, the Respect Life Apostolate neither supports nor encourages participation in activities that benefit Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

This position is based on the following facts:

1. Public records indicate that Susan G. Komen for the Cure ("Komen") affiliates in at least 22 states (Missouri is not among them) have provided sizable grants to local Planned Parenthood chapters for breast health care services.1

• Despite Komen donations for breast health care services, Planned Parenthood (the largest single abortion provider in the country) stated in its 2004-2005 annual report that 9,900 more abortions were performed and 26,000 fewer breast exams were provided in 2004 than in 2003. 2

• Donors cannot control how an organization designates its funds. Therefore, money donated for a specific service, i.e. breast health care, directly frees up funds to support other areas of an organization’s agenda, i.e. contraception services, “safe” sex education and abortion services.

2. The Komen website dismisses the link between procured abortion and increased risk of breast cancer.3 However, the research of Joel Brind, Ph.D., a professor of Endocrinology and founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, and the work of Dr. Janet Daling,4 a leading cancer epidemiologist and pro-choice advocate, invalidate a dismissal of the link. Daling said, “I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing, it’s a matter of what is.”5

3. Komen endorses embryonic stem cell research that requires the destruction of embryonic human life, stating that “embryonic stem cells…have the most potential” for cancer stem cell research.6 The destruction of human life at any stage of development is never morally acceptable. Embryonic stem cell research is also unnecessary since adult stem cell research has a proven record of cures and treatments.

Based on these documented facts, the Respect Life Apostolate (RLA) does not endorse Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The RLA encourages you to contact Susan G. Komen for the Cure (5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250 ? Dallas, TX 75244) and call for an end to all associations between Komen affiliates and Planned Parenthood, recognition of the link between breast cancer and abortion, and a refusal to support research that leads to the destruction of any human life. Our hope is that the Komen Foundation will focus all funds on research to find causes and cures for breast cancer and refuse to give financial or other support to any abortion provider or organization that promotes the destruction of human life.

Rather than supporting any Komen fundraising, the Respect Life Apostolate encourages you to direct your donations to the following local hospitals that provide breast cancer services and patient support groups:

St. John’s Mercy Medical Center
Mail to: SJMMC Donations
12800 Corporate Hill Drive
St. Louis, MO 63131
Check: David C. Pratt Cancer Center
Memo: Breast Cancer Development

St. Mary’s Health Center
Mail to: St. Mary’s Health Center Foundation
6420 Clayton Road
St. Louis, MO 63117
Check: St. Mary’s Health Center Foundation
Memo: Empower and Engage Breast Cancer Program (patient support)

DePaul Health Center
Mail to: DePaul Foundation
12303 DePaul Drive
Bridgeton, MO 63044
Check: DePaul Health Center
Memo: Breast Cancer Programs

SSM St. Joseph Health Center
Mail to: St. Joseph Health Center
Foundation Office
300 First Capitol Drive
St. Charles, MO 63301
Check: St. Joseph Health Center Foundation
Memo: Breast Cancer Programs

St. Anthony’s Medical Center
Mail to: St. Anthony’s Medical Center – Cancer Center
10010 Kennerly Road
St. Louis, MO 63128
Check: St. Anthony’s Cancer Center
Memo: designate for breast cancer research or patient support services

1 Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation & Planned Parenthood: The Visible
Link. Right to Life of Indianapolis, August 2005.

2 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (2007). 2004-2005 Annual
Report. Retrieved March 27, 2007 from
<http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/report-05.pdf>

3 see "Factors That Do Not Increase Risk of Breast Cancer." Susan G. Komen
for the Cure. 27 March 2007.
<http://cms.komen.org/Komen/AboutBreastCancer/AbcFactorsNotRelatedtoRisk>.

4 see Daling JR, Malone KE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS, Risk of breast
cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion., Journal of the
National Cancer Institute 86: 21, 1584-92, Nov 2, 1994.

5 "The Cover Up." Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. 27 March 2007.
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/coverup3.htm>.

6 “Cancer Stem Cell Research Shows Promise.” Frontline: The Susan G. Komen
Breast Cancer Foundation’s Newsletter. (Fall 2006). 29 March 2007
<http://cms.komen.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/komen_document/006137.pdf>.

Posted April 26, 2007

Link below to Archdiocese of St Louis web site April 25 - Archbishop Raymond Burke's video statement, press release and Q & A on objections to a pro-abortion advocate, Sheryl Crow, performing at a benefit for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital. He also resigned as chairman Of Board of Governors for the hospital foundation.

http://www.archstl.org/commoffice/2007/cgcmc.html

Posted April 19, 2007

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS
U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS

DATE: April 18, 2007

FROM: William Ryan
O: 202-541-3200
H: 202-686-1824

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CARDINAL WELCOMES SUPREME COURT DECISION UPHOLDING FEDERAL PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN

Washington, DC—Cardinal Justin Rigali welcomed the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia, is Chairman of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The full text of his statement follows:

“Today, after a decade of struggle in legislatures and courts, the U.S. Supreme Court finally upheld a federal law prohibiting the brutal and inhumane partial-birth abortion procedure. This is the first time in 34 years that the Court has upheld a ban of any type of abortion.

“The Court’s decision does not affect the legal status of the great majority of abortions, and does not reverse past decisions claiming to find a right to abortion in the Constitution. However, it provides reasons for renewed hope and renewed effort on the part of pro-life Americans. The Court is taking a clearer and more unobstructed look at the tragic reality of abortion, and speaking about that reality more candidly, than it has in many years.

“Especially welcome is the Court’s explicit recognition of certain key facts: that abortion is the taking of a human life, and that government has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving this life at every stage; that 'respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child'; that abortion may also cause grief and sorrow for women, which is only made worse when the reality of the procedure has been withheld from them until it is too late; and that the ethical integrity of the medical profession, as well as the fabric of our society, is threatened by the acceptance of practices that are difficult to distinguish from infanticide.

“The Court also acknowledges that in some past decisions, the usual rules for constitutional review were distorted by an unwarranted hostility to legislative efforts to respect unborn human life. We hope today’s decision marks the beginning of a new dialogue on abortion, in which fair-minded consideration will be given to the genuine interests of unborn children and their mothers, to the need for an ethically sound medical profession, and to society’s desperate need for a foundation of respect for all human life.”

Posted April 18, 2007

Quotes from the Supreme Court 5-4 decision April 18, 2007, which upheld the
2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act:

Complete decision: < http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-380.html >

Judge Anthony Kennedy presented the majority decision on the "Partial Birth Abortion" Act:

"The Act does not regulate the most common abortion procedures used in the first trimester of pregnancy, when the vast majority of abortions take place. In the usual second-trimester procedure, "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), the doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety. The procedure that prompted the federal Act and various state statutes, including Nebraska's, is a variation of the standard D&E, and is herein referred to as "intact D&E." The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart. In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull. [...]

"Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. For these reasons the judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits are reversed.

"It is so ordered."

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring.

"I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980-983 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).

Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting, wrote, in part:

"Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

"I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices. […]

"The Court offers flimsy and transparent justifications for upholding a nationwide ban on intact D&E sans any exception to safeguard a women's health. Today's ruling, the Court declares, advances "a premise central to [Casey's] conclusion"--i.e., the Government's "legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life." Ante, at 14. See also ante, at 15 ("[W]e must determine whether the Act furthers the legitimate interest of the Government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child."). But the Act scarcely furthers that interest: The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion. […]

" In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court's defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court--and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives. ...

"For the reasons stated, I dissent from the Court's disposition and would affirm the judgments before us for review."

See complete decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380

The Supreme Court changed course on abortion today, upholding a national ban on a disputed midterm abortion procedure and ruling that the government has “a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.”

The 5-4 decision marks the first time the court has upheld a ban on an abortion procedure. A similar ban was struck down seven years ago, but the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and President Bush’s choice of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. tipped the balance in favor of the ban on “partial-birth abortions.”

Today’s ruling does not directly challenge the basic right to abortion set in Roe vs. Wade, but it gives states and the federal government more leeway to impose “reasonable regulations” on abortion doctors.

The Cardinal Newman Society
NEWS ALERT
Contact: Marc Perrington <mailto:[email protected]>
(703) 367-0333, ext. 103

MANASSAS, VA (January 29, 2007) – For the sixth consecutive year, the Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) has launched its nationwide protest of Catholic campus performances of The Vagina Monologues, a sexually explicit and offensive play that favorably describes lesbian rape, group masturbation, and the reduction of sexuality to selfish pleasure.

In addition to the annual protest, CNS is urging Catholic college students to sponsor competing programs <http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/cns/projects/alternatives> , including lectures, prayer events, movies and other activities with Saint Valentine’s Day themes that support women’s dignity, chastity and true romance. Students have been offered advice and financial support for such programs. For instance, CNS is proud to financially support the Edith Stein Project (www.edithsteinproject.org) at the University of Notre Dame, a two-day conference on February 23-24 addressing themes of women’s dignity consistent with Catholic teaching.

V-Day — (www.vday.org <http://www.vday.org/contents/vcampaigns/college> ) the national organization promoting the play — has announced performances at 26 Catholic colleges and universities during February and March, but already officials of three of those colleges have assured CNS that the play will not occur. One other Catholic college has been removed from the V-Day list without explanation.

That leaves 22 Catholic colleges and universities expected to host the play this year. In previous years the CNS protest yielded a significant decline in Monologues performances: from 32 in 2003 to 22 last year. But faculty and student supporters of the play have dug in their heels at colleges including the University of Notre Dame, which has earned an annual public scolding from Bishop John D’Arcy of Fort-Wayne-South Bend for hosting a play that is “offensive to women” and “antithetical to Catholic teaching.”

Last year Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C., rallied alumni and faithful Catholics worldwide to his side when he announced his opposition to the Monologues—which he decried for its “graphic descriptions of homosexual, extramarital heterosexual and autoerotic experiences”—but later alienated the same Catholics by bowing to activists’ pressure and allowing the play to be performed.

“You must know that in taking this decision you have brought most joy to those who care least about Notre Dame’s Catholic mission,” wrote fellow Holy Cross Father Bill Miscamble in an open letter to Jenkins. “…By your decision you move us further along the dangerous path where we ape our secular peers and take all our signals from them.”

CNS has contacted the president of each college by mail with a plea to prevent the Monologues performances. Each president and their local bishop were also provided copies of the play, statements opposing the play from Bishop D’Arcy and Providence College president Rev. Brian Shanley, O.P., and citations from various official Catholic sources <http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/cns/projects/teaching> .

Officials at the College of St. Catherine in Minnesota, St John’s University in New York, and Providence College in Rhode Island thanked CNS for informing them of V-Day’s announced plans for 2007 and assured CNS that the play would not be performed. Several bishops also have pledged to contact the colleges in their dioceses.

CNS is calling on its more than 20,000 members and other Catholics to convey their concerns about the Monologues to college presidents. In past years, some colleges reported being flooded with e-mails and other communications protesting the play.

“This play describes the adult seduction of a minor to be the victim’s ‘salvation’ that lifts her into ‘a kind of heaven,’ said CNS President Patrick J. Reilly. “There is an obvious parallel to the clergy sex-abuse scandal here, and it is shocking that any Catholic educators are sanctioning its performance.”

The Cardinal Newman Society is a national organization working to renew and strengthen Catholic identity at Catholic colleges and universities. For more information on CNS or the Monologues, including updates and cancellations, see http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/cns/projects/monologues.