Ella and the President's Mandate

Ella causes abortion. This link tells how.

Ella is covered under the new HHS mandate for insurance as a so-called emergency contraceptive.  So Catholic dioceses and agencies will have have to pay for plans that include this coverage.  Ella is a progesterone modulator that is called ulipristal acetate.  It could be described as a weaker formula of the drug mifepristone popularly known as the abortion drug, RU-486.

Of course, the promoters of the drug argue it stops ovulation while acknowledging that it is a selective progesterone receptor modulator.  The problem with that argument is that the science behind the drug completely contradicts their claim.  Their claims are purely political, not scientific.  If the drug blocks progesterone production, it can act to prevent implantation of an embryo.

Menstrual cycle

The chart to the right, which one can find almost anywhere, clearly shows that progesterone levels certainly do not rise much prior to ovulation, but after ovulation there is a notable increase. The chart also shows how the endometrial lining which can support the embryo develops under the influence of progesterone after ovulation has occurred.

Apparently, Ella makers and the FDA claim that blocking progesterone production in turn blocks ovulation and nothing more. That is absurd as any scientific chart similar to the one shown here will demonstrate. In the body, following upon ovulation, progesterone is produced by the corpus luteum, which is what remains of the ovarian follicle after ovulation occurs. To suggest that a progesterone blocker such as Ella only prevents ovulation is nothing short of a deliberate falsehood and a political hoax of the worst kind.

Progesterone acts to prepare the endometrium, the lining of the uterus, to sustain the developing embryo that is formed at conception.  No progesterone, no continuation of pregnancy.  In other words, if a woman is ovulating around the time of taking Ella, after intercourse, the consequence of ingesting the drug will be the ejection of the young embryo from the womb of the mother.  This is quite clearly an abortion.
On the basis of experience with RU-486, those who testified before the FDA against approval of the drug warned of the serious adverse effects for women who would use the Ella drug.  RU-486 was linked directly to deaths and numerous hospitalizations.  Much like the science behind the drug itself, this testimony was completely ignored.

It should be clear to all concerned what is at stake here for the Church.  The Church cannot follow the mandate because the Church herself would be implicated in the direct killing of innocent human life which she condemns with the most severe of remedial penalties. According to the universal law of the Church, the penalty for deliberately aborting is automatic excommunication.  Abortion includes the ejection or destruction of the embryo between conception and implantation.  Ella does exactly that.  Ella is also potentially dangerous to women.  The use of the drug can only be rejected.

The Life-Giving Process is Sacred

I taped a television spot for the diocese today and one of the questions involved something I had written about some time ago.  It seems somewhat relevant to the debates about contraception coverage.  I thought I would post is here.  This was a response to a question which I answered for the St Louis Review.  Be sure to read the last paragraph.

'Dear Father'
What did the saints really write about abortion?
by Father Edward Richard, MS


Q: I've read people try to justify abortion by citing the writings of Sts. Aquinas and Augustine. How can they do that?

A: The argument that certain writings of Sts. Augustine and Aquinas are not consistent with the truth of Church teaching on the grave sinfulness of abortion is false. These saints taught the serious sinfulness of deliberate abortion and they believed that the child in the womb was human from the start. (See Anne B. Gardiner's article in the New Oxford Review, 2004.) In a published interview on the subject (National Catholic Reporter, Jan. 17, 2003), bioethics expert and professor Father Brian Johnstone, CSSR, stated, "There was never any question (in Augustine and Aquinas) of whether terminating a pregnancy was sinful, but rather what kind of sin it was in the early stages -- homicide or something else."

The tortuous logic of the claim originates in a 1970 article by Father Joseph F. Donceel, SJ. Father Donceel uses the medieval biology of St. Thomas Aquinas to question the arguments used by Catholics in support of the teaching identifying abortion as a killing of an innocent human being.

Father Donceel used the outdated biology to assert that in the first several weeks the fetus went through two prior stages, possessing first a vegetative soul then an animal soul, before becoming human. More recent arguments arising out of Father Donceel's musings have gone so far as to assert that no human person exists until the eighth month when the brain is developed to a point when it is capable of a certain level of knowledge.

However, in a refutation of Father Donceel's archaic analysis, David Granfield wrote that according to Thomistic philosophy a rational soul is infused at the moment of fertilization ("Abortion Decision," 1971).

Moreover, Germain Grisez ("Abortion: The Myths, the Realities and the Arguments," 1970) summarizes the whole issue when he states, "If St. Thomas had known about the specific and individual genetic uniqueness of the zygote which makes it biologically a living organism of the human species, he would have supported immediate animation." Grisez is referring to the point that human life begins at fertilization.

The history of the matter and the unbroken tradition condemning abortion is much clearer than those who challenge the Church on this issue would allow. In his book titled "Contraception," John T. Noonan reviews the historical evidence beginning with the very earliest writing we have, the Didache, and continuing on through the Letter of Barnabas from the early second century which holds, "You shall not kill the fetus by an abortion or commit infanticide." Referring to such documents and numerous other writings the testimony of history is so strong it leads Noonan to conclude, "The Christians taught that all life must be inviolate, and, using the terms the law reserved for the killing of adults, they charged that not only the destruction of existing life but the interruption of the life-giving process was homicide and parricide. They were led to attach sanctity not only to life but to the life-giving process."


First printed in the St. Louis Review, January 14, 2005.

Senator Mary Landrieu Votes Against Protection of Conscience Rights

13 Catholic Senators Vote Against Protection of Church's Right to Follow Its Own Teaching

In a story from the Times Picayune, by Jonathon Tilove, Landrieu said,

The Blunt amendment simply goes too far,.... It would allow any insurance provider to block any service, preventive or otherwise, that is "contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan." This not only includes preventive birth control medication, which millions of American women rely on, but could also include blood transfusions, organ transplants or hospice care, which some 'sponsors' may find objectionable.

Oh, and Obamacare and the HHS Mandate doesn't go too far? I wonder why she did not do this kind of parsing of the Obamacare bill when she voted for that!

Landrieu thinks the President Obama's "accommodation" is just dandy.

The administration has now modified the policy, and the revised rule, in my view, protects religious freedom and respects the rights of churches and Catholic hospitals and institutions.

Yes, you and about 12 other Catholics in the US Senate.  Since you have publicly stated your support for all of this Senator Landrieu, as a priest from your state, I would like to ask you to publicly repent of the scandal that you are causing.  You need to repent and confess your sins.

Freedom of Religion without Exemption--Tax Exemption, That Is?

Since my last post on the Obamacare mandate I have had many thoughts about the matter, mostly born of frustration. It seems likely to me that the notion of religious liberty will prevail in the end.  However, the persons in control of the executive and legislative branches of the government will not back down from the mandate or revise the regulations in a way that restores respect for the freedom of religious groups in this country.  The solution could be a legal one fought in court.  To me, that means that there is going to be a great deal of constitutional hair-splitting.  I wonder if the meaning of religious liberty that comes out the other end of this fight will look exactly like the one we have come to rely upon.

Church leaders are probably thinking more right now about the freedom to live the faith in the public arena and the best way to continue to operate their programs.  The question on the minds of many Church leaders has to be, "What will I do if my ______________ is forced to provide this coverage?"  Fill in the blank with diocese, hospital, school, university, etc.  Some will pay the penalty or go to jail if it comes to that.  I know that many bishops and religious superiors are willing to fight for the identity of these institutions.  I have to ask, though, if the fight is really going to end on the issue of whether the offensive practices are covered under insurance plans.

On the judicial side, the sense of drama will peak when the concern for keeping the Church's institutions identity intact comes up against the tax exempt status enjoyed by the Church.  Is this issue the crux of the underlying plan of the administration? Does the government want to force the Church, indeed all religious groups, to chose between tax exemption and public witness?  The government's coffers would be greatly enhanced by taxation of religious bodies.

I know that there are those who would consider me ignorant and even foolish for suggesting that tax exemption and religious liberty do not go hand in glove.  I would counter that the weight of authority is against that idea, though.  I know Chief Justice John Marshall's 1819 dictum, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."  In days past that close connection could have been logically self-sustaining in any case, not only taxation of the federal government by the states involved in the McCulloch v. Maryland case.   However, the weight of the arguments might go the opposite direction and support taxing religious organizations.

The tax exemption granted to religious institutions is based, in part, on the fact that these institutions serve a secular purpose.  Will there be arguments now that the tax exemption will not be allowed if the requirements of the HHS mandate are not met by religious employers? In my estimation, the only way to stop this is to teach the demagogues a good lesson by a sound electoral trouncing, a position that tax-exempt organizations are not able to advocate.

The Evil of the Mandate

We are going to hear all sorts of attempts to accommodate the President's Mandate "accommodation" within Catholic ranks.  The chiefs of Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association were obviously given the advance notice they needed to be ready to give the President the shout out on this. There will be many more. They will all make their comments based upon convoluted, moralistic platitudes about the good of providing universal access to health care which, they say, trumps participation in moral evil.  These positions will be mortally flawed.  Will they be corrected?  I would hope so.

Willing cooperation in grave evil in order to secure a benefit for oneself makes the person who cooperates equally guilty of the grave evil.  What is the goal, exactly, of agreeing with the President on this?  Is it because those who go along with the President's mandate want people to have access to these so-called preventive services?  If so, the cooperation in the program of contraception, sterilization, and chemical abortions is immoral and gravely sinful.  Is it because they want to maintain government funding and the ability to "serve" the general public?  The cooperation is still gravely sinful.

In fact, it is quite clear that these agencies and their affiliated institutions cannot cooperate in this plan to provide abortion, sterilization, or contraceptives.  Indeed, this plan of the President's is morally evil, in itself.  It is what moral theology and Catholic doctrine refer to as "intrinsic evil."  Yes, that's right.  The plan itself, not just the acts of abortion, contraception and sterilization, is intrinsically evil.

Please see the following Doctrinal Statement issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on March 13, 1975.  It was called "Quecumque sterilizatio." Some will argue that this doctrinal statement does not apply because we are talking about health insurance plans and not the health care institution as the statement does.  I say, however, that this is a distinction without a difference.  As a matter of fact, on the basis of principles espoused in the document itself, one must conclude that providing the approval of a plan for such gravely immoral actions across a wide array of institutions and circumstances is itself a greater evil than a plan which consents to the evil in one single institution. 

I will post later on the abortion drug issue. 

For convenience sake, I have highlighted some of the more pertinent elements of the CDF's statement.  

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING STERILIZATION IN CATHOLIC HOSPITALS

This Sacred Congregation has diligently considered not only the problem of contraceptive sterilization for therapeutic purposes but also the opinions indicated by different people toward a solution, and the conflicts relative to requests for cooperation in such sterilizations in Catholic hospitals. The Congregation has resolved to respond to these questions in this way:  

1. Any sterilization which of itself, that is, of its own nature and condition, has the sole immediate effect of rendering the generative faculty incapable of procreation, is to be considered direct sterilization, as the term is understood in the declarations of the pontifical Magisterium, especially of Pius XII¹. Therefore, notwithstanding any subjectively right intention of those whose actions are prompted by the care or prevention of physical or mental illness which is foreseen or feared as a result of pregnancy, such sterilization remains absolutely forbidden according to the doctrine of the Church. And indeed the sterilization of the faculty itself is forbidden for an even graver reason than the sterilization of individual acts, since it induces a state of sterility in the person which is almost always irreversible.  

Neither can any mandate of public authority, which would seek to impose direct sterilization as necessary for the common good, be invoked, for such sterilization damages the dignity and inviolability of the human person². Likewise, neither can one invoke the principle of totality in this case, in virtue of which principal interference with organs is justified for the greater good of the person; sterility intended in itself is not oriented to the integral good of the person as rightly pursued “the proper order of goods being preserved”³ inasmuch as it damages the ethical good of the person, which is the highest good, since it deliberately deprives foreseen and freely chosen sexual activity of an essential element. Thus article 20 of the medical-ethics code promulgated by the conference in 1971 faithfully reflects the doctrine which is to be held, and its observance should be urged. 

2. The Congregation, while it confirms this traditional doctrine of the Church, is not unaware of the dissent against this teaching from many theologians. The Congregation, however, denies that doctrinal significance can be attributed to this fact as such, so as to constitute a “theological source” which the faithful might invoke and thereby abandon the authentic Magisterium, and follow the opinions of private theologians which dissent from it⁴. 

3. Insofar as the management of Catholic hospitals is concerned:  

a) Any cooperation which involves the approval or consent of the hospitals to actions which are in themselves, that is, by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end, namely, in order that the natural effects of sexual actions deliberately performed by the sterilized subject be impeded, is absolutely forbidden. For the official approbation of direct sterilization and, a fortiori, its management and execution in accord with hospital regulations, is a matter which, in the objective order, is by its very nature (or intrinsically) evil. The Catholic hospital cannot cooperate with this for any reason. Any cooperation so supplied is totally unbecoming the mission entrusted to this type of institution and would be contrary to the necessary proclamation and defense of the moral order. 

b) The traditional doctrine regarding material cooperation, with the proper distinctions between necessary and free, proximate and remote, remains valid, to be applied with the utmost prudence, if the case warrants. 

c) In the application of the principle of material cooperation, if the case warrants, great care must be taken against scandal and the danger of any misunderstanding by an appropriate explanation of what is really being done. 

This Sacred Congregation hopes that the criteria recalled in this letter will satisfy the expectations of that episcopate, in order that, with the uncertainties of the faithful cleared up, the Bishops might more easily respond to their pastoral duty. 

Franjo Cardinal Šeper
Prefect 

Most Rev. Jérôme Hamer, O.P.  Titular Archbishop of Lorium 

Secretary 

l. Cf. especially the two Allocutions to the Catholic Union of Obstetricians and to the International Society of Hematology: AAS 43 (1951) 843-844; 50 (1958) 734-737 and in the encyclical of Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-491.
2. Cf. Pius XI, the encyclical Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930) 565.
3. Paul VI, the encyclical Humanae Vitae: AAS 60 (1968) 487.
4. Cf. Vatican Council II, constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 25, 1: AAS 57 (1965) 29-30; Pius XII, Allocution to the Most Reverend Cardinals: AAS 46 (1954) 672; the encyclical Humani Generis: AAS 42 (1950) 568; Paul VI, Allocution to the meeting regarding the theology of Vatican Council II: AAS 58 (1966) 889-896 (especially 890-894); Allocution to the Members of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer: AAS 59 (1967) 960-963 (especially 962).

 

OK. So Here's My Question...

Will the Bishops' Conference deal with those of its own house before suing the U S Government?


In the USCCB Media Blog of Tuesday, January, 24, 2012, concerning the recent Obama Administration ruling that Catholic institutions have to cover sterilizations and contraceptives (including abortion-causing agents), we read:

This egregious violation of religious freedom marks the first time in our history that the federal government is forcing religious people and groups to ante up for services that violate their consciences. Some claim this is all about access to contraceptives—but everyone knows how and where to get them, and get them cheaply. And the mandate also forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-causing drugs. This is about forcing the church to pay for all these things through insurance coverage, to sponsor these “benefits” that it considers immoral. This is, in other words, about freedom of religion, which is a foundation stone of U.S. democracy.

The government allows other religions to live out their beliefs. The Amish and Christian Scientists have a conscientious objection to health insurance, and so the law exempts them from buying it. The government acknowledges the right of these religious groups to live out their religious convictions in U.S. society. Why are beliefs of Catholics and others dismissed? USCCB Media Blog: "Anybody but Catholics Has Religious Freedom.

The course seems clear. If the administration persists, this is going to court.  So, my question, from a priest, moral theologian, interested party, cheerleader for the bishops, and adherent to the authority of the magisterium, (the list goes on) is will the conference of bishops, or individual bishops, now correct individual Catholic legislators and administration officials who support these abridgments of the Church's freedom by pursuing the moral and canonical measures available?  As we know, the bishops' conference has chosen not to speak in favor of adherence to the Church's long-standing, well-established, and incontrovertible moral tradition regarding the refusal of admission of public sinners to Holy Communion in the case of formal cooperation in abortion (referring to those politicians who promote and vote for the so-called right to abortion)--and it should be clear that the administration of Holy Communion to such public sinners entails cooperation in sacrilege and the sin of scandal on the part of the minister of Holy Communion.

Will the bishops' conference find in these offenses, the offenses against conscience and religious freedom committed by Kathleen Sebelius and others involved, serious enough reason to say that these actions are scandalous enough public sin to require that the ministers of Holy Communion not cooperate in the scandal and ensuing sacrileges involved in the reception of Holy Communion by these public sinners?  If the bishops conference is willing to take the US Government to civil court to fight this on a legal basis, to have these offenses declared unconstitutional by government standards, has the time not come, as well, to say that the individuals involved in this should have to publicly repent from their moral and canonical offenses before being admitted to Holy Communion?

Looking for the Wrong Rights Will End Life and Religious Freedom

Just recently, the Executive Branch of the US Government authorized the Department of Defense to allow its chaplains to celebrate so-called marriages of same sex couples wherever it is allowed by state law.  Archbishop Broglio of the Archdiocese for Military Services said under no circumstances will Catholic chaplains witness so-called same sex marriages.  Archbishop Broglio also noted that he did not see how the administration could authorize such unions when Federal Law prohibits it in the Defense of Marriage Act.

Recently, as well, the executive branch has drafted new guidelines which could require catholic doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, even those working in Catholic hospitals and the institutions themselves, to perform direct sterilizations and abortions. 

You might not think that so-called same sex marriage and these other issues are related, but I can tell you that many people who study these things in our society know they are.

As Rev. Dr. Leonard Childress, writing in BlackNews.com, states:

This generation's elites combat truth with ideology, character assassination, deception, and of course, denial. The two defining issues of the day which will determine the course of our culture, and the destiny of our nation, are abortion and homosexuality... Pro-choice, and homosexual and lesbian activists, all claim their cause is a Civil Rights issue. Yet the "Civil Rights" of the unborn children are being denied, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim a "right" for yourself, and by so doing, deny the rights of someone else, especially when that someone is an unborn infant.”  Writing in an article entitled “Homosexuality, Abortion and Dr. Martin Luther King, he adds, “What probably grieves me the most is that they both claim Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King as an icon for their cause, when essentially nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. King was a chief facilitator of the Civil Rights Movement, and by his death at the hand of an assassin, paid the ultimate price for his cause. Freeing African-Americans from centuries of slavery, bigotry and racism, does not equate with sexual preference, and so in some ways, Dr. King's writings are more relevant, imperative, and apropos today than when he first penned them decades ago… The pimping of Dr. King by the racist abortion industry and by homosexual and lesbian activists, needs to cease.

Frankly, it is difficult to see how these troubling developments in the government do not constitute a direct attack on religion, particularly Christians, and especially Catholics.  There appears to be little effort in these new guidelines to provide for genuine respect of conscience in such a way that we would not be required to participate in these moral evils.  As you may know, already in some major metropolitan areas Catholic Charities has been forced to remove itself from placing babies for adoption because of state laws that require that we place them with same sex couples. 

As we consider these things, we realize that we are speaking of the institution of marriage, the meaning of sexuality, and the freedom of man and woman to fulfill their parental role.  Marriage and child bearing as a holy institution has always been the subject of attack, even in the time of Jesus.  When the Pharisees approach Jesus about the question of divorce, as is reported in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus tells them that Moses allowed divorce due to the hardness of their hearts but it was not so from the beginning when God created man and woman and instituted marriage.  Jesus, of course, makes it clear that what God has joined, no man can separate.

Very early in the Church, St. Augustine defended marriage as a holy institution against those who saw marriage and child-bearing in all sorts of strange ways.  Some of his opponents considered conception of a child as an imprisonment of a divine spirit.  Others thought that men and women ought to be able to engage in every sort of strange act without consequence. 

Later on, the Council of Trent spoke of the importance of marriage as a holy institution.  It was for the sanctification of the spouses through their mutual love.  It was not intended as a remedy for concupiscence as some of the reformers taught. 

In more recent times, marriage has come under attack from the Birth Control League and its successor Planned Parenthood.  This attack has taken place on several fronts, mostly in the attempt to limit the reproduction of persons these groups and persons considered undesirable, although their movement was always grounded in the efforts of population control.  Margaret Sanger, the founder of this group had this to say:  Birth control clinics, or bureaus, should be established "in which men and women will be taught the science of parenthood and the science of breeding…"to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime … since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds."

The website blackgenocide.org reports this important information:  At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood. (Life and Education Resource, blackgenocide.org)

The rise of the push for birth control was completely tied up with the attempts by various racist and elitist organizations to root out of society people they considered to be undesirable. 26 states in the United States, because of the efforts of such groups, drafted legislation that forced certain people to be sterilized.  These laws were upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1920’s. In one important case, Buck v. Bell, a case from Virginia in which the state’s eugenics officer wanted to sterilize a young woman, Justice OW Holmes Jr. upheld the law saying that “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

It is not surprising that we do not learn about these things in our history books.  They are just kept quiet because they arose out of the Progressivist Movement that is so popular today.  We would still be dealing with these things out in the open but for one terrible group and their deeds—the Nazis.  You see, the Nazis and the people like the Birth Control League and Planned Parenthood in the United States are born of the same ideas.  The Nazi’s thought that they should purify the race of undesirables.  It started with what were called “useless eaters.”  And it began with the doctors, the scientists, not the politicians.

I would encourage you to visit websites like blackgenocide.org to learn more about the birth control movement, abortion and the devastating effects these things are having in our society.

The roots of the evil of abortion and the holocaust are ideas that spread hatred and death like the plague.  It takes many forms and the greatest threat to any of these horrors is the truth of Jesus Christ and his Church.   So-called same-sex marriage is the latest front in the attack on the definition of marriage and the procreation and education of children.  The efforts to silence the Church will increase all the more as these evils march forward.

Biotech company testing flavors using cells from aborted fetal tissue

Children of God for Life is calling on the public to boycott products of major food companies that are partnering with Senomyx, a biotech company that produces artificial flavor enhancers, unless the company stops using aborted fetal cell lines to test their products.


In 2010, the pro-life organization wrote to Senomyx CEO Kent Snyder, pointing out that moral options for testing their food additives could and should be used. But when Senomyx ignored their letter, they wrote to the companies Senomyx listed on their website as "collaborators" warning them of public backlash and threatened boycott. Food giants Pepsico, Kraft Foods, Campbell Soup, Solae and Nestlé are the primary targets of the boycott, though Senomyx boasts other international partners on their website.

Check out the whole story at the link.

Statement of St. Louis Respect Life Apostolate on Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

The Respect Life Apostolate says:

Due to its policy allowing affiliates to offer financial support to abortion providing facilities, its denial of studies showing abortion as a cause of breast cancer, and its endorsement of embryonic stem cell research, the Respect Life Apostolate neither supports nor encourages participation in activities that benefit Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

The RLA encourages you to contact Susan G. Komen for the Cure (5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250 ▪ Dallas, TX 75244) and call for an end to all associations between Komen affiliates and Planned Parenthood, for support of further studies on the link between breast cancer and abortion, and for an end to the endorsement of research that leads to the destruction of any human life. Our hope is that the Komen Foundation will focus all funds on research to find causes and cures for breast cancer and refuse to give financial or other support to any abortion provider or organization that promotes the destruction of human life.

The patients and families who are victims of this terrible illness remain in our prayers, and we encourage all to continue supporting all those who are suffering or in spiritual, physical or financial need.

In past years, the statement included a list of local Catholic hospitals engaged in Breast Cancer treatment and research as alternatives for potential donors.  Unfortunately, it nows seems that several of those Catholic organizations are sponsors of the Komen Race for the Cure.

Thank you, Cardinal Rigali: Statement for Respect Life Sunday

Cardinal Rigali has been an outspoken advocate for justice and protection of the right to life in the health care debate. This most recent statement is yet another lucid, analytical statement on his part that highlights the wrong-headedness of the proponents of the current versions of health-care reform being supported by a number of Catholics in Congress.

This paragraph in the Cardinal's statement is particularly noteworthy:

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