National Sanctity of Life Day is 18th January 2009 by Pres. George W. Bush

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary January 15, 2009

The White House, President George W. Bush National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009, A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America:

National Sanctity of Life Day

All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America. Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

———
A hobbit thanks to Karen Hall’s Some Have Hats.

Advertisements

Book Review: “Conspiracy Against Life: Evangelium Vitae’s Conclusive Evidence”

Today we are amidst the battle between the forces of Life and and of Death.  This battle is fought not against “flesh  and blood ; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places” (Eph 6:12).  To know whom we in the Pro-Life Movement are fighting against, read this book:

Conspiracy Against Life: Evangelium Vitae’s Conclusive Evidence (Two Hearts Media Organization, 1996). (Amazon, Bookmooch)

SOURCES (from the Foreword):

  1. Pope John Paul II.  He wrote the longes encyclical letter ever published—the Evangelium Vitae.  The gravity of its message was strongly underscored during the 3d Pro-Life Conference in Rome which called to attention all Bishops and Catholics who are compr[om]ising in their morals and are firm advocates of the contraceptive lifestyle.  Bishops and Catolics who maintain this anti-life belief can be penalized by Rome if they do not conform to the Church’s teachings.  In the past, almost fifty percent of American and European Bishops went against Pope Paul VI because of his encyclical, Humanae Vitae.
  2. There exists in the United States a confidential document, as revealed by the Pontifical Council on Family Life, known as the National Social Security Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200).  This classified document specifically mentions the concern of the U.S. over the growing depletion of natural resources and the subsequent increase in population growth, that if left uncontrolled this phenomenon will cause major security problems for the United States (NSSM 200, p. 44).  It mentions the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Bangladesh as America’s target for its depopulation program (NSSM 200, 1974, p. 101).  And they will do this using US AID.
  3. There are other materials which were provided by known authorities of New World Order from Canada and the United Staes, like Gilles Grondin who holds a copy of the Rockefeller File which exposes how the Freemasons control the U.S. government, especially its Treasury, the State Department, and the United Nations.
  4. Malachi Martin.  He is a noted relgious writer with Vatican connections, holds another explosive material, NSSM 400.  He shares materials with our research center staff in U.S.A. and Canada.  He wrote The Keys of this Blood, a powerful book on the conspiracy against the weak.
  5. En Route to Global Occupation by Gary Kah; Committee of 300, Conspirators by Dr. John Coleman; Unveiling the Mystery of Freemasonry, by the Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez; U.N. Rule the World; the Lords of Poverty, by Graham Hancock; New World Order; Iron Mountain; Beyond Freemasonry by William Schoenbelen; the Morals and Dogma of Freemasonry by Albert Pike; CBCP Decision on Freemasonry–March 14, 1990; The New American Magazine, Bimonthly Magazine.
  6. All documents from the United Nations Conferences which we collated from 1992 to 1996: the Rio de Janiero World Summit on Human Environment, 1992; U.N. World Summit on Human Rights, 1993-Vienna; U.N. International Conference on Population Development, 1994-Cairo; U.N. World Summit on Social Development, 1995-Copenhagen; U.N. 4th Women World Conference, 1995-Beijing; U.N. Habitat II Preparatory Meeting, 1996-New York

CONTENTS:

Foreword
Reader’s Guide

I.  A Global Conspiracy

    The Plot, Hidden Agenda, Main Target, Totalitarianism, Apparent Culprit, Global Control

II. The Conspirators’s Front

    The NSSM 200 (Kissinger Report), New World Order, Committee of 300, C-300’s Tightly Guarded Secrets

III. The United Nations

    The Conspirator’s Killing Machine, International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF), One World Citizenship, UN Declaration on its 50th Anniversary, UN Conference on Environmental Development (UNCED), UN World Conference on Human Rights, UN Int’l Conference on Population and Development, UN World Summit on Human Development, UN 4th World Conference on Women, Habitat II: UN Conference on Human Settlements

IV. Freemasons: The Real Conspirators Against Life

    Origin of Freemasonry, The Goal of Masonry, Sources of Authoritative Literature of Masonry, Kabbalism, Gnosticism, Knights Templars, Roscrusians, Illuminati, the Palladium Rite, New World Order and Freemasonry, Globalists and Piggy Globalists, old Internationale and Freemasonry, Ren Internationale and Freemasonry, Roman Catholic Church and Freemasonry, the Roman Catholic Church’s Stand on Freemasonry

V. Spiritual Warfare

    By their Fruits You Will Know Them, The Real Enemy: the Devil and His Weapons, Solution

VI. Bitter Truth

    Mass Media Control, Information, Education and Communication (IEC), Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Six Principles of Deception, Lie Against Women, Breakdown of the Family, Corruption of Youth, Attack Against the Clergy

VII. Evangelium Vitae and the Alliance of the Two Hearts

    Evangelium Vitae, Communion of Reparation, Consecration of the Family to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary, House-toHouse Evangelism, Reading of the Word of God, FamilyReconciliation, Family Rosary, Blessing of the Home, Imposition of the Scapular, Home Study Program, Promise of Virginity, Pledge of Conjugal Chastity

Supplementary Materials

    Feminism: the Six Frauds, RU 486: the Rest of the Story, A Woman’s Right to Choose—Woman and the Problem of Pregnancy, Had an Abortion? Feeling Bad? A Guide to Fertility, To Deceive a Nation: AIDS Update 1993, Planned Parenthood: It’s Not What You Think, Blessed are the Pure in Heart, What is Worth? Evolution, Secularism and the Attack of the Church, Good Priests Need Your Support, Censorship in a Pluralistic Society, Television’s Double-Edged Impact on Family Life

Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions: Allowed and Not Allowed

The Instruction Dignitas Personae on certain bioethical questions was released by the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith last 8 September 2008, Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  The full document is here.  The body of the document consists of 37 articles, each article consisting of a paragraph or two.  So I’ll enumerate the important points:

Part II: Fertility Treatments

With regard to the treatment of infertility, new medical techniques must respect three fundamental goods: a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from conception to natural death; b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse; c) the specifically human values of sexuality which require “that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses.”

Allowed:

  1. Hormonal treatments for infertility, surgery for endometriosis, unblocking of fallopian tubes or their surgical repair only remove obstacles to natural fertilization
  2. Adoption
  3. Research on prevention of sterility

Not Allowed:

  1. Heterologous and homologous artificial insemination that substitute for the conjugal act.
  2. In vitro fertilization because too many embryos are destroyed
  3. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection in which a single sperm is injected directly into an eqq because it separates procreation from the conjugal act.
  4. Cyropreservation of embryos because they presuppose in vitro fertilization that separates procreation from the conjugal act.
  5. Use of frozen embryos for research or treatment of diseases because they are not mere biological material nor cadavers.
  6. Surrogate motherhood or prenatal adoption for frozen embryos.
  7. Cryopreservation of oocytes for the purpose of artificial insemination
  8. Multiple embro transfer in a single womb which leads to systematic destruction of fetuses so that only one baby is born
  9. Preimplantation diagnosis–made already illicit because of its connection to artificial fertilization–is not allowed because it is a form of eugenics that prevents the birth of children with abnormalities; this mentality leads to infanticide and euthanasia, and all other forms of discrimination against the sick and the disabled and those of different race.
  10. Contragestatives which aborts the embryo that was implanted on the womb; these medicines are taken two weeks after nonoccurrence of menstruation–sign of pregnancy.
  11. Deliberate and direct killing of human beings from conception to birth: interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion.

Part III: Manipulation of Embryo or Human Genetic Patrimony

Allowed:

  1. Adult stem cell research.  The methods of obtaining them must not cause serious harm to their subject from whom the stem cells are taken.  The following sources are allowed: a) an adult organism; b) the blood of the umbilical cord at the time of birth; c) fetuses who have died of natural causes.
  2. Somatic cell gene therapy that  seeks to eliminate or reduce genetic defects on the level of somatic cells, that is, cells other than the reproductive cells, but which make up the tissue and organs of the body. It involves procedures aimed at certain individual cells with effects that are limited to a single person.  The informed consent of the patient or his legislated representative is required.
  3. Use of a vaccine by parents which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, if there is a danger to the health of children; but it must be kept in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.

Not Allowed:

  1. Embryonic stem cell research.
  2. Germ line cell therapy that modifies the genes; the modifications are transmitted to the children.
  3. Genetic engineering for strengthening the gene pool.  This leads to discrimination of other persons.    This is based on the ideology that man can replace the Creator.
  4. Human cloning in which a copy of a person is made.  This  gives rise to a new human being without a connection to the act of reciprocal self-giving between the spouses and, more radically, without any link to sexuality.  This is a form of biological slavery.
  5. Therapeutic cloning for treatment of diseases.  It is gravely immoral to sacrifice a human life for therapeutic ends.
  6. Hybrid cloning which mixes human and animal genes.
  7. Experimentation on human embryos.
  8. Mutilation or autopsies of dead embryos; these embryos must be respected as remains of other human beings.
  9. Use of biological material from illicit sources, even if the sources are independent from the researchers.


Back to the Future in 1968: Rahner on Humanae Vitae and the Present Ateneo Dissent

In September 1968 issue of the America magazine, Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J. summarized the views of his fellow Jesuit, Karl Rahner S.J., published in Stimmen der Zeit, on the then recently published encyclical of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae.  The summary is long, but two points struck me:

In the first place, Rahner points out that Human Life cannot reasonably be considered irreformable doctrine. But this does not mean that it may be ignored. Since Catholics believe that the magisterium ordinarily operates under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the presumption should be in favor of the Pope’s declaration. Any such presumption, however, must also allow of the possibility that a Catholic can arrive at a carefully formed and critically tested conviction that in a given case the fallible magisterium has in fact erred. Nobody today denies that there are cases in which official, reformable teaching of the Holy See has in fact been erroneous. As examples, Rahner cites the views of Gregory XVI and Pius IX on liberal democracy, and various statements about the Bible issued in the aftermath of the Modernist crisis. It cannot therefore be assumed that a Catholic who conscientiously opposes the non-infallible doctrine of the magisterium, as it stands at a given moment, is necessarily disloyal. (In this connection an American Catholic might think of the long struggle of John Courtney Murray to obtain revision of certain papal pronouncements on Church-State relations.)

In the present case, Rahner continues, the complexity of the issue is such that no one opposed to the encyclical can claim absolute certainty for his own stand. But it is normal and inevitable that some should be unable to accept the pope’s doctrine. The encyclical, although it claims to be an interpretation of the natural law, does not in fact give very persuasive intrinsic arguments. The encyclical seems to look on human nature as something static and closed–not open to modification by free and responsible human decision. But for some time many moral theologians have been teaching that what is distinctive to human nature, as distinct from plant and animal life, is precisely man’s power to modify his own nature according to the demands of a higher good. The pope, in fact, seems to allow for a measure of rational manipulation of human fertility in permitting the practice of rhythm and the use of the “pill” to regularize the menstrual cycle. Undoubtedly this differs somewhat from the use of the pill for directly contraceptive purposes, but in some instances the distinction is so subtle that many will regard it as hair-splitting. Since a notable majority of the Papal Commission is known to have come out against the position later taken in the encyclical, one can hardly expect the majority of Catholics to find the reasoning of Human Life convincing.

Rahner’s arguments are echoed weeks ago when 69 (ominous number) professors of Ateneo de Manila University signed a petition in support of the Reproductive Health Bill, in defiance to the Catholic Bishops of the Philippines who insist on fidelity to Humanae Vitae:

As Catholic educators, Racelis said it was incumbent upon them to teach their students that the RH bill was not “immoral” as the Church claims.

“We respect the consciences of our bishops when they promote natural family planning as the only moral means of contraception. In turn, we ask our bishops to respect the one in three [35.6 percent] married Filipino women who, in their most secret core and sanctuary or conscience, have decided that their and their family’s interests would best be served by using a modern artificial means of contraception,” they said. (Manila Standard Today, 29 Oct 2008)

See the similarities? After 40 years, the seeds of dissent Rahner sowed in 1968 reaped 69-fold .  That is,

  1. Papal encyclicals are fallible documents.
  2. Catholics can disobey them without being disloyal.

Infallibility is defined in the Catholic Encyclopedia as follows:

  1. Infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;
  2. It does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God’s agents in defining infallibly;
  3. The validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.

Furthermore, the Catholic Encyclopedia continued, in Session IV, cap. 4 of Vatican Council I, it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra “enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”.

Was Pope Paul VI making a definitive statement as Vicar of Christ when he declares the evil nature of contraception? Let us listen to Pope Paul VI’s words in Humanae Vitae:

The Magisterium’s Reply

6. However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.

Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions.

So as Aragorn said in the Last Debate before the assault on the Black Gates of Mordor:

We come now to the very brink, where hope and despair are akin. To waver is to fall. Let none now reject the counsels of Gandalf, whose long labors against Sauron come at last to their test.

Let us heed then the counsel of Pope Paul VI and reject the melodious music of Rahner the Wise.  Let us reject contraception.  Let us reject the Reproductive Health Bill.

If it is the Pill they clamor for, then a Pill must be given–the Pill that brought many souls back to the Catholic Faith, the Pill that sent the Roman Emperor Theodosius begging for pardon before the doors of the Church of Milan under St. Ambrose: Anathema Sit. If they do not wish to listen to the Church, then they must be excluded from the Church, and sent outside in the darkness where they will wail and gnash their teeth until they repent and pay the last penny.

Reproductive Health Bill: A Misnomer

When we say we are healthy, we mean that we have no disease or ailment: we can walk, talk, hear, see, touch, and taste as a normal person. When we are not healthy, as when we have a fever, our body shivers, our foods taste bland, and our balance uneasy; we drag our legs, we read with tears, and we sleep in anguish.

Reproduction is the ability to make a copy of the original.   In inanimate reproduction, the copier has no likeness with the copy, e.g., a photocopier is not the same as the document it reproduces.  In animate reproduction, on the other hand, the copier has a likeness with its copy, e.g. a bacteria makes new copies of itself. For sexual animals like humans, a male and a female of the same specie mate and their offspring is their copy, their image and likeness: the offspring inherits traits both from its father and mother. The child may get his blue eyes from his Caucasian father and his brown skin from his Asian mother.

So what is reproductive health?  Reproductive health is a condition wherein one’s reproductive system is functioning properly.  That is, when two reproductively healthy couple, a man and a woman, engages in sexual intercourse, the normal result is pregnancy.  If one of them has a sexual dysfunction, no pregnancy occurs.  So we say that he or she is not reproductively healthy.  In Filipino, we describe this person as baog, in comparison to an unfertilized chicken egg that will never hatch, regardless how long the hen lays on it; in time such eggs rot and stink.

Let us compare our definition with that of the proponents of the reproductive health bill:

Reproductive Health – refers to the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so, provided that these are not against the law. This further implies that women and men are afforded equal status in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction.

This definition is troublesome.  By including physical, mental, and social well-being in the definition, even in the absence of disease or infirmity, the proponents of the bill have extended the definition of reproductive health beyond what the phrase reproductive health can hold.  If reproductive health means safe sex–which has come to mean not safety from diseases but safety from the thought of getting pregnant–then the proponents promote not reproduction but contraception: condoms, pills, IUD’s, and vasectomies.  If reproductive health means freedom to choose to have or not to have children, then the proponents sees children not as the future of our country nor gifts to be cherished nor support in old age, but simply as additional mouths to feed.  If reproductive health means equal status to women and men (not men and women) in sexual and reproductive matters, then the proponents see marriage as class warfare, a Marxist struggle for dominance and power, not as a way of mutual self-giving nor a bond of love.

The reproductive health bill is a misnomer: it should be renamed as the National Contraception Bill of 2008.

Standing up for the Gospel of Life

CBCP Pastoral Statement on Reproductive Health Bill

“I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10).

Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative power of God (CCC 2258). The Church carries out the mandate of the Lord to go and proclaim to all the nations the Gospel of Life. The protection and preservation of human life and the preservation of the integrity of the procreative act of parents are important elements of our mission from the Lord. It is our fidelity to the Gospel of Life and our pastoral charity for the poor that leads us your pastors to make this moral stand regarding Reproductive Health Bill 5043 that is the object of deliberation in Congress.

The Bill makes a number of good points. Some of the issues that it includes under reproductive health care, for instance, are the kind of things no humane institution would have any reason to oppose—maternal, infant and child health and nutrition, promotion of breastfeeding, adolescent and youth health, elimination of violence against women, etc.; but the Bill as it stands now contains fatal flaws which if not corrected will make the Bill unacceptable. It is our collective discernment that the Bill in its present form poses a serious threat to life of infants in the womb. It is a source of danger for the stability of the family. It places the dignity of womanhood at great risk.

The Church has always concerned itself with the poor. It has innumerable institutions and programs meant to help the poor. Our objection to this Bill is precisely due to our concern that in the long run this Bill will not uplift the poor. “The increase or decrease of population growth does not by itself spell development or underdevelopment”. (CBCP Statement, July 10, 1990)

Even as we recognize the right of the government to enact laws, we also reiterate that there must be no separation between God and Man. We appeal to our legislators to state in the Bill in clear categorical terms that human life from the moment of conception is sacred. We appeal to our legislators to insure that the Bill recognize, preserve and safeguard freedom of conscience and religion. The Bill must inspire parents not only to be responsible but to be heroic in their God-given and State-recognized duty of parenting. Without these conditions, the Bill if enacted into law will separate our nation from Almighty God.

Sacredness of Life from Conception. The current version of the Bill does not define clearly when the protection of life begins. Although it mentions that abortion is a crime it does not state explicitly that human life is to be protected upon conception as stated in the Constitution. This ambiguity can provide a loophole for contraceptives that prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum. The prevention of implantation of the fertilized ovum is abortion. We cannot prevent overt abortions by doing hidden abortions. It is a fallacy to think that abortions can be prevented by promoting contraception. Contraception is intrinsically evil (CCC 2370, Humanae Vitae, 14).

Even in the case of doubt as to the precise moment of the beginning of human life, the mere probability that the fertilized ovum is already a human life renders it imperative that it be accorded the rights of a human person, the most basic of which is the right to life (Evangelium Vitae, #60; cfr. Declaration on Procured Abortion, Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, November 18, 1974). When there is doubt whether a human life is involved, it is immoral to kill it. This is not just specifically Catholic Church teaching but simply natural law ethics.

Freedom of Conscience. By mandating only one Reproductive Health Education Curriculum for public and private schools, the Bill could violate the consciences of educators who refuse to teach forms of family planning that violate their religious traditions. This provision also could violate the rights of parents to determine the education of their children if the proposed curriculum would contradict their religious beliefs.

The Bill mandates that employers should ensure the provision of an adequate quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices for their employees. This provision could be a violation of the conscience of employers who do not wish to provide artificial means of contraception to their employees because of religious reasons.

The Bill’s provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill (without defining what malicious disinformation is) could restrict freedom of speech by discouraging legitimate dissent and hinder our mandate to teach morality according to our Catholic faith. The Bill does not mention any consultation with religious groups or churches which could be interpreted to mean that religious and moral beliefs of citizens are not significant factors in the formation of policies and programs involving reproductive health.

Heroic Parenting. Family health goes beyond a demographic target because it is principally about health and human rights. Gender equality and women empowerment are central elements of family health and family development. Since human resource is the principal asset of every country, effective family health care services must be given primacy to ensure the birth and care of healthy children and to promote responsible and heroic parenting. Respect for, protection and fulfillment of family health rights seek to promote not only the rights and welfare of adult individuals and couples but those of adolescents’ and children’s as well.

We admonish those who are promoting the Bill to consider these matters. It is the duty of every Catholic faithful to form and conform their consciences to the moral teaching of the Church. We call for a more widespread dialogue on this Bill.

As your Pastors we speak to you in the name of the Lord: Choose life and preserve it. Stand up for the Gospel of Life!

May Mary, Mother of Life, who carried in her womb Life Himself, guide us to the Truth of Life.

For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines

+ANGEL LAGDAMEO, DD
Archbishop of Jaro
President, CBCP
November 14, 2008