Memorial rejects CPC
The blatant denial of democratic rights toward pro-lifers is becoming more serious. Previously the Care Centre for Women in St. John's, Nfld. provided information to be included in the students' orientation kits at Memorial University. Mrs. Connie Duff, R.N., the coordinator of the Care Center, received a letter from Leigh Borden of the CSU (Council of the Students Union) dated Aug. 18, 1999. Ms. Borden said the CSU was no longer going to include information from the Care Center in their orientation packages.
The reasons for refusing were: the Women's Resource Center on campus is funded and supported by the CSU wholeheartedly. The Centre's philosophy is "Pro-woman, pro-child, pro-family, pro-choice," which in essence loudly whispers "Planned Parenthood." They go on to say they have well trained volunteers to provide for women in need, and that those who face decisions about unplanned and unwanted pregnancies are given information on all their options in a non-judgmental way.
Mrs. Duff earlier had contacted Ms. Borden enquiring about the elimination of Care Centre material in the orientation kits and also posed the question whether the students union was in fact acting true to the motto "Students Serving Students." Ms. Borden's reply indicated that the CSU was attempting to limit or choose for the student body the information it will receive about services available to the community.
The CSU did not understand that accusation. Ms. Borden said that because the Women's Resource Centre offers information about all options, "it is your organization, not ours, that is attempting to limit information." Finally Ms. Borden goes on to write that the CSU is unable to promote an organization that is not forthcoming about its pro-life position, and implies that the Care Centre's materials in previous orientation kits had been misleading and unethical. She ends her letter saying, "We are unable to see how you possibly believe that eliminating options for women is in ‘the benefit of true freedom of choice.' We will in no way endorse your organization nor the strategy which you have chosen to further your goals."
How arrogant that such people think they speak for the entire student body at the university!
Hospital not Catholic
Re: the article "Are Catholic hospitals selling out?" (The Interim, Sept. 1999). The law of God is crystal clear: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, as it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22); "Neither the effeminate nor sodomites will possess the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
By St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto) publicly supporting a week celebrating homosexuality it has, in effect, declared that it is no longer a Catholic institution.
Pope John Paul II proclaimed in Veritatis Splendor (116), "Bishops are never relieved of their own personal obligations. It falls to them . . . both to grant the title "Catholic" to Church-related . . . health-care facilities . . . and, in cases of serious failure to live up to that title, to take it away."
It is time for (Toronto Archbishop) Cardinal Ambrozic to assert his authority by taking the action dictated by the Vicar of Christ. Interim readers should respectfully urge the Cardinal to do so.
J. K. MacKenzie
Justice needs mercy
Re: "Biblically speaking, God hates Sin and Sinner" by Tim Bloedow (Sept. 1999).
The law is to condemn men, but through the new law of grace in Christ, God fulfills the law by his mercy, to save humanity from sin and death. It is right to have justice but it should be accompanied by mercy (Ps. 25). Justice and mercy go together.
God is love (1 Jn, 4:8); this is His nature. He also loves sinners in order to save them too after they repent: "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance" (Lk 5:32). And He also said, " Truly I say to you that the tax gatherers and harlots will get into the kingdom of God before you" (Mt 21:31.
God wants us to love our enemies in order to have victory over the evil of abortion and euthanasia. It is right to call evil by its name, but we need to be very careful of what we say, and what we do, because the pro-life issues are very sensitive. We need the help and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
God's plan, not our own
I write to comment on the article "Singleness is not a state of limbo," (The Interim, Oct. 1999). In general the article was very interesting and on a topic that I believe is greatly neglected, that of the vocation of being single. I agree with the author that whatever time this vocation may cover, it is true that it needs to be managed wisely. I also liked the detailed rule of life that she put forth about this time in one's life; it was excellent. However, I have a problem with the point of view the author paints.
The author says that life is simpler for the young and single than for the married, yet I beg to differ. The cross that we carry throughout our lives is a true cross, in the sense that it is difficult to be a person. It really hurts to live, especially when we are surrounded by a culture of death that defines our worth by our doing. So can any one say that their state or age involves more suffering than another?
She speaks of appreciating this time as one of great opportunity. This is indeed a great time in life because there we are at the beginning. Yet I wouldn't call a single person's preoccupation with finding "the one" and their pining something negative. What perhaps they are experiencing and are so sensitive to is that great movement of the Holy Spirit preparing them to serve in whatever vocation of love they are called to. Most people marry, so indeed the Lord will be preparing their souls in that direction.
Through this preparation, God is trying to bring the single person closer to Him. So you see, if the single person becomes super active they will still have these moments of great longing and restlessness of heart. It happens when you are married. It happens to priests and nuns, and the saints have written many pages of great reflection about those dark days and nights of pining.
I beg for caution when people say that single people should "do" more. It is always a question of what is God's plan for me - a never ending examination. I say teach the young to carry their cross and teach them of the power of that cross, and teach them to put God's will even above all the good we can "do," so that single or married, sick or healthy, unborn or born, young or old we will contribute with equal dignity to the coming of the kingdom of God and to His glory and salvation of souls according to God's plan, not our own.
Abortifacients in Canada
Re: "The welcome mat for RU-486" (The Interim, Oct. 1999).
The article states that the drug company has now received a written invitation to market the RU-486 abortion pill along with the tacit approval of the Supreme Court of Canada. In the meantime, there have already been two pills approved for the purpose of abortion. These two are Depo-Provera and Preven. A notice of compliance has been issued to Gynetics Inc. by the Health Protection Branch of the Canadian government.
Depo-Provera, although sold as an oral contraceptive, is in fact an abortifacient. One of its side effects is an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Most women are not told of this risk for obvious reasons. In fact, this drug was deemed unsafe for American women by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but is being promoted and shipped to Third World countries. Depo-Provera was approved by the Canadian government in early 1990. Some doctors were already using it without sanction in their practices.
Preven is a form of "emergency contraception" approved in Canada on Mar. 16, 1999. This was done in the face of a complete media blackout on the issue. In other words, the government approved a drug knowing full well its purpose was against the wishes of the people and the news media was compliant in the failure to inform the public.
This shows the complete lack of integrity by both the government and the media. It also shows the cavalier attitude they have toward the health risks to women and their unborn children. I only learned of this drug from a pharmacist at a pro-life meeting. He believes he should not be required to sell a product that is against his beliefs.
No wonder the drug companies feel they are now getting the welcome mat treatment from our government. We need to write to the Minister of Health, the Honourable Allan Rock, saying we do not need a product whose sole purpose is to harm women and kill their unborn children. Health Canada should protect us from harm, not welcome it by saying they would be favourable to an application to market the RU-486 pill.
Priest takes stand on Star
This letter, dated Oct. 7, 1999, was written to David Galloway, president and chief executive officer of the Toronto Star. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.
I have been a regular reader of the Toronto Star since I came to Toronto in 1979. There are many aspects to the paper that I admire, including its excellent sports section and Saturday edition. However, over the summer I cancelled our long-standing subscription to the paper and now subscribe to the National Post. I regretfully write this letter to inform you of my reasons.
In the last few years, your paper has been a regular and active promoter of homosexuality. This has been done with blatant disregard for the sentiments and beliefs of Bible-believing Christians and others who view homosexuality as a threat to the traditional family unit and society as we know it. Your paper has also seemingly made it a goal to mock and castigate any who do not agree that homosexuality is "normal" and "healthy" for our society. In fact, history has shown that societies that accept the practice of homosexuality are on the road to ruin.
In the Roman Catholic Christian tradition that raised me, we believe that the homosexual person has the same rights as any one else in society, but not exclusive rights. "Homosexual orientation" is not a category like race, creed, colour, etc. Christians have always believed that according to God's plan, revealed to us by the Creator Himself, sexuality is a beautiful gift, but one that can only be exercised faithfully and lovingly within the boundaries of marriage. Any relationships of a sexual nature outside that life-long commitment are against the Creator's plan and therefore sinful. Obviously, this includes sodomy, an "abomination" before God.
The perspective of your paper on homosexuality involves constant misinformation and lack of fairness. You do not report arguments against, but simply use euphemisms ad nauseam, such as "homophobic." Not all Christians "fear" homosexuals, but faithful ones, that is, ones not swayed by the rhetoric of "political correctness," understand that their faith insists they speak out against this insidious practice.
I am sorry that I cannot subscribe to your paper any longer because of its offensiveness with respect to the above. As long as the Star continues its assault on Christians and Christian culture, I will convince as many people as I know to cancel their subscriptions.
Rev. James V. McManamy