Archive for September, 2015

Respect Life 2015

Religious-Freedom Message: Pope Makes Surprise Stop at Little Sisters of the Poor

‘This is a sign, obviously, of support’ for the nuns’ HHS mandate court case, papal spokesman Father Federico Lombardi affirmed at an evening press conference.

09/23/2015 
Courtesy Little Sisters of the Poor

Pope Francis converses Sept. 23 with Sister Marie Mathilde, a 102-year-old member of the Little Sisters of the Poor’s community in Washington.

– Courtesy Little Sisters of the Poor

WASHINGTON — Pope Francis paid a short visit to the Little Sisters of the Poor community in Washington on Wednesday to support them in their court case over the contraception mandate, the Vatican’s spokesman revealed.

It was a “short visit that was not in the program,” Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, said at an evening press conference during the papal visit to the nation’s capital.

“This is a sign, obviously, of support for them” in their court case, he affirmed.

The sisters had filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration for its 2012 mandate that employers provide insurance coverage for birth control, sterilizations and drugs that can cause abortions employee health plans. The sisters have maintained that to provide this coverage would violate their religious beliefs.

After the Obama administration modified the rules as an “accommodation” for objecting organizations, the sisters held that even under the revised rules they would have to violate their consciences.

The majority of a three-judge panel for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July that the Little Sisters of the Poor did not establish that the mandate was a “substantial burden” on their free exercise of religion, and thus ruled they still had to abide by the mandate.

“The Holy Father spoke to each of us individually, from the youngest postulant to our centenarian, and then he spoke to all of us about the importance of our ministry to the elderly,” Sister Constance Veit, communications director for the Little Sisters of the Poor, said following the visit. “We were deeply moved by his encouraging words.”

Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Little Sisters of the Poor in their court challenge against the mandate, said in a email statement, “Today, after Mass at the basilica, the Pope made an unscheduled visit to the Little Sisters of the Poor, where he spoke to each of the sisters privately and encouraged them in their vocation to serve the elderly and the poor. Earlier in the day, at the White House, the Pope expressed his support for religious liberty when he stated: [We] all are called to be vigilant, precisely as good citizens, to preserve and defend that freedom from everything that would threaten or compromise it.”

 

‘An Important Meaning’

The papal visit was not on the official schedule for Pope Francis’ Washington visit, which included Wednesday visits to the White House, a midday prayer service with the U.S. bishops at St. Matthew’s Cathedral and the canonization Mass for St. Junipero Serra at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

It was a “little addition to the program, but I think it has an important meaning,” Father Lombardi said.

He added that the visit “is connected” to “the words that the Pope has said in support of the position of the bishops of the United States in the speech to President Obama and also in the speech to the bishops.”

Pope Francis, with President Obama at the White House, called religious freedom “one of America’s most precious possessions” and hearkened to the U.S. bishops’ defense of religious freedom. “All are called to be vigilant, precisely as good citizens, to preserve and defend that freedom from everything that would threaten or compromise it,” he had said.

In response to the news of the visit with the sisters, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., president of the U.S. Conference of Catholics Bishops, said that he was “so pleased” to hear of the visit.

“As you know, the last thing the Little Sisters of the Poor want to do is sue somebody. They don’t want to sue in court,” he insisted. “They simply want to serve people who are poor and elderly, and they want to do it in a way that doesn’t conflict with their beliefs.”

The archbishop had previously warned against “interpreting freedom of religion in a very narrow way” in the press conference and emphasized that religion is not something practiced just for an hour on Sunday, but something lived out. To prove his point, he used the Little Sisters as an example.

Added Archbishop Kurtz, “We need to make room within our nation for people who have deeply held religious beliefs not to be forced to do that.”

Register staff contributed to this report.

Pope held sick baby, what happened next is amazing

PHOENIX — “The Pope healed our baby’s heart.”

Lynn Cassidy has no other words to explain what happened to her 3-month-old daughter Ave. Ave was born with Down syndrome, eye problems and hearing complications. Most concerning were the two holes in her heart.

“It seems like it was really meant to happen,” Lynn said. “And it’s as close to a miracle as we’ll ever see, I’m sure.”

In Easter of 2014, the family planned a Rome trip to see Pope Francis in person during the canonization of John Paul II and John XXIII.

“It was raining,” Lynn said. “We were told that if we stood on a barricade in St. Peter’s Square, the metal fences in front, the Pope would come by in his ‘Pope’-mobile.”

The Cassidy family waited for hours at the barricade. When the motorcade turned into the square, Lynn’s husband Scott held Ave up in the air.

“It was like the Lion King,” Lynn said. “The secret service person, Johnny, stopped and took her from Scott and held her up to the Pope. The Pope asked my husband, ‘How old is she? What’s her name?’ He told (the Pope) she has two holes in her heart. When we got home in May, we went back to the cardiologist for a check-up. One of the holes was completely closed and one was half the size.”

This mom was in a coma. Then her newborn baby cried. What happened next was beyond amazing.

CONCORD, North Carolina, September 23, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Shelly Cawley, a nursing student, and husband Jeremy Cawley, a YMCA director, weren’t trying to get pregnant, but they weren’t trying not to.

When Shelly found out she was pregnant with their first child, she and husband Jeremy were very excited. “Having a child with the person you love is such a big deal,” Shelly said.

The couple planned a natural delivery, and they attended weekly classes on natural childbirth. “We knew what we were going to do,” Shelly explained, but “then, all of the sudden that plan was taken away from me.”

At eight months’ gestation, doctors discovered a blood clot in Shelly’s leg, so they began giving Shelly blood thinners.

Eventually, Shelly’s water broke, and Jeremy took her to the hospital.  But labor did not progress.

Shelly had preeclampsia, a disorder characterized by high blood pressure and too much protein in the urine. Preeclampsia, if untreated, can lead to liver and kidney dysfunction, and fluid in the lungs. Shelly was also diagnosed with HELLP syndrome, a life-threatening condition involving the rupture of red blood cells, elevated liver enzymes, and a low platelet count.

Doctors told Shelly her baby had to be delivered immediately by emergency C-section.

Going in for an emergency delivery, Shelly had “a premonition.” “I was telling the doctors that I was scared I wasn’t going to wake up,” she said.

She didn’t.

The C-section was successful, and Rylan Grace Cawley was born. But Shelly failed to recover. As Jeremy was holding his newborn daughter, doctors informed him that Shelly’s lungs were filling with fluid and she was having trouble breathing on her own.

Eventually, Shelly fell into a coma. Physicians later discovered that the baby inside her womb had been holding Shelly’s blood clot in place and, when Rylan was delivered, the clot migrated to Shelly’s lung, causing a pulmonary embolism.

Shelly’s blood pressure was 60/40, and her heart rate was over 180 beats a minute. She was hooked up to what doctors called “the last-chance ventilator,” pumping air into her lungs so violently that it rattled her hospital bed, husband Jeremy said.

Doctors were convinced they could only wait and see if Shelly would wake up from the coma. “The doctors had done all they could and it was clear, they absolutely thought they were losing her at this point,” Jeremy said.

That was when the doctors decided to bring the family together. “We didn’t know how she was going to make it,” nurse Ashley Manus told the Washington Post.

The medical staff at Carolinas HealthCare System Northeast use the “skin-to-skin” method to strengthen the mother-baby bond. The physical touch stimulates the newborn’s brain development, stabilizes heart rate, and helps maintain body temperature. Nurse Manus suggested to lay little Rylan on Shelly’s chest. “If that was going to be it for her, we wanted to be able to tell the baby: ‘Your mom held you,'” she reasoned.

“Maybe somewhere in Shelly’s subconscious, she would hear her baby was calling out to her,” Manus said. “We just thought, it can’t hurt, [so we] might as well give it a try.”

Nurses brought little newborn Rylan into Shelly’s room. “I was hoping somewhere deep down, Shelly was still there and could feel her baby, hear her baby and her mother’s instincts would come out,” Manus anticipated.

Jeremy explained that the “hope was that if Shelly could smell the baby, feel the baby, hear the baby – even in the coma – it would give her a reason to fight. They needed her to start to fight.”

They put the newborn on her mother’s chest, but tiny Rylan went right to sleep. “We pinched Rylan and tickled her a little bit so that Shelly would hear her cry,” Jeremy shared.

And then, little Rylan – on her mommy’s chest – cried.

As soon as her baby cried, Shelly’s vitals jumped.

Jeremy said Rylan made the difference in saving her mother’s life. “All the doctors said there’s no way they would have gotten to that point if Shelly hadn’t made it through [that] night,” he said.

Doctors kept Shelly in her coma so that she could get the care she needed, including 21 units of blood, ventilators, and a heart-and-lung bypass machine. As the week-long ordeal continued, Jeremy put Rylan in a t-shirt of Shelly’s, so Rylan could smell her mother. He even learned how to pump his wife’s breast milk. “It was such an emotional and spiritual journey for our family while she was gone,” Jeremy said. “God’s hand was all over everything.”

Finally, Shelly awakened. Jeremy first asked her “if she knew who I was…, if she knew my name – and with the most breathy voice she said my name,” Jeremy Cawley said. “It was just such a huge thing.”

Then, Jeremy brought one-week-old Rylan in to her mother. Shelly “still couldn’t move,” Jeremy explained, “but you could see her eyes – as soon as I brought in Rylan, her eyes locked on Rylan. She just stared at her. And I laid Rylan on her chest.”

As the Washington Post reports, Jeremy brushed the hair from Shelly’s forehead and asked her a question: “Are you happy?”

Shelly nodded yes.

“I’ve got stories to tell you,” he said.

What causes the worst carbon footprint of all? It’s definitely not fossil fuels

September 16, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) — If you still have your children in a public school, you might want to have a talk with your child about the true meaning of “sustainability.”

Or you may want to call your kids who are off at college. Will any of those university courses on their “green” campuses assign students a project to evaluate the carbon footprint of a “gay pride” parade? Or an abortion clinic?

As Obama continues to exalt the climate change agenda above actual global crises, the tragedy is that sexual anarchy will never be objectively measured for its profound contribution to human rights abuses.

You know this word, “sustainable.” The Common Core school framework is full of sacrosanct “sustainable” propaganda, much of it built on the unsustainable quicksand of shifting politics, Marxist economic redistribution schemes, and population control.

But one lesson that’s omitted is the high-risk and low-return of homosexuality, gender-switching and sexual promiscuity. Sexual sin, it turns out, is an unsustainable human activity of the first order.

The reality is, the sexual anarchy movement is unsustainable.

Real humans are damaged and destroyed. Disease, emotional trauma, mutilation, family division, domestic violence and self-harm follow in the wake of “LGBTQetc.” identities and “reproductive rights.” There’s no way to disguise or adequately manage the wreckage left in the wake of these unnatural, life-rejecting behaviors.

And this global movement demands the revocation of freedom, productivity and sustainability for anyone who doesn’t cooperate. Think of the people out of work because of “gay” bullying– Kim Davis (for a few days– and who knows what the future holds?). Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein. Craig James. The list is expanding.

Anyone care to estimate the environmental waste of the entire “gay rights” political movement, from lobbying for harmful laws to parent school protests, to unneeded media coverage? The list goes on.

The Centers for Disease Control Youth Risk Behavior Survey reveals alarming sexual trends among youth. For instance, nearly 6% of students surveyed reported sex before age 13. Yet also deeply troubling, there is no indication these children were asked the obvious follow-up questions: “Who did you have sex with? What was the age and relationship?” Our sexualized culture surveys kids, then tosses them aside without addressing their actual needs. And we wonder why they begin to exhibit odd, even dangerous behavior?

And sinful sexual conduct is unnecessary, avoidable, and changeable, not healthy for children and other living things and we should be discouraging it in policies and programs.

A recent article in USA Today entitled, “Transgender People Face High Risk of Suicide” describes several gender-confused people who, when faced with taunts and rejection, attempted suicide. Of course, this is especially tragic among youth. But self-harm doesn’t just “happen” to people. While we must diligently teach kindness, a truly sustainable culture would also guide children away from adopting bizarre and self-destructive identities.

Still, your kids are being taught to be global citizens in a collectivist, sexually reckless, “sustainable” world.

Impossible.

What “sustainable” means is something that lasts, that can be maintained over time at a certain positive level. Christianity actually fosters that kind of culture, one we experienced in America until leftist revolutionaries gained positions of authority and began a long-term campaign of human destruction, using the rhetoric of freedom to cover the reality of bondage.

Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan said at a 2010 Sustainability Summit: “A well educated citizen knows that we must not act in this generation in ways that endanger the next.”

Then why on earth is the USDOE pushing “transgenderism” on local schools, where kids are sold the idea of mutilating healthy bodies to satisfy a mental delusion?  And why is the USDOE equating the embrace of sodomy as an aspect of school “safety” despite the CDC’s findings that 94% of HIV among American youth under age 24 involves male homosexual sex?

If “LGBT” behaviors were self-evidently glorious, our kids back at school would be happily opening their restrooms, locker rooms and showers to the opposite sex.

Of course, this is the fantasy world of leftist change agents, some of whom are school administrators. Most girls are actually outraged by boys invading their restrooms, and good for them.

AT Hillsboro High School in Missouri, over 150 students protested Lila Perry’s demand to use the girls’ restroom. “Lila” is a guy who angrily told the media “she”[he] thinks their protest is all about bigotry, pure and simple.

No, it’s actually about common sense, pure and simple. Sex masquerades, like boys trying to morph into girls, are not sensible, are impossible and therefore, not sustainable.

There’s also that privacy thing. And that selfishness thing. Being concerned only about your own irrational “rights” is totally unsustainable. Where’s the community, the tolerance? Where’s the embrace of the authentic instead of the phony?

Where is truth? Lies are not sustainable, either.

Human sexual excess consumes vast amounts of energy. And what’s the return? Once we account for the clean-up, the management, the waste, our culture’s current embrace of sexual license is an environmental disaster. The Gulf Oil spill is pond scum in comparison.

Sexually transmitted infections are at epidemic levels among American youth, the “gay” positive, hook-up generation. Only later does the tragic outcome become evident: disfigurement, infertility, sometimes death. Related health costs alone are unsustainable.

Just think about the lost human potential of aborted babies. And infertility means population reduction, less human capital, a less productive society…. waste.

And pornography? It’s the kerosene on this smoldering fire, a hidden public health crisis everyone pretends is not destroying families and children.

Devolution, not evolution.  Regress, not progress. It’s ancient tribalism with Twitter and I-Phones, instead of the careful but rewarding outcome of real, enduring –“sustainable”– relationships.

There’s one other element critical to actual progress, actual sustainability —- doing the will of God.

What has God said about sexuality? It’s reserved for man/woman marriage, and that’s the framework for the most sustainable human relationship of all time.

Linda Harvey is founder and president of Mission America, is a radio talk show host in Ohio and a weekly columnist for WND.com.

Catholic hospital agrees to sterilize women to appease liberals destroying religious freedom

(NaturalNews) In the age of authoritarian political correctness, it has come to the point where even threats of legal action are enough to cause targeted entities to surrender basic beliefs and values, even at the cost of violating centuries-old tradition.

As reported by The Daily Caller, the American Civil Liberties Union has managed to compel a Catholic hospital in California to sterilize a woman with just the threat of a lawsuit, even though such procedures contravene church teachings about the preservation and sanctity of life.

The hospital, Mercy Medical, located in the liberal bastion of San Francisco, is operated as a subsidiary of Dignity Health, California’s largest private health care provider. Rachel Miller, a woman who is scheduled to give birth by C-section in late September, also wanted her doctor to perform a tubal ligation following her birth, a procedure that would render her infertile.

However, Mercy hospital staff initially refused, explaining that as a Catholic institution, such a procedure violates centuries of belief and tradition.

It should also be noted that under the Constitution’s First Amendment protection of religious liberty, the hospital – like most other Catholic hospitals around the country – has a right to act on its beliefs. Catholic dogma teaches that sterilization and other forms of birth control are sinful because they deliberately sabotage the procreative aspect of human sexuality, which is a violation of natural law.

Religious freedom doesn’t apply any more

In addition, the hospital’s policies reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings; doctors there are not permitted to perform abortions and do not engage in in vitro fertilization.

None of this mattered to Miller or the ACLU, which is supposedly a legal organization that supports constitutional rights.

Miller says that without Mercy’s authorization for the sterilization procedure, she would be forced to travel 160 miles in order to get it. Instead, she sought the ACLU’s intervention; in a letter to the hospital, ACLU attorney Elizabeth Gill argued that denying Miller’s procedure was a violation of California law (sex discrimination) and as such, the organization was prepared to file a lawsuit against Mercy for refusing to provide “pregnancy-related care.”

It should be noted that in most cases, women (and men) opt for sterilization procedures after the birth of their children because they have decided that they don’t want to have any more kids. There is no “medical necessity” there in the real sense of the term (as in “to save a life”). Moreover, in the modern era, Catholic institutions’ decisions to not provide sterilization and abortion services dates back a hundred years. Why is such a refusal on religious grounds now “illegal?”

We may never know the answers because the hospital has caved to the threat of a suit rather than opting to stand up for its principles. As noted by The Daily Caller:

In a post on the group’s website, ACLU attorney Elizabeth Gill said she’s happy the hospital will comply with Miller’s request, but that the group won’t be satisfied until all hospitals are forced to stop following Catholic doctrine.

“Rachel is lucky — she stood up for herself, and she is getting the health care that she and her doctor have decided is best for her,” Gill said. “But as long as Catholic hospitals are allowed to apply the ethical and religious directives, many women will be denied care because Catholic bishops are telling medical professionals how to operate.”

Culture of depopulation and death

Actually, the centuries-old Catholic doctrine guides such decisions; bishops are merely the human conduit through which doctrine is administered and preserved.

None of this matters to the liberals, who continually seek to deny some Americans fundamental rights they don’t agree with using the color of law, the courts, or a presidential executive order while claiming to be upholding the fundamental rights of others.

The fact that the issues of sterilization and abortion excite liberals does not come as any surprise, however, given the Left’s vehement support of Planned Parenthood’s grotesque, Nazi-like exploitation of aborted human babies; it’s as though liberal dogma includes the concept of depopulation.

For example, as Natural News editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, reported in November 2014, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, a pro-vaccine organization, found that tetanus vaccines given to millions of young women in Kenya had been confirmed by laboratories to contain a sterilization chemical that causes miscarriages.

Abortion and sterilization on demand. Waging war on Christian religious faith and doctrine. Violating centuries of dogma and the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of narrow liberal pro-death policies.

Does this sound like the America our founders fought and died to create?

Pope: Marriage Is for Procreation

VATICAN CITY, September 11, 2015 (ChurchMilitant.com) – The family “as God wants it” is under attack. That’s the warning from the Holy Father yesterday to the international marriage group Equipes Notre Dame (END), or Teams of Our Lady.

Pope Francis told the END couples to defend traditional marriage. He said that today’ “the family — as God wants it, composed of a man and a woman for the good of the spouses and also the generation and education of children — is deformed by powerful contrary projects supported by ideological colonization.”

Equipes Notre Dame was formally established in 1947 by Fr. Henri Caffarel in order to help married couples achieve holiness by “belonging to a team within a Christian community.” Today, they exist in 48 different countries around the globe according to the Pontifical Council for the Laity. The Pope encouraged END couples to live the spirituality of their movement, stressing that married fidelity is a gift from God.

Pope Francis warned that amid the modern, busy, individualistic world, spouses must go against the current and take the time to “sit down” and talk with each other to strengthen their marriage. He also stressed the central role of prayer within the family, describing it as “a beautiful and necessary tradition that has always supported the faith and hope of Christians, and unfortunately abandoned in many regions of the world.”

Besides maintaining their own integrity, His Holiness said that families must reach out to other families, particularly those who are wounded and vulnerable through personal and social problems. “We must have the courage to enter into contact with these families in a discreet but generous way.”

His Holiness noted that the END group’s visit to Rome comes just before the Synod on the Family. Calling the family the “vital cell of our societies,” he said that Christian couples must strengthen and encourage other families by announcing Jesus to them. He told the END couples that families must witness and announce the joy that the Lord enables families to experience “so that others may take the same path.”

“It is necessary, therefore, that you bring your witness and your experience to help Christian communities to discern the real situations in which these people find themselves, to welcome them with their wounds, and to help them to journey in faith and in truth,” he admonished them. “Nor must you forget the unspeakable suffering of the children who experience these painful family situations: you can give a lot to them.”

New study reveals adverse outcomes from fertility treatments

Children born after Artificial Reproductive Treatments have a greater risk of preterm birth, low birth weight, and extended newborn hospital stay according to a recent study of perinatal outcomes.

Dr Joseph Stanford, MD, from University of Utah, with his colleagues, analyzed the adverse perinatal outcomes associated with Artificial Reproductive Technologies compared to outcomes from spontaneous pregnancies in Florida, Maryland and Utah.

The authors analyzed data from a population-based surveillance system designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to identify and monitor maternal health and perinatal outcomes.

The study represented 1,022,597 women with live births between 2004 and 2008. Women who received treatment with assisted reproductive technology (ART), intrauterine insemination with ovulation stimulation (IUI), and ovulation stimulation alone (OS) were compared to women who never used fertility treatment and subfertile women who conceived without any treatment.

The authors of the study found that premature birth, very premature birth and low birth weight are six times greater amongst women who undergo ART in the conception cycle compared to all women trying to conceive in the population of the study. Also the newborn hospitals stay of 1 week or longer were three times higher for all ART pregnancies compared with women who never used fertility treatment.

Indeed, it was discussed that much of this risk comes from multiple gestation pregnancies, but even singleton pregnancies achieved by ART had higher risk of complications. Among births of a single baby, and compared with women who never used fertility treatments, women who conceived with ART were three times more likely to experience preterm birth (<37 weeks the due date)

Another finding of the study was that the use of intrauterine insemination (IUI) and ovarian stimulation increased 2 times the risk of prematurity (<34 weeks before the due date) compared with women who never used fertility treatments.

Although preterm birth and low birthweight, were associated with ART, subfertility status itself was significantly associated with very low birthweight.

The authors explained that in contrast, there was a protective association of ‘other various’ fertility treatment on very low birthweight, compared with subfertile women who conceived without treatment. Subfertile couples could achieve pregnancy using fertility treatment protocols, such as Naprotechnology, that are less likely to result in adverse perinatal outcomes that cause long hospital stay for the newborn such as preterm birth or low birthweight.

Hormonal Birth Control And HIV Risk: Some Contraceptives Alter Vaginal Immune System, Increasing HIV Risk

http://www.medicaldaily.com

A recent study may have found a biological explanation for why certain types of injectable and oral contraceptives can put women at increased risk of HIV infections. The study suggests these medications may suppress the vaginal immune response in certain women, a finding which sheds new light on the possible impact hormonal contraceptive methods can have on the vaginal environment.

Over the years, different studies have produced conflicting results on whether or not a relationship between hormonal contraceptives and HIV infection risk actually exists. However, the new study, published in the journal mBio, will hopefully set the record straight. According to lead author Dr. Raina Fichorova in a recent statement, the link does exist and the reason for previous inconsistencies in research “lies in the microbial communities of the reproductive tract.”

For the study, Fichorova and her fellow researchers analyzed cervical swabs and data from 823 HIV-negative women between the ages of 18 and 35 who had been enrolled in family planning clinics in Uganda and Zimbabwe. The women were divided into three groups: those who used injectable contraceptive depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera or DMPA), those who used estrogen-progesterone oral contraceptives, and those who used no hormonal contraceptives. By the end of the project, around 200 of the original group of women had contracted HIV. The medical history of those who contracted the virus has given important insight into the role that hormonal contraceptives play in a women’s natural immunity.

An individual’s risk of contracting HIV heavily depends on their method of exposure. Blood transfusions have the highest risk of HIV transmission followed by receiving anal sex. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the transmission risk for women who have vaginal intercourse with an HIV-positive man is about eight every 10,000 exposures. Of course, this number does not take into account factors that may increase transmission risk (such as already having an STD) or those that may decrease the risk (such as using a condom, which reduces the risk by up to 80 percent). Part of the reason why a woman is not guaranteed to contract HIV after exposure is because the vagina’s immune system provides a natural defense against infections and helps to form a protective barrier of mucous between a woman and potential pathogens.

The study’s results revealed that both DMPAs and oral contraceptives inhibited the vagina’s natural defense and thus put the women at an increased risk of contracting the viral and bacterial pathogens. However, this risk increase does not extend to all women taking these forms of contraceptives. According to the authors, the effects of hormonal contraceptives on cervical immunity “depend on the genital tract microenvironment,” and “a weakened mucosal barrier against HIV” may result from the combination of both hormonal contraceptive use and pre-existing infections.

Women who had vaginal infections such as bacterial vaginosis or disturbed microbial environments in their vagina were observed as being most at-risk for HIV infections. For example, results showed that women who had herpes or disturbed vaginal microbiota and took levonorgestrel-containing oral contraceptives were more likely to have increased levels of proteins that attract HIV host cells. Also, DMPA appeared to suppress a woman’s immune responses to Trichomonas vaginalis, a widespread parasite that aids HIV infection.

Along with clarifying the link between contraceptive use and HIV, the findings also highlight the importance of further investigating the possible effects that hormonal contraceptives can have on female reproductive health.

“Studies of new contraceptive methods should evaluate how they impact the microbial environment and how they act in concert with preexisting, treatable microbial disturbances, to weaken the mucosal barrier against HIV and other infections,” Fichorova explained in a statement.

According to Fichorova, the ultimate goal is to prevent the unwanted side effects of available hormonal contraceptives and improve the lives of millions of women throughout the world. “Women deserve to know more so that they can make informed choices about birth control.

Source: Fichorova RN, Chen P, Morrison CS, et al. The Contribution of Cervicovaginal Infections to the Immunomodulatory Effects of Hormonal Contraception. Mbio. 2015.

The Rigging of a Synod? – The Betrayal of our Families

September 6, 2015 (Voice of the Family) – A new book, The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?: An Investigation into Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, will shed much light on allegations that the Extraordinary Synod, held in Rome last October, was subject to manipulation. The book has been written by highly respected Vatican journalist Edward Pentin and carries the endorsement of Wilfrid Fox Cardinal Napier, Archbishop of Durban. Cardinal Napier is one of the fifteen members of the permanent council of cardinals and bishops overseeing the Synod of Bishops, he attended the Extraordinary Synod and was a member of the committee that drafted the final relatio synodi of that Synod.

In this brief review we would like to draw attention to a few of the key examples of the manipulation that is alleged to have taken place at the Extraordinary Synod. We encourage readers to consult the book itself to make themselves aware of the full extent of the concerns raised and of the serious questions that now need to be asked in light of the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family. Voice of the Family has already drawn attention to the instrumentum laboris of that Synod, which, our analysis asserts, “threatens the entire structure of Catholic teaching on marriage, the family and human sexuality.”

Cardinal Napier told Edward Pentin that a few months before the Extraordinary Synod an official at the Synod Secretariat had come to see him to share serious concerns. The official told Napier that he was “very disturbed” by what he had witnessed and commented that “this thing is being manipulated, it’s being engineered. [They] want a certain result.”

Image
Vatican journalist Ed Pentin

The Synod Secretariat is managed by the General Secretary of the Synod, Lorenzo Cardinal Baldisseri (pictured above). The organisation of the both Synods on the Family has been the responsibility of Cardinal Baldisseri, though the cardinal has stressed the close involvement of Pope Francis at every stage of the process. In an interview given in January 2015 he said:

“Pay attention, as this is something one really should know. The pope is the president of the synod of bishops. I am the secretary general, but I don’t have anyone else above me, such as a prefect of a congregation or a president of a council. I don’t have anyone else above me, only the pope. The pope presided over all of the council meetings of the secretariat. He presides. I am the secretary. And so the documents were all seen and approved by the pope, with the approval of his presence. Even the documents during the synod, such as the Relatio ante disceptationem, the Relatio post disceptationem, and the Relatio synodi were seen by him before they were published.”

Cardinal Baldisseri was publicly implicated in the manipulation of the synod on September 20 2014, in accusations made by Vaticanist Marco Tossati in La Stampa, which alleged that a cardinal had been heard explaining  how he would manipulate the synod fathers. Pentin’s book identifies that cardinal as Baldisseri.

The manipulation seems already to have been well advanced by this date. Pentin recounts that some months before the Extraordinary Synod the Synod Secretariat had contacted the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, known for its fidelity to Catholic moral teaching, to recommend experts to participate in the Synod. The Secretariat had made the same request to certain institutes of the Roman Curia. In the event none of the experts recommended by these institutes was invited participate in the Synod. A high-level Vatican source has stated that the opinion of these institutes was sought in order that the Secretariat could ensure that orthodox experts could be excluded from participating in the synod. It is also alleged that an official of the Synod Secretariat was told to go through a list of potential experts and exclude all those who were “conservative” and retain all those who were “progressive”.

The manipulation of the synod came to public attention following the release on 13th October 2014 of the interim relatio post disceptationem. This document, which purported to represent the contributions of the synod fathers, is alleged to have seriously misrepresented the views of the assembly. Cardinal Pell called it “tendentious, skewed” and said that “it didn’t represent accurately the feelings of the synod fathers”. Cardinal Napier alleges that the document contained opinions that were never expressed by any of the synod fathers. Pentin writes:

Image

Cardinal Napier remembers a synod father saying he had put his name to the document, but it was not what he had written. “Others asked: How then could this be stated as coming from the synod when the synod hasn’t even discussed it yet?”

Another synod participant added his voice of concern, saying, “there are things said there about the synod saying this, that, and the other, but nobody ever said them. So that’s when it became plain that there was some engineering going on”, the South African cardinal recalled.

The document caused great controversy because it undermined Catholic teaching on key points of doctrine, including the indissolubility of marriage, cohabitation and homosexual unions. The manipulation surrounding the creation of this interim report is discussed at length in the book. More surprising, because previously unreported, is the manipulation involved in the drafting of the final report.

Pentin sheds light on other controversial events that took place during the synod, giving a detailed narrative of events surrounding the removal of a book co-authored by, among others, five Cardinals, from the mail boxes of the synod fathers in the synod hall. Pentin reports that Cardinal Baldisseri said that the sending of the books was not “opportune”. Many readers will ask: how could the mailing of books upholding Catholic teaching on the very point of doctrine under discussion not be considered “opportune”? Only, it would seem, if anything which would derail the previously laid plan for the synod was considered inopportune.

The Rigging of a Vatican Synod? provides a great deal of insight into the theological views of Cardinal Baldisseri. Pentin writes that:

“a sense of alarm was experienced among many holders of traditional Church doctrine and practice in May 2014, when, in an interview with Belgian Church newspaper Tertio, Cardinal Baldisseri said it was time to update the Church’s doctrine on marriage—for example, in connection with divorce and the situation of divorced persons and those who are in civil partnerships. ‘The Church is not timeless, she lives amid the vicissitudes of history, and the Gospel must be known and experienced by people today’, Cardinal Baldisseri said. ‘The message should be in the present, with all respect for the integrity of the one who receives that message. We now have two synods to treat this complex theme of the family, and I believe that these dynamics in two movements will allow a more adequate response to the expectations of the people.’”

In January Cardinal Baldisseri told a conference organised by Pontifical Council for the Family that “there’s no reason to be scandalized that there is a cardinal or a theologian saying something that’s different from the so-called ‘common doctrine’”. “This doesn’t imply a going against” he said, rather “it means reflecting, because dogma has its own evolution; that is a development, not a change.” He added: “Everything that we know today is a mystery, and since we are standing before a mystery and a mystery is not immediately known, we advance in our understanding. We need to keep this in mind. And so [Kasper’s proposal] should be welcomed as a contribution.” These comments were made in despite of the fact that Cardinal Kasper’s proposal directly contradicts the teaching of the Church as expressed most recently by John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio in 1981 and in official documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1994 and 1998.

There is good reason to believe that Cardinal Baldisseri’s theological views have had a very great influence on the synodal texts. One of the most shocking passages in Pentin’s book is an account of Baldisseri’s attempts to alter the content of the pre-synod report, by placing pressure on Cardinal Erdö. These revelations alone would be enough to make the book one of the most important contributions in the lead-up to the next Synod.

Voice of the Family has drawn attention to the “many problematic texts on the subject of the natural law” in the instrumentum laboris of the Extraordinary Synod and the omission of any reference to natural law in the relatio synodi of that Synod. It would seem, in the light of information presented by Pentin in the book, that this may be another example of Cardinal Baldisseri’s damaging influence.

The Extraordinary Synod on the Family, under Cardinal Baldisseri’s leadership, produced documents that undermined Catholic teaching on a whole range of issues relating to human sexuality, marriage and the family. The instrumentum laboris of the Ordinary Synod extends the assault on Catholic doctrine to an even wider number of areas. The Synod Secretariat’s grave failures have real implications for real families, struggling as they are in a society ever more hostile to authentic moral principles and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Catholics at all levels of the Church should be extremely concerned both by Cardinal Baldisseri’s theological opinions and by the well-grounded accusations of manipulation contained in this book. It is difficult to see how Catholics can have any confidence in the synodal process while he remains General Secretary of the Synod.
This article was originally published on Voice of the Family and is re-published with permission.

Pro-Life, Married, and Contracepting: Is There a Problem?

http://www.patheos.com

In light of the recent Planned Parenthood videos, I’ve been thinking about a group of pro-life friends who don’t fit the Catholic categories. These are staunchly pro-life Christians who believe sex should be saved for marriage, that marriage is a lifelong, exclusive union between one man and one woman, but who take contraception as the ‘default mode’ for marital relations, and sterilization as an acceptable way to avoid pregnancy indefinitely.

There are variations within that broad definition, but that’s the gist of it.

When Catholics talk about the connection between contraception and abortion, these couples do not quite fit the pattern. They use contraception (or sterilization) the way Catholics use NFP: If a pregnancy should result despite the couple’s attempt to avoid conceiving, they chalk it up to the will of God and joyfully accept the bundle of surprise happiness.

Why do these couples contracept? Because they’ve been told to, mostly. Keep in mind that even Catholics virtually never speak of the question, and we have Humanae Vitae. Christians of all brands tend to assume that if there is vast pastoral silence on a matter, then whatever the culture is saying must be right.

Thus these couples take what their pastors do have to say about love and marriage and sex, then fit the cultural norms into the gaps.

Do we have a problem?

I am not writing here a full argument against contraception. You can get started on that here, or here, or here. What I want to talk about is the one weird trick contraception plays on marriage, and how that trickles down to everyone else.

When we talk about contraception, especially methods with no abortifacient potential, people tend to say, “Well, NFP is the same thing. You’re preventing births. You’re just using time, rather than a physical barrier, as your thing to avoid pregnancy.”

This gets a little comical half a second later, when you say, “Gosh, if they are the same thing, then there’s no reason you shouldn’t switch.”

They are most definitely not the same thing. Choosing to abstain is radically different from choosing to have sex. It is much harder to play Scrabble while having sex, for one thing.

The whole point of contraception is that you intend to have sex but don’t want the consequences that might follow. The whole point of NFP is that because you are concerned about the consequence, you choose not to have sex.

What does this do to you as a person? To you as a couple? To you as a member of society?

The thing that contraception does is that it turns sex into something you are convinced that you need.

This is a problem because it is a lie, and a deadly one.

How To Kill A Marriage Quick

I’m a fan of the marital act. Not only can I show the goods to back up that claim, but longtime readers can attest that one of my intermittent themes is airing my suspicions about that handful of Catholics who fear that someone, somewhere, is abstaining for the pure pleasure of it.

The precise manner and frequency of intercourse is something each married couple has to work out for themselves, but two things tend to screw up a marriage fast. The first is a spouse who is resentful of the other person’s interest in them (a real problem for some, but not the topic of this post). The second is a spouse who is resentful of the reality that even married people can’t just drop their pants any time they want.

Related posts you might want to pause and peruse right now:

Will Suffering Make Your Marriage Better or Worse?
Is Abstinence Hard on a Marriage?

I am under no illusion that abstinence is easy, see “fan of the marital act,” above. Contraception first slid into the Christian world in response to that challenge: Maybe there’s a way that couples can make necessary abstinence easier by, you know, not abstaining.

We could argue that this (immoral) shift was merely a case of looking for a way to mitigate a difficult situation. Christians, after all, do like to relieve suffering when we can.

Perhaps so. But since that time, the availability and widespread use of contraception has persuaded couples that the devices aren’t merely a convenience but a necessity. We have become convinced that because abstinence is difficult, it is dangerous. We have become convinced that abstinence is a threat to our happiness, and thereby a threat to marriage. We are persuaded that if there exists a sexual drive, that drive must be satisfied. Self-denial is the new cyanide.
Marriage Really Is the Bedrock of Society

If abstinence is deadly to married people, the logic follows, then it must be bad for everyone.

Whereas NFP always reminds you that abstinence is a part of life we must make peace with, contraception says no, don’t make that peace. Very quickly we become persuaded we must have this thing that we want, because it is a necessity.

Thus the spiritual fruit of marriage extends outward to the wider society: If married people have to indulge-or-bust, then surely the same applies to engaged couples? To people dating seriously? To those who are just lonely and want some affection? To those who have no prospect of marriage, but have a sexual drive all the same?

After all, there is nothing different, biologically or psychologically, between a married person and everyone else. If a married person is going to combust for lack of intercourse, it follows that others might too. If a married person is incapable of maintaining healthy, balanced, rewarding relationships unless the sex drive is perpetually sated, it follows that others have the same need for satiation.

And if the married person, who has the advantage of a dear friend on hand for companionship and assistance and warmth and kindness, is unable to experience depth and emotional intimacy and chaste physical touch unless sex be a part of that relationship, it follows that others desiring close human connections have no hope — unless they, too, get the sexual gratification that is apparently necessary if there is to be any happiness.

These are lies of course. You won’t combust for lack of sex. You can have close, warm, satisfying relationships without having to include the sexual act in those relationships.

But these are the lies that contraception teaches us, whether we are intending to learn them or not.

Not Just Same-sex Marriage: Other Unions Will Be Imposed Upon the American People

http://www.nomblog.com

Now that the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been arrogantly dismissed by the Supreme Court, other groups are looking to have their unions included in the “marriage” category. One such example is polygamists, led by the reality stars from the series ‘Sister Wives.’ The Blaze reports that these ‘Sister Wives’ stars are invoking same-sex marriage legalization in an attempt to overturn Utah’s polygamy ban.

Brown and his wives, Robyn, Christine, Janelle and Meri — the stars of “Sister Wives” — are asking judges to reject an appeal by Utah of a judge’s 2013 decision to strike a portion of the state’s ban on polyamorous relationships, KSTU-TV reported.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled that the law’s ban on cohabitation among individuals who are not married runs in contrast to the First and 14th Amendments, and essentially violates Brown’s religious freedom.

“From the rejection of morality legislation in Lawrence to the expansion of the protections of liberty interests in Obergefell, it is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions,” Jonathan Turley, an attorney for Brown, wrote to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court in Denver. ”This case is about criminalization of consensual relations and there are 21st century cases rather than 19th century cases that control.”

Brown has maintained that the legal battle is not about forcing acceptance of bigamy or challenging the rights of states to preclude individuals from holding multiple marriage licenses, but that it is, instead, about battling back against criminalization.

The state, though, maintains that polyamorous relationships are harmful to women and children.

“By only striking the cohabitation provision, the District Court left Utah with the same law maintained by most states in the Union prohibiting bigamy,” Turley wrote. “What was lost to the state is precisely what is denied to all states: the right to impose criminal morality codes on citizens, compelling them to live their lives in accordance with the religious or social values of the majority of citizens.”

When marriage is no longer protected as the union between one man and one woman, society opens itself up to harmful unions that not only further damage the institution, but also work to destroy the family.

Given that the family is the building block of society, our government should be looking to protect marriage and the family — not redefine and destroy it.

For Year of Mercy, pope extends possibilities for absolution

By Cindy Wooden Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — In an extraordinary gesture for the Year of Mercy, Pope Francis has extended to priests worldwide the authority to absolve women for the sin of abortion and has decreed the full validity during the year of the sacrament of confession celebrated by priests of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X.

“This jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one,” the pope wrote in a letter to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of New Evangelization, the office organizing events for the holy year, which opens Dec. 8.

Pope Francis said one of the most serious problems facing people today is a “widespread and insensitive mentality” toward the sacredness of human life.

“The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness, as if not realizing the extreme harm that such an act entails,” while many other women believe that “they have no other option” but to have an abortion, the pope wrote in the letter, released Sept. 1 by the Vatican.

The pressures exerted on many women to abort lead to “an existential and moral ordeal,” Pope Francis said. “I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision.”

When such a woman has repented and seeks absolution in the sacrament of confession, he said, “the forgiveness of God cannot be denied.”

Although church law generally requires a priest to have special permission, called faculties, from his bishop to grant absolution to a person who has procured or helped another to procure an abortion, the pope said he decided “to concede to all priests for the jubilee year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it.”

Pope Francis urged priests to welcome to the sacrament women who have had an abortion, explain “the gravity of the sin committed” and indicate to them “a path of authentic conversion by which to obtain the true and generous forgiveness of the Father who renews all with his presence.”

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, told reporters the pope’s letter “highlights the wideness of God’s mercy” and is “not in any way minimizing the gravity of the sin” of abortion.

In his letter, Pope Francis also granted another exception to church rules out of concern for “those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests” belonging to the traditionalist Society of St Pius X. Although the society is no longer considered to be in schism and the excommunication of its bishops was lifted in 2009, questions remain over whether the sacraments they celebrate are valid and licit.

The pope’s decision was “taken with the faithful in mind” and is limited to the holy year, which runs through Nov. 20, 2016, Father Lombardi said.

The spokesman also confirmed that the Vatican’s contacts with leaders of the Society of St. Pius X have continued. Pope Francis wrote in his letter that he hoped “in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the fraternity.”

Pope Francis’ letter also explained expanded opportunities for obtaining the indulgences that are a normal part of the celebration of a holy year. An indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment a person is due because of his or her sins. In a holy year, it is offered to pilgrims who cross the threshold of the Holy Door at the Vatican or in their local diocese, confess their sins, receive the Eucharist and pray for the pope’s intentions.

The celebration of God’s mercy, he said, is “linked, first and foremost, to the sacrament of reconciliation and to the celebration of the holy Eucharist with a reflection on mercy. It will be necessary to accompany these celebrations with the profession of faith and with prayer for me and for the intentions that I bear in my heart for the good of the church and of the entire world.”

Those who are confined to their homes can obtain the indulgence by offering up their sickness and suffering, he said.

Pope Francis also included special consideration for people who are incarcerated, touching on the Old Testament tradition of a jubilee year as a time for granting prisoners amnesty.

Those who, “despite deserving punishment, have become conscious of the injustice they committed,” may receive the indulgence with prayers and the reception of the sacraments in their prison chapel, he wrote.

“May the gesture of directing their thought and prayer to the Father each time they cross the threshold of their cell signify for them their passage through the Holy Door, because the mercy of God is able to transform hearts, and is also able to transform bars into an experience of freedom,” he wrote.

Federal Court Sides With Pro-Life Organization Over Obamacare’s Abortion Pill Mandate

http://www.churchmilitant.com

WASHINGTON, September 1, 2015 (Dr. Susan Berry) – A federal court Monday decided in favor of pro-life organization March for Life, ruling that the government cannot force the group to act contrary to its pro-life beliefs by enforcing a mandate that the group provide abortion-inducing drugs to employees.

The court’s order in March for Life v. Burwell permanently bars the Obama administration from enforcing its mandate in Obamacare that requires employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs to employees through health insurance plans. Failure to comply with the mandate would result in IRS penalties for March for Life.

“If the purpose of the religious employer exemption is, as HHS states, to respect the anti-abortifacient tenets of an employment relationship, then it makes no rational sense – indeed, no sense whatsoever to deny March for Life that same respect,” the court said in its decision.

A press release states the order is the first “to be granted in favor of an organization opposed to the mandate for pro-life reasons based on science and moral convictions rather than religion.”

March for Life was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, which requested a permanent injunction against the mandate.

“We are delighted that the court has ruled in our favor on this crucially important case,” March for Life Education and Defense Fund president Jeanne Mancini said regarding the ruling. “The government should not be allowed to force organizations like the March for Life to have health insurance with drugs and devices that can cause an abortion.”