A court in Poland has ordered a priest, Father Marek Gancarczyk, to pay a fine of $11,000 because the Catholic paper, of which he is editor, described a woman seeking an abortion as “wanting to kill her child”.

He has refused to pay.

The judge, in passing the sentence, treated Fr Gancarczyk to a lecture on theology. “Christianity is a religion of love and this is what the language used by Catholic press should be like,” she said.

* * *

Polish law permits abortion only in cases of rape, serious handicap in the baby, or serious health risk to the mother. In this case, the mother had an eye condition. She was denied an abortion because her doctors decided the pregnancy would not seriously damage her health.

The local archbishop, Father Damian Zimon, said, “No state law can undermine God’s commandment and the order of Jesus Christ . . . . Recall the words of Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta: ‘The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion . . . if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?’ ”

The Catholic Association of Journalists in Poland commented, “We consider this verdict an attempt to gag Catholic media, also directed against freedom of speech in the wider sense . . . .We call on all journalists who hold Christian values not to be afraid to write the truth about abortion, about abortionists and about the supporters of this Holocaust of the 21st century.”

* * *

Two points that Australians might ask themselves:

(1) is our law permitting any woman, any time, to have an abortion, simply by telling her doctor she wants one, good enough?

(2) at least one priest, somewhere, is willing to suffer imprisonment, or whatever the court comes up next time, rather than compromise the Church’s teaching of love and respect for all human life, including the unborn babies.

Father Marek Gancarczyk

An American lady aged 90-plus recently had a stroke which left her unable to swallow.

She had previously signed an “advance directive” specifying that no artificial hydration or nutrition be given her if she wasn’t going to recover.

But her nephew, her designated proxy, insisted that Catholic teaching be practised in her case, and that a feeding tube be installed anyway.

* * *

Father Thomas Weinandy, spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, confirmed that Catholic health facilities have “an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically-assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally . . . you can’t just starve them to death. It’s hard to know whether someone will regain consciousness or not.”

A feeding tube was not, he said, required if it wouldn’t prolong life, or would be “excessively burdensome for the patient” or would “cause significant physical discomfort.”

In this case, doctors believed the patient had, at most, a few months to live, but would die sooner unless a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy ( PEG ) tube was surgically inserted.

* * *

A rumpus ensued when the nephew made his decision – but as it happened, in the midst of it all, the patient died.

So did that solve the problem? Not entirely. This particular lady has gone to her judgement. But there are going to be thousands (millions?) more, just like her, about whom similar decisions will have to be reached.

We seem to have reached a turning-point in human history. Some questions can no longer be avoided.

What is a human being? Who decides what is “burdensome” and what isn’t? Burdensome to whom?

* * *

The key point, for Catholics, is that you cannot do evil so that “good” may come of it.

Some people, including some doctors, don’t really distinguish between good and evil – when using those words they really mean more convenient or less convenient. For somebody.

Pope Benedict and 24 Irish bishops are meeting this week in Rome to discuss the priestly paedophilia scandal in Ireland, one of the world’s most Catholic countries.

The Murphy Commission Report revealed in November 2009 that the Church in Ireland had “obsessively” hidden child abuse by priests in the Dublin archdiocese from 1975 to 2004 — and that all Dublin bishops had been aware of some complaints, but were more preoccupied with protecting the Church’s reputation than safeguarding children.

Four bishops have offered their resignations. The pope has already accepted one.

The Vatican says the pope will be writing to the Irish people about the crisis — the first time a pope will have devoted a document solely to the clergy’s abuse of children.

* * *

The head of the Pope’s Congregation for Priests, Cardinal Hummes, announced last Thursday that the Church condemns sex abuse by clergy and “will drive out offenders”.

The emphasis, he says, will be on “a rigorous selection process” for priesthood candidates and on “a spiritual renewal of the clergy”.

Let us hope so.

* * *

The Church has certainly let itself down badly — a priest sexually molesting a child is the worst possible example of betraying a trust.

And it has let God down badly – giving his enemies excuses to claim that Catholic religion somehow condones sexual sin — the exact reverse of the truth.

The belief that women and children must be protected from sexual exploitation is historically a belief invented by, and proclaimed and defended by, the Christian religion.

Look at non-Christian cultures, past and present — see how they treat their women and children.

Look, for example, at Labor state governments in Australia — which legalise same-sex acts involving boys as young as 16 years.

* * *

The whole clergy-abuse issue is complicated by some who expose the wrongdoings of priests seeming to have agendas of their own.

Some of the media and some victim groups give the impression that they will never be happy with anything the Catholic Church does — never until the Church goes out of existence will they let up on criticising and passing judgement on it.

On 25 February 2009, the media announced that doctors in Recife, Brazil, were planning to abort a nine-year old girl made pregnant with twins by her step-father.

On 3 March, the bishop of Recife, Archbishop Sobrinho, warned that if the abortion was done, all medical staff involved would be excommunicated from the Church, as per canon 1398 of Catholic Church law.

On 4 March, the abortion was performed.

On 15 March, Archbishop Fisichella, head of the Pope’s “Academy for Life” (PAV), published an article in the Vatican newspaper, Osservatore Romano, condemning Archbishop Sobrinho, saying that the abortion was justified as a means of saving the young mother’s life.

On 16 March, a number of Sobrinho’s fellow bishops issued a letter defending Sobrinho’s action, describing the compassionate help the girl and her family had received, behind the scenes, from her parish priest and bishop — and how the warning regarding excommunication had been delayed until other methods of persuasion had failed.  They also quoted the Chief of Obstetrics at a Rio de Janeiro hospital, who, in 35 years coping with difficult pregnancies, had never found it necessary to resort to abortion “to save lives”.

On 4 April, a majority (but not all) of the members of the PAV wrote to Archbishop Fisichella, explaining why his Osservatore Romano article was wrong, and asking him to withdraw his condemnation of Archbishop Sobrinho. Fisichella refused to do so.

* * *

The PAV members then approached Pope Benedict himself.

On 7 July, an article of “clarification” appeared in Osservatore Romano, reversing what the Fisichella article had said, and declaring that Archbishop Sobrinho had been right in his actions, and reiterating that “formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church punishes this crime against human life with the canonical penalty of excommunication.”

February 2010: The latest news is that the PAV itself, having had its credibility ruined, may be dismantled. (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020802.html)

* * *

Excommunication is an excellent part of the Church’s way of doing things. A warning of likely excommunication can do good in convincing a Catholic to avoid serious sin.

For the Church not to do so would be unjust to that sinner — and harmful to the Church’s witness to God’s love and holiness.

The Queensland Bligh government intends to “reform” surrogacy laws – their philosophy being, apparently, that a baby is a toy — that anybody who wants one has a “right” to one.

A different attitude might be to put the “rights” of the child first.

* * *

Should not the state always do everything possible to try to give every child at least the chance to start life with the love and care of their real mother and father?

Isn’t it wrong to separate a child, in cold blood, from his birth mother — and then falsify his birth certificate to make it “legal”?

Dumping a child, without his consent, into complex, unnatural relationships, expecting him to like it or to lump it?

* * *

Remember the baby in the Mary Beth Whitehead surrogacy case (USA, 1986). The child she bore was confiscated by police. During subsequent “access” times the baby sought birth-mother Mary Beth’s breast, for both nutrition and comfort. The court-appointed supervisor wouldn’t let her nurse, “lest it create a mother-child bond”!  

Too late, mate — and very stupid.

* * *

What is it like to be a child subjected to surrogacy? The infertility experts don’t know. The social scientists don’t know.

The politicians certainly don’t know. And they certainly don’t want to know.

No one knows except the surrogated people themselves.

Thousands of adult surrogacy-victim Australians are involved in support groups such as Tangled Webs, whose policy is clear:

A child should only be removed from his or her genetic parents in extreme circumstances as a last resort for their safety. The desire to provide children for infertile couples etc. does not override the child’s need for and right to this vital relationship with his or her genetic parents . . . No-one has the right to a child. To claim the right to a child is to treat that child, another human being, as an end to satisfying one’s own desires, as an object and not as a person . . . . (http://www.tangledwebs.org.au/dc.php)

* * *

Yes, to demand the right to a child is to treat children as an item of property, just as slaves were once considered the rightful property of their masters — and women were once regarded as the property of their husbands.

.

The United States has warned Uganda’s President Museveni that it will closely “monitor” Uganda’s 2011 presidential and general elections, to ensure that they are “free and fair”. Otherwise there will be crippling sanctions.

There are going to be sanctions anyway – Uganda being expelled from the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA), an agreement between the US and several African countries, giving them favourable access to American markets — whether the elections provide an excuse or not.

Last month, US Trade Representative, Ron Kirk Wyder, wrote to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, telling her to “communicate immediately to the Ugandan government and President Museveni directly, that Uganda’s beneficiary status under AGOA will be revoked should the proposed legislation be enacted”.

What legislation?

* * *

An Anti-Homosexuality Bill was proposed in October 2009 by David Bahati MP – a bill providing for jail terms for homosexual acts and the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality“, i.e. if it involves a minor, if the perpetrator is HIV-positive, and for serial offenders.

The Ugandan Parliament’s Speaker has told the USA to mind their own business: “As Black people, the way we understand this issue is not the same way Whites understand it. We should be able to decide our own ways . . . .”

So with the homosexuality legislation now before Uganda’s Parliament, Mrs Clinton reportedly had a recent 45-minute phone call with President Museveni, telling him that Uganda must “toe the line, or else”.

* * *

Last year, there were 52 executions in the USA, including 27 in the state of Texas alone. Perhaps they should impose sanctions against themselves?

Mrs Clinton has also announced the USA’s intention to provide “massive funding” over five years to promote “reproductive health care and family planning” – read “abortion” — as a “basic right” around the world.

In 2007, Museveni was one of the African presidents refusing to sign the Maputo Protocol, a push for legalising abortion throughout Africa. He is being punished for that, too.

* * *

The USA, long world leader in hypocrisy, is now descending to uncharted depths of degeneracy and bullying.

P.S. Read on below the picture . . . .

Dear Reader, Since posting the above, we have received the following comment from the Exceutive Office of the President of the USA. Please look at it. Your MMK blogger, AJ

From: Daniel Workman

Message: To whom it might concern,

My name is Daniel Workman and I work for United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk.  A few weeks ago the Monitor Newspaper, Uganda,wrote an article that mistakenly said United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk Wyden sent a letter to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton on January 12 regarding opposition to Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill.  Ambassador Kirk did not write the letter to Secretary Clinton. Representative Ron Wyden sent the letter.  The USTR Public Affairs Office reached out to the Monitor Newspaper to get the article corrected.  The corrected article now appears on the paper’s website (http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/842460/-/whaqcx/-/index.html).
 I want to make sure you see the corrected version of the article so that you too can update your website content
(http://marymackillop.org/the-world%E2%80%99s-worst-and-most-perverse-bully-at-it-again) as soon as possible. If you have any questions, comments or concerns please don’t hesitate to let me know.

Thanks and have a great day,

Daniel

Daniel Workman
Office of Media and Public Affairs
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Executive Office of the President