 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
June 2000
A few days ago I came across some disturbing news. In Canada the Catholic agency Development and Peace is handsomely subsidizing a women's march demanding unrestricted access to birth control and abortion. A donation to this agency is recommended by our church especially during Lent, and the Catholic Women's League has endorsed it. I am appalled at the hypocrisy and evil that is sweeping over our country today. It really disturbs me as well as many other Catholics here. Your paper is greatly appreciated in my friends' homes. Cecile J. Blais I am a member of the Catholic Women's League and very upset with our national executive. On May 16 they reaffirmed their support of this year's World March of Women. These objectives are to end the violence against women. But 50 per cent of the babies that die a violent death in their mother's womb are our sisters. Where is our solidarity with them? This could have been a great opportunity for the CWL to take a stand and say, "No! We can not and will not be a part of this World March!" These demands for "quality publicly funded abortion services" and lesbian rights, are in direct conflict with what the CWL stands for - to protect the sanctity of human life and the institution of marriage between one man and one woman. Our participation in this March will create disunity among the members of the CWL. We are not living up to our CWL constitution and bylaws. Article IV states, "The object of the League shall be to unite Catholic women of Canada." I am a member of the Peterborough diocesan CWL. We have decided we can not be a part of this Women's March because of the above demands. I personally have made a decision to cut up my membership card and mail it to the national executive with a message that they should resign before more damage is done to the CWL. I will however still support my local parish. Feel free to do the same if you do not go along with what the CWL is doing. If we are not part of the culture of life than we are part of the culture of death! We cannot have it both ways. Alida van der Vegt I do commend the strong pro-life tone of the April issue of The Interim, and have always asserted myself by attending pro-life marches in both Ottawa and Victoria, B.C. Since retirement to B.C., I do wish to say that I consider it my duty to support pro-life issues, and at every available opportunity, I write to the government regarding euthanasia and abortion issues. It pains me to see that your article lumps the Catholic bishops and the Catholic Women's League into a faulty and untrue notion that these two commendable institutions would even consider support of abortion. I refer you to the following statements found in The Canadian League Vol. 76 No. 1, p.14, in which the CWL clearly states that "The League does not support one of these [March] demands: the right to free, public abortion services. The Catholic Women's League of Canada remains firm in its commitment to respect for all life from conception to natural death." The Bishop of Prince George is in favor of ending poverty of women and violence against women. The letter writing campaign, which we intend to carry out, will certainly clarify our stand for life, for the elderly, and for the unborn. Donna Flannery Re: March for Life, Ottawa, May 11-12, 2000. On the way home from our Jubilee Pilgrimage in honor of the sanctity of human life, my brother and I spent the time listing the highlights of this joyful, peaceful, and uplifting event. We agreed that Father Ted Colleton's speech about St. Thomas More was a major highlight - also the Mass at St Patrick's Cathedral, the erudite speech by Monsieur Grondin, and the tremendously well-organized march itself through the streets of the nation's capital. During our five-hour drive back to Toronto, in fact we kept reminding each other of more highlights. Yet in addition to the positive moments shared in general, there was one other, witnessed by only a few of us. At the end of the march, as we climbed back up Parliament Hill, a little girl suddenly appeared at my side. I had not noticed her before. She spoke in such a soft voice I had to bend down to hear her. Her face beaming with the unique purity of young children, she said to me, "You should pat yourself on the back. You did it!" Lise Anglin Obscene are the priorities of Ontario's "Conservative" government which, in opposition, deplored NDP abortion policies. My doctor recently ordered a prostate cancer screening test since I had reached age 60. Later, I received an invoice for $20. OHIP had refused to cover it. Your paper reported in May that OHIP had no difficulty paying for 44,000 needless abortions in one year. I believe it had ample funds to fly northern residents south for their abortions. It even had money to squander on legal costs to keep Ontarians from learning how many abortions they had unwillingly financed. But OHIP hadn't funds to pay for cancer screening against a life-threatening disease! I am awaiting advice from my government member as to how I proceed to fight this blatant discrimination on the basis of sex. There seems to be quite a delay. Can you believe a Ministry of "Health" that fully funds non-medical abortions to murder babies (future taxpayers), but actually refuses to fund proven, valid, preventive cancer tests ordered by doctors? There is something odd here, to be as kind as possible. After five years in power, the Conservatives have done absolutely nothing to correct NDP abortion policies. Nothing! They have neither revoked the "temporary" injunction against clinic protests nor allowed it to be tested in a single court case. They send 12 or more police officers to arrest a solitary, petite picketing grandmother and journalist whose photos would show the world what overkill they use to try to intimidate that gentle lady. Do remember this sorry bunch when election day arrives. Ron McCracken I applaud The Interim for bringing Micheal Coren on board as a writer for the best pro-life newspaper in the world. Regarding his last article on Dr. Laura Schlessinger, whom I deeply admire, I would like to add another reason besides "anti-semitism" why some people do not like her. It is simply because she has uncovered the "anti-feminine" element in the feminist movement. For example, in her book, "Ten Stupid Things Men Do to Mess Up Their Lives," the good doctor defends men on the issue of "male violence." Personally, I take strong issue and offense with the "violence against women slogan." It seems that while violence against women is reprehensible and punishable, violence against both babies and men is a non-issue. While I claim that all violence in any form is evil, please allow me to state some painful truths about "violence against men"- a novel topic, but Dr. Laura knows her stuff! I do so in order that all violence is addressed in the belief and hope that only in addressing the entire evil of domestic violence "in truth and in spirit" will it be eliminated. Doctor Laura does so because she simply knows the truth, likes men and is an expert on and proponent of the nuclear family. She, like most of us, would certainly like to see tougher laws against all people who do violence to anyone and call for more immediate and longer sentences against all men who rape. Some of the painful truths Dr. Laura reveals: between 1986 and 1993, the National Centre on Child Abuse Prevention Research reports that 59 per cent of persons causing death are female, and that 50 per cent of people found responsible for child abuse fatalities are natural mothers. The National Violence Survey reported that, except for rape, males are the primary victims of all violent crimes. The Survey also reported that wives admitted they were more likely to assault their husbands than vice versa. The work of Canadians Senator Anne Cools and Professor William Gairdner reveal that wife-to-husband violence is significantly higher than husband-to-wife violence. All of these studies, including the work of the eminent sociologists Richard Gelles and Murray Strauss, can be easily found on the Internet. These studies, and many more, show that it simply isn't true that men are as violent as the media portrays them, or that women are any more kind, loving and nurturing than men. They do reveal that men and women act out love and violence in different manners. In effect, some people don't like Dr. Laura because the truth hurts. Quite frankly, she is doing a lot more to promote papal teaching on the family than most local clergy. God bless you, Laura! Hang in there! We admire you and your courage. Paul Michael Wood A major multinational pharmaceutical company has begun an advertising campaign, using MuchMusic TV as its main focus, but also using network TV and bus shelter signs. The target audience is young women - girls, really. The message promotes the contraceptive pill - which, indirectly, is promoting sexual promiscuity. The ads are dishonest: masquerading as "information," they don't tell the whole story. They don't tell teenage girls that most oral contraceptives are actually abortifacients; they don't discuss the dangers of promiscuity, or of tampering with hormone balances; they're silent about the fact that abstinence is safer, works every time, allows girls to enjoy growing up years that are carefree, guilt-free, and brings them to marriage. Of course they don't: because you can't make money selling abstinence. There's no dividend for shareholders in chastity. The benefits of conventional morality accrue only to the young women and their future husbands, not the giant corporations. Isn't there a role for consumer protection? Aren't these young consumers entitled to a guarantee of honest information? Aren't they entitled to the whole story, instead of just what's profitable? If an unscrupulous man makes money by encouraging young girls to be promiscuous, we call him a pimp. What do you call a corporation that does the same thing? Ron Gray |
|||
|
