Monday, November 30, 2009
Couple to Couple League Makes it easier to sign up for NFP classes!
The Couple to Couple League has now made finding and registering for a Natural Family Planning class even easier. Couples simply go to www.ccli.org and search for upcoming classes in their area. They will find a list of class dates along with the teachers' name, class location and time. Then, they simply register and pay online. What a blessing for both teachers and students!
SPUC victory in Northern Ireland abortion case
See Here for more details in the Irish Times:
History Below...
Read more: Here!
Today SPUC wins judgement to keep Abortion illegal in Northern Ireland!!!
Belfast, 30 November 2009 - The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has commented on today's judgment by the Belfast high court on the application for a judicial review of government abortion guidance, sought by SPUC.
Lord Justice Girvan ruled in favour of SPUC's challenge on two grounds. SPUC argued that because abortion remains illegal in Northern Ireland, it was wrong to expect medical providers to give non-directive counselling to women who might be considering abortion. SPUC also argued that the government's guidance was wrong regarding non-participation in abortion (conscientious objection). The judge ruled in favour of SPUC on these points. The judge awarded costs against the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland commented: "We are very pleased that the court has highlighted some of the problems with the health department's abortion guidance. We hope that the department will now take seriously many of the concerns which were largely disregarded when the guidelines were being drafted.
"Abortion is not health care. In Northern Ireland it is a criminal offence. It is simply extraordinary that a government department should have issued guidance on criminal legislation and not have once mentioned the victim of the crime. In illegal abortion the primary victim is the unborn child and any new guidance that the department brings forward needs to take fully into account the duty of care and the legal protection owed to the child before birth.
"Abortion doesn't only kill children it also hurts women. There is a huge amount of evidence that abortion can damage the physical and mental health of women. If the department is serious about providing aftercare for women hurt by abortion then health officials cannot continue to ignore the evidence of post-abortion trauma. More needs to be done to warn women of the consequences of abortion but there has to be more help for women facing a crisis pregnancy as well.
"The law in Northern Ireland protects both women and children and new guidance must reflect that", concluded Mr Gibson.
History Below...
Legal abortion rate in Northern Ireland
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Almost two babies a week are aborted legally in Northern Ireland, it has been revealed.
The number of operations for pregnant mothers risking their life or mental well-being increased over the last five years, figures released in the Assembly said.
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children is seeking a High Court declaration that the Government guidance does not properly set out the law.
“Abortion is an act which is meant to destroy the life of a child,” development officer Liam Gibson said.
“It is a fatal form of child abuse and clearly we are not helping women.”
Audrey Simpson, director of the Family Planning Association in Northern Ireland, said it was insulting to women to accuse them of child abuse.
There were 92 abortions in 2007/2008 in Northern Ireland.
Read more: Here!
Today SPUC wins judgement to keep Abortion illegal in Northern Ireland!!!
Belfast, 30 November 2009 - The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has commented on today's judgment by the Belfast high court on the application for a judicial review of government abortion guidance, sought by SPUC.
Lord Justice Girvan ruled in favour of SPUC's challenge on two grounds. SPUC argued that because abortion remains illegal in Northern Ireland, it was wrong to expect medical providers to give non-directive counselling to women who might be considering abortion. SPUC also argued that the government's guidance was wrong regarding non-participation in abortion (conscientious objection). The judge ruled in favour of SPUC on these points. The judge awarded costs against the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland commented: "We are very pleased that the court has highlighted some of the problems with the health department's abortion guidance. We hope that the department will now take seriously many of the concerns which were largely disregarded when the guidelines were being drafted.
"Abortion is not health care. In Northern Ireland it is a criminal offence. It is simply extraordinary that a government department should have issued guidance on criminal legislation and not have once mentioned the victim of the crime. In illegal abortion the primary victim is the unborn child and any new guidance that the department brings forward needs to take fully into account the duty of care and the legal protection owed to the child before birth.
"Abortion doesn't only kill children it also hurts women. There is a huge amount of evidence that abortion can damage the physical and mental health of women. If the department is serious about providing aftercare for women hurt by abortion then health officials cannot continue to ignore the evidence of post-abortion trauma. More needs to be done to warn women of the consequences of abortion but there has to be more help for women facing a crisis pregnancy as well.
"The law in Northern Ireland protects both women and children and new guidance must reflect that", concluded Mr Gibson.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Gregory about Catholic Politicians and Communion...
From a confidential letter sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory during the first half of June stating
[full text]
Publisher & Date:
L'espresso, June 2004
From the Catechism:
"no eucharistic communion for the politicians who systematically campaign for abortion."Catholic politician who would vote for
"permissive abortion and euthanasia laws"after being duly instructed and warned,
"must"be denied Communion.
[full text]
Publisher & Date:
L'espresso, June 2004
From the Catechism:
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
A Healthcare Problem Washington May Have Missed
Article from First Things Magazine
Nov 6, 2009
Bishop James D. Conley
With more than 620 Catholic hospitals serving the public around the United States, hundreds of Catholic medical clinics and shelters, and even a few Catholic-affiliated medical schools, Catholics have a keen interest in healthcare reform. That interest isn’t new. It’s rooted in experience, including the experience of trying to help people with little or no health insurance at all. For decades, the U.S. bishops have pushed for an overhaul of our nation’s healthcare industry and the way it delivers its services. Why? Because the Church sees access to basic health care as a right and a social responsibility, not a privilege.
But Catholic support for the general principle of reform does not bind anyone to endorse a specific piece of legislation. God gave us brains for a reason, to think; and we need to use them, because the practical and moral problems we face on the way to good healthcare reform are as formidable as the goal is admirable. This is why the U.S. bishops’ conference has tried so diligently for the past three months to work with Congress and the White House in seeking sound compromise legislation. As of November 5, all those efforts have failed.
The bishops have a few simple but important priorities.
First, everyone should have access to basic health care, including immigrants. The Church would hope to see that access broadened as widely as possible. But at a minimum, it should include those immigrants who live and work in the United States legally. Second, reform should respect the dignity of every person, from conception to natural death. This means that the elderly and persons with disabilities must be treated with special care and sensitivity. It also means that abortion and abortion funding should be excluded from any reform plan, no matter how adroitly the abortion funding is masked. Whatever one thinks about its legality, abortion has nothing to do with advancing human “health,” and a large number of Americans regard it as a gravely wrong act of violence, not only against unborn children but also against women.
Third, real healthcare reform needs to include explicit, ironclad conscience protections for medical professionals and institutions so that they cannot be forced to violate their moral convictions. Fourth—and this is so obvious it sometimes goes unstated—any reform must be economically realistic and financially sustainable. We can’t help anyone, including ourselves, if we’re insolvent. If we commit ourselves to health services, then we need to have the will and the ability to really pay for them. That’s a moral issue, not simply a practical one.
Note that these priorities do not attack the constitutional status of abortion. That’s a different battle. Nor do they take anything away from people who regard themselves as pro-choice. But they do protect the rights of the many, many citizens who see abortion as tragic and evil, and refuse to be implicated in supporting it.
Given the broad Catholic support for some kind of comprehensive healthcare reform, the historic links of the Democratic Party to the Catholic community, and the party’s total control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, the reform legislation actually moving through Congress as I write these comments on November 5 is not only inadequate and baffling, but insulting and dangerous.
With the exception of a few leaders, like Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, Congress has ignored or rejected every attempt at resolving the serious concerns voiced by the bishops—or alternately, has pushed solutions like the Capps Amendment that do not solve the problems, and even create new ones. The White House has done nothing to intervene. “Common ground” thinking in Washington apparently has more reality as public relations than as public policy. And as a result, all of the main healthcare reform proposals in Congress, including the huge, 2,000-page merged House bill, are fatally flawed. Unless they are immediately and adequately amended, they need to be opposed and defeated.
For all of Congress’ public talk about “consensus building” and “consensus health care,” Washington has proved once again that hearing loss can be job-related. Most American Catholics, from people in the pews to pastors and bishops, want healthcare reform to work. But too many people in Washington don’t know how to listen, or don’t want to listen, or just don’t care.
James D. Conley, S.T.L., is the auxiliary bishop of Denver.
Nov 6, 2009
Bishop James D. Conley
With more than 620 Catholic hospitals serving the public around the United States, hundreds of Catholic medical clinics and shelters, and even a few Catholic-affiliated medical schools, Catholics have a keen interest in healthcare reform. That interest isn’t new. It’s rooted in experience, including the experience of trying to help people with little or no health insurance at all. For decades, the U.S. bishops have pushed for an overhaul of our nation’s healthcare industry and the way it delivers its services. Why? Because the Church sees access to basic health care as a right and a social responsibility, not a privilege.
But Catholic support for the general principle of reform does not bind anyone to endorse a specific piece of legislation. God gave us brains for a reason, to think; and we need to use them, because the practical and moral problems we face on the way to good healthcare reform are as formidable as the goal is admirable. This is why the U.S. bishops’ conference has tried so diligently for the past three months to work with Congress and the White House in seeking sound compromise legislation. As of November 5, all those efforts have failed.
The bishops have a few simple but important priorities.
First, everyone should have access to basic health care, including immigrants. The Church would hope to see that access broadened as widely as possible. But at a minimum, it should include those immigrants who live and work in the United States legally. Second, reform should respect the dignity of every person, from conception to natural death. This means that the elderly and persons with disabilities must be treated with special care and sensitivity. It also means that abortion and abortion funding should be excluded from any reform plan, no matter how adroitly the abortion funding is masked. Whatever one thinks about its legality, abortion has nothing to do with advancing human “health,” and a large number of Americans regard it as a gravely wrong act of violence, not only against unborn children but also against women.
Third, real healthcare reform needs to include explicit, ironclad conscience protections for medical professionals and institutions so that they cannot be forced to violate their moral convictions. Fourth—and this is so obvious it sometimes goes unstated—any reform must be economically realistic and financially sustainable. We can’t help anyone, including ourselves, if we’re insolvent. If we commit ourselves to health services, then we need to have the will and the ability to really pay for them. That’s a moral issue, not simply a practical one.
Note that these priorities do not attack the constitutional status of abortion. That’s a different battle. Nor do they take anything away from people who regard themselves as pro-choice. But they do protect the rights of the many, many citizens who see abortion as tragic and evil, and refuse to be implicated in supporting it.
Given the broad Catholic support for some kind of comprehensive healthcare reform, the historic links of the Democratic Party to the Catholic community, and the party’s total control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, the reform legislation actually moving through Congress as I write these comments on November 5 is not only inadequate and baffling, but insulting and dangerous.
With the exception of a few leaders, like Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, Congress has ignored or rejected every attempt at resolving the serious concerns voiced by the bishops—or alternately, has pushed solutions like the Capps Amendment that do not solve the problems, and even create new ones. The White House has done nothing to intervene. “Common ground” thinking in Washington apparently has more reality as public relations than as public policy. And as a result, all of the main healthcare reform proposals in Congress, including the huge, 2,000-page merged House bill, are fatally flawed. Unless they are immediately and adequately amended, they need to be opposed and defeated.
For all of Congress’ public talk about “consensus building” and “consensus health care,” Washington has proved once again that hearing loss can be job-related. Most American Catholics, from people in the pews to pastors and bishops, want healthcare reform to work. But too many people in Washington don’t know how to listen, or don’t want to listen, or just don’t care.
James D. Conley, S.T.L., is the auxiliary bishop of Denver.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Prayer and Fasting needed now!
Novena Prayer Vigil for “One Nation under God”
at Our Lady of Lourdes
Adoration Chapel
2718 Overbrook Dr
Raleigh, NC
Sat Nov 21st- Sun Nov 29th 6-7 pm every evening
except Thanksgiving day
Meet for 8:00am Mass
At Sacred Heart Cathedral
(Will stay after mass in Cathedral or
Go to OLL Adoration Chapel TBD)
Regarding the Senate Bill:
The USCCB “Bishops are first moral teachers and we have insisted from the beginning that health care reform must protect the life, dignity, and health of all… We cannot support a bill that conflicts with our deeply held moral commitment to the protection of all life, from conception to natural death. The Catholic Bishops have long supported health care coverage for all and do not want to have to oppose legislation… but we will have no choice but to do so if our essential moral criteria are not met.”(From the USCCB Nationwide Bulletin Insert Pulpit Announcements & Prayer Petition Found here.)
This is what Pope John Paul II said in his Papal Encyclical Evangelium vitae:
Jesus Himself Has Shown Us By His Own Example That Prayer And Fasting Are The First And Most Effective Weapons Against The Forces Of Evil (Cf. Mt 4:1-11). As He Taught His Disciples, Some Demons Cannot Be Driven Out Except In This Way (Cf. Mk 9:29). Let Us Therefore Discover Anew The Humility And The Courage To Pray And Fast So That Power From On High Will Break Down The Walls Of Lies And Deceit: The Walls Which Conceal From The Sight Of So Many Of Our Brothers And Sisters The Evil Of Practices And Laws Which Are Hostile To Life. May This Same Power Turn Their Hearts To Resolutions And Goals Inspired By The Civilization Of Life And Love. (Pope John Paul II Evangelium vitae, 100)
Friday, November 20, 2009
Bishops' Conference Officials Voice Disappointment In Senate Finance Committee Health Care Vote
USCCB News Release
09-204
October 14, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Bishops' Conference Officials Voice Disappointment In Senate Finance Committee Health Care Vote
Spokespersons for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voiced disappointment in the Senate Finance Committee vote to approve its health care reform bill without first fixing problematic provisions.
On October 8, the bishops chairing the USCCB committees on Domestic Justice and Human Development, Pro-Life Activities, and Migration wrote to Congress that the bishops would have no choice but to oppose a final health care bill that fails to address key concerns and noted:
Policies against abortion funding and in support of conscience rights must be in the bill.
Health care should be affordable and available to the poor and vulnerable.
The needs of legal immigrants and their families should be met.
Kathy Saile, Director of the USCCB Office of Domestic Social Development, said: “We remain hopeful that problematic provisions in the bills, particularly the Senate Finance Committee bill, can be worked out. But time is running short and if the provisions are not fixed, the bishops have been clear that they will have no choice but to oppose a final bill. The stated purpose of pursuing health care reform was to provide those without health care coverage access to quality and affordable health care. There is real doubt that this bill will achieve that goal.”
Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said, “No current health care bill approved by committee is consistent with longstanding and widely supported federal policies on abortion and conscience rights. Contrary to recent misleading comments from some sources, this and other health care reform bills appropriate their own funds outside the scope of the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bills, and so are not covered by the Hyde amendment that prevents those bills from funding abortion coverage. This legislation needs its own provision against such funding."
Kevin Appleby, USCCB Director of Migration and Refugee Policy, said, "If the goal of health-care reform is to reduce significantly the number of uninsured, the Senate bill falls well short. As passed out of the Finance Committee, millions of legal immigrants and their families would be left outside the system, dependent on emergency rooms for their primary care."
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has advocated for health care reform for decades. The bishops wrote in their October 8 letter 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
---
Keywords: health care reform, abortion, Hyde Amendment, conscience protection, conscience rights, Richard Doerflinger, Kathy Saile, Kevin Appleby, domestic social justice, immigration, legal immigrants, affordability, Senate Finance Committee, USCCB, U.S. bishops, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
09-204
October 14, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Bishops' Conference Officials Voice Disappointment In Senate Finance Committee Health Care Vote
Spokespersons for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voiced disappointment in the Senate Finance Committee vote to approve its health care reform bill without first fixing problematic provisions.
On October 8, the bishops chairing the USCCB committees on Domestic Justice and Human Development, Pro-Life Activities, and Migration wrote to Congress that the bishops would have no choice but to oppose a final health care bill that fails to address key concerns and noted:
Policies against abortion funding and in support of conscience rights must be in the bill.
Health care should be affordable and available to the poor and vulnerable.
The needs of legal immigrants and their families should be met.
Kathy Saile, Director of the USCCB Office of Domestic Social Development, said: “We remain hopeful that problematic provisions in the bills, particularly the Senate Finance Committee bill, can be worked out. But time is running short and if the provisions are not fixed, the bishops have been clear that they will have no choice but to oppose a final bill. The stated purpose of pursuing health care reform was to provide those without health care coverage access to quality and affordable health care. There is real doubt that this bill will achieve that goal.”
Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said, “No current health care bill approved by committee is consistent with longstanding and widely supported federal policies on abortion and conscience rights. Contrary to recent misleading comments from some sources, this and other health care reform bills appropriate their own funds outside the scope of the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bills, and so are not covered by the Hyde amendment that prevents those bills from funding abortion coverage. This legislation needs its own provision against such funding."
Kevin Appleby, USCCB Director of Migration and Refugee Policy, said, "If the goal of health-care reform is to reduce significantly the number of uninsured, the Senate bill falls well short. As passed out of the Finance Committee, millions of legal immigrants and their families would be left outside the system, dependent on emergency rooms for their primary care."
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has advocated for health care reform for decades. The bishops wrote in their October 8 letter 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
---
Keywords: health care reform, abortion, Hyde Amendment, conscience protection, conscience rights, Richard Doerflinger, Kathy Saile, Kevin Appleby, domestic social justice, immigration, legal immigrants, affordability, Senate Finance Committee, USCCB, U.S. bishops, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Bishops approve revised directives on withdrawal of food, water
Bishops approve revised directives on withdrawal of food, water
By Nancy Frazier O'Brien
Catholic News Service
BALTIMORE (CNS) -- The U.S. bishops overwhelmingly approved a revision to the directives that guide Catholic health care facilities, clarifying that patients with chronic conditions who are not imminently dying should receive food and water by "medically assisted" means if they cannot take them normally.
"In principle, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally," says the revised text of the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" prepared by the U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine.
"This obligation extends to patients in chronic and presumably irreversible conditions (e.g., the 'persistent vegetative state') who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care," the new text adds.
The vote was 219-4 in favor of the revision Nov. 17, the second day of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops fall general assembly in Baltimore.
Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the bishops' Committee on Doctrine, said the changes would help bishops to be "teachers of the faith," medical practitioners to "follow the appropriate medical protocols" and "our people when they face these difficult decisions" for themselves or their loved ones.
Deleted from the directives was a reference to "the necessary distinctions between questions already resolved by the magisterium and those requiring further reflection, as, for example, the morality of withdrawing medically assisted hydration and nutrition from a person who is in the condition that is recognized by physicians as the 'persistent vegetative state.'"
The only substantive debate on the revised directives was about whether to use the term "permanent vegetative state" or "persistent vegetative state" in the document.
The committee initially accepted a recommendation from Archbishop Jerome G. Hanus of Dubuque, Iowa, to change the word from "persistent" to "permanent," but later reversed itself. When the archbishop brought the matter to the floor of the bishops' meeting, asking for a return to "permanent vegetative state," the proposal lost by a vote of 34-186, with one abstention.
In presenting the revised text Nov. 16, Bishop Lori said the directives, last revised in 2001, "were written long before" Pope John Paul II's March 2004 address to an international conference on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and the Vegetative State" and the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's August 2007 reply to questions raised by the USCCB on artificial nutrition and hydration.
The current directives based their teaching on documents by "some state Catholic conferences, individual bishops and the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities," the bishop noted.
Bishop Lori said the changes were needed "particularly since the recent clarifications by the Holy See have rendered untenable certain positions that have been defended by some Catholic theologian and ethicists."
Some Catholic ethicists had argued that, because doctors consider a persistent vegetative state irreversible, artificial nutrition and hydration can be withdrawn from those patients.
Much of the ethical discussion of the nutrition and hydration question in recent years has focused on the case of Terri Schindler Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman whose husband successfully fought for the right to discontinue her feeding tube. Schiavo died March 31, 2005, 13 days after doctors withdrew nutrition and hydration.
"While medically assisted nutrition and hydration are not morally obligatory in certain cases, these forms of basic care should in principle be provided to all patients who need them, including patients diagnosed as being in a 'persistent vegetative state,' because even the most severely debilitated and helpless patient retains the full dignity of a human person and must receive ordinary and proportionate care," the revised directives read.
"Medically assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life or when they would be 'excessively burdensome for the patient or (would) cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed,'" they add. "For instance, as a patient draws close to inevitable death from an underlying progressive and fatal condition, certain measures to provide nutrition and hydration may become excessively burdensome and therefore not obligatory in light of their very limited ability to prolong life or provide comfort."
The new text also deletes a reference to hydration and nutrition not being morally obligatory "when they cannot be assimilated by a person's body," replacing it with the "significant physical discomfort" language.
The revision was drawn up in collaboration with the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities and in consultation with the Task Force on Health Care Issues, Catholic Health Association, Catholic Medical Association, National Catholic Bioethics Center and National Catholic Partnership on Disability, Bishop Lori said.
Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity who is CHA president and CEO, said in a Nov. 18 statement that the revised directive on medically assisted nutrition and hydration "does not offer new teaching but rather reflects existing church teaching which Catholic health care facilities have already incorporated into their practice."
"While upholding the general obligation to provide nutrition and hydration to patients, the revised directive also makes critical distinctions regarding their use," she added. "It does not state that all patients must always be provided with medically administered nutrition and hydration."
By Nancy Frazier O'Brien
Catholic News Service
BALTIMORE (CNS) -- The U.S. bishops overwhelmingly approved a revision to the directives that guide Catholic health care facilities, clarifying that patients with chronic conditions who are not imminently dying should receive food and water by "medically assisted" means if they cannot take them normally.
"In principle, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally," says the revised text of the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" prepared by the U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine.
"This obligation extends to patients in chronic and presumably irreversible conditions (e.g., the 'persistent vegetative state') who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care," the new text adds.
The vote was 219-4 in favor of the revision Nov. 17, the second day of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops fall general assembly in Baltimore.
Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the bishops' Committee on Doctrine, said the changes would help bishops to be "teachers of the faith," medical practitioners to "follow the appropriate medical protocols" and "our people when they face these difficult decisions" for themselves or their loved ones.
Deleted from the directives was a reference to "the necessary distinctions between questions already resolved by the magisterium and those requiring further reflection, as, for example, the morality of withdrawing medically assisted hydration and nutrition from a person who is in the condition that is recognized by physicians as the 'persistent vegetative state.'"
The only substantive debate on the revised directives was about whether to use the term "permanent vegetative state" or "persistent vegetative state" in the document.
The committee initially accepted a recommendation from Archbishop Jerome G. Hanus of Dubuque, Iowa, to change the word from "persistent" to "permanent," but later reversed itself. When the archbishop brought the matter to the floor of the bishops' meeting, asking for a return to "permanent vegetative state," the proposal lost by a vote of 34-186, with one abstention.
In presenting the revised text Nov. 16, Bishop Lori said the directives, last revised in 2001, "were written long before" Pope John Paul II's March 2004 address to an international conference on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and the Vegetative State" and the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's August 2007 reply to questions raised by the USCCB on artificial nutrition and hydration.
The current directives based their teaching on documents by "some state Catholic conferences, individual bishops and the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities," the bishop noted.
Bishop Lori said the changes were needed "particularly since the recent clarifications by the Holy See have rendered untenable certain positions that have been defended by some Catholic theologian and ethicists."
Some Catholic ethicists had argued that, because doctors consider a persistent vegetative state irreversible, artificial nutrition and hydration can be withdrawn from those patients.
Much of the ethical discussion of the nutrition and hydration question in recent years has focused on the case of Terri Schindler Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman whose husband successfully fought for the right to discontinue her feeding tube. Schiavo died March 31, 2005, 13 days after doctors withdrew nutrition and hydration.
"While medically assisted nutrition and hydration are not morally obligatory in certain cases, these forms of basic care should in principle be provided to all patients who need them, including patients diagnosed as being in a 'persistent vegetative state,' because even the most severely debilitated and helpless patient retains the full dignity of a human person and must receive ordinary and proportionate care," the revised directives read.
"Medically assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life or when they would be 'excessively burdensome for the patient or (would) cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed,'" they add. "For instance, as a patient draws close to inevitable death from an underlying progressive and fatal condition, certain measures to provide nutrition and hydration may become excessively burdensome and therefore not obligatory in light of their very limited ability to prolong life or provide comfort."
The new text also deletes a reference to hydration and nutrition not being morally obligatory "when they cannot be assimilated by a person's body," replacing it with the "significant physical discomfort" language.
The revision was drawn up in collaboration with the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities and in consultation with the Task Force on Health Care Issues, Catholic Health Association, Catholic Medical Association, National Catholic Bioethics Center and National Catholic Partnership on Disability, Bishop Lori said.
Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity who is CHA president and CEO, said in a Nov. 18 statement that the revised directive on medically assisted nutrition and hydration "does not offer new teaching but rather reflects existing church teaching which Catholic health care facilities have already incorporated into their practice."
"While upholding the general obligation to provide nutrition and hydration to patients, the revised directive also makes critical distinctions regarding their use," she added. "It does not state that all patients must always be provided with medically administered nutrition and hydration."
Act Now!! Important vote tonight!!
Wednesday evening Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released his 2,074 page version of the Senate health care reform bill -- at an estimated price of $890 BILLION.
MSNBC reported Thursday morning that the Senate bill "would allow the new government insurance plan to cover abortions and would let companies that receive federal funds offer insurance plans that include abortion coverage."
Tonight Saturday evening November 21st at 8:00 pm in a special session of the senate there will be a vote on "Cloture" – which would cut off debate on the 2,074 page Health Care Bill and force the bill to the Senate floor.
The Health Care Reform debate is too important to be shut down at this time.
Call your Senators tonight! This is THE VOTE, as 60 votes can invoke "Cloture" on the health care reform bill. If that passes, only a simple majority will be needed to ram through the entire health care bill -- even if it still includes government funded abortion. The status quo since 1973 is that the government does not pay for abortions due to the Hyde Amendment.
Now it's time to act! Contact your two U.S. Senators
TODAY and tell them:
"Unless any health care bill includes the Stupak-
Pitts language -- at a BARE MINIMUM -- a vote for
Cloture is a vote for government funded abortion!"
Here is the contact information for the NC U.S. Senators:
Contact Senator Kay Hagan
Phone: 919-856-4630 or 877-852-9462
Fax: 919-856-4053
Contact Senator Richard Burr
Phone: 202-224-3154
Fax: 202-228-2981
MSNBC reported Thursday morning that the Senate bill "would allow the new government insurance plan to cover abortions and would let companies that receive federal funds offer insurance plans that include abortion coverage."
Tonight Saturday evening November 21st at 8:00 pm in a special session of the senate there will be a vote on "Cloture" – which would cut off debate on the 2,074 page Health Care Bill and force the bill to the Senate floor.
The Health Care Reform debate is too important to be shut down at this time.
Call your Senators tonight! This is THE VOTE, as 60 votes can invoke "Cloture" on the health care reform bill. If that passes, only a simple majority will be needed to ram through the entire health care bill -- even if it still includes government funded abortion. The status quo since 1973 is that the government does not pay for abortions due to the Hyde Amendment.
Now it's time to act! Contact your two U.S. Senators
TODAY and tell them:
"Unless any health care bill includes the Stupak-
Pitts language -- at a BARE MINIMUM -- a vote for
Cloture is a vote for government funded abortion!"
Here is the contact information for the NC U.S. Senators:
Contact Senator Kay Hagan
Phone: 919-856-4630 or 877-852-9462
Fax: 919-856-4053
Contact Senator Richard Burr
Phone: 202-224-3154
Fax: 202-228-2981
Monday, November 16, 2009
Maafa21 Dr. Johnny Hunter speaks about this new movie!
What does Dread Scott and Roe V Wade have in common? Learn more Click here and watch the following clip. Consider bringing this movie to your home or group...
Genocide. In the 21st century. In America.
Maafa, Swahili for 'great disaster' or 'tragedy', refers to the time when a people in the US lived by blood, sweat, flesh, and torment, forced into slavery by the elite of the nation. Maafa refers to a time when people were valued as property and treated as subhuman. Maafa 21 tells of the time in which this subhuman treatment continued: the 21st century. It tells how when slavery ended, elites in the US decided that black people had no place in America. It tells how they tried to eliminate a people.
See what Dr. Hunter has to say about this...
Genocide. In the 21st century. In America.
Maafa, Swahili for 'great disaster' or 'tragedy', refers to the time when a people in the US lived by blood, sweat, flesh, and torment, forced into slavery by the elite of the nation. Maafa refers to a time when people were valued as property and treated as subhuman. Maafa 21 tells of the time in which this subhuman treatment continued: the 21st century. It tells how when slavery ended, elites in the US decided that black people had no place in America. It tells how they tried to eliminate a people.
See what Dr. Hunter has to say about this...
Unborn Child Was Fort Hood Shooting's 14th Victim, Obama Should Prosecute
Pastors Group Wants 14th Murder Charge Against Accused Fort Hood Gunman
An organization that represents local pastor councils through Texas wants a 14th murder charge filed against accused Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan in the death of the unborn infant of Pvt. Francheska Velez, who was killed in the Nov. 5 rampage.
Font Size:
HOUSTON (November 14, 2009)—The interracial interdenominational Texas Pastor Council is calling on military prosecutors to file a 14th premeditated murder charge against accused Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan for the death of the unborn infant of Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, who was pregnant when she died in the Nov. 5 rampage.
Hasan was charged Thursday with 13 counts of premeditated murder in the Nov. 5 shooting at Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Center. Velez, who was assigned to Fort Hood’s 15th Combat Support Battalion, had just returned from her deployment in Iraq and was preparing to return home to Chicago because of her pregnancy.
“We now know that murder victim Pvt. Francheska Velez was pregnant and in the eyes of God, our nation and the laws of Texas her child was also a murder victim so should be treated as such,” the group said in a statement issued Friday.
"We join the call by others to elevate the count of murder victims to 14 as required under the Texas Unborn Victims of Violence Act adopted by the state legislature and signed into law in 2003,” the group said. “Every one of those murdered or injured by this terrorist deserves full justice, including Pvt. Velez's child who will never run, play or be held by his or her mother,” the group said. 14th Victim of the Ft. Hood Shooting unborn child....read here
An organization that represents local pastor councils through Texas wants a 14th murder charge filed against accused Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan in the death of the unborn infant of Pvt. Francheska Velez, who was killed in the Nov. 5 rampage.
Font Size:
HOUSTON (November 14, 2009)—The interracial interdenominational Texas Pastor Council is calling on military prosecutors to file a 14th premeditated murder charge against accused Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan for the death of the unborn infant of Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, who was pregnant when she died in the Nov. 5 rampage.
Hasan was charged Thursday with 13 counts of premeditated murder in the Nov. 5 shooting at Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Center. Velez, who was assigned to Fort Hood’s 15th Combat Support Battalion, had just returned from her deployment in Iraq and was preparing to return home to Chicago because of her pregnancy.
“We now know that murder victim Pvt. Francheska Velez was pregnant and in the eyes of God, our nation and the laws of Texas her child was also a murder victim so should be treated as such,” the group said in a statement issued Friday.
"We join the call by others to elevate the count of murder victims to 14 as required under the Texas Unborn Victims of Violence Act adopted by the state legislature and signed into law in 2003,” the group said. “Every one of those murdered or injured by this terrorist deserves full justice, including Pvt. Velez's child who will never run, play or be held by his or her mother,” the group said. 14th Victim of the Ft. Hood Shooting unborn child....read here
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Change of Heart Video of Planned Parenthood director turned Pro Life
Watch Video Here and learn about what Planned Parenthood does on the inside...
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Bishop Tobin to Kennedy: “Your position is unacceptable to the Church…”
From the Rhode Island Catholic In response to Rep Kennedy's statement on Health Care and the USCCB... see here the remarks of Rep Kennedy
Dear Congressman Kennedy:
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)
Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.
For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.
For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ [Inspired Word of God.] the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)
Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)
There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”
But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?
Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.
Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially? In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?
Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.
Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.
Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas J. Tobin
Bishop of Providence
Dear Congressman Kennedy:
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)
Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.
For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.
For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ [Inspired Word of God.] the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)
Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)
There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”
But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?
Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.
Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially? In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?
Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.
Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.
Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas J. Tobin
Bishop of Providence
Monday, November 9, 2009
Happy feast of Dedication of the Lateran Basilica in Rome
TODAY'S SAINT
Dedication of the Lateran Basilica in Rome
Feast: November 9
Information:
Feast Day:
November 9
Mass of Possession of the Chair: St. John Lateran Basilica
Pope Benedict XVI
This is the oldest, and ranks first among the four great "patriarchal" basilicas of Rome. The site was, in ancient times, occupied by the palace of the family of the Laterani. A member of this family, P. Sextius Lateranus, was the first plebian to attain the rank of consul. In the time of Nero, another member of the family, Plautius Lateranus, at the time consul designatus was accused of conspiracy against the emperor, and his goods were confiscated. Juvenal mentions the palace, and speaks of it as being of some magnificence, "regiæ ædes Lateranorum". Some few remains of the original buildings may still be traced in the city walls outside the Gate of St. John, and a large hall decorated with paintings was uncovered in the eighteenth century within the basilica itself, behind the Lancellotti Chapel. A few traces of older buildings also came to light during the excavations made in 1880, when the work of extending the apse was in progress, but nothing was then discovered of real value or importance. The palace came eventually into the hands of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, through his wife Fausta, and it is from her that it derived the name by which it was then sometimes called, "Domus Faustæ". Constantine must have given it to the Church in the time of Miltiades, not later than about 311, for we find a council against the Donatists meeting within its walls as early as 313. From that time onwards it was always the centre of Christian life within the city; the residence of the popes and the cathedral of Rome. The latter distinction it still holds, though it has long lost the former. Hence the proud title which may be read upon its walls, that it is "Omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater, et caput".
It seems probable, in spite of the tradition that Constantine helped in the work of building with his own hands, that there was not a new basilica erected at the Lateran, but that the work carried out at this period was limited to the adaptation, which perhaps involved the enlargement, of the already existing basilica or great hall of the palace. The words of St. Jerome "basilica quondam Laterani" (Ep. lxxiii, P.L., XXII, col. 692) seem to point in this direction, and it is also probable on other grounds. This original church was probably not of very large dimensions, but we have no reliable information on the subject. It was dedicated to the Saviour, "Basilica Salvatoris", the dedication to St. John being of later date, and due to a Benedictine monastery of St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist which adjoined the basilica and where members were charged at one period with the duty of maintaining the services in the church. This later dedication to St. John has now in popular usage altogether superseded the original one. A great many donations from the popes and other benefactors to the basilica are recorded in the "Liber Pontificalis", and its splendour at an early period was such that it became known as the "Basilica Aurea", or Golden Church. This splendour drew upon it the attack of the Vandals, who stripped it of all its treasures. St. Leo the Great restored it about 460, and it was again restored by Hadrian I, but in 896 it was almost totally destroyed by an earthquake ("ab altari usque ad portas cecidit"). The damage was so extensive that it was difficult to trace in every case the lines of the old building, but these were in the main respected and the new building was of the same dimensions as the old. This secondchurch lasted for four hundred years and was then burnt down. It was rebuilt by Clement V and John XXII, only to be burnt down once more in 1360, but again rebuilt by Urban V.
Through these various vicissitudes the basilica retained its ancient form, being divided by rows of columns into aisles, and having in front an atrium surrounded by colonnades with a fountain in the middle. The façade had three windows, and was embellished with a mosaic representing Christ as the Saviour of the world. The porticoes of the atrium were decorated with frescoes, probably not dating further back than the twelfth century, which commemorated the Roman fleet under Vespasian, the taking of Jerusalem, the Baptism of the Emperor Constantine and his "Donation" to the Church. Inside the basilica the columns no doubt ran, as in all other basilicas of the same date, the whole length of the church from east to west, but at one of the rebuildings, probably that which was carried out by Clement V, the feature of a transverse nave was introduced, imitated no doubt from the one which had been, long before this, added at S. Paolo fuori le Mura. It was probably at this time also that the church was enlarged. When the popes returned to Rome from their long absence at Avignon they found the city deserted and the churches almost in ruins. Great works were begun at the Lateran by Martin V and his successors. The palace, however, was never again used by them as a residence, the Vatican, which stands in a much drier and healthier position, being chosen in its place. It was not until the latter part of the seventeenth century that thechurch took its present appearance, in the tasteless restoration carried out by Innocent X, with Borromini for his architect. The ancient columns were now enclosed in huge pilasters, with gigantic statues in front. In consequence of this the church has entirely lost the appearance of an ancient basilica, and is completely altered in character.
Some portions of the older buildings still survive. Among these we may notice the pavement of medieval Cosmatesque work, and the statues of St. Peter and St. Paul, now in the cloisters. The graceful baldacchino over the high altar, which looks so utterly out of place in its present surroundings, dates from 1369. The stercoraria, or throne of red marble on which the popes sat, is now in the Vatican Museum. It owes its unsavoury name to the anthem sung at the ceremony of the papal enthronization, "De stercore erigeus pauperem". From the fifth century there were seven oratories surrounding the basilica. These before long were thrown into the actual church. The devotion of visiting these oratories, which held its ground all through the medieval period, gave rise to the similar devotion of the seven altars, still common in many churches of Rome and elsewhere. Between the basilica and the city wall there was in former times the great monastery, in which dwelt the community of monks whose duty it was to provide the services in the basilica. The only part of it which still survives is the cloister, surrounded by graceful columns of inlaid marble. They are of a style intermediate between the Romanesque proper and the Gothic, and are the work of Vassellectus and the Cosmati. The date of these beautiful cloisters is the early part of the thirteenth century.
(SOURCE: http://www.ewtn.com/saintsHoly/saints/D/dedicationofstjohnlateranbasilicainrome.asp
Dedication of the Lateran Basilica in Rome
Feast: November 9
Information:
Feast Day:
November 9
Mass of Possession of the Chair: St. John Lateran Basilica
Pope Benedict XVI
This is the oldest, and ranks first among the four great "patriarchal" basilicas of Rome. The site was, in ancient times, occupied by the palace of the family of the Laterani. A member of this family, P. Sextius Lateranus, was the first plebian to attain the rank of consul. In the time of Nero, another member of the family, Plautius Lateranus, at the time consul designatus was accused of conspiracy against the emperor, and his goods were confiscated. Juvenal mentions the palace, and speaks of it as being of some magnificence, "regiæ ædes Lateranorum". Some few remains of the original buildings may still be traced in the city walls outside the Gate of St. John, and a large hall decorated with paintings was uncovered in the eighteenth century within the basilica itself, behind the Lancellotti Chapel. A few traces of older buildings also came to light during the excavations made in 1880, when the work of extending the apse was in progress, but nothing was then discovered of real value or importance. The palace came eventually into the hands of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, through his wife Fausta, and it is from her that it derived the name by which it was then sometimes called, "Domus Faustæ". Constantine must have given it to the Church in the time of Miltiades, not later than about 311, for we find a council against the Donatists meeting within its walls as early as 313. From that time onwards it was always the centre of Christian life within the city; the residence of the popes and the cathedral of Rome. The latter distinction it still holds, though it has long lost the former. Hence the proud title which may be read upon its walls, that it is "Omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater, et caput".
It seems probable, in spite of the tradition that Constantine helped in the work of building with his own hands, that there was not a new basilica erected at the Lateran, but that the work carried out at this period was limited to the adaptation, which perhaps involved the enlargement, of the already existing basilica or great hall of the palace. The words of St. Jerome "basilica quondam Laterani" (Ep. lxxiii, P.L., XXII, col. 692) seem to point in this direction, and it is also probable on other grounds. This original church was probably not of very large dimensions, but we have no reliable information on the subject. It was dedicated to the Saviour, "Basilica Salvatoris", the dedication to St. John being of later date, and due to a Benedictine monastery of St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist which adjoined the basilica and where members were charged at one period with the duty of maintaining the services in the church. This later dedication to St. John has now in popular usage altogether superseded the original one. A great many donations from the popes and other benefactors to the basilica are recorded in the "Liber Pontificalis", and its splendour at an early period was such that it became known as the "Basilica Aurea", or Golden Church. This splendour drew upon it the attack of the Vandals, who stripped it of all its treasures. St. Leo the Great restored it about 460, and it was again restored by Hadrian I, but in 896 it was almost totally destroyed by an earthquake ("ab altari usque ad portas cecidit"). The damage was so extensive that it was difficult to trace in every case the lines of the old building, but these were in the main respected and the new building was of the same dimensions as the old. This secondchurch lasted for four hundred years and was then burnt down. It was rebuilt by Clement V and John XXII, only to be burnt down once more in 1360, but again rebuilt by Urban V.
Through these various vicissitudes the basilica retained its ancient form, being divided by rows of columns into aisles, and having in front an atrium surrounded by colonnades with a fountain in the middle. The façade had three windows, and was embellished with a mosaic representing Christ as the Saviour of the world. The porticoes of the atrium were decorated with frescoes, probably not dating further back than the twelfth century, which commemorated the Roman fleet under Vespasian, the taking of Jerusalem, the Baptism of the Emperor Constantine and his "Donation" to the Church. Inside the basilica the columns no doubt ran, as in all other basilicas of the same date, the whole length of the church from east to west, but at one of the rebuildings, probably that which was carried out by Clement V, the feature of a transverse nave was introduced, imitated no doubt from the one which had been, long before this, added at S. Paolo fuori le Mura. It was probably at this time also that the church was enlarged. When the popes returned to Rome from their long absence at Avignon they found the city deserted and the churches almost in ruins. Great works were begun at the Lateran by Martin V and his successors. The palace, however, was never again used by them as a residence, the Vatican, which stands in a much drier and healthier position, being chosen in its place. It was not until the latter part of the seventeenth century that thechurch took its present appearance, in the tasteless restoration carried out by Innocent X, with Borromini for his architect. The ancient columns were now enclosed in huge pilasters, with gigantic statues in front. In consequence of this the church has entirely lost the appearance of an ancient basilica, and is completely altered in character.
Some portions of the older buildings still survive. Among these we may notice the pavement of medieval Cosmatesque work, and the statues of St. Peter and St. Paul, now in the cloisters. The graceful baldacchino over the high altar, which looks so utterly out of place in its present surroundings, dates from 1369. The stercoraria, or throne of red marble on which the popes sat, is now in the Vatican Museum. It owes its unsavoury name to the anthem sung at the ceremony of the papal enthronization, "De stercore erigeus pauperem". From the fifth century there were seven oratories surrounding the basilica. These before long were thrown into the actual church. The devotion of visiting these oratories, which held its ground all through the medieval period, gave rise to the similar devotion of the seven altars, still common in many churches of Rome and elsewhere. Between the basilica and the city wall there was in former times the great monastery, in which dwelt the community of monks whose duty it was to provide the services in the basilica. The only part of it which still survives is the cloister, surrounded by graceful columns of inlaid marble. They are of a style intermediate between the Romanesque proper and the Gothic, and are the work of Vassellectus and the Cosmati. The date of these beautiful cloisters is the early part of the thirteenth century.
(SOURCE: http://www.ewtn.com/saintsHoly/saints/D/dedicationofstjohnlateranbasilicainrome.asp
American College of Surgeons Opposed to Health care bill...
Surgical Groups Say Senate Health Legislation Will Threaten Patient Access and Harm Quality
On November 4, 2009, 20 surgical organizations, led by the American College of Surgeons, sent a letter to the U.S. Senate stating they are prepared to oppose the Senate’s health care reform bill because it will threaten patient access and harm quality. The surgeons stated although they strongly support health care reform that will expand access to quality surgical and medical care to as many Americans as possible, they cannot support the legislation as it currently stands because it fails to address some of the fundamental problems that plague the health care system. The surgical groups said they plan to oppose the Senate health care reform bill if a number of provisions that were included in the Senate Finance bill are retained.
Read the letter to the Senate
Read the College's letter to the House of Representatives (20K PDF)
On November 4, 2009, 20 surgical organizations, led by the American College of Surgeons, sent a letter to the U.S. Senate stating they are prepared to oppose the Senate’s health care reform bill because it will threaten patient access and harm quality. The surgeons stated although they strongly support health care reform that will expand access to quality surgical and medical care to as many Americans as possible, they cannot support the legislation as it currently stands because it fails to address some of the fundamental problems that plague the health care system. The surgical groups said they plan to oppose the Senate health care reform bill if a number of provisions that were included in the Senate Finance bill are retained.
Read the letter to the Senate
Read the College's letter to the House of Representatives (20K PDF)
Sunday, November 8, 2009
House passes Healthcare Bill with Stupak amendment
House passes Healthcare Bill with Stupak amendment see news reports here...
Wall Street Journal
PLANNED PARENTHOOD CONDEMNS PASSAGE OF STUPAK/PITTS AMENDMENT
FOXNews.com - November 06, 2009
AMA's Endorsement of House Health Care Bill Sparks Internal Uprising
Some AMA members are outraged that the group's trustees made the endorsement without the formal approval of the organization's House of Delegates.
Wall Street Journal
PLANNED PARENTHOOD CONDEMNS PASSAGE OF STUPAK/PITTS AMENDMENT
FOXNews.com - November 06, 2009
AMA's Endorsement of House Health Care Bill Sparks Internal Uprising
Some AMA members are outraged that the group's trustees made the endorsement without the formal approval of the organization's House of Delegates.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
USCCB Letter to legislators 11/6
USCCB News Release
09-228
November 6, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Bishops To House: Keep Abortion Funding Out Of Health Care Reform, Make Health Care Available To Vulnerable
Washington—The U.S. bishops sent an urgent message to the U.S. House of Representatives November 6, as House members steeped themselves in debate over procedures related to abortion and the health care reform bill.
Moments before meeting to discuss proposed amendments to the bill, the bishops called for “a fair process” that would permit discussion of “an amendment to keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections.” Some in the House seek a “closed rule,” a procedure banning amendments from the bill.
The letter was signed by Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, Chairman of the bishops’ Domestic Justice Committee, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chair of the Committee on pro-life Activities; and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chair of the Committee on Migration.
The letter follows.
Dear Representative:
On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we write to strongly urge you to vote for essential changes and a fair process in the House of Representatives to ensure that needed health care reform legislation truly protects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all. Unfortunately, the legislation moving to the House floor falls fundamentally short of this essential goal. We urge members of the House to:
support an amendment to keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections and to oppose a closed rule that would prevent the House from voting on this crucial matter;
oppose measures that would leave immigrants, especially legal immigrants, worse off as a result of health reform;
support access for immigrants to the health-insurance exchange, regardless of legal status, and support removal of the five-year ban on legal immigrants accessing Medicaid and other federal health-care programs; and
support strong provisions that would make health care more affordable and accessible, especially for the poor and vulnerable, by expanding Medicaid to adults who are living at 150 percent or lower of the Federal Poverty Level and offering adequate affordability credits for households up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.
The Catholic Bishops of the United States have long supported adequate and affordable health care for all. We believe universal coverage should be truly universal, not denying health care to those in need because of their condition, age, where they come from or when they arrive here.
Protecting Human Life and Conscience
We are concerned because the current legislation before the House of Representatives fails to keep in place the longstanding federal policy against the use of federal funds for elective abortion or for plans that include elective abortion – a policy upheld by the Hyde Amendment, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and other federal health initiatives. Without such protection we will have to oppose the current legislation until this fundamental flaw is remedied.
For this reason, we ask you to vote for an amendment that will keep in place the longstanding and widely supported federal policy against government funding for elective abortions or for plans which include elective abortions. To accomplish this we also urge you to support efforts to guarantee that the House will have a clear and fair opportunity to vote on this essential matter. Please vote against a “closed rule” if necessary so the amendment can be considered.
Currently, H.R. 3962 allows the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to mandate that any “public option” will include unlimited abortions. The Congressional Research Service has confirmed that all money paid out by this plan for medical procedures will be federal outlays. Federal subsidies will also be used to pay the overall costs of establishing and maintaining private health plans that cover elective abortions. Millions of purchasers will be forced to use their premium dollars for abortion coverage they do not want, through a new mandatory fee. The creation of this “abortion surcharge,” a mandatory payment requiring pro-life purchasers of many plans to pay directly and explicitly for abortion coverage, is unprecedented in federal law. Such a proposal runs counter to the principles of the longstanding “Hyde amendment.” Affirming the Hyde Amendment continues the government’s long standing policy without affecting coverage of abortion in non-subsidized health plans, and without barring anyone from purchasing a supplemental abortion policy that is funded solely by the private funds of those who choose it.
Thus far, H.R. 3962 does not meet President Obama’s commitment of barring use of federal dollars for abortion and maintaining current conscience laws. While Section 259 of the bill maintains essential nondiscrimination protections for providers who decline involvement in abortion, the legislation also requires each region of the insurance exchange to include at least one health plan with unlimited abortion, contrary to the policy of all other federal health programs; and conscience protection on issues beyond abortion have yet to be included in this bill.
Immigrants in Health Care Coverage
We support the inclusion of all immigrants, regardless of status, in the health-care exchange. Regardless of status, immigrants living in our country need to have access to health care just as any other human being. Finding ways to provide them with health care is preferable to compelling them to have access only to emergency room care which is an unfair burden on hospitals in urban and other high immigrant areas of our country.
We also support the removal on the five-year ban on legal immigrants accessing federal health benefit programs, such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Medicare. Legal immigrants, who work and pay taxes, should have access to such programs, if needed. Removing the ban would help ensure that legal immigrants, who were widely praised in past immigration debates for their many contributions and for playing by the rules, will still have access to health-care.
Accessible and Affordable Health Care
Because we support and advocate in favor of affordable and accessible health care for all, especially the poor and marginalized, we want legislation that expands Medicaid eligibility for adults living at 150 percent or lower of the federal poverty level. This will help lower-income families purchase insurance coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange. Provisions in Title I (Immediate Reforms) should be helpful in providing relief to the uninsured and underinsured. The House legislation provides reforms that will strengthen families and protect low-income and vulnerable people by eliminating denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions including pregnancy; eliminating life time caps; offering long-term disability services; and extending dependant coverage to uninsured young adults.
These are not marginal issues or special interest concerns. They are at the heart of the health care debate. Our concerns outlined in this letter reflects our longstanding commitment to health care and our centuries old experience as providers of health care to all, especially the poor and the vulnerable. In that spirit we reiterate our Catholic tradition that teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential to protecting human life and dignity.
For many months, our Bishops’ conference has been working with members of Congress, the Administration and others to fashion health care reform legislation that truly protects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all. Our message has been clear and consistent throughout. We urge the House of Representatives to permit a vote and to adopt essential changes so that, as long time advocates of health care for all, we are not compelled to oppose this flawed legislation. We hope and pray that the Congress and the country will come together around genuine reform.
09-228
November 6, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Bishops To House: Keep Abortion Funding Out Of Health Care Reform, Make Health Care Available To Vulnerable
Washington—The U.S. bishops sent an urgent message to the U.S. House of Representatives November 6, as House members steeped themselves in debate over procedures related to abortion and the health care reform bill.
Moments before meeting to discuss proposed amendments to the bill, the bishops called for “a fair process” that would permit discussion of “an amendment to keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections.” Some in the House seek a “closed rule,” a procedure banning amendments from the bill.
The letter was signed by Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, Chairman of the bishops’ Domestic Justice Committee, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chair of the Committee on pro-life Activities; and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chair of the Committee on Migration.
The letter follows.
Dear Representative:
On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we write to strongly urge you to vote for essential changes and a fair process in the House of Representatives to ensure that needed health care reform legislation truly protects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all. Unfortunately, the legislation moving to the House floor falls fundamentally short of this essential goal. We urge members of the House to:
support an amendment to keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections and to oppose a closed rule that would prevent the House from voting on this crucial matter;
oppose measures that would leave immigrants, especially legal immigrants, worse off as a result of health reform;
support access for immigrants to the health-insurance exchange, regardless of legal status, and support removal of the five-year ban on legal immigrants accessing Medicaid and other federal health-care programs; and
support strong provisions that would make health care more affordable and accessible, especially for the poor and vulnerable, by expanding Medicaid to adults who are living at 150 percent or lower of the Federal Poverty Level and offering adequate affordability credits for households up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.
The Catholic Bishops of the United States have long supported adequate and affordable health care for all. We believe universal coverage should be truly universal, not denying health care to those in need because of their condition, age, where they come from or when they arrive here.
Protecting Human Life and Conscience
We are concerned because the current legislation before the House of Representatives fails to keep in place the longstanding federal policy against the use of federal funds for elective abortion or for plans that include elective abortion – a policy upheld by the Hyde Amendment, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and other federal health initiatives. Without such protection we will have to oppose the current legislation until this fundamental flaw is remedied.
For this reason, we ask you to vote for an amendment that will keep in place the longstanding and widely supported federal policy against government funding for elective abortions or for plans which include elective abortions. To accomplish this we also urge you to support efforts to guarantee that the House will have a clear and fair opportunity to vote on this essential matter. Please vote against a “closed rule” if necessary so the amendment can be considered.
Currently, H.R. 3962 allows the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to mandate that any “public option” will include unlimited abortions. The Congressional Research Service has confirmed that all money paid out by this plan for medical procedures will be federal outlays. Federal subsidies will also be used to pay the overall costs of establishing and maintaining private health plans that cover elective abortions. Millions of purchasers will be forced to use their premium dollars for abortion coverage they do not want, through a new mandatory fee. The creation of this “abortion surcharge,” a mandatory payment requiring pro-life purchasers of many plans to pay directly and explicitly for abortion coverage, is unprecedented in federal law. Such a proposal runs counter to the principles of the longstanding “Hyde amendment.” Affirming the Hyde Amendment continues the government’s long standing policy without affecting coverage of abortion in non-subsidized health plans, and without barring anyone from purchasing a supplemental abortion policy that is funded solely by the private funds of those who choose it.
Thus far, H.R. 3962 does not meet President Obama’s commitment of barring use of federal dollars for abortion and maintaining current conscience laws. While Section 259 of the bill maintains essential nondiscrimination protections for providers who decline involvement in abortion, the legislation also requires each region of the insurance exchange to include at least one health plan with unlimited abortion, contrary to the policy of all other federal health programs; and conscience protection on issues beyond abortion have yet to be included in this bill.
Immigrants in Health Care Coverage
We support the inclusion of all immigrants, regardless of status, in the health-care exchange. Regardless of status, immigrants living in our country need to have access to health care just as any other human being. Finding ways to provide them with health care is preferable to compelling them to have access only to emergency room care which is an unfair burden on hospitals in urban and other high immigrant areas of our country.
We also support the removal on the five-year ban on legal immigrants accessing federal health benefit programs, such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Medicare. Legal immigrants, who work and pay taxes, should have access to such programs, if needed. Removing the ban would help ensure that legal immigrants, who were widely praised in past immigration debates for their many contributions and for playing by the rules, will still have access to health-care.
Accessible and Affordable Health Care
Because we support and advocate in favor of affordable and accessible health care for all, especially the poor and marginalized, we want legislation that expands Medicaid eligibility for adults living at 150 percent or lower of the federal poverty level. This will help lower-income families purchase insurance coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange. Provisions in Title I (Immediate Reforms) should be helpful in providing relief to the uninsured and underinsured. The House legislation provides reforms that will strengthen families and protect low-income and vulnerable people by eliminating denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions including pregnancy; eliminating life time caps; offering long-term disability services; and extending dependant coverage to uninsured young adults.
These are not marginal issues or special interest concerns. They are at the heart of the health care debate. Our concerns outlined in this letter reflects our longstanding commitment to health care and our centuries old experience as providers of health care to all, especially the poor and the vulnerable. In that spirit we reiterate our Catholic tradition that teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential to protecting human life and dignity.
For many months, our Bishops’ conference has been working with members of Congress, the Administration and others to fashion health care reform legislation that truly protects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all. Our message has been clear and consistent throughout. We urge the House of Representatives to permit a vote and to adopt essential changes so that, as long time advocates of health care for all, we are not compelled to oppose this flawed legislation. We hope and pray that the Congress and the country will come together around genuine reform.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Health Care Reform and a Dispute About Dying By Richard M. Doerflinger
Congress’s effort to enact health care reform legislation has sparked a vigorous debate. From a Catholic viewpoint the underlying issue is clear: Tens of millions of Americans lack basic health coverage; many more risk losing what they have as costs rise. And this is a matter of justice. As Pope John XXIII said almost half a century ago: “Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care…” (Pacem in Terris, no. 11). A society that does not ensure basic life-affirming health care for those in need is failing in a basic responsibility...
One worry here is that government or doctors may have agendas in tension with patients’ goals and interests. When a federal official first proposed that the government encourage seniors to sign living wills, in 1977, this was part of a memo on how to cut the government’s health costs – earning a rebuke from Catholic bishops and others.
Another problem is the assumption that documents like the living will are a positive good no matter what they say. The evidence suggests they are imperfect instruments that do not always serve patients’ interests (see the report Taking Care by the President’s Council on Bioethics, www.bioethics.gov/reports/taking_care/chapter2.html). The consultations will also promote whatever advance directive serves as a model in the patient’s home state – and some states’ documents do not make careful distinctions between ordinary and extraordinary means. Patients may not realize that signing some forms could prompt the denial of even ordinary care like nutrition and hydration during a chronic, non-terminal illness. (Section 1233 lists “artificially administered nutrition and hydration” among the topics for discussion)...
See more here...
One worry here is that government or doctors may have agendas in tension with patients’ goals and interests. When a federal official first proposed that the government encourage seniors to sign living wills, in 1977, this was part of a memo on how to cut the government’s health costs – earning a rebuke from Catholic bishops and others.
Another problem is the assumption that documents like the living will are a positive good no matter what they say. The evidence suggests they are imperfect instruments that do not always serve patients’ interests (see the report Taking Care by the President’s Council on Bioethics, www.bioethics.gov/reports/taking_care/chapter2.html). The consultations will also promote whatever advance directive serves as a model in the patient’s home state – and some states’ documents do not make careful distinctions between ordinary and extraordinary means. Patients may not realize that signing some forms could prompt the denial of even ordinary care like nutrition and hydration during a chronic, non-terminal illness. (Section 1233 lists “artificially administered nutrition and hydration” among the topics for discussion)...
See more here...
Call today!
Today's the day to call. Tomorrow's the vote. We can do this. Call your congressperson at both his or her district and DC office. Use the online congressional directory to find your rep and phone numbers or call the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121.
See Fr. Tom Euteneuer Homily on EWTN
Friday, November 6, 2009
Votive Mass of the Sacred Heart Homilist Fr. Tom Euteneuer
Watch here and listen here
Listen to higher quality MP3 audio of your favorite EWTN programs!Add EWTN programs to your iPod / MP3 Player, click here.
First Reading:
Psalm:
Gospel:
Romans 15:14-21
Psalm 98:1-4
Luke 16:1-8
If I love Jesus, I ought to resemble Him; If I love Jesus, I ought to love what He loves, what He does, what He prefers to all else: humility. How may we acquire this virtue? Neither logic or reflection will help us any; thinking nice thoughts about it or taking heroic resolutions would lead us to believe we had already acquired it, and we would content oueselves with that. We must examine our actions to see if we not sought our own interest in them. Let us repeat often, " Jesus, so humble of heart, make our hearts like unto thine."
-- St. Peter Eymard
Votive Mass of the Sacred Heart Homilist Fr. Tom Euteneuer
Watch here and listen here
Listen to higher quality MP3 audio of your favorite EWTN programs!Add EWTN programs to your iPod / MP3 Player, click here.
First Reading:
Psalm:
Gospel:
Romans 15:14-21
Psalm 98:1-4
Luke 16:1-8
If I love Jesus, I ought to resemble Him; If I love Jesus, I ought to love what He loves, what He does, what He prefers to all else: humility. How may we acquire this virtue? Neither logic or reflection will help us any; thinking nice thoughts about it or taking heroic resolutions would lead us to believe we had already acquired it, and we would content oueselves with that. We must examine our actions to see if we not sought our own interest in them. Let us repeat often, " Jesus, so humble of heart, make our hearts like unto thine."
-- St. Peter Eymard
Raymond Arroyo Speaking on Healthcare tonight at 8 pm
World Over tonight: How will the House Health Care bill effect you? And do they have the votes for passage? EWTN 8PM Tonight. Don't miss.Join the conversation!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
St. Martin De Porres a saint for our times Patron of Social Justice and Patron for Ethical Medical Research?...
St Martin de Porres - Patron of Social Justice
By Angela M. Orsini
On May 6, 1962, three hundred and twenty-three years after Martin's death, Pope John XXIII canonized St. Martin de Porres in Rome. We may wonder why there is such a delay, but God works in His own way, not ours. Perhaps it was because the Second Vatican Council was underway, which would result in vast changes enabling a heightened understanding and appreciation for the spiritual life in the Catholic Church. Perhaps it was because the Civil Rights movement was making strides in the United States to bring about an awareness of the equality and contribution of Black Americans. Perhaps this why St. Martin de Porres was canonized, to serve as a Christian model to show that an illegitimate mulatto, relegated to a lowly position in the 16th and 17th century Peruvian society, transcended the prejudice and labored in the fields of the Lord and changed the world around him.
Also St. Martin De Porres did not want a cure for his life threatening illness and he stated that he did not want a "creature to die so he may live"...
Maybe we can petition St. Martin on behalf of the many children killed whose stem cells are being used for research... Only adult stem cells have found cures thus far. I imagine that St. Martin would be appalled of this practice of using stem cells for research today!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
