by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | 10/28/14

In another legal victory against the HHS mandate, a court has ruled a Catholic college doesn’t have to obey the mandate, which compels it to pay for abortion-causing drugs for its employees.
A federal court issued a decision Tuesday in Ave Maria School of Law v. Sebelius that stops enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against Ave Maria School of Law, a Catholic law school.
Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman told LifeNews: “Faith-based educational institutions should be free to live and operate according to the faith they teach and espouse. The court was right to uphold the religious freedom of institutions that value the sanctity of life. If the government can force Ave Maria School of Law to violate its faith in order to exist, then the government can do the same or worse to others.”
The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the administration’s mandate that religious employers provide insurance coverage for abortifacients, sterilization, and contraception to employees regardless of religious or moral objections.
Facing millions of dollars of fines that would have taken effect this weekend, Ave Maria University stood up against the government and won an injunction this morning protecting its right to stay true to its beliefs. This is the first order enjoining the government’s latest attempt to coerce religious organizations via an “augmented rule” that it issued last August.
“After dozens of court rulings, the government still doesn’t seem to get that it can’t force faith institutions to violate their beliefs,” said Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “Fortunately, the courts continue to see through the government’s attempts to disguise the Mandate’s religious coercion. We congratulate Ave Maria for its courage, even under the threat of crippling fines.”
Ave Maria’s renewed lawsuit was filed last August in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. To date, approximately 90% of the courts addressing the contraception mandate—including the Supreme Court in three separate lawsuits—have protected religious ministries.
“I am elated to announce that our Preliminary Injunction in Ave Maria School of Law’s case against the federal government’s mandate of abortifacient and contraceptive coverage in the Affordable Care Act was granted today. This allows us to practice our faith without being forced by the federal government to compromise our beliefs by providing contraceptive and abortifacient coverage for employees,” said Kevin Cieply, President and Dean of Ave Maria School of Law. “We are also especially proud of the fact that our attorney on this case from Alliance Defending Freedom, Matt Bowman, is a 2003 Ave Maria School of Law graduate.”
Ave Maria School of Law was founded in 1999 to provide a legal education that is publicly faithful to the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church. The school’s sincere religious beliefs forbid it from facilitating the provision of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, or sterilization through health insurance coverage it offers to its employees.
“The question is whether the government can pick and choose what faith is, who the faithful are, and when and where they can exercise that faith,” added Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “The cost of religious freedom for Americans and organizations across the country that face this mandate is severe. The potential for massive fines and lawsuits could shut down religious educational institutions as well as private employers with similar religious convictions.”
The lawsuit, Ave Maria School of Law v. Sebelius, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, argues that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Roger Gannam, one of nearly 2,300 attorneys allied with Alliance Defending Fre

by Sarah Zagorski | Houston, TX | LifeNews.com | 10/28/14 5:12 PM

In February 2013, a child known as Baby Chloe was abandoned outside an apartment complex in Texas.

She was left to die inside a Walmart plastic bag; however, a dog walker found her shortly after she was abandoned. The baby was discovered by a woman walking her dogs innorthwest Harris County when the animals became interested in a Wal-Mart bag on the perimeter of the Stonegate Villas Apartments.

About 3 inches of the child’s umbilical cord was still attached. She was a distinct infant – born with one bottom tooth – who weighed 4 pounds and 12 ounces.

Medical officials determined that she was a late preterm baby delivered at 36 to 37 weeks’ gestation. She was named Chloe by the Texas Children’s Hospital staff.

“She was perfectly healthy,” Olguin said. “No injuries, no health issues. No hypothermia. She was out there in February. She didn’t suffer any consequences from being left out in the elements.”

Despite releasing sketches depicting what the biological mother and father might look like and offering a rare opportunity for the media to photograph an abandoned child, officials have been unable to locate Chloe’s parents.

When the pictures were released, CPS received calls from across the United States and abroad. A few people were tested for a DNA match to the child, “but we didn’t come up with any leads,” Olguin said.”

Now, Chloe’s in foster care and her foster parents are planning to adopt her. The authorities have been unable to locate her biological parents and their parental rights have been terminated.

Amazingly, in the video below Chloe is all smiles despite her rough start in the world.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Baby-Chloe-moves-closer-to-adoption-4540388.php#photo-4261929

By Elise Harris

Vatican City, Oct 26, 2014 / 12:52 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In an audience with members of an international Marian movement, Pope Francis warned that the sacrament of marriage has been reduced to a mere association, and urged participants to be witnesses in a secular world.

“The family is being hit, the family is being struck and the family is being bastardized,” the Pope told those in attendance at the Oct. 25 audience.

He warned against the common view in society that “you can call everything family, right?” “What is being proposed is not marriage, it’s an association. But it’s not marriage!

It’s necessary to say these things very clearly and we have to say it!” Pope Francis stressed.

He lamented that there are so many “new forms” of unions which are “totally destructive and limiting the greatness of the love of marriage.”

Noting that there are many who cohabitate, or are separated or divorced, he explained that the “key” to helping is a pastoral care of “close combat” that assists and patiently accompanies the couple.

Pope Francis offered his words in a question-and-answer format during his audience with members of the Schoenstatt movement, held in celebration of the 100th anniversary of its founding in Germany.

Roughly 7,500 members of the international Marian and apostolic organization, both lay and clerics from dozens of nations around the world, were present in the Vatican’s Paul VI Hall for the audience.

In his answers to questions regarding marriage, Pope Francis explained that contemporary society has “devalued” the sacrament by turning it into a social rite, removing the most essential element, which is union with God. “So many families are divided, so many marriages broken, (there is) such relativism in the concept of the Sacrament of Marriage,” he said, noting that from a sociological and Christian point of view “there is a crisis in the family because it’s beat up from all sides and left very wounded!”

In regard to Mary, the Roman Pontiff said that her visit to her cousin Elizabeth is a strong symbol for the movement’s mission, and emphasized how no Christians can call themselves orphans because they have a mother who continues to give them life. Pope Francis recalled this history of the movement’s foundation, noting how it was started by Fr. Joseph Kentenich during the First World War. It was after his time in a concentration camp during World War II, the Pope noted, that the priest traveled to the peripheries of the world in order to preach the Gospel.

Witness is key to spreading the Gospel, he said, explaining that true witness means living “in such a way that the will to live as we live is born in the heart of others…Living in a way (so that) others are interested and ask: ‘why?’” However, the Bishop of Rome emphasized that although we are called to give this witness, “we are not the saviors of anyone,” but rather are the transmitters of Jesus, who is the one that already saved us all.

True witness propels us out of ourselves and into the streets of the world, the Pope continued, repeating his common declaration that a Church, movement or community that doesn’t go out of itself “becomes sick.”

“A movement, a Church or a community that doesn’t go out, is mistaken,” he said. “Don’t be afraid! Go out in mission, go out on the road. We are walkers.”

In answer to questions regarding how he can be defined as “reckless,” the Roman Pontiff admitted that although he can be considered “a little reckless,” he still surrenders himself to prayer, saying that it helps him to place Jesus at the center, rather than himself.

“There is only one center: Jesus Christ – who rather looks at things from the periphery, no? Where he sees things more clearly,” the Pope observed, saying that when closed inside the small worlds of a parish, a community and even the Roman Curia, “then you do not grasp the truth.”

He explained how reality is always seen better from the peripheries rather than the center, and noted how he has seen some episcopal conferences who charge for almost every small thing, where “nothing escapes.”

“Everything is working well, everything is well organized,” the pontiff observed, but they could do with less “functionalism and more apostolic zeal, more interior freedom, more prayer, (and) this interior freedom is the courage to go out.”

When asked about his process of reforming the Roman Curia, Pope Francis explained that often renewal is understood as making small changes here or there, or even making changes out of the necessity of adapting to the times.

But this isn’t true renewal, he said, noting that while there are people every day who say that he needs to renew the Vatican Bank or the Curia, “It’s strange (that) no one speaks of the reform of the heart.”

“They don’t understand anything of what the renewal of the heart means: which is holiness, renewing one’s (own) heart,” the Pope observed, saying that a renewed heart is able of going beyond disagreements such as family conflicts, war and those that arise out of the “culture of the provisional.”

He concluded by blessing the missionary crosses of those present, who are called to missionaries in the five continents of the world, and recalled how some time ago he was given an image of the Mother of Schoenstatt, who prays and is always present.

The movement’s encounter with Pope Francis came on the second day of their visit to Rome, which culminated with a Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica presided over by Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz.

by DON DeMARCO 09/28/2014

It has been widely assumed that the issue of same-sex marriage is essentially a civil-rights issue. Therefore, any objection to it, no matter how reasonable, is construed as a form of discrimination or even bigotry.
The fundamental issue, however, has nothing to do with civil rights, but with whether a same-sex arrangement is truly a marriage. What has been summarily set aside is the nature of marriage.
Those looking for a clear, reasonable and objective presentation of the nature of marriage could do little better than read Robert George et al.’s “What Is Marriage” that appears in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. The authors state, “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts — acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit.”
This working definition contains several elements that have been rejected, not by the Catholic Church, but by many individual Catholics and the secular world in general. The notion of a “permanent” union has been rejected by the widespread acceptance of divorce. That the union should be “exclusive” is violated in our permissive society by the frequency of marital infidelity.
Abortion is inimical to the “bearing” of children. Finally, contraception and sterilization are inconsistent with the conjugal act by which the spouses “seal” or “consummate” their union.
Divorce, infidelity, abortion, contraception and sterilization have carved out a sizeable hole in the nature of marriage, leaving it a relatively empty shell and making it susceptible to being taken over by an arrangement that is not marriage. By analogy, it is very much like the hermit crab, which occupies a vacant shell to provide itself with a protective home. The crab has no natural home of its own and seizes the opportunity to occupy the former home of an animal whose home has become hollow. When Rome lost its inner moral strength, it was invaded and occupied by barbarians.
Society has lost a sense of what marriage is in its essence, having misinterpreted it according to how it is commonly practiced. Thus, the misrepresentation has beclouded the authentic representation. It is a phenomenon akin to Gresham’s Law in economics, where bad money drives out good money. A particular Christian may be a poor example of Christ, but he should not be seen as his adequate representative.
An essential way to restore the authentic image of marriage is through the example of spouses who truly reflect its nature. The Catholic Church realizes both the importance and the difficulty involved in helping to bring this about. Trying to make marriage “easier” for spouses by emulating secular values, however, will prove to be counterproductive. Yet there is hardly anything more important to the good of society than restoring what is basic to it — marriage and the family, in their authenticity.
Marriage is something that a man and a woman enter into. It is something that precedes them. It is not an arrangement that proceeds from them, according to their private preferences. It is a covenant more than a contract.
Two prevailing philosophies are pernicious to marriage in its authenticity. One is relativism, which holds that the value of anything is not inherent in the object but consists in how it relates to me. Hence, marriage can be re-conceptualized to suit how it relates to my preferences. The second is deconstructionism, which maintains that notions such as “man,” “woman” and “marriage” have been arbitrarily constructed and therefore can just as easily be deconstructed and re-constructed.
These two philosophies, however, have much broader implications than how they negatively affect marriage. Losing sight of the objective nature of things, and tearing everything down on the mistaken belief that they were falsely constructed in the first place, has dire implications for society as a whole. These twin philosophies pave a two-lane highway to nihilism.
The importance of authentic marriage to society is well expressed by Edmund Burke: “The Christian religion, by confining marriage to pairs, and rendering the relation indissoluble, has by these two things done more toward the peace, happiness, settlement and civilization of the world than by any other part in this whole scheme of divine wisdom.”
Donald DeMarco is a senior fellow of Human Life International,
professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario,
and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut.

CWR Staff, October 14, 2014

The Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura says that a statement from Pope Francis “is long overdue”

Yesterday’s presentation of the mid-term report (Relatio post disceptationem) of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family was met with a remarkable level of interest among both Catholic and non-Catholic media outlets. The Vatican Radio site, in its introduction to the document, stated in part:

In the mid-term report the Synod Fathers speak of how it’s the task of the Church to recognize those seeds of the Word that have spread beyond its visible and sacramental boundaries. They appeal to the “law of graduality,” as a reflection of the way God reached out to humanity and led His people forward step by step.

Reaction to the report ranged from positive declarations of “a shift in tone toward gays and divorce” (New York Times) to more pessimistic assessments. Mary Jo Anderson, reporting for Catholic World Report from Rome, remarked, “The Extraordinary Synod on the Family is at its midpoint and certain degrees of separation are clear: There is a divorce over divorce, remarriage, and Communion.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and a contributor with four other cardinals (and four additional scholars) to the new book, Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church (Ignatius Press), has expressed concern over several aspects of the Synod, including the push for changes in the handling of Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics and the way that information about the Synod is being, in his words, “manipulated.”

Cardinal Burke responded late yesterday to questions from Carl E. Olson, editor of Catholic World Report, about his concerns, his view of the mid-term report, and why he thinks a statement from Pope Francis is “long overdue.”

CWR: In what way is information about what is happening in the Synod being either manipulated or only partially reported and made public?

Cardinal Burke: The interventions of the individual Synod Fathers are not made available to the public, as has been the case in the past. All of the information regarding the Synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the Synod which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed in the Relatio post disceptationem of yesterday morning.

While the individual interventions of the Synod Fathers are not published, yesterday’s Relatio, which is merely a discussion document, was published immediately and, I am told, even broadcast live. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the Church.

CWR: How is that reflected in the Synod’s midterm document, released yesterday, which is being criticized by many for its appeal to a so-called “law of graduality”?

Cardinal Burke: While the document in question (Relatio post disceptationem) purports to report only the discussion which took place among the Synod Fathers, it, in fact, advances positions which many Synod Fathers do not accept and, I would say, as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept. Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable.

The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called “revolutionary” teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly, and in a confused manner, principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.

CWR: How important is it, do you think, that Pope Francis make a statement soon in order to address the growing sense—among many in the media and in the pews—that the Church is on the cusp of changing her teaching on various essential points regarding marriage, “remarriage,” reception of Communion, and even the place of “unions” among homosexuals?

Cardinal Burke: In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue. The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position.

The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church.

By Hilary White

ROME – A New Zealand archbishop has said on his blog that he was one of the speakers at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family yesterday to call on the Church to drop traditional language describing sin, such as the term “disordered.”

Archbishop John Dew of Wellington, New Zealand, wrote today that his intervention “seemed to be well received by most.”

“I basically said that we have to change the language which is used in various Church documents so that people do not see and hear the Church judging or condemning, passing out rules and laws, but rather showing concern and compassion and reaching out to help people discover God in their lives,” he wrote.

“I quoted St John Paul and the Catechism of the Church and two interventions after me another archbishop gave almost exactly the same intervention and used the same quotes. So at least two of us think the same,” he added.

Dew wrote that “there has been a huge variety” of speeches, “some very pastoral and with good suggestions” and “some defensive and saying that this cannot change at any cost.”

“Whenever someone speaks from his heart and from a very real pastoral experience it is almost possible to feel the change as a real life experience is spoken about, the compassion, concern, love and support for those in difficult pastoral situations is easily felt,” the archbishop added.

The call for the Church to cease using traditional language deemed offensive has been repeatedly frequently in recent decades. Cardinal Walter Kasper, whose intervention at February’s Consistory of Cardinals has largely framed the Synod in the public mind, gave an interview last week where he again called for the Church to drop its use of the term “adultery” when describing those who have divorced and entered into a second union, saying they find it “very offensive.”

In the video interview, released last week by

Catholic News Service, Kasper said there are “elements” of indissolubility in the second “new situation of marriage.” Kasper, whose ideas were described by Pope Francis at the Consistory as “serene,” rejected the Church’s teaching that within such relationships “every sexual act is sinful,” and added, “There is love, there is commitment, there is exclusivity, it is forever.”

“To tell them that’s adultery, permanent adultery, I think they would feel insulted and offended,” he said.

Although the organizers of the Vatican’s ongoing Synod of Bishops on the Family have decided not to make the bishops’ interventions public, opting instead to summarize the discussions without providing names, they have not placed any restrictions on bishops speaking to the press or writing about their interventions in the Synod hall.

By Msgr Charles Pope

Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court not to take up numerous state appeals regarding same-sex unions pretty much signals that the secular redefinition is here to stay. This is really no surprise given the rather deep confusion about sexuality and marriage in our culture. The polygamists and any number of other groups demanding recognition for their aberrant notions of marriage are sure to follow with all due haste. And what is to stop them, legally, at this point? The word “marriage” is now largely meaningless since, if marriage can mean anything, marriage means nothing, in the linguistic sense. At my parish, we celebrate the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and are retooling our documents with this new designation wherever possible.

While Jesus did not directly address the issue of same-sex “marriage” (since such a bizarre notion would not even have occurred to anyone in the Jewish world of his day), he did address the notion of illicit or unchaste unions. He did this in the “Matthean exception” (Matt 19 and Matt 5). While Jesus forbade divorce, He set aside or excluded certain unions that were illicit or unchaste and indicated that these were not unions to which one should cling. In effect, He said that they are not marriages at all so the term “divorce” does not apply to them and they should be set aside.

Consider the text from Matthew 19. Let me first present the text itself and then provide some background and interpretation. (I am using the Catholic NABRE translation.)

[Jesus said],I say to you, whoever div orces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery (Matt 19:9).

The RSV (Catholic Edition) translates the passage this way: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.

Now the phrases, “unless the marriage is unlawful” and “except for unchastity,” are translations of the Greek phrase μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ (me epi porneia). The usual meaning of the word porneia is “fornication” (i.e., sex between two unmarried people). However, depending on the context, porneia can also refer to other forms of sexual contact that are illicit or irregular by biblical standards. For example, many Greek lexicons (e.g., Strongs and Thayer & Smith) define porneia broadly as “illicit sexual intercourse” and then go on to define porneia to include fornication, homosexual activity, lesbian activity, sexual intercourse with animals, sexual intercourse with close relatives (as spelled out in Leviticus 18), or sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman. Protestants tend to include adultery in the definition of porneia more so than do Catholics.

The reason that Catholics in general do not is that there is another Greek word specifically for adultery: μοιχᾶται (moichatai). Therefore we do not consider adultery to be grounds for divorce based on either Matt 19 or Matt 5.So, fundamentally, porneia most often means fornication (pre-marital sex) but can mean other illicit things as well.

Why then does Jesus utter this “exception” to the otherwise air-tight prohibition of divorce? The answer would seem to lie in the influence of certain Gentile notions, which the Lord wanted to be clear to exclude, at least in the settings Matthew recalled. The Gentile world was a very sexually confused—even depraved—world. All sorts of strange sexual practices were tolerated and even tied into some of the pagan religious practices. Gentile notions of marriage were often at wide variance with Jewish ones. Gentiles often called “marriage” what Judeo-Christians would call incest. There were also difficulties encountered with homosexual behavior and other sexual liaisons that the Christian Church could not and would not recognize as legitimate or anything but sinful. (The most thorough discussion of this background can be found in the Navarre Biblical Commentary.)

So, in effect, Jesus is declaring that certain so-called marriages that featured porneia (some form of illicit sexual union) were not marriages at all, and that His forbiddance of divorce should not be seen as applying to these illicit unions. The implication is that since such unions were not considered marriage at all, one could and should leave them without being guilty of divorce. The bottom line is this: there was a defined understanding of marriage that Jesus insisted upon, and He freely declared that just because someone called something a “marriage” didn’t make it a marriage.

Many today want to redefine marriage into something other than one man and one women in a fruitful (child-bearing) relationship until death do them part. I have little doubt, based on biblical evidence alone, that Jesus would declare such unions as “not marriages at all,” since He clearly set aside certain unions of His day by calling them unlawful, or more specifically, unchaste.

To those who would argue that Jesus did not specifically mention homosexual unions, I would point out, as already noted, that the term porneia can and does include all forms of illicit sexual unions: incest, fornication, and homosexual acts. Hence His use of the word here does include an exclusion of unions based on this form of unchastity.

As an aside, many today argue that Jesus never explicitly mentioned homosexual acts (though I’d like to point out that he also didn’t explicitly say “Don’t beat your wife,” either) and they seek to conclude from His “silence” that He therefore would approve of homosexual acts. But of course Jesus does address the sinfulness of homosexual acts—through His appointed spokesmen, the Apostles, to whom He said, “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16). The New Testament teachings of the apostles, who speak for Jesus, clearly describe homosexual acts as sinful (e.g., Rom 1:18ff, 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:8-11) and contrary to nature (paraphysin– Romans 1:26).

Hence, the term porneia (here understood widely as unchastity) surely does include homosexual acts (as any Greek dictionary will affirm). In the Matthean exception or exclusion, Jesus thus sets aside unchaste or illicit unions since they are not true marriages at all. Divorce does not apply to them and such unions should be discontinued since they are unchaste.

The Vatican’s Synod of Bishops on the Family, taking place in Rome from October 5-19, will not be successful unless it addresses the failure of clergy to preach the Catholic teaching on sexuality found in Humanae Vitae, says a U.S. Catholic priest of 56 years.

Father Daniel McCaffrey, from the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, served as a military chaplain in Korea, Pakistan and during the Vietnam conflict and now travels throughout the country preaching God’s truth on sexuality, marriage, and family-life. He spoke to LifeSiteNews by telephone.

Listen here: https://soundcloud.com/lifesitenews/a-very-cold-dark-winter-lifesitenews-interviews-fr-daniel-mccaffrey “For four decades and more, the people have not heard the message of the Church on marriage,” McCaffrey said. If the Synod does not address this problem, “we’re going to have a very cold dark winter ahead of the Church,” he predicted.

Father McCaffrey, who works with Natural Family Planning Outreach [http://www.nfpoutreach.org/] may sound like a fire-and-brimstone kind-a preacher, but his message about the Church’s clear teaching on marriage and sexuality is one of love, compassion, forgiveness, and hope.

“I don’t come on in such a way that I’m talking down to the people or criticizing them. I come on as a shepherd. I tell the people that I’m here not to criticize or put them down or condemn, but that I’m here to enlighten them about a truth that’s going to make their life happy here and hereafter,” he said. “Once they know you’re there because you love them, they listen.”

Father McCaffrey’s main message given to parishes and colleges nationwide as well as in Canada is that “contraception is a cancer destroying our Church today.”

The Catholic Church teaches that God created marriage between a man and woman to be “fruitful” in imitation of God’s own Trinitarian life, wherein God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit through the mystery of the “divine processions.” Seeing openness to life as an essential part of the sexual act, the Church teaches that each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of new life.

Pope Paul VI warned in his 1968 watershed encyclical Humanae Vitae that a wide social acceptance of closing the sexual act to the gift of life would increase rates of infidelity, lower morality, and lead to a loss of respect for women. Many note that his warnings have proven to be totally accurate.

Father McCaffrey said that contrary to the expectations of parish priests and religious coordinators—who invite him to speak with apprehension, fearing a loss of parishioners—when people hear what the Church actually teaches about marriage and sexuality, they love it. It is very common for listeners to erupt into spontaneous applause at various points during the delivery of his talk.

“You can’t tell me that this is not a teachable subject and a preachable message,” he said.

Father McCaffrey puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of bishops and priests for the laity being largely unaware of this teaching. He lamented that contraception and divorce rates within the Church are practically identical with those outside the Church.

“The horrible thing today is people have not heard this teaching of Humanae Vitae explained clearly and in a loving way. That’s the real problem,” he said.

“And that’s why I say to this Synod: ‘Please send a questionnaire out to all of the bishops, priests, and deacons of the world, asking them why they are not getting the message of Humanae Vitae and [Saint John Paul II’s] Theology of the Body out to the people in the pews.”

Father McCaffrey called the social acceptance of contraception the “root of the problem” facing the Church today regarding the issues of marriage, divorce, and homosexuality. “It’s the root cause, in my opinion, for much of the heartache that the Church has today with regard to marriage.”

Homosexuality is “part and parcel of the whole thing,” he said, adding: “Once you separate the unitive from the procreative, you can do anything. You can perform any perverted act that you want. And that’s why this is a root issue.”

“That’s why I’m so adamant about proclaiming this, because, if we don’t settle this matter clearly, I don’t see the Synod doing very much in this area of evangelization in the married life.”

“It’s very sad, and it breaks my heart that we have the light, the truth, and why don’t we share it with the people forcefully and lovingly? We are the last hope of the world. Why don’t we get up and bring the message of God to the people?” he asked.
Hear Father McCaffrey preach a homily on openness to life at: http://www.nfpoutreach.org/media/ Underlying%20Moral%20Precepts-96.mp3

by Gayle Atteberry | Salem, OR | LifeNews.com | 10/7/14

I wanted to take a few minutes to address all that pink you’ve been seeing in stores, on athletes and on your TV screen. October is Breast Cancer Awareness month and it has never hit home harder for me than this year.

“We did find cancer cells in your breast biopsy,” said the doctor matter-of-factly.

Cancer!!! I was stunned, shocked senseless with words I never thought I would hear!

Cancer happens to other people, not to me! The doctor’s words were droning on: ”…we need to start treatment right away; do you have a surgeon, or would you like me to recommend one?” Treatment! Am I going to die? My mind raced.

The thought of heaven was a peaceful one in this sin-filled, trouble-wracked world. But am I ready to leave my family just now? How could I find someone to take my job quickly? My mind darted to all of the things I needed to do before I die. The doctor’s voice was assuring me that she would have the surgeon call and set up an appointment quickly. I hung up the phone.

My mind bounced from thought to thought, but before much time elapsed, anger welled up inside of me…anger at abortion! While I knew that abortion was not the cause of my cancer (ten years of hormonal replacement therapy is a likely culprit), it is a fact that women choosing abortion have a significantly higher chance of cancer than women who do not. My anger grew as I next thought of Planned Parenthood, who vehemently denies the abortion-breast cancer link, all the while pocketing millions of dollars annually as the nation’s largest abortion-provider.

My mind focused next on a gentleman who sat in front of my desk two years previously as a result of an article I wrote condemning the Susan G. Komen Foundation for giving donations to Planned Parenthood affiliates around the nation. As head of the Oregon affiliate of the Komen Foundation, he was asking me to relent of my words.

Even though the Oregon affiliate had not given to Planned Parenthood, he could give me no promise, no policy, no principle, that would prevent it from giving to Planned Parenthood in the future. He even attempted to defend the practice. I told him I found it unconscionable that an organization whose sole purpose was to find a cure for breast cancer would donate to an organization whose main action was one that could cause the cancer they were trying to heal.

Over 60 epidemiological studies conducted in countries throughout the world show an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions. Patrick Caroll, Director of Research for the UK Pension and Population Research Institute, says “legally induced abortion is found to be the best predictor of British breast cancer trends.”

Dr. Janet Daling, pro-choice researcher with Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle found in a 1994 study that “among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women.” Daling also found that “teenagers under age 18 and women over 29 years of age who procure an abortion increase their breast cancer risk by more than 100%.”

Her most alarming find was that “teenagers with a family history of breast cancer who procure an abortion face a risk of breast cancer that is incalculably high. All 12 women in her study with this history were diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 45″. [Janet R. Daling et al., “Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion,” 86 Journal of the National Cancer Institute; (1994);1584]

My breast surgery in late September revealed the cancer has spread. Fear, uncertainty, chemo treatments. I do not wish these things on any woman. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women. Over 232,000 women are expected to be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 2014, and 40,000 women are projected to die of it. Many factors put women at risk for breast cancer, most of which women are beginning to be made aware of. However, the abortion-breast cancer link is the one risk factor that is covered over for “politically correct” reasons. It must be added to list so that women choosing abortion will have full knowledge ahead of time. Women who have had abortions must be more alert and diligent to get regular mammograms.

Abortion has become a “sacred right,” protected by abortion advocacy groups who would rather protect abortion rights than the women they claim to represent. Women are suffering a tremendous disservice in order to protect the pocket books of abortion providers. We are living in an age proud of its “full disclosure” for every decision. Shouldn’t every woman contemplating an abortion be given all the information she needs to make an informed choice? We certainly owe her that much.

Consider making a donation to help towards the end breast cancer to: The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. Please, schedule your mammogram appointment today! For more information on the ABC link, see www.abortionbreastcancer.com.

Shawn Carney, 40 Days for Life Campaign Director, Oct 6, 2014

We’re almost two weeks into this 40 Days for Life campaign and we have more good news to share. So far … there have been 86 babies saved from abortion – that we know of.
Praise God!

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

Kathy in Memphis sent a quick note with great news: “Three babies saved!” A volunteer spoke to a young couple who were on their way into Planned Parenthood.

They listened, but kept on going into the building. Before too long, though, they came back out. “We took the young couple into the mobile unit, and they saw the ultrasound,” Kathy said … and the baby was saved.

vigil participant said she had just arrived for her prayer shift when a woman walked out of Planned Parenthood and announced that she would not be going through with the abortion. A short time later, volunteers reported a third woman also decided to turn away from Planned Parenthood.

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE

“I am happy to report,” Julie said, “that two little lives have been saved from abortion at the Planned Parenthood in Wilmington!”

One woman told counselors she had to abort her baby for the sake of her other two children – she didn’t think she could handle another. The volunteers gave her information about a nearby pregnancy center … and bus fare to get her there. She seemed quite relieved. “Thank you for being here,” she said. “I’m not going to do it!”

Volunteers drove another woman to the pregnancy center after telling her she had better options. “She was under a lot of pressure to abort,” Julie said, “and said if she could just get some help she would choose life for her baby”

A young man who joined the vigil confided that during a previous campaign, his wife was having pregnancy complications and made an appointment for an abortion – and she threatened to call the police if he tried to stop her.

So he prayed, asking the Lord to show his wife a sign at the abortion center that would change her mind.

Of course, when she got there, she saw people praying and realized that she was about to make a terrible “choice.” Their son is now 10 months old.

“He was so grateful that we had been there,” Julie said. “He wanted to join us and perhaps help save someone else’s child.”

GERMANTOWN, MARYLAND

A young man rode up on a bicycle and stopped to talk to a volunteer. He said that when he and his wife were expecting their third child, and had seriously discussed the idea of abortion because of family finances.

He said that they saw people standing in prayer outside the abortion center, and that made them think about what they were about to do. Their baby girl is now one month old.

“You never know what impact you will have,” said Andrew in Germantown. “The simple act of standing on the sidewalk and praying for an end to abortion can save a life.”