Table of Contents for Catholics for a Free Choice Exposed
[pic]
Catholics for a Free Choice Exposed
Brian Clowes, Ph.D.
Human Life International
First printed in 2001
Electronic Edition Updated July 2011
NOTE: Catholics for a Free Choice changed its name to “Catholics for Choice” in January 2008. This book refers to the group by its original name.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Who and What Are We Fighting?
The Purpose of This Book
The Strategies of Catholics for a Free Choice
Chapter 1: The History of Catholics for a Free Choice
The 1970s: The Pro-Abortion Movement Finds Its 'Catholic' Voice
The Early 1980s: CFFC Refines Its Mission
The Late 1980s: CFFC Joins Forces with Other Pro-Abortion Groups
The 1990s: CFFC Finds a Global Forum
The "See Change" Sees No Change
Chapter 2: The New Millennium ― CFFC’s Current Activities
General Overview of CFFC’s Activities
CFFC's European Activities
CFFC's Hispanic and Latin American Activities
Chapter 3: Why CFFC is Not a Catholic Organization
Chapter 4: Frances Kissling: The "Cardinal of Death”
Chapter 5: CFFC’s Connections to the Radical Feminist and New Age Movements
Chapter 6: CFFC’s Interesting Financial History
Chapter 7: Answering CFFC’s Arguments
Why It is Important to Learn CFFC's Arguments
Argument #1: “The Bible says nothing about abortion.”
Argument #2: “You are not guilty of sin if you follow your conscience.”
Argument #3” “The fetus is not a person.”
Argument#4: The Church’s ban on abortion is not infallible.”
Argument #5: “Dissent is necessary for the life of the Church.”
Argument #6: We must respect the ability of women to make good decisions.”
Argument #7: Please don’t call up “pro-abortion.” We are “pro-choice”.”
Argument#8: “The majority of Catholics are pro-choice.”
Argument #9: If you are against abortion, support contraception.”
Argument #10: The celibate male priesthood has no right to speak on abortion.”
Argument #11: The Church’s teachings on abortion have changed many times.”
Argument #12: “We respect the right of others to hold different opinions.”
Appendixes
Appendix A: The Catholic Church Condemns Catholics for a Free Choice
1) “Catholics for a Free Choice.” Lexicon of Ambiguous and Debatable Terms Regarding Family Life and Ethical Questions. Pontifical Council for the Family, 2006.
2) "Statement on Catholics for a Free Choice on Behalf of the Bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities," November 25, 1981.
3) National Council of Catholic Bishops. "Abortion and "Free Choice:" The Catholic Church Teaches Direct Abortion is Never a Moral Good," November 1984.
4) National Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Statement Regarding Catholics for a Free Choice," November 4, 1993.
5) Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza of Galveston-Houston, President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Status of 'Catholics for a Free Choice'," May 10, 2000.
6) The Bishops of Chiapas, Mexico. "The New Campaign against Life," July 1, 1991.
Appendix B: Early Teachings of the Catholic Church against Abortion
Appendix C: How to Defeat Catholics for a Free Choice
Appendix D: Foundation Funding of Catholics for a Free Choice
Appendix E: Interesting Quotes by Catholics for a Free Choice
Introduction
Who and What Are We Fighting? Centuries ago, the great Chinese general and strategist Sun Tzu wrote in his classic The Art of War that "All warfare is based primarily on the deception of an enemy. Fighting on a battlefield is the most primitive way of making war. There is no art higher than to destroy your enemy without a fight ― by subverting anything of value in your enemy's country.”1
Pro-abortionists know full well that their agenda is repugnant to the majority of thinking individuals. Public opinion polls repeatedly show that Americans believe that the vast majority of abortions should be banned.2 Because of this, pro-abortionists cannot rely upon the democratic system. They must instead force their agenda on the nation by gaining control of society's organs of power and influence through a tactic called "infiltration and subversion," so ably described by General Sun. Chapter 5 of Human Life International's Basic Pro-Life Training Program describes the anti-life tactic of infiltration and subversion in detail.
The general strategy of the leaders of the Culture of Death is to place talented people in the leadership positions of the sources of influence in society, which are;
• All of the many organizations belonging to the United Nations;
• The non-governmental organizations (NGOs);
• The executive branches of the national governments, regions and states;
• The courts, particularly the national court systems;
• The legislatures at the national, regional and state levels;
• The leaders and boards of associations with relevant missions, including organized medical and legal professionals, foundations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and public interest groups;
• The media, particularly the entertainment industry (motion pictures, television, radio), the print and news media (newspapers, magazines, book authors and publishers and newscasters) and the arts;
• School leaders, from grade school board members to the policymakers at medical and legal colleges; and
• The leadership of the churches, particularly the Catholic Church.
Once they accomplish this objective, the new leaders can introduce their agendas, stonewall pro-life initiatives, and subvert the organization so that its voice is added to the ranks of those prestigious groups loudly chorusing for "progress" and "change."
Regarding the field of strategy and tactics, the Catholic Church is identical to other organizations in many important ways. For example, the Church is actually strengthened by an overt attack carried out by a visible enemy.
However, the Church is extremely vulnerable to a long-term and persistent program of infiltration and subversion, because the visible results of such an attack take place slowly and in increments small enough to escape attention. Since it is always easier to defend against an enemy that presents a visible threat, the infiltrators escape the determined and concentrated counterattack that would beat back an external assault. As the pro-abortion extremist group Population Institute brags, "The biggest organizations are difficult to beat, but they are the easiest to infiltrate and exploit."3
In an address before the Roman Senate, Cicero described how infiltration and subversion works;
A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.4
This is the role played by Catholics for a Free Choice.
They are the traitors whose sly whispers are couched in terms familiar to real Catholics. They actively work to look and sound like real Catholics. And they most certainly appeal to our fallen nature ― the weakness and baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men and women.
CFFC occupies a vital niche in the worldwide pro-abortion movement. The Catholic Church has always been the most powerful opponent of abortion in the world. The primary objective of CFFC is to paralyze effective action by the Catholic Church against the Culture of Death by sowing confusion and discord among its members. By doing so, CFFC shows that it is being influenced by the Devil, whom Jesus Christ described in the following terms;
If God were your Father, you would love Me ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies [John 8:42,44].
The Purpose of This Book.
The writers and speakers associated with Catholics for a Free Choice are masters of smooth speech and soothing words. To anyone who picks up a copy of CFFC's journal Conscience and reads it straight through, or listens to a few tapes produced by the organization, its ideology seems reasonable, its theologians orthodox and its sources of information unimpeachable.
However, CFFC subscribes to a morally relativistic ideology. As described in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor ["The Splendor of Truth"], it is literally impossible for moral relativists to be consistent in their thinking or in their actions, because their morality is always shifting in order to justify their activities and accomplish their objectives.
As a researcher delves more deeply into CFFC's materials, it becomes obvious that its ideology is extreme and hypocritical, its reasoning inconsistent and contradictory, and its sources of information distorted or deliberately misrepresented.
This book highlights the many deficiencies in CFFC's deadly ideology and describes its history, its funding, and the wide range of its anti-life activities. Thus armed, real Catholics can expose Catholics for a Free Choice for what it is ― craven traitors to the Faith and a pseudo-religious facade for the international population control and pro-abortion movement.
The Strategies of Catholics for a Free Choice.
How CFFC Describes Itself. According to the Encyclopedia of Associations, Catholics For a Free Choice (CFFC) is an association of "Catholics within the Roman Catholic Church who support the right to legal reproductive health care, especially to family planning and abortion." The Encyclopedia says that CFFC's goal is to "preserve the right of women's choices in childbearing and child rearing." CFFC "advocates social and economic programs for women, families and children" by engaging in "public education on being Catholic and pro-choice."
In order to accomplish its ultimate goal of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy worldwide, CFFC pursues three primary supporting strategies.
CFFC's First Strategy ― Confusion. CFFC's first strategy is to create confusion, discord and dissent among Catholics regarding what the Catholic Church teaches on abortion. CFFC strategists know that if they can plant a seed of doubt in people's minds about the traditional Catholic response to abortion by asserting that the Church did not always oppose prenatal baby-killing, then the Church will appear inconsistent and punitive when it does oppose abortion.
Former CFFC Board member Marjorie Reiley Maguire tries to make dissent sound like altruism when she says that
God wills dissent to reach the blindness and hardness of heart of many Church leaders. Dissent is a constructive not a destructive activity in the religious community. ... Dissent with laws and rules of the Church does not mean that I have put myself outside Church membership. It is simply an indication that the rules and laws must be examined anew by all the members of the Church to determine whether they have ceased to serve the whole Church.
CFFC's Second Strategy ― Deception. CFFC's second strategy is to persuade people that the unrestricted availability of abortion is necessary in order for them to enjoy full religious freedom. CFFC asserts that, if abortion is restricted in any way, religious freedom is being unacceptable compromised. CFFC says that if abortion is criminalized, a particular religious belief about when life begins is being forced upon the people. Of course, CFFC never mentions that the particular religious belief that life begins at birth is being enforced by governments in many nations right now.
CFFC's Third Strategy ― Falsehoods. CFFC's third strategy is to persuade people that they can be good Catholics and still kill their preborn children with clear consciences. In fact, CFFC insists people cannot be good Catholics unless they support abortion! This is in line with its insistence that every Catholic hospital must commit abortions, and every insurance plan must pay for them, even if the hospital or insurance plan is operated by a church to whom abortion is morally repugnant.
Conclusion. Discerning CFFC's overall strategies is an essential step towards understanding its rhetoric. Once we recognize that CFFC seeks to undermine Church teachings regarding abortion through an aggressive program of infiltration and subversion, and once we see that its ultimate goal is the legalization of abortion worldwide, the organization's unsavory history and its alliances make more sense.
Additionally, we can comprehend the true magnitude of the threat that CFFC represents.
Notes on the Introduction.
1) Sun Tzu, c. 500 B.C. The Art of War [New York City: Oxford University Press], 1973.
2) In the United States, approximately 0.36% of all abortions are performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, 0.09% for rape and incest, and 0.24% for fetal birth defects (eugenics), for a total of 0.69% of all abortions. This means that 99.31% of all abortions performed in the United States are for social reasons, or to "save the lifestyle of the mother." For detailed calculations and documentation, see Chapter 19 of The Facts of Life, "United States Abortion Statistics."
3) The Population Institute. The Population Activist's Handbook [New York City: MacMillan], 1974, pages 4 and 22.
4) Cicero, quoted in "Worth Repeating." The New American, May 12, 1997, page 30.
Chapter 1
The History of Catholics for a Free Choice
"Because of its opposition to the human rights of some of the most defenseless members of the human race, and because its purposes and activities deliberately contradict essential teachings of the Catholic faith. ... Catholics for a Free Choice merits no recognition or support as a Catholic organization."
― United States National Council of Catholic Bishops.1
The 1970s: The Pro-Abortion Movement Finds Its 'Catholic' Voice.
The Beginnings. Three members of the extremist feminist group National Organization for Women (NOW) founded Catholics for a Free Choice in 1970 in order to protest the Catholic Church's staunch opposition to New York's permissive abortion laws.
CFFC's three founders were Joan Harriman, Meta Mulcahy and Patricia Fogarty McQuillan. Showing its disrespect for the Catholic Faith right from the beginning, the group's first public act was to crown McQuillan "Pope Joan I" on the steps of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City.2
CFFC's first office was located in the New York suite of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), owner of the largest chain of abortion mills in North America. From the beginning, CFFC and PPFA have shared not only office space, but ideologies and objectives.
For example, former PPFA president Pamela Maraldo claimed that
I go to church on Sunday but do not subscribe to many of the basic tenets of the Church. That does not mean I am any less a Catholic. ... Jesus has little to say about sexuality, so it is impossible to cite Gospel text to support efforts to direct human sexual behavior ... To my mind, the church would do well to follow Christ's example of compassion, respect for women, and silence on questions of human sexuality and reproduction. ... Humanae Vitae will take its place with other embarrassing teachings in the annals of the Vatican, curiosities for generations to come.3
In other words, Maraldo ran the largest chain of abortion mills in North America for several years, and considered this no impediment to being a "good Catholic."
As we will see, this is an example of the mentality that Catholics for a Free Choice promotes all over the world.
After the United States Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, CFFC affiliated with the newly organized `Religious’ Coalition for Abortion Rights (now the 'Religious' Coalition for Reproductive Choice, or RCRC). CFFC described itself as "a national educational organization that supports the right to legal reproductive health care, especially family planning and abortion."
CFFC's Early Leaders. Former Jesuit Joseph O'Rourke held the post of CFFC president until 1979. In 1974, O'Rourke, then a CFFC Board member, challenged Boston Archbishop Humberto Cardinal Madeiros' ban on the baptism of babies of publicly pro-abortion mothers and was dismissed from the Jesuits for his disobedience.4
O'Rourke acknowledged that CFFC's primary function was to provide an allegedly Catholic voice at pro-abortion press conferences when he said that "CFFC really was just kept alive for years because the mainline pro-choice movement wanted a Catholic voice."5 This was a cunning move by the pro-abortion movement ― a gaggle of self-described 'Catholic' traitors could get away with activities that would get any other group plastered with an "anti-Catholic" label.
In 1979, Pat McMahon became the executive director of CFFC and the organization's emphasis shifted from lobbying to education. CFFC began to more clearly define its mission as defending the "right" of Catholics to be pro-abortion, and it began to publicly challenge Church doctrine on abortion.
The Sunnen Foundation gave CFFC a $75,000 grant to fund its first publications, a series of booklets entitled "Abortion in Good Faith." The most popular of this series, "The History of Abortion in the Catholic Church," remains a core CFFC publication.
In the late 1970s, pro-life groups strongly supported several Human Life Amendments (HLAs) to the United States Constitution. During Pope John Paul II's visit to the United States in 1979, CFFC sponsored an advertisement in the Washington Post claiming that a Human Life Amendment would "establish as the law of the land the religious views of a minority of Americans." It did not occur to the ad’s writers, of course, that abortion on demand is also a religious viewpoint.
In 1979, CFFC had little visibility and an annual budget of about $65,000, almost two-thirds of which was provided by grants from a Unitarian Universalist church in New York.6
The Early 1980s: CFFC Refines Its Mission.
Kissling Takes Over. In 1980, Frances Kissling took over the leadership of CFFC. She had been a co-founder and president of the National Abortion Federation (NAF), a trade association of abortion mills. CFFC maintained close ties with NAF, whose member abortuaries opened their doors to CFFC in 1981 so it could conduct a survey of Catholic women having abortions. The two groups also shared some funding sources.7
In 1981, CFFC began to claim that it had more than 5,000 members. However, it received a total of only about $5,000 annually from membership dues. In fiscal year 1983, this figure comprised less than 3 percent of CFFC's $221,900 income. The balance was from private foundations and other tax-exempt groups. This was a result of Kissling's emphasis on obtaining funding from foundations whose philosophies are hostile to Catholic teachings on sexual ethics.
For example, CFFC received $10,000 from the Playboy Foundation in each of the years 1982 and 1983. During these same years, Playboy also funded the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR), to which CFFC belongs.8
Onlookers frequently remarked that it was curious indeed that two allegedly "religious" groups that boast of "standing up for women's rights" would accept money from Hugh Hefner, whose entire life and fortune are based upon exploiting and degrading women. Yet perhaps we should not be so hasty in condemning CFFC and RCAR for accepting money from pornographers. After all, there is more consistency here than first meets the eye. Does not abortion exploit and degrade women as well? Abortion fits into the "playboy philosophy" perfectly, and enables unscrupulous men to exploit women in even more damaging ways than pornography.
When questioned about her group's Playboy funding, Frances Kissling said that "I've never felt that by taking money from someone indicates that we support them." However, she stated that CFFC would never accept money from Hustler magazine, because, as she put it, "There are boundaries of good taste."9
CFFC finally disassociated itself from Playboy because of the criticism it was receiving from both friend and foe. Kissling said much later that "At that time, we viewed it [the funding] as reparation for the magazine's sexism."10
Some astute observers asked that, if Playboy Magazine was so "sexist," and CFFC took funding from it for "reparations," why did it suddenly decide to stop receiving the funding? We can be sure it wasn't because Playboy Magazine suddenly stopped being sexist!
One of CFFC's largest sources of funding in the early 1980s was the Sunnen Foundation (see Appendix D). The Sunnen Foundation was founded on the profits from Emko contraceptive foam, and it funded the litigation that led to the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings legalizing abortion. Sunnen has been involved in pro-abortion projects ever since.
Sunnen also helped fund a 1979 newspaper ad that blamed the church's teaching on birth control for world hunger and urged Catholics who wanted the teaching changed to donate money to the Population Institute.11 Finally, Sunnen's director has called the Catholic Church "detrimental to the world," and has demanded that the Church be forced by law to change Her teachings on abortion!12
If persuasion or agitation doesn't work for pro-abortionists, they never hesitate to use force.
So much for “pro-choice.”
CFFC Confronts the Catholic Bishops. On November 5, 1981, CFFC held a press conference at the United States Senate Building to protest the testimony of the Catholic bishops favoring legal protection of preborn children. Claiming the bishop's stance was unrepresentative of Catholic opinion and behavior, CFFC released a study of Catholic women having abortions. The results of the study were deliberately skewed because it did not survey Catholic women who practiced their Faith; it instead focused on women describing themselves as "non-practicing Catholics" or as "ex-Catholics."
On August 30, 1982, CFFC filed a brief with other members of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights in the Supreme Court case City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. The RCAR brief argued that all restrictions on abortion are based on a purely theological opinion regarding the beginning of life, and thus violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion. The brief, of course, ignored the fact that abortion on demand is also based on a theological opinion ― that human life begins at birth.
RCAR and CFFC also claimed in their Akron brief that factual descriptions of fetal development should not be made available to women seeking abortions because they constitute a "propaganda tool for the anti-abortion position." Finally, the brief condemned a one-day waiting period to give women time to think over the abortion decision as "intolerable," because abortion is "a moral decision sacred to dissenting faiths."13
In September 1982, CFFC conducted a briefing for Catholic members of the House of Representatives. This meeting was sponsored by three self-described "pro-choice Catholic" members of Congress, including failed vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY). CFFC published the proceedings in a booklet entitled "The Abortion Issue in the Political Process." Mrs. Ferraro's introduction claimed that the presentations by pro-abortion theologian Daniel Maguire and others disproved the existence of a "monolithic" Catholic stance on abortion.
In January 1983, CFFC held a similar press conference at the United States Senate and announced that Catholic social justice principles require Catholic members of Congress to vote for funding of elective abortions for poor women, regardless of their beliefs on the issue. Frances Kissling predicted that CFFC would have "an opportunity to affect not only the public policy positions of the church but also the internal treatment of the subject of abortion." This event also marked the first public release of CFFC's "Statement on Abortion and Catholicism" that was to be the basis for its subsequent New York Times ad.14
In September 1983, CFFC began to openly contradict Catholic teaching regarding the formation of conscience by publishing a booklet entitled "Abortion: A Guide to Making Ethical Choices." Daniel and Marjorie Reiley Maguire, drafters of the "Statement on Abortion and Catholicism," authored this publication.
CFFC distributed this booklet to abortion mills and student health services nationwide. Its supposed purpose was to help guide decision-making on abortion for young Catholic women and others. According to the preface by Kissling, its guiding principle was that "the decision to abort can be a moral decision justified by many circumstances." It also claimed that "abortion must be legal for women to even begin to make a moral choice with real freedom."
The basic message of the booklet was that abortion can be right or wrong depending upon motive or circumstances. Naturally, the booklet framed the issue so that abortion is never really "wrong," and it was very effective at salving the consciences of Catholic women considering abortion.
The 1984 New York Times Advertisement. In March 1984, CFFC organized a "Catholic Committee on Pluralism and Abortion," which revised the "Statement on Abortion and Catholicism" and renamed it the "Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion." The Committee distributed this Statement to members of various theological societies along with a questionnaire on their abortion views. Although this was a project of CFFC, the statement and questionnaire did not mention its name; responses were to be sent to "CFFC" at the organization's Washington address. There was also no indication that this statement would become an advertisement in a secular newspaper.15
The Day Arrives. The Catholic bishops of the United States designated October 7, 1984 as Respect Life Sunday. On this date, CFFC took the opportunity to publish a deliberate slap in the face to the bishops and to all real Catholics: A full-page advertisement in the New York Times entitled "A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion." The ad's primary thesis was that "A diversity of opinions regarding abortion exists among committed Catholics."
CFFC sponsored the ad and gathered the signatures. It was designed and placed through Planned Parenthood's New York ad agency. The agency's president said he accepted the task of designing the ad as "a favor to Planned Parenthood."16
The controversy generated by the ad catapulted CFFC into national prominence in the pro-abortion movement, which for the first time realized the full potential value of sowing dissent, discord and confusion among Catholics. After all, an uncertain and confused opponent is much weaker than one which holds to one true philosophy and speaks with one voice.
Surveying the Theologians. CFFC's claim that the majority of the American laity reject the Church's teaching on abortion is unfortunately accurate. This is primarily because most Catholics are confused and/or uninformed about the issues due to silence from the pulpit and confusion deliberately sowed by many dissenting groups, including CFFC. However, CFFC failed to mention that those Catholics who actually practice their Faith are overwhelmingly pro-life.
The New York Times ad also asserted that there were diverse "legitimate Catholic positions" on abortion. There certainly are diverse beliefs among nominal Catholics regarding abortion; yet only one of these is legitimate.
CFFC's claim that "a large number of Catholic theologians" believe that direct abortion "can sometimes be a moral choice" is demonstrably false. To begin with, not one of the nation's prominent Catholic moral theologians signed the ad ― only those who were either CFFC's "house theologians" or those whose writings placed them on the extreme fringe of theology, far removed from authentic Catholic teaching. The ad's claim was also strongly disputed by famous liberal theologians who were asked to sign but refused. One of these was Father Richard McBrien, Chairman of the University of Notre Dame's Theology Department and author of the book Catholicism, who observed that "very, very few Catholic theologians support the pro-choice position."17
A survey conducted by the sponsors of the New York Times ad confirms the fact that only a tiny minority of renegade theologians support unlimited access to abortion. Shortly after the ad appeared, CFFC published the responses to the questionnaire it had sent out to the members of various professional societies, including the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA). CFFC deliberately excluded from its survey groups that supported the Vatican's policies, presumably targeting organizations with a history of dissent from Catholic teachings on sexual ethics or criticism of the Vatican. Despite this fact, more than 75 percent of the survey's recipients did not return the questionnaire.
Among those theologians who did respond, a slim majority (51 percent) said that abortion should never be "left to the conscience of the pregnant woman," while only 6 percent favored the current legal policy permitting abortion until birth. Regarding the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, 58 percent described it as "completely unacceptable" and another 16 percent said it was "too permissive."
The questionnaire also asked when "human life becomes a person." Among respondents,
▪ 47 percent said that human life becomes a person at conception;
▪ 19 percent said that human life becomes a person at some time between conception and birth;
▪ 21 percent said the answer cannot be determined;
▪ 12 percent said it was an irrelevant question; and
▪ only 1 percent shared CFFC's opinion that personhood begins at birth.18.
Surveying the Laity. CFFC's New York Times ad also claimed that the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) found that "only 11 percent of Catholic laity surveyed disapproved of abortion in all circumstances."
However, the NORC poll referenced by CFFC was concerned only with legal policy. Even the most committed pro-life activists favor leeway in the law for cases such as danger to the mother's life.
A Gallup poll conducted at about the same time as the New York Times ad was released showed that;
▪ 21 percent of the general public favors making abortion illegal in all circumstances;
▪ 55 percent want it to be legal only under certain limited circumstances, including for the life of the mother, for rape and incest, and for severe birth defects; and
▪ only 21 percent favor CFFC's official position, which is no restrictions whatever.
The NORC and Gallup polls show that support for restricting abortion is higher among Catholics than among the general population, and certainly would be higher still among practicing Catholics.19.
Fallout From the Ad. CFFC's New York Times ad concluded with the usual vague calls for "dialogue" in the Church and demands for acknowledgement of the complexity of sexual ethics, the right to dissent, and the necessity of opposing legislation that would curtail "freedom of religion" or discriminate against poor women. Those who agreed with the ad were urged to contribute to CFFC.
About 2,000 people had received the March 1984 mailing mentioned above, but only 95 signed the New York Times ad. 65 of these possessed academic degrees in theology or religious studies. 27 of the signers were members of religious orders.
The Vatican's Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes (CRIS) informed the members of religious orders that they would be disciplined unless they retracted their false statement that there were diverse "legitimate Catholic positions" on abortion. The drafters of the "Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion" reacted by publishing a second ad expressing solidarity with the first statement's signers and protesting what it called the "repression of freedom of speech" within the Church.
CFFC took advantage of the controversy it initiated with the ads and stepped up its cooperative efforts with other pro-abortionists. Events since 1984 prove that the New York Times ad was part of a purely political strategy designed to undermine the Catholic Church's efforts against the abortion industry, and not "a serious contribution to the theological discussion within the church" as the ad drafters claimed.
Even the liberal National Catholic Reporter accused CFFC of taking the abortion issue "from the level of serious religious commitment and theological discussion to that of a mere political sign-up campaign." NCR also urged its readers not to sign the ad. Kissling responded that NCR's criticism was based on a "gross misunderstanding" of her organization's agenda, but of course did not elaborate.20.
The Late 1980s: CFFC Joins Forces with Other Pro-Abortion Groups.
CFFC Capitalizes on the Publicity From the New York Times Ad. The 1984 New York Times ad was the most direct and well-publicized challenge to Church teaching authority and doctrine that had ever been launched by a pro-abortion group. CFFC used its newfound status and notoriety by stepping up its cooperative efforts with other pro-abortionists.
The Bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities responded to the New York Times ad on November 25 by reaffirming the Church's 20-century-old condemnation of abortion, and by pointing out that CFFC had no status in the Church (Appendix A includes the Bishop's statement). The bishops also stated that they did not doubt CFFC's sincerity, and urged its members to study the Church's teaching on the obligation to protect human life as proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council.
In March of 1985, CFFC demonstrated that it was not interested in listening to the bishops or in dialoguing with them when it joined the Unitarian Universalist Association and other RCAR affiliates in filing a pro-abortion brief in the Kendrick v. Heckler case, claiming that the Federal Adolescent Family Life program violated the First Amendment by forbidding most abortion counseling and referral by grantees. The signers of the brief claimed that they counseled adolescents "individually and through the Clergy Counseling Network of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights" and were "among the many religious denominations foreclosed from participating in [this program] because they cannot conscientiously counsel adolescents on pregnancy and cannot discuss the option of abortion."
CFFC repeated these arguments in the City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health case, objecting to informed consent and parental notification provisions and requirements that all abortions must be performed in a hospital and that the remains of aborted babies must be disposed of in a "humane and sanitary manner."
These legal briefs revealed several facets of CFFC's evolving ideology and tactics. First, they demonstrated that CFFC is truly pro-abortion, because its official position is that it is unreasonable to place any restrictions whatever on abortion, and that the act of abortion can be morally justified in virtually any circumstance. Second, CFFC's financial and other ties with secular pro-abortion and population control groups seem much stronger than its links with other dissenting organizations. Third, although it publicly and repeatedly claims to favor "dialogue" within the Church, CFFC has studiously avoided opportunities for dialogue in favor of forthrightly confrontational tactics. Many of CFFC's activities are designed to counteract the Catholic Church's public policy impact by presenting itself as something akin to an alternative religious denomination, a claim it actually made in the Kendrick v. Heckler brief described above.
National and International Cooperation. CFFC's crusade against life and the family has naturally led it to join organizations and coalitions both nationally and internationally in order to promote the legalization of abortion, euthanasia, divorce, population control and ersatz homosexual "marriage."
CFFC works closely with other anti-life groups, including the International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC), the Women's Global Network for Reproductive Rights, the Women-Church Convergence, the Unitarian Universalist Association, Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women (NOW), the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (formerly RCAR), the National Abortion Federation (NAF) and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
CFFC also works with dissenting self-described "Catholic" groups, including Catholics Speak Out, Chicago Catholic Women, Institute of Women Today, Loretto Women's Network, National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN), Women in Spirit of Colorado Task Force, the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER), and the Women's Ordination Conference.21
CFFC Board members Mary Hunt and Rosemary Ruether spoke at the 1994 Call to Action National Conference in Chicago. Both also sat on the Board of the "We Are Church Coalition." According to CFFC's Conscience magazine, "Catholic Organizations for Renewal and the Women Church Convergence have asked CFFC and the Women's Ordination Conference (WOC) to act as a bridge between them in order to keep each coalition informed of the other's activities and facilitate collaboration."22
In 1987, CFFC joined other anti-life feminist organizations in South America to establish the Latin American Women's Health Network, whose objective is to promote "reproductive health" and "reproductive rights," which are code words for unlimited free contraception, sterilization and abortion. The Network publishes a newsletter in Spanish titled Revista de la Red de Salud/Isis Internacional ("Magazine of the Health Network/Isis International") in Santiago, Chile, and distributes it in Latin America through its information service, Isis International, the most visible Latin American anti-life feminist organization.23
The 1990s: CFFC Finds a Global Forum.
Overview. Since Catholics for a Free Choice obtained United Nations non-governmental organization (NGO) status, it has aggressively exploited its standing to pursue an anti-life agenda at the global level.
CFFC gathered about forty anti-life and feminist groups in preparation for the United Nations' International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), which took place in September 1994 in Cairo, Egypt. The key agenda issues of this coalition were to redefine family and gender and establish abortion as a universal "human right."24
During the United Nation's Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, Frances Kissling presented a speech entitled "Responding to Religious Conservatism," in which she complained that "conservatism often expresses itself in ways that are intolerant, violent, silencing and provocative," but of course she provided no concrete examples of conservative “violence,” and hypocritically ignored the fact that the sole purpose of her own organization is to be “provocative.” CFFC also lobbied to gain support for its plans to deny the Vatican special observer status at UN gatherings.
In 1996 CFFC came to the defense of the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) when the Vatican withheld its annual contribution because of UNICEF's promotion of contraceptives and abortifacients. Frances Kissling raved that the Vatican was engaging in "intimidation" and "strong arm tactics," and was conducting a "dirty little war" against "every good thing."25 CFFC could have quietly made up the $2,000 the Vatican withheld, but instead launched a public relations blitz to condemn the Holy See, which was presumably just "following its conscience" when it decided not to donate to UNICEF.
In CFFC's eyes, it seems that only "pro-choice Catholics" may follow their consciences.
Frances Kissling once again tried to divert attention from the topic of abortion as she bleated that "It's time we sent a clear signal to the church hierarchy that we are sick and tired of this single-minded obsession with abortion and family planning. We want to get on with the church's mission to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, and shelter the homeless. Especially the children."26
It is interesting that CFFC tries to portray the bishops of the Catholic Church as "obsessed" with sexual issues. Daniel C. Maguire, for instance, in his comments on the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, said that "Many others light on the references to the pelvic issues that have so consumed this and previous pontificates and remains a preoccupation here."27
We must ask who has a "preoccupation" with the "pelvic issues." A study of the documents of the Church and the homilies of Pope John Paul II shows that about five percent address the so-called "pelvic issues." As for CFFC ― well, a careful look at its literature shows that it talks about little else. CFFC is by any definition (including its own) totally obsessed with these issues.
As for Kissling's allegation that CFFC wanted "to get on with the church's mission to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, and shelter the homeless," we have seen no evidence that CFFC has actually done any of these activities. All it has done is push abortion.
"We Are [0.06 Percent of the] Church." In 1996, CFFC enthusiastically promoted the "We Are Church" Referendum organized by dissenting Sister Maureen Fiedler, co-director of the Quixote Center and Catholics Speak Out (CSO). Fiedler directed the effort in the United States, confidently predicting that it would garner more than one million signatures.
CFFC ran a full-page ad promoting the Referendum in the Summer 1996 issue of its Conscience magazine, and claimed that "Similar movements in Austria and Germany have already gathered 2.3 million signatories."
Signature collecting in the United States was originally scheduled for Pentecost 1996 to Pentecost 1997, then extended into the Fall of 1997. Fiedler finally gave up after only 37,000 signatures had been collected, and, after admitting that "we really gave it everything we had" (including offering schoolchildren a dollar for each signature collected), offered a variety of excuses as to why the referendum flopped so spectacularly. Then, in a move which broke its own record for hypocrisy, a CFFC writer said that "A Catholic school in Philadelphia has offered extra academic credit to students for protesting outside a clinic that provides abortions. As many as 50 students from the Archbishop Wood High School were granted higher grades for their class on morality. Prochoice groups have protested the move, arguing that it is a form of bribery." 28
Theeferendum cratered because of its extremists agenda, which called for ordination of women as priests and deacons; lay participation in the selection of bishops and pastors; making priestly celibacy optional and reinstating married priests to active ministry; promoting homosexual rights; allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to return to all the Sacraments; and acknowledging "primacy of conscience" on questions of sexual morality.
Or maybe it was the disreputable and extreme nature of the groups working on the Referendum. In addition to CFFC, other organizations pushing the Referendum included Call to Action; the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (which has drawn up a grandiose manifesto for reorganizing the Church called the "Catholic Constitution"); the National Association for a Married Priesthood; Dignity USA (a group of unrepentant 'Catholic' homosexuals); New Ways Ministries; and Priests for Equality.
The "See Change" Sees No Change.
What is the Purpose of the Campaign? Catholics for a Free Choice and all of the other pro-abortion groups at the United Nations frequently brag about their "inclusiveness" and "tolerance" of all viewpoints ― except, of course, those viewpoints that happen to disagree with their ideology. The pro-abortionists at the United Nations would like to eliminate all opposition so that they might enact their agendas in an efficient and dissent-free atmosphere.
Hypocritically, CFFC, which so staunchly defends the rights of "dissenters" in the Catholic Church, works hard to silence the voices of pro-life "dissenters" in the United Nations.
The Campaign Kicks Off. In March 1999, CFFC launched the "See Change" campaign. Its purported objective is to influence the United Nations to downgrade the status of the Vatican from permanent observer status to that of non-governmental organization, or NGO, like CFFC itself. Frances Kissling has remarked that "Some of us have been wondering whether or not Euro-Disney had as many qualifications for permanent observer status as the Vatican State."29
According to its Web site, the See Change Campaign began with seventy participating pro-abortion organizations, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the National Abortion Federation, the Center of Reproductive Law and Policy (now the Center for Reproductive Rights), Equality Now, Marie Stopes International, the Feminist Majority, the Sierra Club, Population Concern, the Center for Research on Population and Security, the American Humanist Association, Atheists United and the National Organization for Women (NOW).
Mission Impossible ― Fortunately. Questions regarding the statehood of the Holy See have long been settled by the international community. The Holy See, as the government of the Catholic Church, is recognized by the whole world as a state. She has sent diplomatic legations to other nations since the middle of the Fourth Century. This is 1,650 years longer than a hundred member states of the United Nations General Assembly have even existed.
Currently, 177 nations have diplomats permanently attached to the Holy See, including the United States. All of these recognize the Holy See as a district sovereign personality for all functions of state, including entering into treaties.30
The Holy See joined the United Nations in 1964 as a permanent observer by agreement between U.N. Secretary-General U Thant and Pope Paul VI. Like Switzerland, the Holy See chose permanent observer status in order to remain neutral during armed conflicts, and so that it would not have to contribute financially to United Nations military efforts. The Holy See could apply for regular United Nations membership at any time, and no one (of any importance) doubts that it would be unanimously accepted.
Why Push This Campaign in the First Place? In light of the above facts, the leaders of CFFC must have known from the beginning that the "See Change" campaign would fail to achieve its stated objective.
What, then, was CFFC trying to accomplish?
The real intent of the See Change campaign is purely tactical and political. Its purposes are to isolate and intimidate the Holy See's delegates to the United Nations and to frighten away its sometimes-nervous allies.31
A United Nations conference is very intimidating, especially when a delegation challenges the reigning anti-family ethos. The United Nations works not by voting but by consensus. This means that every delegation must agree to every word, and means that a small coalition of states can stop almost any language from being incorporated into a UN document. All they need do is dig in their heels and speak out.
The world is a dangerous place, and many governments rely upon foreign aid, industrial development and military protection. The Holy See neither gives nor receives this kind of country-to-country assistance, and therefore it cannot be controlled or intimidated by nations willing to use foreign aid as a club in order to impose their agendas.
Kissling and her pro-abortion cronies want the Holy See to stay in its foxhole and would like to isolate it from its potential allies. Time and time again, the Holy See has stood virtually alone at United Nations conferences, opposing population control programs that are promoted through deceit, trickery, intimidation and manipulation of language. The Holy See's unique status and financial independence from the wealthy nations frees it from the kind of intimidation UN critics say is routinely employed against the developing world, thus enabling it to speak without fear of retribution when issues of human dignity and morality are at stake.32
Since the Cairo conference in 1994, a coalition has jelled around the life and family issues. This ad hoc alliance, which includes the Holy See and other Catholic and Muslim states, has stopped the United Nations from transforming abortion into an international human "right." The pro-family alliance has also stopped the UN from redefining the family to include homosexual 'couples.' It has also stopped the attempt to expand the number of natural sexes by defining new categories, such as homosexuals and those who call themselves the "transgendered."33
The See Change Campaign Flops. The See Change Campaign was doomed from the beginning. A year after it was launched, only 350 groups had signed on, and 2½ years after its beginning, it had the endorsement of 653 organizations, most of them tiny local groups with no national or international stature, such as individual abortion mills or groups such as the "Alliance of Lucent and AT&T Atheists and Secularists."34
By vivid contrast, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) launched a counteroffensive named the "Holy See Campaign" in January 2000. It garnered 1,015 signatures in only two months, and had an impressive total of 4,207 signatures as of September 2001.35
Many influential persons and official agencies spoke out in favor of the Holy See. For example, the President of the European Union and President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, said that the Holy See "represents a special forum, as it has invaluable knowledge of events in the world, promotes peace, solidarity and tolerance, values to which we attach much importance."36
On July 11, 2000, the United States House of Representatives voted by a lopsided margin of 416 to one to condemn CFFC's move to end the Vatican's permanent observer status at the United Nations. The resolution commended the Holy See for its commitment to fundamental human rights; voiced objections to any effort to change its permanent observer status; and suggested that degrading its status would damage the credibility of the United Nations with countries that see the Vatican as a moral and ethical presence in the world body.37
Despite the near-unanimous vote of 416 to one, Frances Kissling implied that Congressional objections were coming only from a small minority of what she described as "Republican anti-choice" representatives. Kissling continued to demonstrate how out of touch with reality she was when she claimed that the absence of support among national governments for the anti-Holy See campaign was a positive sign. Their "silence" was a "victory," she said.38 It never occurred to Kissling that her "See Change" campaign was simply beneath their notice.
By contrast, the only people speaking in favor of the "See Change" campaign were pro-abortionists with no stature on the international scene.
On May 10, 2000, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops used exceptionally strong language to condemn CFFC, calling it an "arm of the abortion lobby" and publicizing the fact that "It is funded by a number of powerful and wealthy private foundations, mostly American, to promote abortion as a method of population control." The statement concluded by saying that "Catholics for a Free Choice merits no recognition or support as a Catholic organization."
Appendix A contains the full text of the NCCB statement.
Endnotes for Chapter 1.
1) National Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Catholics for a Free Choice Not a Catholic Group." November 4, 1993 Statement of the NCCB, Washington, D.C. This complete statement is contained in Appendix A.
2) Magaly Llaguno. "'Catholics for a Free Choice:' A Dossier." Vida Humana Internacional, December 1994, page 2.
3) Pamela J. Maraldo. "Misogyny That Will Pass." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, page 38; "More on Maraldo." National STOPP News, January 20, 1993, page 1.
4) Richard Doerflinger. "Who are Catholics for a Free Choice?" America, November 16, 1985, pages 312 and 313.
5) Mary Meehan. "Foundation Power." Human Life Review, Fall 1984, pages 42 to 60.
6) See Figure 8 in the text.
7) Richard Doerflinger. "Who are Catholics for a Free Choice?" America, November 16, 1985, pages 312 and 313.
8) Ellen Kirby, Assistant General Secretary, Section of Christian Social Relations, Women's Division of the United Methodist Church, in a March 1986 letter to the National Federation for Decency. "United Methodist Women's Division Representative Clarifies Support of Abortion Rights Group." National Federation for Decency Journal, April 1986, page 6; Mary Meehan. "Foundation Power." Human Life Review, Fall 1984, pages 42 to 60.
9) “Playboy Funds Pro-Abortion Group." National Federation for Decency Journal, February 1985, page 16.
10) Frances Kissling, quoted in "CFFC Notebook." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 50 to 52.
11) Richard Doerflinger. "Who are Catholics for a Free Choice?" America, November 16, 1985, pages 312 and 313.
12) Sunnen Foundation, 1979 letter to Michael Schwartz of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
13) Richard Doerflinger. "Who are Catholics for a Free Choice?" America, November 16, 1985, pages 312 and 313.
14) Ibid.
15) Ibid.
16) Advertising Age, December 24, 1984.
17) Richard Doerflinger. "Who are Catholics for a Free Choice?" America, November 16, 1985, pages 312 and 313.
18) Ibid.
19) Ibid.
20) Ibid.
21) Declaraciόn de Preocupaciόn ["Statement of Concern"]. Conciencia Latinoamericana, April/May/June 1993, page 8.
22) Magaly Llaguno. "Catholics for a Free Choice Unmasked." Presentation at Human Life International's 16th World conference in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, April 1997.
23) Cristina Grela. "Transitamos un camino común." Revista de la Red de Salud/Isis Internacional [Magazine of the Health Network/Isis International, Santiago, Chile], April/September 1994, page 57.
24) "CFFC Notebook: Pop Culture." Conscience, Autumn 1993, page 48.
25) "CFFC Notebook: Faith, Hope and Charity." Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, page 34; "Editorial: The Vatican's Cheap Shot at UNICEF." Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, pages 36 and 37.
26) Frances Kissling. "The Vatican's Cheap Shot at UNICEF." Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, pages 36 and 37.
27) Daniel C. Maguire. "The Splendor of Control: A Commentary on Veritatis Splendor and the Elephant in the Living Room." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 26 to 29.
28) "We Are (.06 Percent of the) Church." This Rock, January 1998, pages 8 to 10; "Catholic School Gives Academic Credits to Anti-Abortion Protestors." Conscience, Spring 2002], page 30.
29) Frances Kissling in a BBC Television interview. Quote downloaded from the CFFC Web site at on July 23, 2001.
30) Austin Ruse. "They Want the Vatican Nixed. Why?" National Catholic Register, December 12-18, 1999.
31) Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. "No "See Change"." Catholic World Report, April 2000.
32) John Mallon. "Evangelicals, Rabbi Support Vatican at UN." Inside the Vatican, April 2000.
33) Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. "No "See Change"." Catholic World Report, April 2000.
34) See the "See Change" Web site at .
35) See information on the "Holy See Campaign" at the C-FAM Web site, .
36) Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. "No "See Change"." Catholic World Report, April 2000.
37) Weekly Roundup, Catholic News Service, July 12, 2000.
38) "Pro-Abortion Groups Compare Holy See's UN Status to the Soviet Politburo." National Catholic Register, February 6-12, 2000.
Chapter 2
The New Millennium ― CFFC’s Current Activities
General Overview of CFFC’s Activities.
The Current Situation. CFFC has expanded its range of advocacy far beyond simply agitating for contraception, sterilization and abortion. CFFC's current activities show that it joins other activist pro-abortion groups on the extreme fringe of public opinion.
As described in detail later in this book, CFFC supports all abortions, no matter how hideous or unjustified. It seeks to compel Catholic hospitals to violate Church doctrine by distributing contraceptives and performing sterilizations. It wants to force pro-life Americans to pay for abortions, not only in the United States, but in developing countries. It even fights the most certain remedy to sexually transmitted diseases and the "unwanted pregnancies" it claims to abhor ― chastity education. CFFC also demands an "inclusive" priesthood (open to women and the married), and homosexual rights, including bogus gay "marriage."
CFFC Wants to Force Catholic Hospitals to Violate Church Doctrine. CFFC would like to force Catholic hospitals to violate Catholic sexual ethics by compelling them to offer contraceptives and sterilization services.
During the 1990s, there were 159 mergers between Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals in the United States, and Catholic hospitals now constitute the largest single group of nonprofit hospitals in the country. CFFC has been tracking these mergers since the early 1980s, and frets that "Reproductive health care is severely limited by Catholic hospitals and when Catholic hospitals merge with non-Catholic facilities."
Frances Kissling justifies CFFC's actions, saying that "Health care is not like every other business. This is not your corner candy store or K-Mart. Health care is a public trust, and as such, it is regulated by the government in ways that other businesses are not."1
With this statement, Kissling once again flaunted the glaring hypocrisy of her group. After all, CFFC believes that abortion is also "health care," yet bitterly opposes any government regulation of it whatsoever. In the City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health litigation, CFFC joined in the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights brief, which argued that all restrictions on abortion are based on a purely theological opinion regarding the beginning of life, and thus violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.
[pic]
No matter how long or how strenuously CFFC and other dissenters agitate,
this goofy "Woman of Cloth" doll, a popular sale item at Call to Action
conferences, is as close as they will ever get to women's ordination.
In other words, CFFC believes that Catholic hospitals should be closely regulated by the government because they are health care organizations, but that the same government has absolutely no business regulating abortion in any way, while all the time declaring that “Abortion is health care.”
In summary, if CFFC can compel Catholic hospitals to violate Catholic teachings against contraception and sterilization, it can then rail against such "inconsistencies" between Catholic teachings and practice, and will gain a great public relations victory. CFFC will also point to these hospitals as "proof" that the Catholic Church can "change" its teachings on contraception and sterilization ― a situation it would have forced through civil litigation in the first place!2
CFFC is a great advocate of the separation of church and state ― except when it uses the state's power to force the Church to bend to its will. In CFFC's mind, "separation of church and state" means that whenever the state advances, the Church must retreat.
CFFC Supports Partial-Birth Abortions. Dilation and extraction (partial-birth) abortion involves delivering all of a preborn child except for the head, and then, instead of completing the delivery, puncturing the child's head and suctioning out his brains. It would be simple to complete the delivery of the head, but this cruel procedure is designed for one reason: To make sure the child is dead beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Thousands of second-trimester and third-trimester partial-birth abortions are committed in the United States every year. These are not all done in extreme situations, contrary to what pro-abortion groups claim; abortionist Martin Haskell, who invented the method, says that about 80 percent of all partial-birth abortions are committed purely for convenience purposes. He also stated that he did abortions right up until the moment of birth for "maternal depression."3
Nothing betrays CFFC's extremism more than its wholehearted support of partial-birth abortions. CFFC aggressively promotes every abortion decision as a moral choice, even if it is a grisly third-trimester abortion committed for pure convenience. Naturally, CFFC studiously avoids talking about the bloody reality of the killing of viable and healthy preborn babies. Instead, it tries to divert the public's attention to tangential issues.
CFFC ran a full-page ad in the National Journal Convention Daily at the 1993 National Republican Convention, attacking the American bishops for being "single-issue" on the PBA. In a letter to the editor in the Washington Times, Frances Kissling criticized the bishops' postcard campaign against President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. She said "By exhorting Catholics attending church services on Sunday to sign postcards asking Congress to override President Clinton's veto during an election year, the bishops once again are using the Mass in a highly politicized and inappropriate way."4
Here we have yet another example of CFFC's mind-numbing hypocrisy. CFFC, which claims to represent the Catholic Church, gets directly involved in the politics of the United States and several other nations, but denies this same right to the leaders of the Catholic Church ― the bishops ― because this is, in its view, a "violation of the principle of the separation of church and state."
CFFC Supports Forced Funding of Abortion. The average issue of CFFC's magazine Conscience is generously larded with at least a dozen references to public opinion polls supporting CFFC's positions on one issue or another. This seems to imply that CFFC somehow respects the results of these polls or uses them to help guide the formation of its ideology.
This is another example of CFFC's hypocrisy, because it simply ignores the results of polls it does not agree with when the outcome is unfavorable to its goals.
Every national public opinion poll taken on the subject shows that Americans do not want their tax dollars paying for abortions. This is true even of most Americans who refer to themselves as "pro-choice."
Yet for years, CFFC has worked against public opinion by supporting the so-called "Justice Campaign" since its beginnings in 1986.5 The goal of the Campaign is to demand Federal funding of all abortions for poor women. CFFC boasted that it "... helped to lead the 1993 campaign against the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal Medicaid funding of abortions. ... CFFC helped to coordinate press events, design and place print ads, and bring women from all socioeconomic levels to lobby on Capital Hill." CFFC has also filed amicus briefs in federal cases in support of forced funding of abortion.6
In 1988 CFFC also supported the "Michigan Campaign," which demanded tax-funded abortions in that state, by conducting a speaking tour and organizing pro-abortion "Catholics."7
CFFC Supports Population Control. Most Americans do not want their tax dollars used to suppress the fertility of women in developing nations.
Once again, CFFC ignores public opinion polls that do not support its ideology. CFFC works against government restrictions on international "family planning" assistance programs. These limitations are based on the conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate abortion, either in the United States or abroad.
On June 22, 2001, President George W. Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy ― originally instituted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 ― that denies aid to organizations that engage in abortion-related activities overseas. CFFC denounced the President's decision, characterizing it as "an astonishing and unconscionable disregard of the most basic principles of democracy and respect for national sovereignty."8
Strangely, CFFC did not protest when President Bill Clinton also "disregarded the most basic principles of democracy" by eliminating the Mexico City Policy with an executive order on January 22, 1993. Additionally, CFFC apparently has no sense of irony whatsoever, or is completely ignorant of the fact that the millions of population control dollars pumped into the developing world by the richest nations undermine the national sovereignty of these countries.
CFFC also signed a February 7, 2001 statement that denounced the President's "callous disregard for the plight faced by women throughout the world," and said that the "gag rule" would "violate medical ethics by denying women access to the full range of information about reproductive health services, including safe abortion."9
These statements reflect the curious pro-abortion view that governments must support abortion and must fund abortion, regardless of their religious views or the beliefs or attitudes of their people. This all fits into CFFC's idea that the only "rights" that pro-life Catholics have regarding abortion is the "right" to open their wallets and pay for it. As Argument #12 the latter section of this book shows, CFFC believes that pro-life Catholics must violate their consciences while sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing about what they know to be child murder.
CFFC Supports Destructive Embryonic Stem Cell Research. CFFC supports unlimited stem cell research on embryonic stem cells. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans oppose such research, CFFC treats all preborn children as mere commodities to be exploited and used in whatever way researchers deem "necessary."
Just as the promoters of the abortion pill RU-486 did, researchers who engage in embryonic stem cell research have made many promises about hypothetical miracle cures while ignoring a constant principle of morality ― that we may never accomplish good by committing evil.
CFFC is silent about other promising areas of stem cell research. Stem cells derived from adult tissue and from placentas after childbirth have produced concrete results, even as the use of embryonic cells to treat Parkinson's disease patients has proven disappointing and even disastrous. These non-embryonic stem cells can be acquired through entirely moral means, yet CFFC refuses to support them or even mention them.10
CFFC Opposes Chastity Education. CFFC fights abstinence-only sexuality education, which teaches that sexual activity exclusively within marriage is the expected standard for school-age children. CFFC claims it defends the rights of teenagers to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and to avoid unwanted pregnancies without "renouncing their sexuality."11
Once again, CFFC betrays its gross ignorance of the most basic aspects of human sexuality. In CFFC's view, sexuality is not part of what a person is, but what a person does. Therefore, the more sex a person has, the more "sexual" he is. If this bizarre belief were true, it would mean that a promiscuous person has more "sexuality" than a virgin, and anyone who chooses a celibate life is "renouncing their sexuality."
By contrast, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that "Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery. Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices" [¶2395-2396].
CFFC even elevates the act of sex itself to the status of a sacrament. In Conscience Magazine, Maggie Hume writes that "Good sex ― sex which is as pleasurable as possible on as many levels as possible ― operates as a channel of grace. ... A marriage license does not endow sex with new power. Sex itself has a sacramental power. I propose that sexual pleasure is good for its own sake."12
Like everyone else, CFFC is aware of the undeniable fact that all STDs and all "unwanted pregnancies" can be avoided by women and men who remain chaste before marriage. So while CFFC claims that it wants to reduce the incidence of abortion, it fights the most effective way of doing so.
CFFC's European Activities.
Introduction. CFFC uses much of the money it raises from United States foundations to promote abortion in many other countries, primarily those with predominantly Catholic populations and beliefs.
CFFC is a member of the European Network/Church on the Move (EN), a network of dissenting Catholic groups, which itself works closely with the International We Are Church Movement. It also cooperates with Wir Sind Kirche ["We Are Church"], Jubilee People, Droits et Libertas dans les Eglises ["Rights and Liberties in the Churches"] and Initiative Chritennrechte in der Kirche ["Initiative for the Rights of Christians in the Church"].13
Catholics for a Free Choice has partners in Spain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina.
The United Kingdom. Frances Kissling took part in an English campaign to oppose Member of Parliament David Alton's 1988 bill to lower the time limit on abortion to 18 weeks.14
In January 1996, Kissling addressed the House of Commons in London. CFFC subsequently produced two publications on the activities of Opus Dei and the Vatican's influence on reproductive policies in the European Union. The latter booklet was an anti-Catholic conspiracy theorist's delight. It warned darkly that "The growing ranks of academics, doctors, parliamentarians, government ministers, judges, and journalists give the Vatican a powerful, hidden force that toils to impose its moral code not just on members, or even only on Catholics, but on the population at large."15.
In March 1998, CFFC submitted to the government commission examining Irish abortion law a paper entitled "Catholic Options in the Abortion Debate: Reforming Irish Law," offering input "from a pro-choice Catholic perspective." In this document, CFFC favored Option Seven of those laid out by "the Green Paper on Abortion." This Option would permit abortion for economic or social reasons; on request where there was congenital malformation; in rape and incest cases; and where there was risk to the physical or mental health of the woman. As American pro-lifers well know, this is a formula for abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy.16 CFFC also expressed disappointment that the Green Paper "did not more strongly address the need for separation of church and state in Ireland on this as well as other issues." CFFC repeated its desire that the Catholic Church be sidelined and marginalized, fretting about "the undue influence of the current church leadership in this matter."
In July 2000, Kissling, CFFC vice-president Jon O'Brien, and board member Eileen Moran attended a meeting with the All-Party Qireachtas Committee on the Constitution. The American National Conference of Catholic Bishops contacted the Committee and pointed out that CFFC does not speak for the Catholic Church and that it distorts Catholic teaching on the rights of the preborn. Subsequently, on the final day of the abortion hearings Chairman of the Committee Brian Lenihan questioned the status of CFFC.17
Poland. CFFC boasts that Poland is now "home to a new Federation for Women and Planned Parenthood, whose creation and funding were facilitated by CFFC and the International Planned Parenthood Federation."18
CFFC sponsored a Polish study by the national Planned Parenthood affiliate (the Polish Federation for Women and Family Planning), and distributed it to Polish Parliamentarians.19 CFFC has also written and produced several publications in Polish that promote abortion, contraception and "reproductive choice" from an allegedly "Catholic" perspective. CFFC sent letters to fifteen Polish parliamentarians and government officials to support legislation that would relax that country's so-called "harsh" abortion ban.20
The Philippines. CFFC is even agitating in the most Catholic and pro-life nation in the world, the Philippines. The group is collaborating with a dissenting Benedictine nun there in its efforts to undermine Church teachings on abortion.21
In 1990 at the International Women and Health Conference in Manila, CFFC helped form a group called the International Network for Feminists Interested in Reproductive Health and Ethics (IN/FIRE), which "serves as a clearinghouse and information center for feminists." IN/FIRE's secretariat is located at CFFC's office in Washington, D.C.22
CFFC's Hispanic and Latin American Activities.
"Latinos are the great brown hope of the Vatican, which is counting on them to set the church back on course by bringing their fervent piety and ethic of machismo into the mainstream of American Catholicism."
― Conscience Magazine.23
Introduction. The population of Latin America [Central America, the Caribbean and South America] is about 590 million. Of this number, 500 million, or 85 percent, of the people consider themselves Catholics, nearly half of the total number of Catholics in the world. Abortion is illegal in 27 of the 35 nations of Latin America.
[pic]
`Catholics’ for a Free Choice showed how un-Catholic (and how anti-Catholic) it
truly is by distributing a “prayer card” asking Our Lady of Guadalupe to keep
abortion legal, a vicious insult to the Faith of all Latin Americans, especially
Mexicans. The card reads [in Spanish]: “El amor de dios y de Maria de Guadalupe
es Mas Grande, Por la Vida de las mujeres aborto legal y seguro,” or [in English]
“To Our Lady of Guadalupe, for the lives of women, keep abortion legal.”
Since Latin America is the most Catholic region in the world, CFFC is hard at work there undermining and misrepresenting Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.
CFFC paints a sensational caricature of the Latin American Church fanatically defending the traditional family and male domination while showing absolutely no mercy towards a woman's right to pleasurable sexuality. CFFC alleges that the Church's objective is to maintain men's domination over women and [church]men's domination over all of society.
As CFFC so vividly claims, "Motherhood and servitude is the only possible redemption for women; the gate to hell is knowledge and power."24
Who has the answer to this awful situation?
Why, CFFC, of course, which "proposes a different concept of motherhood from the sacrificial model of the Catholic church."25
Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir [CDD, or "Catholics for the Right to Decide"], which is CFFC's Hispanic outreach, says that "Only a feminist perspective can begin to restore the relevance, particularly to the bodies of women, of the violent imposition of Catholic moral doctrine." CDD loftily proclaims that it "defends the possibility of dissenting from the pope's positions and teachings without having to leave the church. ... The justice awaited by Latin American women is rooted in their renewed consciousness of dignity and power. It is a longed-for justice only they themselves can give."26
Notice how CFFC pretends to speak for all Latin American women. It completely ignores the possibility that many or most of them may find solace and comfort in the Church.
The History of CDD. Catholics for a Free Choice was present at the Fifth International Meeting on Women and Health held in 1987 in Costa Rica. There CFFC established Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir, whose stated goal was to contribute "to the rise of sexual ethics and procreation based on justice."27
In 1989 CFFC established a regional office of CDD in Montevideo, Uruguay. Cristina Grela, CFFC's Regional Coordinator for Latin America, claimed that her "turning point came in 1986 at an ecumenical encounter of Christian women meeting in Argentina on new forms of spirituality for women," hosted by the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual, or WATER.28
The feelings-based "New Age" spirituality common to groups like WATER seems to be the vehicle by which Grela and many other Latin American women have become incorporated into Catholics for a Free Choice. Grela bought into the CFFC ideology that one can be pro-abortion and remain in good standing in the Church. In an article published in Argentina, she stated that "every woman who continues being Catholic, going to church and using family planning methods is a Catholic for a Free Choice member because these women have opted for this, with a clear conscience, disobeying the position of the hierarchy."29
At the Fifth Latin American Feminist Encounter in Argentina in 1991, CFFC was instrumental in establishing the coordinating committee for the promotion of the right to abortion in Latin America and the Caribbean, which is now actively working for this objective in these Hispanic countries.30 CFFC's regional office for Latin American is located in Cόrdoba, Argentina.
CFFC's Latin American Publications. CFFC has published several books in Spanish for general circulation in Latin America.
Of these, the book that best summarizes CFFC's ideology is entitled Mujeres e Iglesia: Sexualidad y Aborto en América Latina [Women and the Church: Sexuality and Abortion in Latin America].31 The authors of this anthology closely follow in the footsteps of American anti-life feminists, attacking the Catholic Church and promoting the "rights" to contraception, abortion and lesbianism.
Contributor Sylvia Marcos praises the pre-Colombian Aztec women priestesses of early "American sexual spirituality," whom she calls "privileged celebrants." She also claims that pre-Colombian pagan rites are "a source of inspiration for those of us who question the morals we received and believe that the experience of pleasure brings union with the divinity."
It is not surprising that people who approve of the brutal partial-birth abortion procedure would also admire a religion whose practitioners cut the still-beating hearts out of thousands of screaming victims.
In the book, Cristina Grela denounces "the myth of heterosexuality" and laments that women are forced to "fall in love with the good looking man. What freedom do you have to fall in love with a woman?" Ana María Portugal condemns what she calls "forced heterosexuality" as "an oppression of all women." María Ladi Londoño states that the Vatican condemns abortion not as the result of a "doctrine of love," but in order to control the lives of women. She also trots out an old bit of discredited anti-Catholic bigotry when she says that "as a consequence of a definite misogyny and discrimination against women, who they do not accept as an equal and of whom it taught, up until the Council of Trent, that she had no soul."
Mujeres e Iglesia presents a "new ethic" beyond the right to abortion and contraception to "give ourselves permission to live out, without guilt, the desire, the pleasure and the enjoyment of the body... without obligations or commitments." This is an eerie echo of Margaret Sanger's credo, which was "unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children ... The Right to be lazy. The Right to be an unmarried mother. The Right to destroy. The Right to create. The Right to love. The Right to live."32
Finally, the book promotes Women-Church communities "to question the plan that God supposedly had for us." In the Epilogue, Frances Kissling urges that "we [women] unite in the Women-Church movement to celebrate our lives, to study and work toward change in the institutional Church. This book came out of this movement."33
[pic]
The stark masthead of Margaret Sanger's 1914 publication
Woman Rebel, which proclaims "No Gods, No Masters," an
accurate summary of the ideology of Catholics for a Free Choice.
The CFFC-Chiapas Connection. For more than a decade, CFFC has been actively involved in organizing the pro-abortion movement in the Mexican state of Chiapas.
Its efforts led to success with the legalization of abortion in Chiapas in October 1990. Since that time, the pro-life movement has led a legal battle that has kept it from going into effect.
At the beginning of the pro-life counteroffensive, CFFC called on readers to "send letters and telegrams demanding the de-penalization and legalization of abortion in the State of Chiapas and in all of Mexico."
In 1996, CFFC gave $5,000 to six women's groups in Chiapas, and twenty CFFC board members held a retreat there "to visit and learn from progressive movements." Rosemary Radford Ruether, who attended the retreat, claims support from the local bishop, Samuel Ruiz García. María Consuelo Mejías, CFFC's Mexico director, boasted at the 20th Anniversary gathering of the Call to Action Conference in Detroit in 1996, that Bishop García has "close ties" with CFFC in Mexico.34
CFFC's Spanish newsletter Consciencia contradicts these claims. Marta Lamas decried the fact that Bishop García called a protest march against abortion which was attended by over 3,000 Catholics from the parishes in his diocese. She also called the Bishop's stance on abortion "antiquated."
The Bishops of Chiapas, in a July 1, 1991 pastoral letter entitled "The New Campaign against Life," condemned in detail the arguments advanced by CFFC. The letter denounced abortion as "cowardly," and rebuked CFFC directly:
On the occasion of the so-called "National Forum on Voluntary Motherhood and the Decriminalization of Abortion" held in the city of Tuxla Gutierrez, Chiapas, we, the Bishops of Chiapas, proclaim the following: ...
7. To this Forum was invited a group of foreigners that call itself "Catholic Women for Choice," that is, women who say they support legalized abortion. If this be true, we have to affirm with utmost clarity that such a position nullified their claims to be Catholics. They have excommunicated themselves; they have placed themselves outside the Church. A truly Catholic woman is one who accepts the Church's doctrines. If she does not accept them, she is free to change her religion or to lose it; but she has no right to use the word "Catholic" because she is not a Catholic. Such manipulation of this word is deplorable, for only confusion results. Could it be a ploy by the organizers of the Forum to make people believe that within the Church there is no unanimity on this point? The Devil works that way.
CFFC's "Hispanic Project." In 1939, Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (later Planned Parenthood) launched the "Negro Project." This project persuaded influential American Blacks to accept birth control, and urged them to convince their followers and admirers to use it as well. The overall objective of the Negro Project was to reduce the birth rate of Blacks in support of a program of negative eugenics carried out in cooperation with the American Eugenics Society.35
In August 1991, CFFC launched its "Hispanic Project" in terms eerily reminiscent of the "Negro Project." The "Hispanic Project" is designed to reach Hispanic organizations in the United States in order to "educate" Hispanics on "reproductive health care" (this was also the objective of Sanger's "Negro Project").
Among the organizations working with CFFC are LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens), MANA (Mexican American National Association), NACOPRW (the National Conference of Puerto Rican Women), La Raza, Hispanic Women's Council, Hispanic Health Council, COSSMHO (National Coalition of Hispanic Health and Human Services Organizations), and Mujeres Latinas en Acciόn (Latin Women in Action).36
In 1992, CFFC followed up with the "Latina Initiative" in order "to provide information on reproductive health care and public policy to Hispanic organizations in the U.S." The "Latina Initiative" convinced several major Hispanic organizations to join CFFC in publicly demanding that Medicaid cover abortion services. Among these organizations are MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund); New York's National Latina Council; the Coalition of Women in Trade Unions (a branch of the AFL-CIO), NACOPRW; the Puerto Rican Education and Legal Defense Fund; and Promujer (Pro Woman) of Puerto Rico.37
CFFC has published a comic book in Spanish and has distributed it in Latin America. It is entitled "Y Maria fue Consultada para ser Madre de Dios" ["Mary Was Asked if She Wanted to be God's Mother"]. It depicts a young mother on its cover asking the Virgin Mary what she can do about her unwanted pregnancy. The comic book claims that, since God gave Mary the choice to say 'yes' or 'no,' every woman should have that choice.
This comic book is a perfect example of what CFFC does best: Use the deeply-held Faith of Hispanics against them in order to undermine their beliefs in the sanctity of human life. This is a reprehensible and dishonest tactic that does not seem to bother CFFC in the least.
The comic book makes the same discredited claims CFFC makes in the United States, and has the same function as its pamphlet entitled "Abortion: A Guide to Making Ethical Choices," whose purposes are to deceive Catholic women about authentic Catholic teachings and to salve their consciences as they decide to abort.
Some of the deceptions in the comic book include;
• that abortion is not always a sin, but that it depends on each case [of course, the language in the comic book makes certain that women can justify all abortions];
• that many bishops agree that contraception is a decision that should be left up to the couple [naturally, the comic book does not name any of these bishops];
• that, since the Pope has not made a formal infallible pronouncement on abortion, it is a matter left to the individual's conscience;
• that, if a person has a doubt concerning when personhood begins, there is freedom of conscience when deciding whether or not to have an abortion; and the hideous assertion that
• since God gave the Virgin Mary the freedom to choose whether or not to be the Mother of God, that He gives every woman the freedom to decide whether or not to have an abortion.38 Naturally, CFFC does not mention that God asked Our Lady to be the Mother of God before she conceived by the Holy Spirit.
CFFC also produced a video in Spanish entitled "Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir" ["Catholics for the Right to Decide"], in which it distorts the teaching of the Church on human sexuality, abortion and contraception. The video begins by showing a procession in which women are carrying a statue of the Virgin Mary, and includes interviews of very poor women who lament their economic inability to take care of their many children. CFFC cleverly manipulates the situation of extreme poverty of Latin America in its attempts to "justify" abortion in all circumstances.39
CFFC knows full well that it could never convince Latin American women to accept contraception, sterilization and abortion through any means but a distortion of the teachings of the Catholic Church. The use of faith as a weapon against an entire people is a despicable tactic worthy of the unprincipled propagandists of an age gone by.
CFFC's Push for Abortion Legalization in Brazil. CFFC has been agitating for legalized abortion in Brazil since 1988. In May of that year, Frances Kissling addressed legislators, aides, journalists and pro-abortion activists on "pro-choice Catholic" ethics and reproductive health politics at the Brazilian Parliament.40
[pic]
The cover of CFFC's Spanish-language comic book Y Maria fue
consultada para ser Madre de Dios ["Mary was Asked if She
wanted to be God's Mother"], a prime example of how it uses
the deep Faith of Latin Americans as a weapon against them.
CFFC joined other pro-abortion organizations in producing a film promoting the legalization of abortion, and showed it at the Federal Senate in Brazil during public debate over a bill that proposed decriminalizing abortion.41
CFFC grossly exaggerates statistics in its drive to obtain legalized abortion by any means possible. It said that "Four million abortions are performed annually in Brazil. ... Most significantly, ten percent, or 400,000 of the abortions, result in the death of women, because of poorly performed procedures."42
Pro-abortion groups often "cook the numbers" to make their point (recall that reformed abortionist Bernard Nathanson tried the same tactic in the United States by claiming that 5,000 to 10,000 American women died of illegal abortions each year). But CFFC has committed the wildest exaggeration any pro-abortion group has ever dared print. The Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (IBGE, or Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) showed that only 55,066 Brazilian women between the ages of 14 and 50 died of all causes in 1980. The IBGE figures were confirmed by World Health Organization statistics showing that 41,685 Brazilian women between the ages of 15 and 41 died in 1986 and, of these, 241 died of complications due to both legal and illegal abortions.
This means that CFFC is inflating the actual number of illegal abortion deaths by 166 thousand percent!43
CFFC also published and distributed a Brazilian pamphlet in Portuguese entitled "An Untold Story," which distorts Church teachings on abortion throughout history.44
Endnotes for Chapter 2.
1) Frances Kissling, quoted in Patricia Miller. "Religion, Reproductive Health and Access to Services." Conscience, Summer 2000, pages 2 to 8
2) Margot Patterson. "Bishops' Conference Approves Directives." National Catholic Reporter, June 29, 2001; "Editor's Note: Voices from Around the Globe." Conscience, Summer 2000.
3) Martin Haskell, from the Sixty Minutes episode of June 2, 1996 entitled "Partial Birth Abortion Ban;" Robert W. Lee. "The Partial-Birth "Choice"." New American, April 15, 1996, pages 4 to 8.
4) "CFFC Notebook: Reproductive Health." Conscience, Autumn 1996, page 43.
5) Conscience, July/August 1988, page 13.
6) "CFFC Notebook." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 50 to 52; "CFFC in the News." Conscience, May/June 1988, page 19.
7) Conscience, July/August 1988, page 13; Margaret Conway. "Public Funding: CFFC Makes Waves in Michigan Abortion Rights Battle." Conscience, May/June 1988, pages 12-16; "Religious Involvement Heats Up in Michigan." Conscience, July/August 1988, page 20.
8) CFFC press release dated May 11, 2001, at .
9) February 7, 2001 letter to Mr. Poul Nielson, Commissioner, Development European Union Humanitarian Aid Office. This letter was signed by 22 pro-abortion NGOs, including the American Humanist Association, Americans for Religious Liberty, Catholics for a Free Choice, the National Abortion Federation, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Population Action International, the Population Institute, and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
10) Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. Archbishop of Denver. "The Evil of Embryo Destruction." Zenit News Agency, July 28, 2001.
11) "Catholics for the Right to Decide in Latin America." Conscience, Summer 2001, page 27.
12) Maggie Hume. "Editor's Note: The Joy of ..." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, inside front cover.
13) Conscience, Summer 1997, page 31.
14) “Kissling Takes Debate to London: Challenging the Vatican on Abortion." Conscience, May/June 1988, page 24.
15) Ibid.
16) “Catholic Group Favours Liberal Abortion Option." The Irish Times, December 14, 1999.
17) The Irish Times, July, 13, 2000.
18) "CFFC Notebook: In Brief." Conscience, Autumn 1993, page 49.
19) Frances Kissling's July 1996 letter. WEDO News & Views, June-July 1996.
20) "CFFC Notebook: In Brief." Conscience, Spring 1996, page 33.
21) Revista de la Red de Salud, Isis International, Chile, April 1992.
22) "Announcement: New Network." Conscience, January/February 1991, page 21.
23) Adelle-Marie Stan. "A Decade of Dissent." Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 24 to 26.
24) "Catholics for the Right to Decide in Latin America." Conscience, Summer 2001, pages 24 to 27.
25) Ibid.
26) Ibid.
27) Conciencia, January/July 1997, pages 3 to 5.
28) Ibid.
29) Alejandra Folgarait. "Mujeres Catόlicas Por el Derecho a Elegir" (Catholic Women for the Right To Choose). Página 12 (Buenos Aires, Argentina), June 16, 1994, page 3.
30) "Mexican Feminism: An Interview with Sylvia Marcos." Conscience, January/February 1991, pages 16 and 17.
31) Ana María Portugal [Editor]. Mujeres e Iglesia: Sexualidad y Aborto en América Latina ["Women and the Church: Sexuality and Abortion in Latin America"]. México, D.F.: Distribuciones Fontamara, S.A., 1989, pages vii, 21, 23, 58, 59, 76, 77, 97 and 118.
32) Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, March 1914 [Volume I, Number 1]. "On Picket Duty." Page 3. "The Margaret Sanger Papers" Web site at has all issues of The Women Rebel on line.
33) Ana María Portugal [Editor]. Mujeres e Iglesia: Sexualidad y Aborto en América Latina ["Women and the Church: Sexuality and Abortion in Latin America"]. México, D.F.: Distribuciones Fontamara, S.A., 1989, pages vii, 21, 23, 58, 59, 76, 77, 97 and 118.
34) ]"Mexican Feminism: An Interview with Sylvia Marcos." Conscience, January/February 1991, pages 16 and 17; Rosemary Radford Ruether. "Lessons from Chiapas." Conscience, Spring 1996, pages 36 and 37. In the "Letters" section of the June 1997 Catholic World Report, Bishop García stated that he had never met Mejías, and wanted it made perfectly clear that he and the other bishops of Chiapas vigorously opposed CFFC's efforts in their State.
35) Akua Furlow. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: What Really Happened [Sojourner Press], 2004.
36) Claudia Lόpez Muñiz. "Dear Readers" and "Catholics for a Free Choice - Hispanic Project." Instantes 1, August 16, 1992, page 2.
37) Ivan Roman. "Plan de abortos a pobres recibe apoyo Hispano" ["Abortion Planning for Poor Receives Hispanic Support]. El Nuevo Herald, April 2, 1993.
38) Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir. "Y María fue consultada para ser Madre de Dios" ["And Mary Was Consulted To Be God's Mother"]. México, D.F.: Centro Nacional Pro Maternidad Voluntaria, Despenalizaciόn y Legalizaciόn del Aborto.
39) Magaly Llaguno. Research paper "'Catholics for a Free Choice:' A Dossier by Vida Humana Internacional." December 1994, page 9.
40) Conscience, September/October 1988.
41) Associacao Nacional Prό-vida e Prό-Familia ["Pro-Life and Pro-Family Association"]. Boletin Informativo [Newsletter] Number 08, July/August 1994, page 6.
42) "Gazette." Conscience, May/June 1988, page 18.
43) Reuters, November 13, 1991; December 30, 1991 letter of Dr. Geraldo Hideu Osanai, President, Associacao Pro-Vida de Brasilia, to Andrew M. Nibley and Thomas D. Thompson of the Reuters News Agency in New York City.
44) Boletim Informativo, July/August 1994, op. cit.
Chapter 3
Why CFFC is Not a Catholic Organization
Nothing in Common With Catholicism. Catholics for a Free Choice presents itself as an authentically Catholic social justice organization in order to deceive uninformed people into believing that it is an authoritative voice on the teachings and ethics of the Catholic Church.
However, CFFC's ideology and its actions are in direct opposition to the doctrine of the Catholic Church;
• CFFC does not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church to teach on sexuality, nor does it recognize the authority of the Pope (see Argument #4, below). This makes the group technically both heretical and apostate.
• Instead of engaging in respectful dialogue with the leaders of the Church it claims to represent, CFFC viciously attacks them (for examples of some of the names CFFC has called the Pope and Catholic bishops, see Argument #12, below).
• CFFC has never once agreed with the Catholic bishops on any aspect of Church teaching on sexual ethics. Once again, CFFC has never offered to dialogue on such issues; rather, it is an opportunistic organization that publicly attacks Church teaching at every possible occasion.
• CFFC even denies the core beliefs of Christianity and rejects the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, as described later in this book.
CFFC has been condemned repeatedly by the Catholic bishops of several nations, who have unanimously agreed that CFFC is not Catholic in any way;
† In the United States, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) issued statements in 1984 and 1993 denying that CFFC is a Catholic organization. The 1993 statement said that "Many people may be led to believe that it is an authentic Catholic organization. It is not. It has no affiliation, formal or otherwise, with the Catholic Church." The bishops stated that CFFC "... has rejected unity with the Church and holds positions that deliberately contradict essential teachings of the Catholic Faith." The statement concluded that "Catholics for a Free Choice merits no recognition or support as a Catholic organization." The texts of the 1981, 1984 and 1993 NCCB statements are in Appendix A.
† In March of 1996, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska issued a statement condemning CFFC and other anti-Catholic groups. He warned that their members would be excommunicated if they continued their associations in these organizations, which hold beliefs that are incompatible with Catholic Faith. Indeed, the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska has condemned CFFC as being "virulently anti-Catholic."1
† Latin American Bishops have also condemned CFFC's activities. In a statement regarding CFFC, the Mexican Episcopal Conference affirmed that "... no group which promotes abortion can legitimately call itself "Catholic"." The Conference quoted Canons 215 & 216, saying that "no initiative, however, can lay claim to the title 'catholic' without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority" [March 23, 1995].
† The Permanent Episcopal Conference of Uruguay stated that "We find ourselves obligated to strongly reiterate that the organization 'Catholics for a Free Choice' hasn't any formal affiliation with the Catholic Church and expressly contradicts the Church's genuine teachings" ["Declaration of the Permanent Episcopal Conference of Uruguay," March 24, 1995].
† On May 10, 2000, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops used exceptionally strong language condemning CFFC in reaction to its "See Change" campaign. The text of this statement is in Appendix A.
† In summary, despite CFFC's occasional claims to the contrary, no Catholic bishop, no matter how liberal his leanings, has ever endorsed the organization, its tactics, or its objectives.
The person who can best describe the un-Catholic and anti-Catholic character of Catholics for a Free Choice is former CFFC Board of Directors member Marjorie Reiley Maguire, who said that
CFFC does not deserve [United Nations] accreditation because it has actually become an anti-woman organization. Various personal experiences with CFFC have led me to believe that its agenda is no longer simply to defend the legality of a woman's abortion choice against efforts to recriminalize that choice. Instead, I now see CFFC's agenda as the promotion of abortion, the defense of every abortion decision as a good, moral choice and the related agenda of persuading society to cast off any moral constraints about sexual behavior. I don't think this is a Catholic or pro-woman agenda whether you are liberal or conservative, pro-life or pro-choice. ... CFFC's claim to the name "Catholic" is very questionable. Even if most of its dues-paying members were baptized Catholics, that does not necessarily make them "Catholic" today. Only an outdated, legalistic, zap theology, which CFFC adherents reject in every other respect, would call people Catholic simply because they were baptized. ... Additionally, I think that the label "Catholic" is proper only for a person who participates in the sacramental life of the church. Thus, regular attendance at Mass (except for the elderly and invalids) seems to be the minimum sign of membership in the church. When I was involved with CFFC, I was never aware that any of its leaders attended Mass. Furthermore, various conversations and experiences convinced me they did not. I myself did not. Today I see this failure as proof that I was not actually a Catholic for a Free Choice.2
A Parallel. CFFC members claim with straight faces that they are "Catholics in good standing," while simultaneously ignoring and ridiculing the teachings of the Church that do not happen to accommodate their lifestyles.
Imagine, if you will, a person who joins the Army and then chooses which regulations to follow (only the easy ones) and which he will not follow (because they are personally distasteful to him). This person does not wear the uniform (too conformist) and will not salute officers (too slavish). He detests manual labor and work details. This person also refuses to even touch a weapon because he is a pacifist. He also loudly criticizes every decision made by his officers, and publicly questions their fitness and competence at every opportunity.
How long would this person last in the Army?
Not very long, because he would be immediately court-martialed and discharged!
We should apply the same parallel to the members of Catholics for a Free Choice.
Every organization, whether secular or religious, should have the right to formulate its own dogma and doctrine. It should be allowed to teach these beliefs to those willing to listen and should be permitted to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
Those who disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church certainly have the right to criticize them. But they do not have the right to aggressively undermine these teachings with underhanded and dishonest tactics. They do not have the right to deliberately misrepresent and distort Church teachings and history in order to achieve their own goals. They do not have the right to whip up hatred against the Church. And they certainly do not have the right to proclaim themselves "members in good standing."
But members of CFFC and other dissenting groups do not have the courage to simply get out of the Church and let those who want to embrace true Catholicism do so in peace.
Why don't the dissenters simply leave?
Because, as long as the Roman Catholic Church exists in Her current form, and as long as Her teachings on moral issues remain inviolate, Her very existence will be a rebuke to those committing immoral acts and will cause them to feel guilty, whether they are inside or outside of the Church. So CFFC's members emphasize not personal repentance and sanctification, but the removal of the sensation of guilt while continuing and rationalizing their own sinful behaviors. They can only do this by changing the teachings of the Church to support their lifestyles.
After a person begins to sin, he must rationalize his own behavior in order to live with himself. What better way to do this than to band together with those who think and act like him? CFFC and its supporters can praise one another for being "courageous," stroke one another, denounce authentic Catholics together, and make plans to entice (or coerce) everyone else into being just like them.
The only way the members of CFFC can be free of their burden of guilt is if everyone in the Church accepts and applauds their immoral acts. And the only way to achieve this is to drain the Church of Her vitality, in the same way a host of tiny spiders drains the vital fluids from a beautiful butterfly.
Endnotes for Chapter 3.
1) Southern Nebraska Register, March 22, 1996.
2) Marjorie Reiley Maguire (former member of the CFFC Board of Directors). "Not Catholic." National Catholic Reporter, April 21, 1995, page 18.
Chapter 4
Frances Kissling: The “Cardinal of Death”
Frances Kissling: The "Cardinal of Death."
Frances Kissling was the longtime President of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice, and this position suits her morality and theology perfectly. There was no more ideal person to run CFFC.
Kissling likes to mention her background as a nun (conveniently not mentioning that she quit the Sisters of St. Joseph after only six months). Kissling basks in the title "The Flying Nun," but is no more a nun than a person who drops out of medical school after six months is a doctor.1 We would also question the honesty of a man who strutted around calling himself "Father" after making it only halfway through his first year of seminary.
[pic]
"Yes, we really are talking about revolution. ...
I've spent years looking for a government I
could overthrow without going to jail, and I've
found it in the Church" ― Frances Kissling.
She boasts about shacking up with men, says that she would have an abortion if she got pregnant, and says she was sterilized in 1978 (the Catholic Church teaches that sterilization is a mortal sin).2
She co-founded the National Abortion Federation (NAF), the abortionists' trade association, and worked as a highly-placed official of the International Projects Assistant Services (IPAS), which specializes in subverting the law in foreign countries and setting up illegal abortion mills in contravention to local beliefs and customs.3. Kissling herself smuggled illegal abortion equipment into Mexico, and says that "I have no problem in helping women get illegal abortions."4 Meanwhile, of course, she and her organization insist that pro-lifers who break the law are evil and misguided.
Kissling's system of "ethics" appears to transcend national statutes as easily as it does Church teachings.
Kissling also helped set up illegal abortion mills in Mexico and Italy, and ran two New York abortuaries: The Eastern Women's Center and the Pelham Medical Group, which, she boasts, killed more than 50,000 preborn babies during the time period 1970 to 1973.5 This activity is a source of pride to Kissling and to CFFC, which bragged that
A cardinal caught running an illegal abortion clinic in Rome is the stuff of papal nightmares. But Frances Kissling, president of the American lobby group, Catholics for a Free Choice, is no ordinary prince of the church. Nicknamed "The Cardinal" by friends and foes for her determined opposition to the Catholic hierarchy's teaching on abortion, she actually went so far as to defiantly found an abortion clinic within sight of the Vatican's walls.6
Kissling has boasted about a wide range of pro-abortion acts which represent enough grave sin to excommunicate her a thousand times. She revealed her totally pro-abortion worldview and her stark hatred of the Church she claims as her own when she raved, "The Catholic religion makes the fetus into an icon, a figure of religious veneration, which I think is sick, really sick."7
Despite Scripture mentioning sexual behavior scores of times, Kissling blandly asserts that "I don't think God cares very much about our sexual activity."8
Endnotes for Chapter 4.
1) "Kissling Takes Debate to London: Challenging the Vatican on Abortion." Conscience, May/June 1988, story beginning on back cover. This article was also printed in the March 31, 1988 edition of The Irish Times.
2) Ron Brackin. "'Sister' Frances Kissling: Cardinal of Death." Liberty Report, January 1987.
3) Ibid.
4) C. Joseph Doyle. "Agent of Influence." Catholic World Report, January 1994, pages 44 and 45.
5) Mary Meehan. "Kissling Speaks Frankly about Past Activism." National Catholic Register, September 7, 1986, page 1.
6) "Kissling Takes Debate to London: Challenging the Vatican on Abortion." Conscience, May/June 1988, story beginning on back cover.
7) Mary Meehan. "Kissling Speaks Frankly about Past Activism." National Catholic Register, September 7, 1986, page 1.
8) Ibid.
Chapter 5
CFFC’s Connections to the Radical
Feminist and New Age Movements
"See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ."
― The Letter of St. Paul to the Colossians [2:8].
Overview. CFFC is intimately connected to the Women-Church and New Age movements which have deeply infiltrated many dioceses in the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II was keenly aware of this danger and said that "New Age ideas sometimes make inroads into [Church] preaching, catechesis, conferences and retreats, and in this way come to influence even practicing Catholics, who may not be conscious of the incompatibility of such ideas with the faith of the Church. New Age ideas propose a pantheistic concept of God which is incompatible with Sacred Scripture and Tradition."1
Real Catholics must be made aware of the fact that occult or "New Age" feminists are literally trying to replace Catholicism with a Goddess-centered faith under the disguise of dissent. They are striving to eliminate any trace of the Father and of the Son, to include a reworking of the Sacraments and an overhauling of Church language.
In short, they are attempting to perform a Godectomy on the Roman Catholic Church.
[pic]
"I say 'thank you' for the orange that dies for me this morning
when I drink a glass of orange juice by promising to be as succulent
and round and radiant as an orange throughout the day"
― Matthew Fox, one of Women-Church's spiritual leaders.
The founder of the Women-Church movement is pro-abortion feminist Rosemary Radford Ruether, a self-styled "Catholic theologian" who was also a board member of CFFC. Ruether was instrumental in uniting many feminist groups into a coalition called the "Women-Church Convergence."2
In general, feminist theologians now refer to the feminist crusade in religion as "women-church," a "movement of 'self-identified women and women-identified men' from all denominations whose common goal is to reinterpret the Gospel from the perspective of women's liberation."3
Ruether claims that Women-Church is a movement of "radical Christianity" that "tends to see the traditional religion as false or fallen," and that "anticipates the New Age, expecting it soon to dawn upon the earth and seeking to pattern itself after what it believes to be the social order of redemption."4 Ruether admits that "Women-Church is rooted in creation-based spirituality, which is the occult, the New Age teachings of Matthew Fox, who was expelled from the Dominican Order."5
We certainly must acknowledge that Fox definitely has some original ideas. He said in his book Creation Spirituality that "I say 'thank you' for the orange that dies for me this morning when I drink a glass of orange juice by promising to be as succulent and round and radiant as an orange throughout the day." In his book, Fox also praises a friend who "liberates" ice cubes from freezers at gas stations by throwing them into nearby ponds.
Strangely, Fox, who cares so deeply for the welfare of fruit and ice cubes, does not seem to have any room left in his heart for preborn human babies.
This is the kind of "theologian" that CFFC finds “credible.”
Ruether fully intends to completely destroy Catholicism and replace it with a "New Age" construct. She says that
As Women-Church we repudiate the idol of patriarchy ... Our God and Goddess, who is mother and father, friend, lover and helper, did not create this idol and is not represented by this idol ... this idol blasphemes by claiming to speak in the name of Jesus and to carry out his redemptive mission, while crushing and turning to its opposite all that he came to teach ... all social reforms superimposed upon our sick civilization can be no more effective than a bandage on a gaping and putrefying wound. Only the complete and total demolition of the social body will cure the fatal sickness. Only the overthrow of the three-thousand-year-old beast of masculist materialism will save the race. ... No token accommodations will satisfy us. What is required is the total reconstruction of God, Christ, human nature, and society ... we know we will die unless a WomanChrist pops up (like a rabbit out of a hat) between breasted mountains ...6
CFFC shows that it is much more than just ideologically aligned with the New Age movement by enthusiastically promoting its rituals. "Led by ... Ruether ... women have created their own life-cycle ceremonies. They include rituals to mark the start of menopause, the union of a lesbian couple, mourning for a stillbirth and recovery from abortion."7
Ruether has not just attempted to graft New Age beliefs onto Christianity, but has rejected the core tenet of Christianity itself: That Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer. Ruether says that
Redemption does not mean sending down the divine from some higher spiritual world where God is located, into a bodily world we find is alien to God, but rather perhaps it means the welling up of authentic life in a true creation transforming us from death-dealing to life-giving relations. It is to say 'Flesh became Word,' not 'Word became Flesh.' ... Some theologians, such as womanist Delores Williams, have answered this question by the decisive rejection of the idea that the cross, or Christ's suffering, is redemptive. It is not Jesus' suffering and death but His life as a praxis of protest against injustice in solidarity in His life, it is this praxis that is redemptive.8
What CFFC has done is turn the story of the Prodigal Son on its head. With all their talk about "patriarchy" and "victimization," they parody Luke 15:21 by saying "Father, You have sinned against us, and are no longer worthy of being called our Father."
CFFC's Pro-Abortion Rituals. In keeping with its rigidly pro-abortion ideology and its desire to reconstruct the Catholic Church, CFFC has formulated rituals to encourage and celebrate abortion ― but none to advocate or honor choosing life for a preborn child.
In 1992, CFFC published a pamphlet entitled "Liturgies for Responsible Reproduction," which included two ceremonies that conspicuously direct a woman's decision towards one choice only: Abortion. These "liturgies" supposedly "celebrate women's spirituality by affirming the integrity and holiness of their decisions," but focus solely on approval of the abortion decision.9
The first of these is the "Liturgy of Affirmation for Making a Difficult Decision," formulated by Diann Neu, co-director of WATER, the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual. Neu describes herself as a "feminist liberation theologian," and her "Liturgy" has five steps;
1) Gathering and singing "A favorite, comforting song, one that the woman likes;"
2) Prayer: "Praised be you, Mother and Father God, that you have given your people the power of choice. We are saddened that the life circumstances of (_____ woman's name or, if appropriate, woman's name and her partner's name) are such that she has had to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Such a choice is never simple. It is filled with pain and hurt, with anger and questions, but also with integrity and strength. We rejoice in her attention to choice;"
3) Read a poem or Scripture verse;
4) Blessing with oil, "As a sign of our affirmation of you and of your choice;" and
5) Closing or "blessing" song.
The second ceremony is entitled a "Liturgy for Seeking Wisdom," also consisting of five phases:
1) Play soothing background music;
2) "Light a candle, absorb its power, and pray;"
3) "Visualization:" Imagine yourself in ten years (a) with a child and (b) without a child. Find a "cozy room with a comfortable chair" and sit in it for a while;
4) Sing a song entitled "i found god in myself;" and
5) "... do something comforting, for example, drink a cup of tea or take a warm shower."
Neu also agitates relentlessly for a complete "makeover" of the Mass into a feminist construct, including the substitution of a whole cafeteria of elements for the bread and wine that, in a real Mass, would be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Among her recommendations are harvest bread ("for the harvest season"), cranberry bread, walnut-raisin bread, tortillas ("to celebrate Latin Americans"), nut bread ("for dreamers and prophets"), champagne ("celebrating festivity"), corn bread ("Native Americans and African Americans"), apple juice ("to reclaim women as holy ― Eve got a bad rap"), rice cakes (for Asian culture), milk (to celebrate nursing mothers), shortbread (for children), water ("women's lifegiving powers") and saltines (for the "salty elders" among us).10
[pic]
"No token accommodations will satisfy us. What is required is the total
reconstruction of God, Christ, human nature, and society" ― Rosemary Radford
Ruether, former CFFC Board member and admirer of the pagan god Ba'al.
Worshipping False God[ess]es. CFFC board member Mary Hunt was one of the most popular speakers at the "Re-Imagining Conference" held November 4-7, 1993, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
At this conference, radical feminists literally worshipped the "goddess of Wisdom" Sophia with prayers such as: "Our maker Sophia, we are women in your image ... Sophia, Creator God, Our mother Sophia, we celebrate your life-giving energy ... we celebrate the sensual life you give us ... We celebrate our bodyliness, our physicality, the sensations of pleasure, our oneness with earth and water."11
One conference participant claimed that "Sophia is the divine energy in women being unlocked by the goddess rituals." Another said "Sophia is the wisdom within me." And the conference program's introduction read: "Sophia is the place in you where the entire universe resides." As one critic of the conference said in reference to the cult of Sophia: "These extreme feminists have made for themselves an idol and they call that idol God. Without knowing it, they are worshipping themselves."12.
Actually, they do know it. They are worshipping themselves.
CFFC leaders also heartily endorse this cult of the "Wisdom goddess." As Donna Steichen reports, "[Rosemary] Ruether made several references [at a synod of Women-Church], as she had in her Women-Church book, to Wisdom as God the Mother. She spoke of 'the inner voice of Mother Wisdom' and 'the source of life and new life which we call Mother Wisdom'."13
Ruether goes far beyond paying tribute to the mythical feminist goddesses. She even sings praises to the pagan god Ba'al, committing the same idolatry that caused God to punish the Israelites so many times;
... we see the death of Baal, overwhelmed by the forces of drought and death ... [the goddess Anath] buries him with rites of mourning ... From her sowing of the new wheat in the ground, Baal rises. With a cry of exaltation, we rejoice at the close of the drama: The Lord has arisen, is seated again on the throne. He reigns! Alleluia!14
It takes one's breath away to imagine that a person who calls herself a "Catholic theologian" can possibly praise pagan gods with such abandon. Ruether has obviously forgotten the confrontation between Elijah and the 450 priests of Ba'al [1 Kings 18:18-40]. The best response to Ruether might be to follow the lead of the prophet Elijah and mock her, saying "Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is musing, or he has gone aside, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened" [1 Kings 18:27].
But even paying tribute to Ba'al does not define the limit of CFFC's folly. It goes so far as to publish poems praising Lucifer in its Conscience Magazine. One of these short poems reads;
Lucifer, each note sounds like
your sweet name, lyrical, holy.
It bursts over heaven
while you break your long
back over the world.
Brother, first of us,
you never heard songs
like these. They shine
in heaven's edges.
For you, all
the angels are dancing."15
Conclusions. We have seen that Catholics for a Free Choice rejects Catholic teachings regarding sexual morality.
But CFFC goes much further than that.
It denies the authority of the Catholic Church to teach in God's name.
It worships pagan gods and goddesses, even the bloody Old Testament Ba'al.
It even glorifies Satan.
No thinking person can possibly believe that Catholics for a Free Choice even remotely resembles anything Christian or Catholic, despite all of its protestations to the contrary.
Endnotes for Chapter 5.
1) Pope John Paul II. "Be Faithful in Expounding the Whole Ministry of Christ!" Discourse to the American Bishops from Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska during their ad limina visit, May 28, 1993.
2) Donna Steichen. Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism [San Francisco: Ignatius Press], 1991, pages 32, 156 and 304.
3) Kenneth L. Woodward. "Feminism and the Churches." Newsweek Magazine, February 13, 1989, page 60.
4) Rosemary Radford Ruether. Women-Church: Theology and Practice of Feminist Liturgical Communities [San Francisco: Harper & Row], 1985, pages 15 to 23, cited by Steichen, page 165.
5) Molly O'Neill, "Roman Catholic Rebel Becomes a Cause Célèbre." The New York Times, March 17, 1993, page C1.
6) Rosemary Radford Ruether. Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology [San Francisco: Beacon Press], 1985.
7) Kenneth L. Woodward. "Feminism and the Churches." Newsweek Magazine, February 13, 1989, page 60.
8) Rosemary Radford Ruether, quoted in C. Powell Sykes. "Rosemary Radford Ruether gives 1998 Sprunt Lectures; Says 'Flesh became Word not Word became Flesh'." The Presbyterian Layman, March/April 1998.
9) Diann Neu, pamphlet entitled "Liturgy of Affirmation for Making a Difficult Decision." At the bottom of this pamphlet, it says "Liturgies by Diann Neu, feminist liberation theologian and co-director of WATER, the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual in Silver Spring, MD."
In CFFC's publication Conscience, Neu also describes a "rite" she made up as a "mourning ceremony" for women who have had an abortion. In order to celebrate this ritual, the woman must ask the abortionist to give her the remains of her aborted baby, and then she gathers her sexual 'partner' and her friends. Together they say prayers such as: "Blessed are you, Holy One, mother and father, that you have given us the power of choice. We are saddened that the life circumstances of (name of woman) and (name of man) are such that the choice to bring this pregnancy to completion is not a life-giving one for all involved. Such a choice is never simple; it's filled with pain and hurt, with anger and questions. Our beloved sister has made a very hard choice. We promise to continue to stand with her in her ongoing life. Blessed are you, Holy One, for your presence with her." Then when the woman who aborted explains why she made that decision, she opens a hole in the backyard, with the help of her mate, and both say the following prayer, while they bury their unborn baby: "O Mother Earth, we lay this spirit to rest in your bosom." Neu suggests that this "rite" and other similar ones be used to bring "healing," and she says that they "celebrate women's spirituality" [Diann Neu. "Affirming Our Work, Creating Our Community." Conscience, January/February 1989, page 12.
10) Verbatim transcript of the talk given by Diann Neu during the 1996 Call to Action National Conference in Detroit.
11) "Wisdom" is the female personification of God's wisdom in Proverbs, Chapters 7 through 10, a purely literary device used by the author to enhance the importance of wisdom for right conduct in daily life. In the New Testament the personification is seen as pointing to Christ, in whom God's wisdom took flesh. Quotes are from The Re-Imagining Conference: A Report. American Family Association, April, 1994.
12) Ibid.
13) Donna Steichen. Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism [San Francisco: Ignatius Press], 1991, pages 32, 156 and 304.
14) Rosemary Radford Ruether. Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology [San Francisco: Beacon Press], 1985.
15) Thomas Marron. "Songs for the Angels. Three: Gabriel Considers His Horn." Conscience, Spring 1994, page 20.
Chapter 6
CFFC’s Interesting Financial History
Where CFFC Gets Its Money. CFFC often claims that it represents the majority of Catholics. Yet according to its income tax returns, CFFC has not received a dime from private donors in years (see Figure 7). If CFFC is so popular, why doesn't it receive any funding from individual Catholics?
Perhaps CFFC just doesn't need the support of the people. After all, it is backed by foundations with combined assets of more than forty billion dollars.
During the time period 1980 to 2011, CFFC received more than 62 million dollars in donations from private foundations, and lately this number has been increasing rapidly. This spreadsheet shows how CFFC's annual foundation funding has increased eighty fold, from a paltry $65,500 in 1979 to $5.3 million in 2009.
| |
|Foundation Grants Given to Catholics for a |
|Free Choice, 1980-2011, Ranked by Donor |
| | |Amount |
| | |Donated |
|Rank |Donor |to CFFC |
|(1) | Ford Foundation |$ 14,506,778 |
|(2) | Buffett Foundation |$ 12,007,135 |
|(3) | Packard Foundation |$ 7,593,800 |
|(4) | MacArthur Foundation |$ 6,602,650 |
|(5) | Hewlett Foundation |$ 4,398,000 |
|(6) | Educational Foundation of America |$ 1,457,900 |
|(7) | Robert Sterling Clark Foundation |$ 1,299,000 |
|(8) | Huber Foundation |$ 1,160,000 |
|(9) | General Service Foundation |$ 1,132,635 |
|(10) | Sunnen Foundation |$ 1,066,700 |
|(11) | Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation |$ 1,000,000 |
|(12) | George Gund Foundation |$ 856,208 |
|(13) | Open Society Institute (OSI) |$ 850,000 |
|(14) | Scherman Foundation |$ 770,000 |
|(15) | Moriah Fund |$ 725,000 |
|(16) | Public Welfare Foundation (PWF) |$ 590,000 |
|(17) | Compton Foundation |$ 558,000 |
|(18) | Global Fund for Women (GFW) |$ 538,500 |
|(19) | Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund |$ 490,000 |
|(20) | Wallace Global Fund |$ 415,000 |
|(21) | Bergstrom Foundation |$ 410,000 |
|(22) | Leland Fikes Foundation |$ 405,000 |
|(23) | Turner Foundation |$ 345,000 |
|(24) | Weeden Foundation |$ 275,000 |
|(25) | Tosa Foundation |$ 270,000 |
|(26) | John Merck Fund |$ 268,775 |
|(27) | Albert A. List Foundation |$ 248,850 |
|(28) | Brush Foundation |$ 247,353 |
|(29) | Westwind Foundation |$ 230,000 |
|(30) | Prospect Hill Foundation |$ 214,500 |
| | All Other Grants |$ 1,739,425 |
| | | |
| | Total Grants to CFFC, 1980-2011 |$62,671,209 |
|NOTES: This list is necessarily incomplete, because many records are not available to the general public. For a detailed |
|year-by-year summary of foundation donations to Catholics for a Free Choice, click here. |
CFFC may be unique among non-profit groups in that its income is almost entirely derived from donations from private foundations.
The motivations of the primary funders of CFFC are glaringly obvious in the descriptions of the purposes of their grants.
Some examples:
• "For projects in Central/South America ― reproductive rights," "For projects in Latin America," and "For projects in Mexico and general support" [Leland Fikes Foundation].
• "General support for work with their Latin American partners ― Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir. CFFC is the leading Catholic-based critic of the Church's contraception and abortion positions. Funds will help them maintain a strong media presence in Mexico, counter the efforts of Human Life International in Bolivia, and support their publications and technical assistance services" [Weeden Foundation].
• "For continued support for public education and dissemination of Catholic pro-choice values [in Mexico and Brazil];" "To promote public discussion among Catholics in Mexico on sexual and reproductive health;" and "For consolidation of pro-choice Catholic groups in four Latin American countries: Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Peru" [Ford Foundation].
• "To raise awareness of Catholic support for reproductive health care and to counter the Catholic Church's attempts to undermine reproductive freedom;" "For the organization's work to counter efforts of the Roman Catholic Church to limit legal access to reproductive health care [in Latin America];" "To fund the Chiapas Initiative, a public education campaign in Mexico, to assure participation of pro-choice women's organizations in the debate regarding expansion of legal abortion;" and "To support Latin American Program which utilizes ethical and theological perspectives and service-oriented methods to assist Latin American Catholics with issue of reproductive choice" [General Service Foundation].
• Most incredibly, "For [a] program to educate American Catholics about [the] wide diversity of opinion that exists within [the] Church on [the] issue of reproductive freedom, and to provide Catholic citizens with a rational alternative to Church doctrine" and "for continued support of CFFC's research on the Catholic Right, mergers of Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals, and a new initiative challenging the Vatican's obstruction of the United Nation's delivery of reproductive health care internationally" [Robert Sterling Clark Foundation].
• CFFC has also received more than $350,000 from the Turner Foundation. Ted Turner has called Christians "bozos," and has referred to Christianity as "a religion for losers." He has also proposed "Ten Voluntary Initiatives" as a replacement for the Ten Commandments. The third of these “Voluntary Initiatives” is "I promise to have no more than two children, or no more than my nation suggests." He has also said that "What we need to have for 100 years is a one-child policy ... If everybody voluntarily had one child for 100 years, we'd basically be back to 2 billion people, and we could do it without a mass die-off and the kind of misery you see on TV in Rwanda ... "Increase and multiply," that's what is says in the Bible, right? Now scratch that out and say, "Multiply in a very limited way, because there's too many people."1 The fact that CFFC can accept money from a foundation that was initiated by such an outspoken anti-Christian bigot shows that it is not at all selective about where it gets its money from [remember Playboy?]
We must ask ourselves why these foundations give tens of millions of dollars to an organization that is so patently and obviously anti-Catholic.
The foundations aren't intrinsically evil. Most of them don't hate the Catholic Church. They simply perceive it as an obstacle to doing what they see as good and altruistic work. And, to many of these foundations, "good works" includes donating tens of millions of dollars yearly to groups supporting "reproductive rights."
And, as always with anti-life groups, there is the money. Think of the billions of dollars annually these foundations can make if they can hook hundreds of millions of Latin American and African women on contraception. The investment in CFFC is certainly earning a hefty return.
Why do foundations give so much money to Catholics for a Free Choice? Their utilitarian thinking is simplistic and based upon unchecked and politically correct assumptions. It goes something like this;
1) There is poverty in Latin America.
2) Overpopulation causes poverty.
3) Therefore, we must reduce the population of Latin America in order to reduce poverty.
4) This can only be done through "family planning" programs.
5) But the vast majority of Latin Americans are Catholic.
6) The Catholic Church condemns abortion and contraception.
7) Therefore, we must convince Latin Americans to stop listening to the Church.
8) Let's fund CFFC, which accomplishes this under the cover of being "Catholic." If we attempted to subvert and undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church ourselves, people would call us "anti-Catholic." So let's leave the dirty work to Catholics for a Free Choice, because they can get away with it under the guise of being "Catholic" themselves.
How CFFC Spends Its Money. Just as interesting as its funding sources is how CFFC disposes of its income.
Let’s begin with CFFC’s bloated salaries.
One of the ways we can know that Catholics for a Free Choice is on the wrong side of the issues is that the world rewards its own. Fostering dissent, discord and heresy is richly profitable, as CFFC’s top officers well know. Frances Kissling, even though she was the former President of CFFC at the time, raked in a cool $1.2 million in salaries and benefits in just two years, as shown below;
| |
|Salaries and Benefits Paid to Top CFFC Officers, 2005-2009 |
|CFFC Officer |2005 |2006 |2007 |2008 |2009 |
| Frances Kissling |$218,433 |$226,758 |$852,518 |$388,818 |N/A |
| President |(see above) |(see above) |$196,166 |$210,980 |$222,136 |
| Vice President |$171,818 |$178,386 |$118,052 |$144,657 |$169,357 |
| Director-Research |$ 89,808 |$ 92,230 |$ 99,461 |(not given) |(not given) |
| Director-Finance |$ 74,743 |$ 79,811 |$ 89,302 |(not given) |(not given) |
| Director-Development |$ 62,739 |$ 59,754 |(not given) |(not given) |(not given) |
| Director-Communications |$ 74,935 |(not given) |(not given) |(not given) |(not given) |
| Director-Int. Programs |$ 87,413 |(not given) |(not given) |(not given) |(not given) |
| Senior Program Officer |(not given) |$ 79,696 |$ 74,533 |(not given) |(not given) |
| Public Policy Analyst |(not given) |$ 64,643 |$ 73,156 |(not given) |(not given) |
Second, let us take a look at the grants that CFFC gives to its affiliates and other pro-abortion organizations. During the ten-year time period 1998 to 2007 inclusive, CFFC awarded $6,992,536 in grants to 86 different organizations and individuals, as shown below.
| |
|Grants Awarded by Catholics for a Free Choice, 1998-2007 |
| | |Grants, |
|Rank |Recipient |1998-2007 |
|(1) | Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir ― Mexico |$2,862,704 |
|(2) | Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir ― Bolivia |$ 1,204,167 |
|(3) | Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir ― Brazil |$ 670,100 |
|(4) | Grupo de Infόrmacion en Reprόduccion Elegida (GIRE, Mexico) |$ 501,000 |
|(5) | Equidad de Genero (Mexico City, Mexico) |$ 500,000 |
|(6) | Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir ― Argentina |$ 187,067 |
|(7) | Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir ― Colombia |$ 120,300 |
|(8) | Choice USA |$ 100,000 |
|(9) | Fundacion Orientame (Bogota, Colombia) |$ 61,000 |
|(10) | CIDEM (La Paz, Bolivia) |$ 54,880 |
|(11) | Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir ― Chile |$ 51,300 |
|(12) | Cotidiano Mujer (Montevideo, Uruguay) |$ 40,000 |
|(13) | CLADEM (Lima, Peru) |$ 35,750 |
|(14) | Colegio Mexiquense (Zinacantepec, Mexico) |$ 35,000 |
|(15) | Mujer y Salud en Uruguay (Montevideo, Uruguay) |$ 35,000 |
|(16) | Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir ― Uruguay |$ 35,000 |
|(17) | Sophia Center (Oakland, California) |$ 30,000 |
|(18) | Center for Women's Studies (Garki-Abuja, Nigeria) |$ 30,000 |
|(19) | Catholics for a Free Choice ― Canada |$ 27,500 |
|(20) | CORPUS (National Association for a Married Priesthood |$ 25,000 |
|(21) | Center for Health and Social Policy (CHASP, San Francisco) |$ 22,000 |
|(22) | House of World Cultures (Berlin, Germany) |$ 18,000 |
|(23) | Irish Family Planning Association (affiliate of IPPF) |$ 16,300 |
|(24) | Women's Link Worldwide (Bogota, Colombia) |$ 15,000 |
|(25) | Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir ― Nicaragua |$ 15,000 |
| | All Other Grants |$ 300,468 |
| | | |
| | Total Grants by CFFC, 1998-2007 |$6,992,536 |
| NOTE: For a detailed year-by-year summary of grants by Catholics for a Free |
|Choice, click here. |
This spreadsheet shows that 93 percent of the $7 million in direct grants CFFC has distributed over the period 1998-2007 have been to pro-abortion organizations in Latin America. Nearly 80 percent of its Latin American grants, or about $5.1 million, has gone to its own affiliates in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua and Uruguay.
Finally, let us take a quick look at CFFC’s program expenses.
Part III of the CFFC IRS Forms 990 shows the allocation of expenses for CFFC’s various activities. These activities are divided into several specific categories, and do not include the grants listed above;
• "Education and Communications" has as its stated purpose “Raise awareness of reproductive health issues through publications, public speaking, media and seminars.” These activities are designed to misrepresent Catholic teaching on abortion in order to influence politics and judicial decisions regarding abortion and to help raise funds for CFFC's activities in Latin America.
• "Constituency Building" has as its stated purpose “Participation in coalitions and training, organizing and collaborating with Catholic and interfaith activities, leaders and organizations.” This money is spent in support of crucial collaboration with other pro-abortion and dissenting organizations.
• "Research" is described as “Research and monitoring related to the Catholic health care system and the initiatives of the Catholic bishops.” This focuses primarily on watching Catholic hospital mergers and keeping an eye on the activities of Catholic bishops, both in the United States and elsewhere.
• "International Program" is described as “International activities in several European countries and translation and distribution of foreign language publications.” CFFC uses these funds to support its activities in Europe, including coordination with the thriving dissent movement on that continent. Beginning in 2002, this category included activities involving the United Nations.
• "Latin America Program" is described as “Education and communications projects in Latin America including Spanish language publications, workshops and policy analysis. This program is designed to undermine Catholic teaching on reproductive issues in this most Catholic of continents, as already described. The primary objective of these expenses is to legalize abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy throughout Latin America.
• “Religion Counts” is described as “To provide a positive, ethically sensitive religious contribution to discourse on issues surrounding population, reproductive health, and development policies.” This, of course, is bureaucratese for “Push abortion as hard as possible wherever possible.”
• "Religion and the United Nations" is described as “Participation in United Nations conferences and meetings,” and is dedicated to muzzling the voice of the Vatican and presenting an "alternative Catholic" viewpoint on abortion, contraception and population control at major United Nations conferences.
• “Women, Religion and Public Policy” is described as “International study of the influence of religion on public policy related to women’s rights and reproductive health in a wide range of religious traditions.”
• “Condoms for Life” is described as a “Global campaign to end the Catholic bishops’ ban on condoms.”
The total amounts CFFC has spent on its programs are shown below.
| |
|Catholics for a Free Choice Program Expenditures, 1998-2007 |
|Program Area |Expenditures |
| Constituency Building |$4,683,283 |
| International Program |$4,560,302 |
| Latin American Program |$3,353,140 |
| Research |$3,217,059 |
| Education and Communication |$2,767,724 |
| Religion and the United Nations |$1,091,261 |
| Religion Counts |$ 531,657 |
| Condoms for Life |$ 184,534 |
| Women, Religion and Public Policy |$ 119,897 |
| | |
| Total CFFC Program Expenses, 1998-2007 |$20,508,857 |
Notes for Chapter 6.
1) The "Ten Voluntary Initiatives" are listed in Charles Trueheart. "Ted Turner Updates Moses: Cable Mogul Delivers Ten Commandments." The Washington Post, October 31, 1989, pages C1 and C6; Ted Turner, quoted in Thomas Goetz. "Billionaire Boy's Cause: Can Three of the World's Richest Men Put Overpopulation Back on the Public Agenda?" Downloaded from The Village Voice Online, October 1, 1997, .
Chapter 7
Answering CFFC’s Arguments
Why It is Important to Learn CFFC's Arguments.
In order to fight an opponent effectively, you must know how he thinks. You must be especially familiar with his arguments and how to refute them. This may require several hours of study, but it is the most powerful weapon you have (after prayer) in support of your mission, which is saving souls and protecting the Catholic Faith. If you do not have knowledge of your opponent and his propaganda, all of your efforts will be in vain: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" [Hosea 4:6]. This is the basic principle of apologetics.
The primary defenses of abortion given by Catholics for a Free Choice are twelve in number. These are divided into theological arguments (the ones you can prove false with logic) and secular arguments (the ones you can prove false with facts).
Like all other pro-abortion arguments, CFFC's are designed primarily to distract the listener and divert attention from the subject of abortion. In order to be effective, pro-lifers must be able to render these arguments ineffective by bringing attention back to the basic issue: Abortion.
Figure 12
Summary of CFFC's Twelve Primary Arguments for Abortion
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
CFFC'S Metaphysical or Theological (Faith-Based) Arguments
(1) ”The Bible says nothing about abortion.”
(2) ”You ae not guilty of sin if you follow your conscience.”
(3) ”The fetus is not a person.”
(4) ”The Church’s ban on abortion is not infallible.”
(5) ”Dissent is necessary for the life of the Church.”
(6) ”We respect the ability of women to make good decisions.”
CFFC'S Secular (Fact-Based) Arguments
(7) Don’t call us “pro-abortion.” We are “pro-choice.”
(8) ”The majority fo Catholics are pro-choice.”
(9) “If you want to stop abortion, you must support contraception.”
(10) “The celibate male priesthood has no right to speak about abortion.”
(11) “The Church’s teachings on abortion have changed many times.”
(12) ”We respect the right of others to hold opinions different from ours.”
CFFC Argument #1:
"The Bible says nothing about abortion."
What Catholics for a Free Choice Says.
"There has been no systematic thinking in Jewish-Christian tradition on abortion. There is nothing in the Bible on it."
― Former CFFC board member and ex-priest Daniel C. Maguire.1
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
1) It is true that the Bible does not directly condemn abortion. However, the Bible teaches that there is a child in the womb, and it does condemn the killing of the innocent ― specifically the practice of child sacrifice.2 Preborn children are undeniably innocent, because they lack the intent to commit sin or do harm.
2) All religious people agree that God opens and shuts the womb and infuses the human body with a soul. This means that He certainly intended to create a human life, and we have no right to interfere with His will regarding its creation.
3) This argument is only a diversion, because CFFC heartily approves of many acts specifically condemned by the Bible, including fornication, adultery, homosexual acts and divorce.
4) Finally, the Bible certainly does not support the availability of abortion.
(1) The Bible Indirectly Condemns Abortion.
CFFC's statement that abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible is technically correct. However, this does not automatically mean that the Bible approves of abortion.
The modern horror of suctioning babies from the womb for money would have been wholly foreign and unimaginable to the minds of people in Biblical times, so an explicit condemnation of abortion would not have even occurred to the authors of the various books of the Bible.
There are many sins that the Bible condemns implicitly, or indirectly. For instance, the Commandment "thou shalt not kill" certainly applies to sins such as serial killing, terrorism and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians during warfare, though these are not specifically mentioned in the Bible.
How, then, may we know that the Bible indirectly condemns abortion?
We may do so through the following simple logical process.
a) The Bible condemns the killing of the innocent, i.e., the sinless.3
b) A preborn child is obviously innocent of any crime or actual sin, because he or she cannot possess the intent of doing evil. Pro-abortionists sometimes justify abortion by casting the preborn child in the role of an "aggressor." This is illogical, because aggression requires conscious intent.
c) The Bible teaches that human life, created and nurtured by God, is present in the womb of the woman from the very beginning. Psalm 139:13,15 praises God in these words: "For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother's womb. ... my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth."
Furthermore, God personally named and honored seven men before they were even born. Only persons merit names. These seven are Ishmael (Genesis 16:11); Isaac (Genesis 17:19); Josiah (1 Kings 13:2); Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:9); Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5); John the Baptist (Luke 1:13); and Jesus Himself (Matthew 1:21).4
God is not inconsistent. He has loved us all with an infinite love for all eternity ― long before we were even conceived. He has said to us "I have loved thee with an everlasting love" [Jeremiah 31:3]. If He values men He named, He values all of his created preborn human beings.
d) The conclusion is inevitable. If the Bible condemns the killing of the innocent (paragraph a, above), if preborn children are innocent (b, above), and if human life is present from fertilization (c, above), then the Bible also condemns the killing of preborn children.
No other honest conclusion is possible.
(2) Only God Has the Power to Open and Shut the Womb.
Religious persons on both sides of the abortion issue agree that God gives life, and that God gives the person a soul.
Martin Luther said that "Even if all the world were to combine forces, they could not bring about conception of a single child in any woman's womb nor cause it to be born; that is wholly the work of God alone."5
There are more than a dozen Biblical references to God opening and shutting the womb.6
Now, if we all agree that God gives life and confers the soul, by what right may we interfere with His will? God does not act randomly or without reason, despite what CFFC says in its literature.7 He creates every child for a purpose. Psalm 127 specifically refers to children as a "gift of the Lord" and as a "reward." We do not have the right to disrupt or destroy His plans. Abortion is a supremely arrogant act because it imposes our will over God's.
Is this not the definition of all sin ― stubbornly refusing to do God's will for our lives?
(3) The Biblical Argument is Just Another Diversion by CFFC.
Perhaps we should leave aside what the Bible does or does not say about abortion for a moment, and consider this question: Would Catholics for a Free Choice repudiate abortion if Scripture specifically and directly prohibited it?
The Bible repeatedly and forcefully condemns other sexual sins such as homosexual activity, divorce, fornication, and adultery,8 yet CFFC tolerates and even embraces all of these as "basic human rights." In spite of more than fifty Biblical passages denouncing these sins, Frances Kissling casually stated that "I really think God cares very little about the sexual rules, about who is sleeping with whom, other than to wish that we treat each other well and with respect."9
CFFC is obviously using the Bible as a diversion in exactly the same manner as it uses its fetal pain, fetal personhood, ensoulment and viability arguments. Even if theologians could somehow decisively prove that the Bible condemned abortion, CFFC would certainly not cease to advocate it, because CFFC does not care what the Bible says ― unless it can use the Bible as a mere tool to support its ideology.
Frances Kissling proves this when she said that "... we all have the obligation to interpret the gospels in light of the times. Anyone who thinks that the gospels were so explicit that they do not call for a strong element of interpretation is really not on this planet."10
(4) What Else Isn't in the Bible?
In order to be balanced and fair, we must ask the leaders of Catholics for a Free Choice a simple question: If they insist upon talking about the Bible, where does it justify abortion?
There is no phrase in the Bible remotely approaching the phrases "freedom of choice," "woman's body, woman's choice," "plan your family," "use your conscience," or any of the other popular pro-abortion slogans.
There is, however, the phrase "choose life, therefore, that you and your descendants may live" [Deuteronomy 30:19].
Conclusion.
It is true that the Bible does not use the word "abortion" in the way we use it and mean it in the modern day. However, if we examine Scripture in toto, we can only conclude that it repeatedly addresses the great value of human life, that human life is created in the image and likeness of God (even the preborn John the Baptist recognized the preborn Jesus as God), and that God loves each of us with an infinite love ― a love so great that He even sent His only Son to redeem us.
In light of this, there is no way a person who is honestly seeking the truth can conclude that the Bible supports prenatal killing in any way. Anyone who believes that it does is simply deceiving himself: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" [Proverbs 14:12].
Notes for CFFC Argument #1.
1) Daniel C. Maguire, quoted in Janice Hughes. "The Catholic Constituency: What Church Leaders Don't Tell Congress." Conscience, May/June 1988, pages 2 and 10.
2) The Bible condemns child sacrifice in Leviticus 20:2-5; Leviticus 18:21; 2 Kings 23:10; and Jeremiah 32:35.
3) See especially Deuteronomy 27:25 and 30:19; Amos 1:13; Jeremiah 7:6 and 22:17; Psalm 106:37-38; Proverbs 6:16-19; Isaiah 53:6; Luke 17:2; and Matthew 18:10,14.
4) See especially Psalm 139:13-16; Isaiah 44:24 and 64:8; and Jeremiah 1:5. Additionally, St. Paul rejoices that God "... set me apart before I was born ..." [Galatians 1:15].
5) Martin Luther. Luther's Works [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, Volume VII], page 21.
6) See specifically Genesis 29:31; 30:2,22; 49:25; 1 Samuel 1:5; Job 31:15; Psalm 139:13; Isaiah 44:2,24; 49:1,5; 66:9; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15;41-44; Wisdom 7:1; and Sirach 49:7.
7) An undated CFFC pamphlet entitled "Did You Know that Most Catholics Believe in Reproductive Freedom?" claims that "We believe that women should not be the victims of random fertility" [This sounds as if pregnancy bears no relation whatever to sexual activity]. ... "The Catholic hierarchy is trapped in an outdated authoritarianism which denies full equality to women and regards sex as evil." Marjorie Reiley Maguire has said that "The voice of the officers of the Catholic Church on reproductive matters speaks to me of a materialistic God ... whose greatest joy comes from playing cruel reproductive tricks on women and watching them squirm" [Marjorie Maguire, quoted in Phyllis Zagano. "The Limits of Choice." National Catholic Register, October 12, 1986].
8) Homosexual activity: See Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; and 2 Kings 23:7. Divorce: See Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Luke 16:18; and 1 Corinthians 7:10-15. Fornication: See 2 Chronicles 21:11; Isaiah 23:17; Ezekiel 16:26,29; Matthew 5:32, 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20,29, 21:25; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1, 6:13,18, 7:2, 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 1:7; and Revelation 2:14,20-21, 9:21, 14:8, 17:2,4, 18:3,9, and 19:2. Adultery: See Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:20, 19:20, 20:10-12; Deuteronomy 5:18, 22:13-29, 27:20, 27:23; Proverbs 6:26, 6:29, 6:32; Matthew 5:27,28,32, 15:19, 19:9,18; Mark 7:21, 10:11-12,19; Luke 16:18, 18:20; John 8:4-11, Romans 7:3, 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:5; and Hebrews 13:4.
9) Frances Kissling. "Divine Ecstasy: Sin, Asceticism and Sexuality in the Catholic Tradition." 's March 30, 1999 interview of cultural critic Camille Paglia, ex-priests Robert Francouer and Thomas Moore, religion professor Elaine Pagels, and Frances Kissling. Downloaded from religion on May 17, 2001.
10) Frances Kissling during a CNN interview. Quote downloaded from the CFFC Web site at on July 23, 2001.
[pic]
CFFC Argument #2:
"You are not guilty of sin if you follow your conscience."
What Catholics for a Free Choice Says.
"Church law affirms both the right and the responsibility of a Catholic to follow his or her conscience, even when it conflicts with church teaching. ... Catholic theology tells individuals to follow their own consciences on moral matters, even when one's conscience is in conflict with church teachings."
― Conscience Magazine.1
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
1) CFFC's understanding of "conscience" is fatally flawed. It wrongly believes that conscience is the source of morality, instead of the witness to the moral law, of which God is the source.
2) Regarding the principle of probabilism: When there is doubt regarding the presence of human life, the benefit of the doubt should always be given to life. This is true not only regarding Church teachings, but in everyday life as well.
3) CFFC consistently misuses the documents of Vatican II to support its concept of the human conscience.
(1) CFFC's Understanding of Conscience is Fatally Flawed.
CFFC's Concept of Conscience. Catholics for a Free Choice so heavily emphasizes the role of conscience in making decisions for abortion that even its newsletter ["A Newsjournal of Prochoice Catholic Opinion"] is entitled Conscience.
By contrast, a properly-formed and informed Catholic conscience is fully aware of the evil and murderous nature of abortion, and is led to vigorously oppose it at all times.
CFFC recognizes that it cannot logically support its pro-abortionism unless it misrepresents the true purpose of the human conscience. In order for a person's conscience to be conditioned to accept abortion and other evils, it must first decisively turn away from God's teachings and proclaim that it can determine for itself what is right and wrong, even ignoring all external standards if necessary in order to reach the desired conclusion.
In other words, CFFC must justify its position by stating that the only legitimate guide for the human conscience is moral relativism. This is the theory that there are no moral principles that exist independently of one's own opinions and feelings, and that there is no morality that is binding on all persons, everywhere and at all times. Of course, if each person's conscience is the source of morality, then morality is individualistic and therefore also relativistic and entirely subjective. This leads to "might is right" thinking, where the strong dominate the weak and justice is simply discarded in favor of utilitarianism and convenience. Examples of where this kind of thinking leads abound in modern society: Abortion, racism, sexism, rape, incest, euthanasia, terrorism, infanticide, and trafficking in women and children.
CFFC outlines its concept of 'conscience' in a pamphlet written by ex-nun Marjorie Reiley Maguire and ex-priest Daniel C. Maguire entitled "Abortion: A Guide to Making Ethical Choices."2
The section of this pamphlet addressing conscience is shown below, followed by comments. Paragraphs are lettered for clarification.
a) CFFC: "We are not born with something called conscience. Conscience is something that has to be formed. Conscience is our progressively refined ability to think about situations in which we are involved and evaluate their moral goodness or badness for us." [Comment: This first paragraph is theologically correct. However, this is a common CFFC tactic: Begin by stating the truth, and then smoothly and seamlessly transition into falsehoods].
b) CFFC: "To make this evaluation we bring to bear on the situation the reasoning process of our mind, the feelings of our heart, the standards of moral behavior we have learned from society, and, where appropriate, religious teachings. ..." [Comment: This statement shows that CFFC has no problem with deliberately misinforming a person's conscience. In fact, this is the primary mission of CFFC ― to provide an "alternative" view of the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion and other sins. Notice that CFFC relegates "religious teachings" to last place in its list of moral determinants and, even then, only "where appropriate." CFFC claims that the "feelings of our heart" and society's morality are the primary yardsticks of what is right and wrong ― not Church teaching.
The Church has never taught that we should derive our morality from our feelings or emotions, or even from the standards set by the world. After all, if a church follows the world and not Christ, it is humanistic and not godly. Instead, we should develop our morality from studying Scripture and revelation as interpreted by the Church.
The Catechism identifies the primary danger of CFFC's brand of moral relativism: "The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings" [¶1783]].
c) CFFC: "Catholicism also teaches that the conscience of the person is the final guide to be followed when deciding to act. ... " [Comment: This statement is completely false. Some actions ― including abortion ― can never be "right," regardless of what our consciences tell us [see the Catechism, ¶1751, 1778, 1780 and 1790]. To illustrate how illogical this statement is, consider the parallel in the secular world. If we "follow our conscience" and break a law, the law still considers our actions a crime, and will hold us accountable.
CFFC sees the conscience as a teacher and as the supreme judge of moral truth. By contrast, the Catholic Church teaches that the individual conscience must be schooled to recognize, not to determine, what is and is not moral activity.
To illustrate, let us imagine for a moment that your pharmacist cannot read the dosage on the prescription for the heart medicine you need in order to stay alive. Would you prefer that he make a personal determination based on his life experience, or check with the proper authority ― the issuing physician ― to confirm the dosage?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "Objective rules of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience ... It is by the judgment of conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law" [¶1751, 1778].
Once again, CFFC quotes Church teachings ― but only when they seem to support CFFC's ideology. CFFC simply does not believe that Christ speaks with His authority through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Nor does it believe that the Magisterium is the only authentic interpreter of the Word of God, whether written in the Bible or oral in sacred tradition [see Dei Verbum, ¶10]].
d) CFFC: "You are not guilty of sin if you follow your conscience, even if most people in the Church would consider your action wrong. ..." [Comment: Once again, the Church has repeated many times that no abortion is licit, and that individual conscience must yield to Church teachings regarding the sanctity of human life. Sin is defined as rejecting God and His laws [Catechism, ¶398]; people or groups are not free to redefine "sin" to suit their own purposes].
e) CFFC: The Catholic Church, when considered in its rich diversity, teaches that some abortions can be moral and that conscience is the final arbiter of any abortion decision." [Comment: CFFC does not even represent its own positions accurately in its literature. CFFC considers all abortions moral. In its view, the only qualification for a "moral" abortion is that the woman wants it. CFFC even fought hard against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which would have prohibited the killing of near-term preborn children by delivering all but the head and then suctioning the brains out and collapsing the skull. How CFFC can defend such a ghastly procedure in the name of "Catholic justice" is truly incomprehensible].
CFFC distributed this brochure in bulk to abortion clinics. It is quite obvious that its purpose was to salve the consciences of Catholic women in the abortion clinic's waiting rooms so that its abortion 'sales' may go smoothly.
Unilateral Conscience. Other CFFC documents show that one of the primary features of its concept of "conscience" is that it is unilateral. This invalidates its philosophy regarding the role of conscience, because, in order to be consistent, rights regarding conscience must be extended to all people ― not just to those who hold the "approved" political ideology.
CFFC claims that "pro-choice" politicians must follow their consciences and vote for abortion even when the majority of their constituents are pro-life ― but that pro-life politicians must not follow their consciences, regardless of the beliefs of their constituents ― they must vote for abortion as well!
CFFC writer Christine E. Gudorf presents us with an example of this kind of glaring hypocrisy;
A politician should not acquiesce to the wishes of the majority when they contradict his or her conscience, as Mario Cuomo has attested in thrice vetoing capital punishment laws desired by the majority in New York State. At the same time, when fundamental moral values are in conflict, as they are in the abortion instance, and strong popular support for the conclusion reached by the legislator's conscience is absent, a strong case can be made for Catholic legislators' refusing to impose their conclusions of conscience on others.3
CFFC's other writings prove that its definition of "conscience" is nothing more than a tool to hoodwink legislators.
CFFC believes that, when a large majority of people have a politically conservative viewpoint that contradicts the view of a "pro-choice" politician, he must not contradict his own conscience by voting as the people want. However, if a large majority of the people demand a ban on, say, partial-birth abortions, then a pro-life legislator must not "impose his beliefs" on them by voting pro-life. As one CFFC writer claims, "A Catholic who believes abortion is immoral in all or most circumstances can still support its legality."4
As Argument #12 shows, CFFC admits that pro-lifers see abortion as murder, but then condemns all pro-life activities, from rescue missions to political organizing. Meanwhile, CFFC claims the right to commit any act in support of abortion ― including setting up abortion mills in countries where abortion is illegal.
In other words, CFFC declares that pro-lifers may not follow their consciences and fight abortion in any way, which is a gross violation of the consciences of those who oppose abortion. This attitude is not only hypocritical, it is blatantly unjust.
In summary, CFFC's concept of the role of conscience is not only in direct conflict with Church teachings, it is inconsistent because it is applied conditionally, depending entirely upon one's beliefs regarding abortion. This means that CFFC's concept of the human conscience is invalid.
It is true that Catholics must follow their consciences, but their consciences must be formed by the Word of God, which is authentically interpreted and taught only by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, to which Christ entrusted His authority to teach in His Name.
Pro-Lifers Must Be Forced to Conform. We can conclude that Catholics for a Free Choice does not really believe its own rhetoric when it so firmly states that "All Catholics have the right to follow their informed consciences in all matters."
As we can see from Argument #12, CFFC stridently condemns every activity by pro-lifers, even those as innocuous as helping pregnant women so they may carry their babies to term.
CFFC's glorification of "conscience" is a mere smoke screen. In practical effect, CFFC believes that only "pro-choice" Catholics have the right to follow their consciences.
In 1990, CFFC decisively proved, in the Paquette v. Regal Art Press case, that it has no regard for the consciences of those who disagree with it.
Chuck and Susan Baker are Catholics who run a private printing press named Regal Art in Vermont. In 1990, Linda Paquette, a member of the Vermont chapter of Catholics for a Free Choice (VCFC), asked the Bakers to print membership forms for her organization. The Bakers refused on the grounds that CFFC deliberately distorts Catholic teachings regarding abortion and contraception.
Incredibly, Paquette alleged that the Bakers should be forced to print her material, since VCFC "promotes freedom of conscience" and "tolerance." She also argued that pro-abortionism was part of her "religious creed." She complained to the Vermont Human Rights Commission, which threatened the Bakers with a $10,000 fine and a lawsuit for compensatory and punitive damages on the grounds of "religious discrimination."
Note that the Bakers operated a private printing press. They received not a dime of government money, and were not a tax-deductible charity. In other words, they were a private small business ― but CFFC attempted to force them to print material that violated their religious beliefs and their consciences, even though there were plenty of other printers available.
Eventually the lawsuit was dismissed, but only after a long and expensive court fight.5
With astounding hypocrisy, Marie Baldwin, head of VCFC, said that
We need reasoned debate, respectful dialogue, acknowledgement that each of us is entitled to opinions emanating from that secret core inside of us where we are alone with God. That core is conscience. It cannot be coerced, or controlled, or made to conform to the conscience of another.6
(2) On the Moral Principle of Probabilism.
CFFC's Interpretation of Probabilism. CFFC relies upon the moral principle of 'probabilism' to support its notion of an unformed and unrestricted conscience.
Former CFFC Board member and ex-priest Daniel Maguire defines his version of this concept;
The Catholic doctrine of probabilism ... blesses diversity of opinion in morally debated areas. ... Ubi dubium, ibi libertas ― "where there is doubt there is freedom" ― is probabilism's cardinal principle. ... The hallowed Catholic tradition of probabilism taught that in respectably debated issues, where good people for good reason disagree, conscience is free.7
Maguire continues by defining two ways in which probabilism may be used ― with external sources and with internal judgment;
Extrinsic probabilism involves reliance on authority figures, which in the past usually meant finding five or six reputable moral theologians who held the liberal view. ... Thus, if you found five or six theologians, known for their "prudence and learning" who held the liberal dissenting view, you could follow them in good conscience even if the other ten thousand theologians ― including the pope ― disagreed.
Intrinsic probabilism is attained by the individual in a do-it-yourself manner; it is accomplished when an individual person perceives the inapplicability of a particular teaching even without help from theologians or other authority figures.8
CFFC's Omissions. Maguire, of course, is brazenly omitting crucial qualifiers regarding the use of the principle of probabilism.
a) The fundamental principle of probabilism is lex dubia non obligat or "A doubtful law does not bind." This leads to the obvious conclusion that an established law does bind, and that the principle of probabilism may never be used when a prohibiting law is certain, as is the Church's prohibition of abortion.9 Maguire's statement that "... probabilism taught that in respectably debated issues, where good people for good reason disagree, conscience is free" is obviously a thinly-disguised endorsement of situational ethics, and is completely false.
Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia describes the proper role of probabilism: "Probabilism asserted that liberty from a law was to be held in possession until the opposite was held to probably be the case."10
Theologians originally proposed the principle of probabilism only for those very rare instances where scientific or theological knowledge of a subject was incomplete, or where the Church had not yet clearly outlined its teachings on the subject.
There is no doubt whatsoever about the Church's condemnation of abortion, sterilization and contraception. Probabilism can never apply to a universal moral prohibition. Therefore, the principle of probabilism does not apply in these cases.
Regarding abortion, no prudent person could possibly conclude that Church law is uncertain. Therefore, as the National Council of Catholic Bishops Committee on Doctrine has stated, "Catholic theology does not allow the application of the theory of probabilism in cases which contradict Church teaching or where the risk of taking life is present."11
In summary, when the Church has definitely prohibited an act, all Catholics must abstain from committing it.
CFFC is clearly abusing the principle of probabilism. We must remember that CFFC's primary mission is not to clear up doubt regarding abortion, but to generate it. Groups like CFFC can only flourish in a fog of confusion and uncertainty.
b) Maguire appears to be paraphrasing the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia which states, "The prevailing theory amongst Probabilists holds that if five or six theologians, notable for prudence and learning, independently adhere to an opinion their view is solidly probable, if it has not been set aside by authoritative decisions or by intrinsic arguments which they have failed to solve"12 [emphasis added].
If Maguire is indeed using the Catholic Encyclopedia, he omits the portion of the above quote that is italicized. Once again, the Church has declared repeatedly and forcefully that abortion is never licit. Therefore, the principle of probabilism is inapplicable to abortion.
c) The same 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia article Maguire appears to use also warns that "All moralists agree that mere flimsy reasons are insufficient to give an opinion solid probability, and also that the support of many theologians who are mere collectors of the opinions of others is unable to give solid probability to the view which they maintain."13
A review of CFFC literature shows that the most compelling reasons the organization offers to support the free availability of abortion do not even reach the standard of 'flimsy.' The most authoritative declarations by CFFC theologians either profess ignorance or arrive at unsupported and obviously false conclusions, e.g., "We don't know when life begins" and "the fetus is not human."
CFFC would not dare use the principle of probabilism in the secular sphere. No judge would accept probabilism as a defense if civil law was abundantly clear, because "ignorance of the law is no excuse." In civil society, if a person has any doubt whatever regarding the legality of an act, he studies the law further, and acts with prudence until its parameters are clear in his mind. He does not simply remain willfully ignorant and do whatever he pleases, intending to present probabilism as a defense in court.
d) CFFC applies probabilism inconsistently, and only to its own advantage. A theological principle, in order to be valid, must apply universally to all situations. CFFC no more sincerely believes in the principle of probabilism than it believes in the primacy of conscience, because it protests vociferously whenever social conservatives or pro-lifers employ either of these in support of their objectives.
CFFC's loud and persistent criticism of Pope Paul VI is the most obvious example of this double standard. Patty Crowley grumbles that "Twenty-five years later I feel betrayed by the church. If, as the majority of the [Papal birth control] commission believed, birth control is not intrinsically evil and if most Catholics practice birth control, how can the official church uphold Humanae Vitae?"14
Let us suppose for the sake of argument, that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Pope Paul VI employed the principle of probabilism when he adopted the minority report of the Papal Birth Control Commission when writing the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. Certainly there were many more than "five or six" theologians who agreed with him on the topic of contraception. Yet we see no defense of probabilism by CFFC in this case; instead, we see only complaints ― and lots of them.15
e) Finally, Maguire neglects to mention that probabilism was discarded as a theological construct long ago because of its obvious vulnerability to exactly the kind of abuses that CFFC promotes so vigorously.
Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia describes the ultimate fate of probabilism: "Probabilism degenerated into voluntarism and experienced all of the problems involved in that system of moral analysis." Voluntarism is the "moral doctrine which holds that the moral malice of actions is determined by the status of the agent's will or intention."16 Voluntarism is one of the disconnections between freedom and truth described in Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II's encyclical on moral principles.
The Dangers of Misusing Probabilism. To demonstrate how unworkable, illogical and hypocritical CFFC's application of the theory of probabilism really is, consider a person who holds an outrageous viewpoint that not even "five or six theologians" in the whole world would support.
What if this person is an American Nazi who believes in a White homeland in the Northwestern United States, where other races are excluded? What if he is a member of an organized pedophile group like the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)? What if he is someone who believes that murdering abortion clinic workers is "justifiable homicide?"
Not to worry ― in such a case, ex-priest Daniel Maguire says that we may just depend upon our own opinions to arrive at a decision with intrinsic, or "do-it-yourself" probabilism, as quoted above.
This misuse of the principle of probabilism leads to CFFC stating
If you carefully examine your conscience and then decide that an abortion is the most moral act you can do at this time, you're not committing a sin. Therefore, you're not excommunicated. Nor need you tell it in confession since, in your case, abortion is not a sin.
Maguire is backed up by Alberto Munera, S.J., who takes this reasoning to its logical conclusion: "That is to say, an act can be considered morally wrong only in an individual's conscience. And because only God can judge conscience, nobody can declare a specific human behavior "intrinsically wrong"."17
In other words, CFFC would rewrite Jesus's words in John 20:23 to read "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained, unless, of course, that person feels comfortable with what they did."
There are great dangers inherent with this interpretation of the principle of probabilism, which is indistinguishable from a straightforward statement of moral relativism.
If this reasoning were true, it could logically be extended to every area of moral theology, just as CFFC has done in the area of sexual ethics. This means that a lax Catholic could violate any Commandment or any of its derivative laws, and still claim to be a "faithful Catholic." This is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum. No member of CFFC would dare defend himself or herself in a civil court of law with such a specious argument.
A parallel situation illustrates these pitfalls.
Let us say for a moment that a certain self-professed "pro-lifer" is seriously considering shooting a local abortionist. Perhaps he has read the declaration justifying the use of deadly force against abortionists, which was signed by several self-styled "theologians." Perhaps, as CFFC has noted, he has seen the statement by Father David Trosch that people who work for abortion rights should be "sought out and terminated as vermin are terminated."18
Certainly this potential shooter could find several theologians (not necessarily Catholics) who support the use of deadly force to rescue preborn children. However, even if he could find no theologians to support this view, he could simply use Maguire's intrinsic probabilism to "perceive the inapplicability of a particular teaching" against murdering abortionists ― in his own case.
Undoubtedly, abortion clinic bombers have said to themselves (to paraphrase the above CFFC statement);
I have carefully examined my conscience and decided that bombing an abortion clinic is the most moral act I can do at this time, so I'm not committing a sin. Therefore, I'm not excommunicated. Nor need I tell it in confession since, in my case, bombing an abortion clinic is not a sin.
Obviously, CFFC would never permit the use of either extrinsic or intrinsic probabilism to justify the murder of an abortionist or the bombing of an abortion clinic. Yet it robustly defends the use of probabilism to rationalize abortion. This is blatant hypocrisy.
In summary, CFFC's application of probabilism is selective, and depends entirely upon its ideology regarding the issue being discussed. However, in order to be valid, a theological principle must apply consistently and universally in all possible situations. It may not be used unilaterally ― that is, to support only one viewpoint.
Unilateral Probabilism. CFFC's defense of unilateral (one-way) probabilism is evident in every issue of its journal Conscience. It continually tries to marginalize the beliefs of pro-lifers by claiming that "the majority of Catholics are pro-choice" (see Argument #8). In fact, the average issue of Conscience contains at least a dozen references to various polls and surveys.
If CFFC truly believes that probabilism is a valid theory, why does it continue to condemn pro-lifers as a "small and vocal minority?" If, as Daniel Maguire claims, we must respect the views of "five or six out of ten thousand," why does CFFC not respect the views of a much larger percentage of society ― the many millions who consciously describe themselves as pro-life?
CFFC has distorted the principle of probabilism far beyond its permissible boundaries in order to suit its own purposes.
In reality, the principle of probabilism cannot be used to justify any type of violence against human beings, whether abortionists or the preborn.
(3) CFFC's Misuse of Vatican II Documents.
Introduction. Catholics for a Free Choice is one of the many dissenting groups that frequently appeal to an ill-defined "Spirit of Vatican II" to support their demands for change in the Church. These groups use nebulous terms such as "renewal," "reinvigoration" and "rejuvenation" to describe their plans, all the time claiming that Vatican II would have blessed their goals.
Significantly, these organizations rarely quote documentation from Vatican II ― and, when they do, they invariably misinterpret the documents or misquote them entirely.
The two documents CFFC most often abuses are Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes.
The Declaration on Religious Freedom. Dissenters frequently quote the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae ("Declaration on Religious Freedom") in support of their contention that people should be able to do anything their "consciences" do not object to.
For example, CFFC claims that "According to the Vatican II, "Declaration on Religious Liberty;" "The Christian faithful have the civil right of freedom from interference in leading their lives according to their conscience"."19 Frances Kissling says "In its approach to the [abortion] issue, the organization [CFFC] relied on the Declaration on Religious Freedom, the Second Vatican Council's endorsement of the separation of church and state, pluralism, and the primacy of conscience."20
Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., principal author of the Declaration, anticipated this type of mendacity.
He stated in a footnote to the Abbott-Gallagher edition of the Council texts that
The Declaration does not base the right to the free exercise of religion on "freedom of conscience." Nowhere does this phrase occur. And the Declaration nowhere lends its authority to the theory for which the phrase frequently stands, namely, that I have the right to do what my conscience tells me to do, simply because my conscience tells me to do it. This is a perilous theory. Its particular peril is subjectivism ― the notion that, in the end, it is my conscience, and not the objective truth, which determines what is right and wrong, true or false.21
CFFC conveniently neglects to mention paragraph 8 of the Declaration, which notes that "... not a few can be found who seem inclined to use the name of freedom as the pretext for refusing to submit to authority and for making light of the duty of obedience."
Pope John Paul II defined the correct relationship between freedom and truth as it should be perceived by the conscience, and also described the role of the Magisterium, in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor;
Consequently "in the practical judgment of conscience," which imposes on the person the obligation to perform a given act, "the link between freedom and truth is made manifest." Precisely for this reason conscience expresses itself in acts of "judgment" which reflect the truth about the good, and not in arbitrary "decisions." The maturity and responsibility of these judgments ― and, when all is said and done, of the individual who is their subject ― are not measured by the liberation of the conscience from objective truth, in favor of an alleged autonomy in personal decisions, but, on the contrary, by an insistent search for truth and by allowing oneself to be guided by that truth in one's actions.
Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience "in the Church and her Magisterium." As the [Second Vatican] Council affirms: "In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself." It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians [¶61-62].
Frances Kissling tries to raise the specter of the entanglement of Church and State, which is anathema to all dissenters, as she states that "Catholic acceptance of the principle of the separation of church and state is very recent. It was only some thirty years ago, at the Second Vatican Council, that it was definitively accepted in the "Declaration on Religious Liberty"."22
In reality, the Declaration nowhere even mentions the separation of Church and State. Instead, it delineates the duties of the State with relation to the Church, stressing that all believers should be allowed to worship as they please.
Gaudium et Spes. CFFC also misrepresents Gaudium et Spes ("On the Church in the Modern World") when it claims that
While we may consider certain behavior morally wrong, somebody in his or her conscience may see no error or wrongdoing in it and thus commits no moral error in engaging in that behavior (Gaudium et Spes ¶26). That is to say, an act can be considered morally wrong only in an individual's conscience. And because only God can judge conscience, nobody can declare a specific behavior "intrinsically wrong."23
One must wonder if CFFC writers actually read the documents they quote. Gaudium et Spes [¶26] says nothing at all about conscience, but instead addresses the dignity ascribed to every human person. In fact, no passage in the entire document says anything even remotely approaching the above passage, even allowing for wide latitude in different translations.
However, Gaudium et Spes [¶16-17] does address the role of the human conscience. It says;
Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin. ... Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil. ... Before the judgment seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil.
Gaudium et Spes also contains a passage regarding practical atheism which may have been written with groups like CFFC in mind: "Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame ..." [¶19].
CFFC, which appeals to Gaudium et Spes frequently, never mentions that it squarely condemns the use of abortion and contraception;
Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. ... in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church's teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel [¶50].
Gaudium et Spes repeatedly condemns abortion, going so far as to call it an "unspeakable crime" [¶51].
It is really not surprising that CFFC, which relies so heavily on the "Spirit of Vatican II," picks and chooses among its teachings, just as it picks and chooses which Catholic doctrines it deems convenient.
Conclusion.
Catholics for a Free Choice possesses a fatally flawed concept of conscience, treating it as a teacher, not a pupil. Conscience is indeed a decision-maker, but it must be freely submitted to the law of God, to which it is a witness, not an arbiter.
The primary error of CFFC lies not in affirming the freedom of conscience to decide, but in misinterpreting the nature of such freedom. Freedom of conscience must be at the service of moral truth, but can never be its determinant.
CFFC's erroneous notion of freedom results in its many ideological inconsistencies and its schizophrenic antagonism between freedom and moral law. Moral law is the guide to authentic freedom so that it can reach its fulfillment in God ("You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free" [John 8:32]). Instead, CFFC "... chooses to disobey and do evil, an abuse of freedom that leads to "the slavery of sin"" [Romans 6:17].
In support of its twin goals of confusing the faithful and making Catholic women comfortable with choosing abortion, CFFC stretches the principle of probabilism until it resembles no more than a simple statement of situational ethics.
Finally, CFFC grossly misquotes Vatican II documents in support of its notions of conscience and free choice, and ignores the fact that the documents repeatedly condemn abortion in the most forceful terms.
Catholics for a Free Choice also proves by its own words and actions that it does not believe its own rhetoric regarding the role of conscience in making informed moral decisions, because it reserves the right to act to 'pro-choice' individuals alone, while stridently condemning every pro-life activity. It also has no problem with coercing pro-life Catholics into supporting its activities.
In summary, the primary role of 'conscience' for CFFC is to serve as a confusing diversion and a cover for its many abortion-promoting activities.
Notes on CFFC Argument #2.
1) Steve Askin. "Challenging the Right." Conscience, Spring 1994, pages 65 and 66; "Abortion and Catholic Thought: The Little-Known History." Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 2 to 5.
2) Marjorie Reiley Maguire and Daniel C. Maguire. "Abortion: A Guide to Making Ethical Choices." Washington, DC: Catholics For a Free Choice, 1983; also see "What is Conscience?" Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, page 61. Note that the Maguires say that four influences must be brought to bear on the situation. One is "the feelings of our heart" ― this while the woman is being pressured by abortion mill "counselors" to abort. Another is "the standards of moral behavior we have learned from society" ― once again, what standards are the women going to hear about in the waiting room of an abortion mill? Finally, notice that the last of the four influences is "religious teachings" ― but, of course, only "when appropriate."
3) Christine E. Gudorf. "To Make a Seamless Garment, Use a Single Piece of Cloth." Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 10 to 21.
4) Steve Askin. "Challenging the Right." Conscience, Spring 1994, pages 65 and 66.
5) Paquette v. Regal Art Press, Inc. [656 A.2d 209 (Vt. 1994)]. Atlantic Reporter, 2d Series, pages 209-211; "Pro-Life Printers Wage Battle of Conscience." Free Speech Advocates newsletter, January 1991, pages 2 and 3; "Vermont Printers Win Three-Year Fight." Catalyst [Journal of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights], April 1994, pages 1 and 12. The Bible contains many references to the human conscience. It describes the fate of someone who does not guard or "keep" his conscience [Hebrews 9:14 and 1 Peter 3:16], and who allows his conscience to become "seared" [1 Timothy 4:2]. The Bible also speaks of a "weak conscience" [1 Corinthians 8:7], a "wounded conscience" (1 Corinthians 8:12], a "good" and "perfect" conscience (Hebrews 9:9 and 13:18; 1 Peter 3:21; and 1 Timothy 1:5,19]; a "clear" (blameless) conscience [Acts 24:16 and 1 Timothy 3:9], and a conscience that is "evil" or defiled [Titus 1:15].
6) "Spotlight on Marie Baldwin." Conscience, September/October 1990, pages 18 to 20.
7) Daniel C. Maguire. "Where There's Doubt, There's Freedom." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, page 15; Daniel C. Maguire. "The Splendor of Control: A Commentary on Veritatis Splendor and the Elephant in the Living Room." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 26 to 29. Frances Kissling incorrectly describes probabilism this way: “And the important thing is that there is a long tradition in the Roman Catholic Church called probabilism. And probabilism holds that an individual may engage in an activity that is considered factually or legally doubtful if the individual can find a couple of respectable authorities to assert the opinion in a cogent way and in a way that continues to be respectful of the Catholic tradition" [Frances Kissling's talk during the conference entitled "Antiprogestin Drugs: Ethical, Legal and Medical Issues," held at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia, December 6-7, 1991, session entitled "Diverse Perspectives: Feminism, Anthropology and Theology"]. Kissling has also said that "The principle of probabilism in Roman Catholicism holds that where the church cannot speak definitively on a matter of fact (in this case, on the personhood of the fetus), the consciences of individual Catholics must be primary and respected" [Frances Kissling. "Abortion: Articulating a Moral View." Conscience, Summer 2000, pages 21, 22 and 27].
8) Daniel C. Maguire. "Where There's Doubt, There's Freedom." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, page 15.
9) This prohibition on the use of probabilism when a prohibiting law is certain has been constant through the ages. The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia stated that "When a prohibiting law is certain, the subjects of the law are bound to abstain from performing the action which the law forbids, unless they are excused by one of the ordinary exempting causes" [the complete discussion of probabilism in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is available at ]. The defenders of probabilism "require a person reasonably to seek direct certainty regarding the moral problem before seeking indirect certainty through the use of reflex principles. ... for if it [the opinion for liberty] is only slightly probable it has no value against the opinion for law" [New Catholic Encyclopedia. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1967. Volume 11, pages 814 and 815.
10) Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinkas, Ph.D., S.T.L. [Editor]. Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia [Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Press], 1991, page 786.
11) National Council of Catholic Bishops Committee on Doctrine. "Abortion and "Free Choice:" The Catholic Church Teaches Direct Abortion is Never a Moral Good," November 1984. See Appendix A for the full text of this document.
12) The complete discussion of probabilism in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is available at .
13) Ibid.
14) Patty Crowley. "Galileo All Over Again." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 30 and 31. This article is part of the commentary "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae."
15) "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994. Most of this issue is consumed with complaints about Humanae Vitae. Another example of this double standard is contained in Rosemary Radford Ruether. "Women, Sexuality, Ecology, and the Church." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, pages 6 to 11.
16) Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinkas, Ph.D., S.T.L. [Editor]. Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia [Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Press], 1991, page 786.
17) Alberto Munera, S.J. "Catalyst for Moral Thinking." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, page 38. This article is part of the commentary "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae."
18) "News: United States: Doctor, Escort Killed." Conscience, Autumn 1994, pages 48 and 49.
19) Undated CFFC flyer entitled "CFFC is the Voice of the 77% of American Catholics Who Believe in Abortion Rights."
20) Frances Kissling, in "CFFC Notebook: A Mouse that Roars Turns 20." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, page 54.
21) Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., principle author of Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom, quoted in Russell Shaw. "Answers." National Catholic Register, September 13, 1992, page 4.
22) Frances Kissling. "The Vatican and Politics of Reproductive Health: A Speech to a Study Group of the British Parliament." Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, pages 25 to 29.
23) Alberto Munera, S.J. "Catalyst for Moral Thinking." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, page 38. This article is part of the commentary "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae."
[pic]
CFFC Argument #3:
"The fetus is not a person.”
What Catholics for a Free Choice Says.
"Yet, in a 1974 document, the "Declaration on Procured Abortion," the Vatican stated that it does not know when a fetus becomes a person ― just as each person in this room in all honesty would have to say."
― Frances Kissling.1
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
1) Kissling states that she "does not know when a fetus becomes a person." She does not seem aware that revoking the personhood of a person or group constitutes the basis of all oppression ― of women, of minorities, of Jews, etc. It is necessary for all oppressors to deaden their consciences by dehumanizing their victims so that they may kill or exploit them.
2) CFFC simply states as a fact that preborn human beings are not persons, without supporting its view with any proof or evidence whatever. CFFC cannot prove that preborn children are not human or persons. Therefore, since even CFFC admits that it cannot answer this question, we must err on the side of safety, because abortion might be taking the life of a person.
3) Contrary to what CFFC claims, the Catholic Church does indeed consider preborn children to be persons. In fact, the "Declaration on Procured Abortion," which Frances Kissling quotes above, equates abortion to murder.
4) This argument is another diversion, because CFFC claims the right to revoke the "personhood" of a preborn child even after acknowledging it.
5) CFFC feigns ignorance about the timing of "personhood" and "ensoulment" as justification for allowing abortion throughout pregnancy. Once again, if we do not know if a preborn child is a person or has a soul, we must err on the side of safety.
(1) Revoking Personhood is the Basis of All Oppression.
When it casually dismisses or avoids the question of the personhood of the preborn child, CFFC is emulating the oppressors who have killed and enslaved millions throughout human history.
The Nazis followed this well-worn path. They acknowledged only that they were destroying "human weeds" and "life not worth living," and officially classified their living human victims as "non-persons."
The slavers also took this course. They recognized the obvious life in their slaves (after all, dead slaves can't work), and their obvious humanity (other species weren't intelligent enough to follow orders), but drew the line at their personhood. Slaves were, according to the United States Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, officially "non-persons."
And now, all pro-abortion groups simply dismiss the preborn child as "less than human."
They have no solid evidence to back up their claims.
Nor did the Nazis or slavers.
The pro-abortion "non-personhood" argument has one purpose and one purpose only ― to confer a false veneer of respectability upon the elimination of human beings whom the pro-abortionists deem "unwanted" or "inconvenient." Such mental mendacity allows otherwise rational people to participate in the killing with clear consciences. The only reason CFFC calls preborn human beings "non-persons" is so that it may continue to promote abortion.
The 1985 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary describes CFFC's attitude perfectly: "Non-Person. n. A person whose expunction from the attention and memory of the public is sought, esp. by governmental action and usually for reasons of ideological or political deviation."
Ironically, while it denies preborn children equal rights, CFFC writers often complain about the Vatican, which they allege denies women full "personhood" by refusing to allow women's ordination.
It is the height of hypocrisy for CFFC to complain that women are being oppressed, when it is one of the most outspoken oppressors of the most helpless human beings ― preborn children.
(2) CFFC Cannot Prove that Preborn Children Are Not Human.
CFFC says that we cannot know if preborn children are persons, and so we may abort them for any reason we like.
CFFC's thinking is fundamentally flawed. Simple logic tells us that we must give the benefit of the doubt to life in any situation where our actions may endanger life.
For instance, take the case of a construction company that has been given a contract to demolish a derelict building. They don't go ahead and knock the building down if they don't know if there are any people in it. They thoroughly search the building first.
We may not fire a weapon in the direction of a schoolyard we cannot see if we don't know if there are any children playing in it.
And we may not drop heavy objects from the top of a tall building if we don't know if there are any people below.
Yet CFFC claims that we may freely abort preborn children because we don't know if a person is present!
The Vatican's 1974 "Declaration on Procured Abortion" sets a reasonable and simple standard to follow;
It is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder [¶13].
(3) The Catholic Church Considers Preborns to be Persons.
What Kissling Says. In 1999, Francis Kissling casually stated to a study group of the British Parliament that "Even in Catholic theology, the word murder is not used in connection to abortion."2
Apparently Kissling has not bothered to read the documents she quotes so often in support of CFFC's pro-abortion ideology. Or perhaps, since she believes that preborn children are not persons, she cannot imagine how anyone else could consider them persons.
Whatever her motivations, Kissling is dead wrong ― the Catholic Church has repeatedly referred to abortion as "murder," plain and simple.
What the Church Teaches. For example, the 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii ("On Chastity in Marriage") refers to abortion as the "direct murder of the innocent" [¶64].
The 1974 "Declaration on Procured Abortion" quotes Tertullian, who called abortion "anticipated murder" and Pope Stephen V, who said "That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived" [¶6 and 7].
The 1995 Charter for Health Care Workers of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance refers to abortion as "deliberate murder" [footnote 261].
The 1997 "Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life" of the Pontifical Council for the Family states that "The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life" [¶52].
In addition to Vatican statements, Bishops' councils and individual prelates all over the world have condemned abortion as murder literally hundreds of times.
One of the most eloquent of these statements is the 1991 document entitled "The New Campaign against Life," by the Bishops of Chiapas, Mexico. The Bishops call abortion "the murder of a helpless and innocent human being" [¶1]. In his 1998 letter "The Inalienable Right to Life and Partial-Birth Abortion," Eusebius J. Beltran, Archbishop of Oklahoma City, says that this "cold-blooded murdering of the unborn" is "beyond my understanding."
Most significantly, abortion is specifically referred to as "murder" in an encyclical widely criticized (and therefore presumably read) by CFFC writers ― Evangelium Vitae: "The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder ..." [¶58].
In addition to recent statements, many of the early Church Fathers specifically taught that abortion was murder ― including Tertullian, Hippolytus, and St. John Chrysostom (see Appendix B).3
It is one thing to state that one disagrees with the Church's teaching that abortion is murder. It is another thing entirely to claim that the Church does not teach that abortion is murder.
CFFC writers and speakers often represent themselves as experts and authorities in Catholic theology. For a so-called "expert" or "authority" to simply claim that the Church does not associate the word "murder" with abortion is inexcusable.
But Forgiveness Waits ... Although abortion is a heinous sin, God can forgive it through His Church, because the Church, like Christ, is compassionate.
Murder is the direct killing of an innocent human being with full knowledge and intent, and is a mortal sin. "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent" [Catechism, ¶1857].
There are two primary circumstances that may decrease the subjective guilt of abortion;
1) Extreme fear or pressure. When a young girl or woman is in such terror or under such pressure that rational thinking is impossible, her subjective guilt is diminished to a certain extent. We do not refer here to the young college girl who is pregnant and is uncomfortable with what her parents may think, or whose boyfriend threatens to leave her if she refuses to abort; we are referring to parents or boyfriends who threaten her with physical violence or other extreme consequences. A pregnant mother should defend her preborn child with the same vigor she would defend one of her born children, but sometimes, because of an extreme fear caused by no fault of her own, this just seems to be impossible.
2) Ignorance. Unfortunately, the pulpits of our churches are largely silent regarding abortion. When a girl grows up surrounded by people of tepid faith, trendy and inoffensive bishops and pastors, and pro-abortion groups telling her that it is perfectly all right to abort, she may truly believe that she is not committing a sin. One of the primary goals of Catholics for a Free Choice is to keep women ignorant of authentic Catholic teaching regarding the life issues.
Many women who have aborted their preborn children find out too late that the pro-abortionists have lied to them. There are thousands of post-abortive women now working tirelessly against the wholesale killing of the preborn. Many of these women confessed their abortions years or even decades after they occurred, and all of them know that Christ, through His Church, forgives all sins that are sincerely repented of.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest. Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin" [¶982].
(4) The "Personhood" Argument is Just Another CFFC Diversion.
Echo of the Eugenics Movement. Frances Kissling shows that she thinks like a slave owner when she claims that "The child whom you see as precious and irreplaceable is that way because you have made it so. We each become a person through a process ― a process that includes having parents, teachers, schools, friends, and lovers who all contribute to the person we are today."4
This shows that Kissling believes that a child has no intrinsic worth ― that its value is conferred by others, which is dehumanizing and the basis of all oppression. She would certainly not tolerate any man saying that women's value is conferred by men!
Kissling says that people become persons through a "process" involving interactions with many other people. This dangerous belief is a justification for active eugenics and infanticide, and would lead us to judge that babies up to four or six months old are "non-persons," because they have not yet begun actively participating in the "process" of others contributing to their personhood, and because they cannot actively interact with these persons to the degree required by the decision-makers.
Personhood is Irrelevant to CFFC. When all is said and done, we find that the "personhood" argument for justifying the availability of abortion is just another diversion by CFFC.
Marjorie Reiley Maguire and ex-priest Daniel C. Maguire show that CFFC believes that women should be able to have abortions even if they believe their preborn children are persons;
It is important to understand that while abortion does involve the taking of a human life ― because all life that is in and of a human being is human life ― in order to call it murder we would have to believe that prenatal life in the early stages of pregnancy is a human person and that there were absolutely no reasons that justified the taking of that life ... [However], you may feel you have reasons that justify abortion regardless of your beliefs about personhood.5
Frances Kissling takes this view a step further when she insists that even those who believe persons are being killed by abortion have no right to interfere with the availability of abortion: "Even if you are convinced that abortion takes a life of a person you have a responsibility to respect the views of other religions."6
This is equivalent to a slaver or a racist saying that "Even if you are convinced that lynching takes the life of a [Black] person, you have a responsibility to respect the views of other religions and not interfere in any way."
(5) Ensoulment = Life?
Who Bestows the Soul? "Ensoulment" is that instant when God confers the soul upon a human body. According to Catholic teaching, God fuses body and soul at the instant of fertilization, when the sperm meets the egg.
This is the only logical time that ensoulment could possibly occur. The process of human development is an unbroken and seamless continuum from fertilization until natural death. All that changes is the location of the person.
CFFC recognizes the folly in denying that preborn children are alive and human, because life and humanity are both scientifically provable traits. Instead, CFFC writers often use the timing of "ensoulment" ― a question that science literally will never be able to answer ― in order to justify its abortion advocacy.
This is classic 'mystagoguery,' or employing a higher degree of obscurity. It is the polar opposite of trying to clarify an issue, because it is a deliberate attempt to render a question so complicated or murky that it can never be answered. This, of course, assures maximum freedom of action.
Pro-abortionists despise what they call "anti-choice black and white" thinking, because it clearly exposes their crimes and sins, and dispels the cloak of confusion and uncertainty with which they attempt to enshroud all their activities.
CFFC writers employ 'mystagoguery' to assert that personhood does not begin until the child gets its soul ― and that it is not God, but the mother, who ensouls it. For example, Marjorie Reiley Maguire of CFFC said that "Personhood begins when the bearer of life, the mother, makes a covenant of love with the developing life within her to bring it to birth. It is in the nature of things that woman creates the 'soul' just as much as she nourishes the body of developing human life."7
This is outright heresy, and in direct contradiction to what the Church has always taught. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that "every spiritual soul is created immediately by God ― it is not "produced" by the parents" [¶366]. The 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion states that "Created immediately by God, man's soul is spiritual and therefore immortal" [¶8].
Conclusion: Give Life the Benefit of the Doubt. By saying that we cannot determine when ensoulment takes place, CFFC is admitting that ensoulment may take place at fertilization. If we choose to debate the timing of ensoulment, we must go back to the basic concept that we must always give human life the benefit of the doubt.
It is immoral to approve of a particular action just because human life might not be taken.
Society forbids behavior that may take life, even if the chance of such an occurrence is small. We are not allowed to poison Halloween treats on a supermarket shelf, just because human life might not be taken. And we have many local laws and ordinances that forbid smoking in crowded areas, because second-hand smoke may be injurious to others.
Once again, the Vatican's 1974 "Declaration on Procured Abortion" tells us the uncertainty is no rationalization for unrestricted freedom of action: "In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine ― the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion" [¶7].
In summary, the question of ensoulment is just another pro-abortion red herring. If scientists and theologians somehow achieved a breakthrough whereby they could prove that a preborn child received its soul at the instant of fertilization, we can be quite certain that ensoulment would suddenly become "irrelevant" in CFFC's view.
Notes on CFFC Argument #3.
1) Frances Kissling. "Abortion: Taking on the Hard Questions." Conscience, Autumn 1999, pages 2 to 12 [this statement directly contradicts an earlier one by Kissling, when she said that "Church leaders imply ― or say outright ― that fetuses are persons, entitled to an absolute right to life; abortion therefore is murder" (Frances Kissling. "Latin American Feminists Speak Out." Conscience, July/August 1989, pages 21 to 23)].
2) Ibid.
3) Tertullian [Apologeticus, cap. 9, n. 8; Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, 221 vols., Parisii, 1858-1864]; Hippolytus [Refutatio Omnium Haeresium, edit. Wendland (also known as Philosophoumena), lib. IX, cap. 12, n. 25]; and St. John Chrysostom [Commentariis in Epistolam ad Romanos, Homilia XXIV, n. 4; MPG, LX, 626].
4) Frances Kissling. "Abortion: Taking on the Hard Questions." Conscience, Autumn 1999, pages 2 to 12.
5) Marjorie Reiley Maguire and Daniel C. Maguire. "Abortion: A Guide to Making Ethical Decisions." CFFC, September 1983.
6) Frances Kissling. "Abortion: Taking on the Hard Questions." Conscience, Autumn 1999, pages 2 to 12.
7) Marjorie Reiley Maguire, quoted in Conscience, March/April 1984, and in Mary Meehan. "The Maguires Bring Abortion Issue to a Turbulent Boil." National Catholic Register, May 27, 1984, pages 1 and 7.
[pic]
CFFC Argument #4:
"The Church’s ban on abortion is not infallible.”
What Catholics for a Free Choice Says.
"... contrary to popular belief, the prohibition of abortion has never been declared an infallible teaching. This fact leaves much more room for discussion on abortion than is usually thought."
― Conscience Magazine.1
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
1) CFFC completely disregards the fact that Church teachings on a subject such as abortion can be considered infallible through the ordinary magisterium.
2) CFFC ignores the teachings of the Church even when they are declared infallible. This means that, even if the Pope solemnly declared infallible the teaching that abortion is the murder of a human person, CFFC would simply disregard his proclamation. Therefore, CFFC is merely using the "infallibility" argument as another diversion.
3) A number of CFFC writers have declared that it is impossible to speak infallibly on any topic. Once again, even if the Pope declared the Church's teaching on abortion infallible, CFFC would simply ignore him. Yet CFFC treats women's choices for abortion as infallible, since it says we must always trust women to make good decisions.
(1) How Can We Discern if a Teaching Is Infallible?
Ex Cathedra Declarations. There are two primary means by which the Church may declare a teaching infallible.
The most definitive statement of infallibility is the Pope's solemn declaration ex cathedra that a matter of faith or morals must be assented to in order for a Catholic to attain salvation.
One example of such a pronouncement is the 1854 Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX entitled Ineffabilis Deus ("The Immaculate Conception"), which proclaimed the perpetual sinlessness and virginity of Our Lady.2
Every Catholic must assent by faith to an infallibly proclaimed doctrine. Anyone who disbelieves or dissents from such a teaching cannot be called Catholic.
The Ordinary Magisterium. The second means by which Catholics may know that a Church teaching is infallible is by examining the ordinary Magisterium. This is the usual day-to-day expression of the Church's teaching authority, and does not require a solemn declaration by the Pope or by the assembled Bishops.
The Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium addressed the degree of assent that Catholics must give to the teachings of the Pope;
... loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him ... [¶25].
The Church may also teach infallibly through the authority of the Bishops.
The Canon of St. Vincent of Lorenz declares that any doctrine that has been taught semper ubique ab omnibus ― always, everywhere, and by everyone ― makes it part of the ordinary and universal Magisterial teaching.3
Ancient and modern Catholic theologians have always condemned the practice of abortion, as shown in the response to Argument #11. Therefore, the Catholic Church has indeed prohibited abortion semper ubique ab omnibus.
Lumen Gentium restates and applies the Canon to the Bishops;
Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: Namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.
This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith [¶25].
This means that Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae did not create some new doctrine or dogma. It once again announced and recognized the infallible doctrine, already more than nineteen centuries old, that human life is sacred from fertilization to natural birth and thence to natural death.
Because of Her constant and unwavering condemnation of abortion, always, everywhere, and by all of the Bishops, we may state without fear of authoritative contradiction that the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is, indeed, an infallible doctrine.
Why Doesn't the Pope Formally Declare Pro-Life Teachings Infallible? Pro-life theologians have debated the wisdom of having the Church's teachings on abortion and contraception be formally declared infallible, and have decided that this would not be advisable in the larger scheme of things.
Such a pronouncement in the realm of morals (as opposed to fundamental Catholic beliefs) would give the impression that all other moral teachings of the Church were optional. This might lead to a situation where disbelief would run rampant in the areas not specifically addressed ex cathedra, and would lead to more and more demands for such declarations in almost every area of Church teaching.
(2) CFFC Simply Disregards Those Teachings that Have Been Declared Infallible.
Yes, It's Another Diversion. CFFC's argument that "the ban on abortion is not infallible" is simply another diversion ― one of many it throws out to muddy the waters and confuse the issue.
Even if the Pope did declare the Church's teachings on birth control and abortion infallible, CFFC would simply deny the licitness of such a pronouncement. This is especially true in the area of sexual morality.
Rosemary Radford Ruether says that "An effort to declare the ban on contraception "infallible" would have the immediate effect of focusing Catholic dissent on the doctrine of infallibility itself. ... A storm of dissent, and even ridicule, directed at infallibility itself would ensue from such a declaration."4
When Pope John Paul II convened a November 1988 conference under the auspices of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family entitled "Humanae Vitae: Twenty Years Later," the Pope and Monsignor Carlo Caffarra stated that Humanae Vitae must be assented to by the faithful.
CFFC immediately accused the Pope of "abusing the Magisterium." One of its writers displayed a profound ignorance of the nature of Church teaching authority when she said that "In theological terms, they [the dissenters] see this as blurring the distinction between the changeable positions of the ordinary magisterium and the unchangeable truths of the extraordinary magisterium."5
Shortly thereafter, 163 dissenting theologians signed a statement entitled "Against Incapacitation ― for an Open Catholicism," popularly known as the Cologne Declaration. CFFC published this Declaration in the March/April issue of its newsletter Conscience.
They said that "We observe an attempt, theologically highly questionable, to enforce and overstep in an inadmissible way the Pope's competence in the field of doctrinal teaching alongside that of jurisdiction."6
The dissenter's statements show that, even if the Holy Father infallibly declared abortion to be prohibited, they would simply ignore him. Therefore, any statement by CFFC that "the Church's teachings against abortion are not infallible" is simply a diversion, since the dissenters would attack any teaching against abortion that was solemnly declared infallible.
Our Lady's Perpetual Virginity. In 1854, Pope Pius IX published the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus ("The Immaculate Conception"), which infallibly proclaimed the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Yet, even though this teaching was declared ex cathedra infallibly, CFFC dismisses it. This proves again that, even if the Pope ex cathedra declared abortion to be murder infallibly, it would not alter CFFC's ideology one iota.
CFFC Board member Rosemary Radford Ruether has said that "The methods of history, used in an unbiased manner, would almost certainly conclude that Jesus had normal siblings."7
CFFC has no problem with simply denying Our Lady's perpetual virginity if it advances the pro-abortion cause. This is because CFFC perceives anti-woman conspiracies behind every Church declaration, and ascribes the most absurd motives to Church leaders who are trying to focus on purely theological matters.
CFFC says that
Because of her perpetual virginity, Mary has become the standard bearer for conservative and static notions of gender relations, reproductive rights, and, of course, sexuality. ... By celebrating Mary's lack of sexuality, the church denigrates the sexual. ... Mary's sexuality is largely a church construction. Any belief that human beings construct, we can deconstruct and rebuild. This reconstruction is taking place all the time in the lives of women who look to Mary for spiritual strength.8.
Notice CFFC's warped concept of sexuality. It says that a virgin "lacks sexuality." This implies that CFFC sees sexual acts as the only expression of human sexuality, and that a person who refrains from sexual activity is somehow incomplete.
Once again, this kind of nonsense proves that CFFC simply does not believe that the Magisterium of the Church can interpret the word of God. This is a fundamental act of disobedience and is, of course, another heresy. CFFC does not simply deny specific teachings, but rejects the very authority of the Catholic Church to teach in God's name.
(3) CFFC Believes It is Impossible to Speak Infallibly.
CFFC: "Infallibility "R" Us." CFFC argues that the teachings of the Church against abortion are not infallible.
This is a mere diversion.
As stated above, even if the Pope did declare ex cathedra that all Catholics must believe that abortion is murder, CFFC would simply ignore his declaration ― because it actually believes that it is impossible for anyone to speak infallibly.
Daniel C. Maguire says that "Making infallible statements through the medium of fallible language is a naϊve dream."9
If we take Maguire at his word, then our language constrains us from speaking of or describing any definitive truth. This is merely a clever way of insinuating situational ethics into the discussion on the morality of abortion.
In any case, Maguire cannot really believe that it is impossible to make "infallible" statements. CFFC's strange creed features several articles of faith from which none of its members may dissent under pain of 'excommunication:' That abortion is a "basic human right;" that the Catholic Church has oppressed women for centuries; and that women must be trusted as good decision-makers.
Any member of CFFC who raises his or her voice in disagreement against these dogmas would be shunned and expelled from the organization.
For CFFC, Consensus = Infallibility. When a person or group departs from the truth and tries to create their own reality, the result is inevitably an erratic and contradictory ethos, as described in Veritatis Splendor. Nowhere is CFFC's inconsistency more glaringly evident than in its discussion of infallibility.
! First CFFC says that the Pope has not declared the Church's teaching on abortion infallible, so Catholics may ignore it.
! Then it says that, even if the Pope did declare this teaching infallible, Catholics may still ignore it.
! Then it claims that it is impossible to speak infallibly.
! Finally, it asserts that any statement agreed upon by everyone is infallible ― even though it rejects the Canon of St. Vincent of Lorenz, which says exactly the same thing!
After sorting through all of its wildly inconsistent claims, it seems that CFFC does not consider a teaching infallible unless literally everyone agrees with it. The group refers to a vaguely-defined "voice of the people" [sensus fidei] and argues for a kind of religious consensus stating that a teaching can only be infallible if everyone agrees on it.
Naturally, since there is no Church teaching that everyone can agree on, no teaching at all can be considered infallible. Once again, this is nothing more than pure situational ethics dressed up in fancy theological language.
CFFC relies upon dissenting theologian Richard P. McBrien to describe this concept: "Alternatively, dogma can come through the "ordinary and universal magisterium," that is, what is espoused and taught by all bishops, or theologians, or perhaps believers. ... Traditional criteria of infallibility include reception by the church at large."10
McBrien is wrong, of course, and he directly contradicts the definition of the Magisterium provided in the Catechism of the Catholic Church [¶85]. The Catholic Church has never considered "reception by the church at large" to be a necessary criteria for an infallible teaching. CFFC does not recognize the higher authority of the Church and therefore cannot imagine submitting its will in obedience to Her. Therefore it attempts to forcibly superimpose democratic principles upon the Church, which is itself a coercive and non-democratic act.
The Second Vatican Council addressed the role of the people when it emphasized the indissoluble bond between the sensus fidei and the guiding role of the Magisterium, saying that "these two realities cannot be separated" [Lumen Gentium, ¶12]. If the people choose to separate themselves from the guidance of the Magisterium, the result is division, disunity and a falling into the slavery of sin, all of which are evident in the writings of Catholics for a Free Choice. The Catechism tells us that "Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers" [¶817].
Notes for CFFC Argument #4.
1) "Abortion and Catholic Thought: The Little-Known History." Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 2 to 5.
2) See also The Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶496-507.
3) Monsignor William Smith, "Humanae Vitae, Dissent, and Infallibility." Presentation at Human Life International's "Conference on Love, Life, and the Family," held in Santa Barbara, California in March of 1991.
4) Rosemary Radford Ruether. "Catholics and Abortion: Authority vs. Dissent." Conscience, November/December 1985, pages 9 to 11.
5) "Against Incapacitation ― for an Open Catholicism" [the Cologne Declaration], published in Conscience, March/April 1989, pages 5 to 7.
6) Ibid.
7) Maurice Hamington. "Like a Virgin ... The Sexual Paradox of Mary." Conscience, Spring 1998, pages 15 to 19.
8) Ibid.
9) Daniel C. Maguire. "The Splendor of Control: A Commentary on Veritatis Splendor and the Elephant in the Living Room." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 26 to 29.
10) "News: Hierarchy Tries to Clamp Down." Conscience, Winter 1995/1996, page 33.
[pic]
CFFC Argument #5:
"Dissent is necessary for the life of the Church.”
What Catholics for a Free Choice Says.
"I also believe that dissent is the lifeblood of the church. Without people, without women willing to dissent, to stand up and challenge the church and indeed take a prophetic stance on the issues that affect us, the church will be a dead organism. ... God wills dissent to reach the blindness and hardness of heart of many church leaders. Dissent is a constructive, not a destructive, activity in the religious community ..."
― Frances Kissling and Marjorie Reiley Maguire.1
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
1) The goal of legitimate discussion on points of moral theology is to clarify and instruct. For CFFC, the objective of dissent is to force the Church to change Her teachings and to bend to CFFC's will through sheer persistence and continual agitation.
2) The ultimate danger posed by organized pressure to change Church teachings is that She will become just another permissive pseudo-religious social organization. This, of course, is exactly what CFFC wants to achieve.
3) Professional dissenters do not actually seek the truth. They seek submission of others to their wills. CFFC-style dissent in no way resembles an authentic search for the truth, because its members have already firmly established in their minds their version of the truth, which is completely independent from guidance given by Scripture and the Magisterium.
(1) What is the Objective of Organized Dissent?
The Character of Organized Dissent. There exists today a vast network of organizations dedicated to sustained and comprehensive dissent against Church teachings, particularly in the pivotal area of sexual ethics. Many of these groups are formally affiliated with umbrella organizations such as Catholic Organizations for Renewal (COR) and Call to Action (CTA).
In order to effectively oppose the dissenters, we must understand why they seem to be bent on endless agitation and confrontation. We must perceive the Church and the world from their point of view.
The question most often asked by bewildered orthodox Catholics is: "Why don't they just leave?"
Maryknoll Sister Rose Dominic Trapasso has written a succinct summary of the Church from the feminist dissenter's point of view. This passage is important, because almost all dissenters adopt these ideas, regardless of whether they are male or female. Trapasso says that:
Feminism arises from the recognition that the oppression of women has been universal, it is global and it is derived from structures. And we know that the kind of change feminists want has to take place at a structural, ideological level. Feminism has helped us see the connections among many kinds of oppression. Whether it is racial, military or economic oppression, there are connections. And they are all linked in the fundamental domination, the original domination, which is that of male over female in a patriarchal system. It is the basis of our order, our hierarchy. So we are talking not just about the liberation of women or about equality with men, but about a much deeper questioning of society and the types of relationships found in the hierarchical ordering of society. ... The Church has not modified its position or criticized injustices against women because it has been and continues to be a patriarchal institution.2
Breaking this passage down into segments, we have the following ideas;
1) Men have always oppressed women.
2) Men use "structures" to oppress women.
3) The Catholic Church's all-male hierarchy is the ultimate patriarchal "structure," because it promulgates a belief system that interferes with all of women's most basic human rights.
The Objective of Organized Dissent ― Revolution. Given the above, the only just and logical course of action for a dissenter is to reform and reconstruct oppressing "structures" ― with special emphasis on the Roman Catholic Church.
CFFC board member Rosemary Ruether said that "As a feminist, I can come up with only one reason to stay in the Catholic Church: To try to change it."3
This is why members of CFFC do not simply leave the Church. They allege that, as long as the "patriarchal, hierarchical" church remains in its current form, it will continue to "oppress" all women. Naturally, CFFC does not address the real oppression its members suffer ― the load of guilt they feel because of their immoral activities.
Christine E. Gudorf tells us that "Religion must participate in the purge of patriarchal restrictions from social and religious practice and ideology. It must do so even when, as is often the case, the purge requires the reworking of central religious myths and doctrines and the reinterpretation of revealed truth."4
Ruether shows us that CFFC will never be satisfied, no matter how much 'progress' it makes. She says that "No token accommodations will satisfy us. What is required is the total reconstruction of God, Christ, human nature, and society."5
HLI's book Call to Action or Call to Apostasy? describes how dissenters systematically target the four Marks of the Church ― one, holy, catholic and apostolic ― in their attempts to restrain Her from saving souls, and how the dissenters in particular desire to dilute and destroy the Sacraments of Holy Orders, the Eucharist and Confession.
Mary Hunt and Frances Kissling speak of what they mean by "feministizing" the Catholic Church: "By feministization we mean the process by which values of inclusivity and mutuality, justice and equality are made manifest in previously patriarchal, that is, hierarchical, gender-, class-, race-stratified organizations."6
Frances Kissling described the "two complementary strategies employed by Women-church in its struggle for a transformed church:"
One is the strategy of confrontation and challenge ― you know, directing one's attention to the hierarchy. But the other, in [holding] a meeting like this, is ignoring the hierarchy. The name of the conference, Women-church: Claiming Our Power, is just women taking their power and going with it ― not worrying about what the bishops have to say, not worrying about what the Pope thinks ― in essence, taking their own vision of church and making it a reality.7
What is the future "reality" of which Kissling speaks? CFFC's writers give us many clues.
The reformed "catholic" church would embrace;
• Abortion. Some extremist feminists have claimed that "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." For CFFC board member Mary E. Hunt, abortion actually is a sacrament. She says "Women's right to choose is what I, as a Catholic, dare to call sacramental. ... Reproductive choice is a sacred trust and women are more than equal to the task."8
• Contraception, Divorce and Premarital Sex. Sister Marie Augusta Neal says that "The rules that will emerge when women are part of the policy process will not resemble the obsolete regulations presently prescribed for men and women with regard to birth control, abortion, divorce, and sexual relations outside a context of love."9
• Homosexual Acts. Hunt, a lesbian, says that "Once again churches lag behind science. Long after social and behavioral scientists have proven that homosexuality is healthy, good and natural for a certain percentage of our population, the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach antiquated and harmful theology."10 Hunt wrote an essay entitled "Lovingly Lesbian: Toward a Feminist Theology of Friendship" in an anthology entitled Sexuality and the Sacred. She said that "To be a lesbian is to take relationships with women radically seriously, opening oneself to befriend and be befriended, so that by loving, something new may be born. ... When all women are free to have this experience, then, and only then, can we say that any women are free."11
Hunt has also said that "'Love' and 'lesbian' go together like 'love' and 'justice' and 'hearts' and 'flowers'."12
You know, you really can’t make this stuff up.
All of this, of course, is in direct contrast to the Church's teaching that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved" [Catechism, ¶2357].
During the meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) in November 2000, CFFC joined the groups Soulforce and Dignity in support of homosexual, bisexual and "transgendered" Catholics protesting "discrimination" in the Catholic Church. Frances Kissling said that "Church leaders have to stop treating members of the gay community as though they were second-class citizens."13
Naturally, she provided no evidence whatever that the Church has ever treated homosexuals as "second-class citizens."
• Homosexual "Marriage." CFFC is a member of the Women-Church Convergence, and has published its statement that "Indeed, we know many kinds of families that are equally loving and supportive ― to name just a few: women in communities; lesbian and gay couples, with or without children; extended families of several generations of women, mostly, who nurture children. ... This is no time to enshrine the so-called traditional, nuclear family."14
Another CFFC writer claims that "Many Catholic theologians have supported the principle that both heterosexual and homosexual domestic partnerships based on justice and commitment, rather than the traditional marital contract, are morally valid."15
• All Reproductive Technologies. Hunt also describes "... lesbian mothers who have the right, not the privilege, to use reproductive technology to choose to have children by self insemination."16
• Women's Ordination. Rosemary Radford Ruether claims that "There is an increasing demand from Roman Catholic women that they be recognized as full members of the Church. This must include ordination to all priestly ministries."17 Mary Hunt says that "We do not want the largess of the bishops for a few women deacons who will solve their priest shortage by their boundless energy and ministerial skill, unless the episcopacy is open to women."18
• No Confession. Holy Orders is not the only Sacrament CFFC would like to rework. It believes that anything in the Church that allows one person to have any kind of "power" over another must be jettisoned. Adelle-Marie Stan refers to Confession as an "... antiquated rite and an invasion of privacy," and predicts that eventually everyone will be granted general absolution.19
A Summary of What CFFC Wants. Mary Hunt summarized CFFC's strategic objectives at an April 24, 1988 speech at St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Schenectady, New York. An observer reported that
Lesbian and gay people in church will become as common as candles because the choice will be welcoming diversity or dying on the vine as the people of God. This "diversity," said Hunt, would mean a "shift in power" from the hierarchy to the people of the church, by means of a priesthood that is open to everyone, whether male or female, married or unmarried, sexually active or celibate, homosexual or heterosexual. This is only the first step, however; Hunt said that the ultimate aim is an end to the priesthood and the hierarchy altogether, so that everyone could worship as "a discipleship of equals." The Church would also "celebrate the goodness" of marriage after divorce, and would welcome homosexual marriage. She concluded by stating that "The reality will come first; the theology will come next."20
Notice that Hunt is clearly calling not only for women priests, but an end to the priesthood entirely. This, of course, means an end to the Sacraments, the primary means by which we obtain grace.
When we look at all of these demands as a body, we can see that the ultimate objective of Catholics for a Free Choice is the transformation of the Catholic Church into a sexually permissive pseudo-Christian denomination. As Frances Kissling says, "Yes, we really are talking about revolution. ... I've spent years looking for a government I could overthrow without going to jail, and I've found it in the Church."21
[pic]
"'Love' and 'lesbian' go together like 'love'
and 'justice' and 'hearts' and 'flowers'."
― Former CFFC Board Member Mary L. Hunt [174].
(2) The Deadly Dangers of "Reformation."
The "Mainline" Protestant Churches Are Dying. All we need do is examine the plight of the mainline Protestant churches to see where this wide and easy road leads. Dissent means death to a church, not only spiritually but physically. This is true both within and without the Roman Catholic Church.
The denominations in the United States that teach a traditional sexual ethic include the Assemblies of God (Pentecostal), Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), Mormon Church, Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, the Fundamentalist Churches, and Islam. These denominations have enjoyed a large increase in membership over the past four decades. In 1970, their combined total membership was 95.4 million. In 2010, it was 134.8 million, for a total increase of 41 percent.22
Meanwhile, the pro-abortion churches, including the mainline Protestant denominations (United Methodist, Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopal and United Church of Christ) have all adopted permissive stances towards sexual issues. Their total combined membership has actually declined from 24.3 million in 1970 to 16.5 million in 2010 ― a plunge of 32 percent.23.
It is easy to discern why this is happening. Why bother being a member of a church that gives you permission to do anything you want to do?
Dissent is Deadly to the Clergy. Dissent within the Catholic Church has also caused an enormous amount of damage, particularly to the clergy.
As described in the book Call to Action or Call to Apostasy?, Human Life International researchers compiled more than 40,000 statistics from the 1956 to 2010 issues of The Official Catholic Directory and the Vatican's Statistical Yearbook of the Church for the purpose of charting historical trends regarding the "priest shortage." These statistics included year-by-year figures for every diocese in the United States, and covered the numbers of diocesan and religious priests, religious sisters, priestly ordinations and numbers of baptized and practicing Catholics.
Then two clusters of fifteen dioceses each were examined over the period 1955 to 2009. One cluster consisted of fifteen dioceses that have had a generally orthodox tradition since 1955, and the other cluster consisted of fifteen dioceses that have had a generally permissive tradition over the same period.
This study led to three primary conclusions regarding the "priest shortage," ordinations and women's religious communities:
1) There are currently nearly twice as many diocesan priests per million active Catholics in orthodox dioceses as there are in theologically permissive dioceses (500 vs. 256). The number of diocesan priests per million active Catholics is decreasing in both theologically orthodox and permissive dioceses, but at a much slower rate in the orthodox ones. In orthodox dioceses, there were 963 diocesan priests per million Catholics in 1955, and 48 percent less (500) in 2009. In permissive dioceses, there were 668 diocesan priests per million practicing Catholics in 1955, and 256 in 2009, a 62 percent decrease. Fortunately for all Catholics, both progressive and conservative, the rate of loss of priests is flattening out and should reverse itself over the next five years.
2) There are currently more than twice as many ordinations of diocesan priests per million active Catholics in orthodox dioceses as there are in theologically permissive dioceses (10 vs. 4). The number of ordinations of diocesan priests per million active Catholics in orthodox dioceses has exceeded those in progressive dioceses every year since 1986, and at times the ratio has been as high as 5.5 to 1 [the Official Catholic Directories only began tabulating ordinations by [arch]diocese in 1986].
3) The impact of feminism has been particularly devastating to women's religious communities in the United States. The largest number of nuns ever working in the United States were 180,225 in 1965 (which, very significantly, was the last year of the second Vatican Council). In 2009 there were only 57,470 nuns in the United States ― a drop of more than 68 percent in just four and a half decades, and the trend shows no indication of slowing. Interestingly, there are still almost twice as many nuns per million active Catholics in orthodox dioceses as there are in permissive ones (1,209 per million vs. 720 per million). Although mother houses have a great degree of control over their sisters, the atmosphere of a local orthodox diocese often moderates their influence.24
Dissent Leads to Destruction. Catholics for a Free Choice writers insist that dissent is healthy for the Church, and will help it "grow in holiness."
However, as the above statistics prove, CFFC's brand of "dissent" will not help the Catholic Church grow, in holiness or in any other way.
In summary, evidence of the pernicious and devastating impacts of widespread dissent are becoming obvious both within the Roman Catholic Church and outside it. Priestly "vocations crises" are focused primarily in permissive dioceses and archdioceses, while the orthodox bishops that CFFC condemns so vehemently have so many seminarians they don't know what to do with them all.
Churches that adhere to their historical moral teachings are flourishing, while those that have accepted abortion, contraception, homosexual acts, divorce, and other evils are dying out.
(3) CFFC-Style Dissent is Not a Genuine Search for the Truth.
How to Deal With Difficulties. We must recognize that the Catholic Church welcomes and seeks to guide every Christian's earnest search for the truth. Coercion and force can never lead to enlightenment; all who approach Christ must do so of their own free will.
Donum Veritas ("Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian") tells us that "Freedom of research, which the academic community rightly holds most precious, means an openness to accepting the truth that emerges at the end of an investigation in which no element has intruded that is foreign to the methodology corresponding to the object under study" [¶12].
The document continues by addressing in detail how a theologian (or lay person) may deal with difficulties he or she may encounter with a particular Church teaching, whether it be in doctrine or morals.
It concludes this discussion by affirming that
When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held. When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively," teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith [¶23].
Where Dissent and Truth-Seeking Diverge. It is at this point that dissent and a legitimate search for the truth part company.
Those who submit themselves to the teaching authority of the Church act in humble obedience. They conform their consciences to the will of Christ as expressed by His Vicar and those bishops in union with him.
By contrast, professional dissenters stubbornly insist that particular Church teachings are false or do not apply to them, no matter how frequently the truth is presented and explained to them. More directly, they state that the Church has no authority to teach because it is "patriarchal" and "hierarchical," and by definition oppresses all women (see Sister Trapasso's quote above).
One basic problem is that many dissenters do not even understand the definition of obedience. Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey, signers of CFFC's 1984 pro-abortion New York Times ad, said that "This victory confirms our understanding of obedience as responsible decision-making."25
Obedience does not mean endless decision-making ― it means that all debate and decision-making has come to an end.
Curiously, Frances Kissling presents a cogent argument for obedience to civil law, while inconsistently arguing that people can ignore church law;
Implementation of the [civil] law shouldn't be subject to controversy nor the interference of opinions of any kind, no matter how honorable they might be. By establishing a debate instead of a sentence, what prevails is personal and moral opinion, which in addition to inserting a strong portion of hypocrisy and active imagination, distorts the very character of a process that should be far from publicity and strictly linked to the implementation of the law.26
Conclusion. CFFC repeatedly insists that dissent is "healthy" for the Catholic Church. We must understand that when CFFC speaks of "dissent," its objective is not to find the truth. Its members have already made up their minds. They have found their version of the 'truth' ― and it differs radically from the truth presented by the Roman Catholic Church.
Donum Veritas describes the ultimate impact of dissent;
The Church "is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men." Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the "leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit" to start to work [¶40].
By contrast, Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey coin the oxymoronic term "faithful dissent," and then demand that the Church essentially commit suicide by incorporating the poison of dissent into its very structure;
We believe that dissent on all controversial issues including reproductive rights is essential for the life of the Church. We believe that the dissent falls within the rights and responsibilities of all Roman Catholics. The official Church has a responsibility to foster a climate in which faithful dissent is incorporated into the ongoing life of the community.27
In summary, what we have in the Catholic Church today is a raw struggle for its heart and soul. On one side, we have the Vicar of Christ and the bishops in union with him steadfastly proclaiming truth to an increasingly hostile world. On the other side, there is a vast network of professional dissenters, of whom CFFC is one of the most vocal, who desire to transform the Church and all of its most important teachings until it has been completely assimilated by the values of the world.
CFFC is particularly dangerous because it deceives by calling itself "Catholic," by purporting to speak for a majority of Catholics, and by misinterpreting and misusing authentic Church teachings, thereby presenting itself as a respectable orthodox group to the uninformed.
Each of us has to decide whether or not he or she is going to follow the sure path to the Truth embodied by Jesus Christ ― the Church or the world, which is represented by CFFC and other dissenters.
Moreover, we must decide this question as if our eternities depended upon it.
Notes for CFFC Argument #5.
1) Excerpts from Frances Kissling's input to Annie Lally Milhaven's book Inside Stories: 13 Valiant Women Challenging the Church. Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 29 to 37.
2) Maryknoll Sister Rose Dominic Trapasso, quoted in "Otras Voces: Latina Feminists and the Church." Conscience, July/August 1986, page 13.
3) "The Editors Interview Rosemary Radford Ruether." U.S. Catholic, April 1985, page 19.
4) Christine E. Gudorf. "Sexism Enshrined." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1995, pages 11 to 17.
5) Rosemary Radford Ruether. Womanguides: Readings toward a Feminist Theology. Beacon Press, 1985, page 104.
6) Mary E. Hunt and Frances Kissling. "The New York Times Ad." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, pages 16 to 23.
7) Adelle-Marie Stan. "A Decade of Dissent." Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 24 to 26.
8) Mary E. Hunt. "Abortion in a Just Society." Conscience, July/August 1988, pages 9 to 12 [emphasis in original].
9) "Noted feminist sociologist" Sister Marie Augusta Neal, quoted in Frances Kissling. "Editorial." Conscience, November/December 1988, page 2.
10) Mary E. Hunt. "Abortion in a Just Society." Conscience, July/August 1988, pages 9 to 12.
11) Mary E. Hunt. "Lovingly Lesbian: Toward a Feminist Theology of Friendship." In James B. Nelson and Sandra P. Longfellow [editors]. Sexuality and the Sacred: Sources for Theological Reflection [Westminster: John Knox Press], 1994.
12) Mary Hunt, quoted in The Re-Imagining Conference: A Report. American Family Association, April, 1994.
13) CFFC Press Release dated November 13, 2000, at .
14) Women-Church Convergence. "Equal is as Equal Does: From the Women-Church Convergence, a Catholic Feminist Commentary on the Report of the Holy See in Preparation for the Fourth World Conference on Women." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1995, pages 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9.
15) Steve Askin. "Challenging the Right." Conscience, Spring 1994, pages 65 and 66.
16) Mary E. Hunt. "Abortion in a Just Society." Conscience, July/August 1988, pages 9 to 12.
17) Rosemary Radford Ruether. "The Church and the Ordination of Women." Conscience, September-December 1987, page 12.
18) Mary E. Hunt. "Limited Partners." Conscience, May/June 1988, pages 6 to 10.
19) Adelle-Marie Stan. "A Decade of Dissent." Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 24 to 26.
20) Doreen Ercolano. "Hunt Speaks on 21st Century Catholic Church." Record [Troy, New York], April 25, 1988; Tim O'Brien. "Catholics Protest Theologian's Views." Times Union [Albany, New York], April 25, 1988; for a full history of the scandal of Hunt's presentation, see Donna Steichen. Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism [San Francisco: Ignatius Press], 1992. Pages 108 to 111.
21) Excerpts from Frances Kissling's input to Annie Lally Milhaven's book Inside Stories: 13 Valiant Women Challenging the Church. Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 29 to 37.
22) For the teachings of the churches on abortion: (1) "Organizations That Have Taken a Position on Abortion Rights," Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, HQ 780, October 22, 1985; and (2) T.J. Bosgra. "Abortion, the Bible, and the Church." Booklet from Hawaii Right to Life Education Foundation, Post Office Box 10129, Honolulu, Hawaii 96816. For church membership statistics: (1) National Council of Churches (NCC). Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches. CD-ROM version, 1916 to 2000 Editions, and 2010 print edition, Table 2, "Membership Statistics in the United States," pages 361 to 371. Inclusive membership statistics are used; (2) For the Roman Catholic Church only: P.J. Kenedy & Sons. Official Catholic Directory, annual editions; and (3) Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce. National Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States. 2010 (130th Edition). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Table 76, "Religious Bodies ― Selected Data."
23) Ibid.
24) For methodology and summary of the statistics on this study, see the electronic version of Brian Clowes. Call to Action or Call to Apostasy?: How Dissenters Plan to Remake the Catholic Church in Their Own Image, updated in 2011 and available from Brian Clowes, e-mail address: bclowes@.
25) "Statement of Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey." Conscience, May/June 1988, page 4.
26) Frances Kissling. "The Catholic Church's Achilles' Heel." Conscience, Winter 1999/2000.
27) Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey. "... A Response." Conscience, July/August 1986, page 11.
[pic]
CFFC Argument #6:
"We must respect the ability of women to make good decisions."
What Catholics for a Free Choice Says.
"The Catholic religion makes the fetus into an icon, a figure of religious veneration, which I think is sick, really sick. ... It's not the abortion issue that's at question. The question is: How do we get the Church to acknowledge that women can be trusted to make good decisions? That is what we are trying to do on the abortion issue, to trust women."
― Frances Kissling.1
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
1) Just because a human being happens to be female does not mean that she is automatically endowed with the wisdom to make good moral decisions. CFFC does not attribute this kind of wisdom to men. It certainly does not believe men have the good judgment to run the Catholic Church! Therefore, it is being sexist when it makes this statement.
2) CFFC's emphasis on respecting women's ability to make good decisions is nothing more than an attempt to lend a thin veneer of legitimacy to the killing of preborn babies. CFFC wants to divert attention away from the concrete and bloody act of abortion and focus it on an abstract question.
3) By saying that we must trust women to make moral choices regarding abortion, CFFC is actually saying that abortion can be a moral choice. It certainly would not trust a convicted molester to be left alone with little girls, because it rightly considers sexual molestation to be immoral. This contrast shows that CFFC believes there should be no restrictions whatever on women's decision-making regarding abortion.
(1) CFFC Entrusts Only Women to Make Moral Decisions.
Catholics for a Free Choice insists that we must trust women to make moral decisions about abortion. It claims that "Abortion can be a moral choice. Women can be trusted to make decisions that support the well-being of their children, families, and society, and that enhance their own integrity and health.”2 CFFC also says that "It is important that the Vatican, which claims love for its believers, should acknowledge the right of women to make choices about their lives.”3
CFFC seems to believe that the ability to make moral decisions is a sex-dependent trait, reserved only to women. It never speaks of men's ability to make good and moral decisions, particularly when addressing the role of men in governing the Catholic Church.
In fact, CFFC is often extremely disrespectful and sexist when speaking of men in general. Frances Kissling contemptuously refers to the Bishops of the Catholic Church as "300 men in dresses," and says that "... in their male rage, and in their fear of losing control, these men behave very badly. ... these men don't deserve good manners. We must get to the point where once we know they don't deserve good manners, we're capable of taking to the streets. ... Nothing will drive them crazier than to be treated without dignity."4
We can only imagine how CFFC would react if a Bishop referred to women's "female emotionalism," and said that women "don't deserve good manners" and should be treated "without dignity." The response would be pretty spectacular, we are certain.
CFFC is comprised of professional victims. Nowhere else in the world have women enjoyed so much opportunity as in the United States, yet a former CFFC Board member asserted that "... these rights of women still are consistently, sweepingly, viciously, atrociously violated by men in all cultures I know of, especially the one I live in [the USA]."5
Catholics for a Free Choice attributes special wisdom and unique decision-making capabilities to women. In fact, CFFC believes that women should evolve their own system of ethics and spirituality separate from men, for the express purpose of attacking men and overthrowing the despised "patriarchy."
Emily Culpepper says that
And we know that to be "prochoice," to affirm the value of women's lives and moral agency, is the most radically prolife, genuinely biophilic orientation. Women's moral agency on our own terms ― the development of feminist, womanist ethics ― is a direct contradiction to patriarchy. ... To assert our right to choose is to assert that, even more fundamentally than being "she who can bear children," a woman is "she who can create values." ... When women assert our right to reproductive choice, we are asserting our right to make our own world of values, which shatters the standard patriarchal claim to ethical hegemony. ...6
Notice that Culpepper would like to entrust women with creating their own value systems. This is the purest statement of ethical relativism, and inevitably leads to moral pandemonium and the grossest violations of justice.
She continues by saying that abortion is not only necessary for women's autonomy, but that it is a direct attack on the hated "patriarchy;"
When we see that the deeper taboo is against women acting as moral agents (that is, shapers of culture), we can more easily see the connections among all the manifestations of reproductive choice that patriarchy would deny us. ... Abortion, and the fact that women may under certain conditions recognize it as a morally defensible choice, especially breaches the patriarchal definition of society. ...As we have seen, asserting ourselves as ethical agents breaks such a root paradigm of patriarchy that it is a profound move globally towards women's liberation.7
In summary, CFFC perceives abortion as not merely a means for women to gain control over their own bodies, but as a vital tool in its revolutionary work, whose ultimate aim is to overthrow the "patriarchy." This is the primary reason it attributes a moral decision-making capacity only to women; to acknowledge any favorable traits in men would undermine its entire ideology, which regards males as universal and omnipresent "oppressors."
Ironically, the ideology to which CFFC subscribes contributes directly to the irresponsibility of men and their oppression of women. When abortion was illegal, men were much more careful about "sleeping around." Now that it is freely available, many men see abortion as a quick and easy solution to the problem of "unplanned pregnancy." Therefore, men can now shirk responsibility for their own children, and millions of them have presented their wives and girlfriends with an oppressive and coercive decision: "Get rid of the kid or I'm out of here!"
(2) CFFC Wants to Divert Attention from Abortion at All Costs.
CFFC constantly speaks about the necessity of respecting women's ability to make good decisions.
This assertion certainly sounds reasonable on its face. However, we must remember that CFFC looks for the most reasonable sounding language to excuse the grossest possible acts.
Of course we should trust women (and men) to make good decisions. The goal of raising children is to train them to make good moral decisions. But CFFC's rhetoric in this area cloaks its real motive: To divert people's attention away from the concrete act of abortion and focus it instead on an abstract concept. CFFC knows that, if it can focus on the "moral agency" of women ― or some other nebulous and tangential issue ― people will stop thinking about abortion.
Yes, we should trust both men and women to make good decisions. But this trust must have limits. Civil law trusts people too ― but only to a point. If society trusted everyone without limit, there would be no need for laws. And if people really could be trusted to do the right thing in all situations, there would be no need for a Redeemer.
However, we must face reality. Human beings are fallen creatures. As a result of original sin, no person is completely trustworthy. This is why we have civil law, and why we have canon law.
The purpose of Church and civil law is to instruct human beings as to the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
What CFFC desires is a complete elimination of all civil and Church laws concerning abortion. In other words, its concept of "trust" means absolutely no limits whatever on abortion, because it sees abortion as a "basic human right."8
(3) The Real Issue Here is the Morality of Abortion, Not the Morality of Women.
CFFC Never Met an Abortion it Didn't Like. CFFC's "moral agency of women" argument is another classic diversion, intended to distract people from thinking about abortion.
In its October 1984 full-page ad in the New York Times, CFFC claimed that "A large number of Catholic theologians hold that even direct abortion, though tragic, can sometimes be a moral choice."
CFFC is grossly understating its extremism in this ad. It claims that abortion can "sometimes" be a moral choice, when in reality, it believes that abortion is always a moral choice.
One writer in Conscience said that "We need to adamantly state that the only criteria for the [abortion] service should be a woman's word."9
CFFC has never met an abortion it didn't like. It would not even condemn a decision by a woman to abort her husband's baby so she could look good in the swimsuit she just bought, a situation that has actually been litigated;10 and it would not criticize a third-trimester abortion done on the healthy and viable baby of a healthy mother just because she changed her mind about raising a child.
This extremism is rooted in CFFC's core belief that a preborn child, no matter how fully developed, can never be as valuable as the life of a woman. CFFC speaks endlessly about the "value" of the fetus, and speaks of it as being "precious," but this is simply more distracting rhetoric designed to make CFFC appear humane and benevolent, when it is not.
Frances Kissling says that
I feel that the value of the fetus, until the third trimester, never outweighs the value of women's well-being or the social importance of acknowledging women's capacity to weigh all the values in making the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy. I believe that as the fetus comes closer to fulfilling its potential to become a person, more serious reasons are required to morally justify terminating its life. I do not believe that my beliefs in this realm are more factually compelling than others, and thus I am unwilling to see any one of our beliefs enacted into law.11
Notice the spongy and flexible terminology Kissling uses in her efforts to sound compassionate and caring. She says that the fetus comes closer to being a person, yet never quite goes so far to say that it cannot be killed, even in the third trimester. She concludes by implying that, even if she did think the third-trimester preborn baby should be protected, her belief should not be enacted into law.
To show how absurd her reasoning is, consider a parallel case of animal cruelty. Certainly CFFC would not accept a statement by a person who defends sadists who tear puppies or kittens limb from limb, and who evades the question by saying that "animals should be protected, but I am not willing to see my belief enacted into law."
In summary, Kissling believes that preborn children deserve no protection whatever. In contrast to its claims, when real-life situations present themselves, CFFC believes that preborn children are absolutely worthless. In its view, the woman's right to make a decision always outweighs the preborn child's right to live, even in the case of a perfectly healthy woman aborting a perfectly healthy child in the third trimester simply because she changed her mind about being a mother.
To show how extreme CFFC's ideology really is, two of its writers went so far as to say that "Any interference in the abortion decision is an attempt to come between a woman and God. This is in our understanding a direct contradiction of the Gospel ..."12
Ultimately, There is No 'Right' to Make an Immoral Decision. Throughout all of Her history, the Catholic Church has taught that abortion is an intrinsically evil act, an act that can never be justified under any circumstances, and regardless of what the motives for the act are.
CFFC argues that women should be allowed to make decisions that are irredeemably evil, when in reality there is no such right under either civil or Church law.
To illustrate this principle, civil law does not allow men to rape women, even in extraordinary circumstances (because there is no such thing as a "hard case" to justify rape). The law does not permit women to kill their born children, even if they feel that they are at the end of their rope (because there are no mitigating circumstances that can excuse such an act, except perhaps for insanity). Any law that permitted rape or infanticide would be widely recognized as evil and unjust.
By contrast, however, civil law does permit women to kill their preborn children for any reason they like. This does not mean that abortion is moral; it means that the law itself is immoral.
Notes on CFFC Argument #6.
1) Frances Kissling, quoted in Ron Brackin. "'Sister' Frances Kissling: Cardinal of Death." Liberty Report, January 1987.
2) Steve Askin. "Challenging the Right." Conscience, Spring 1994, pages 65 and 66.
3) Bene E. Madunagu. "Moving Forward." Conscience, Summer 1999.
4) Janet Wallach. "The Cardinal of Choice: Frances Kissling's Crusade to Change the Church." The Washington Post Magazine, August 24, 1986 cover story; Excerpts from Frances Kissling's input to Annie Lally Milhaven's book Inside Stories: 13 Valiant Women Challenging the Church. Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 29 to 37.
5) John Giles Milhaven (former member of the CFFC Board of Directors). "In What Are Women Equal to Men?: Finding Words for What We Know by Intuition." Conscience, Winter 1995/1996, pages 2 to 6.
6) Emily Erwin Culpepper. "She Who Creates Values." Conscience, Summer 1992, pages 14 to 18 [emphasis in original].
7) Ibid.
8) Frances Kissling says that "We believed this [abortion] right was so fundamental that it protected even decisions that others considered wrong, morally reprehensible or irresponsible."
9) Marcia Gillespie, Editor-in-Chief of Ms. Magazine. "Gotta Be Bolder." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, pages 22 to 25.
10) The Conn v. Conn case was the first pure 'father's rights' litigation brought to the attention of the Supreme Court of the United States, and decisively demonstrated that fathers have no rights whatever regarding their preborn children. In this court case, Erin Andrew Conn of Elkhart, Indiana, won a court order in June 1988 barring his wife from having an abortion. She defied the court injunction and the wishes of the father of her unborn child and obtained an abortion with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. Her lawyer, Richard A. Waples of the Indiana ACLU, stated in legal papers that "she did what she had to do to protect both her physical and emotional health." Sounds like a pretty serious reason to get an abortion, doesn't it? In reality, court documents showed that she had the abortion because she had planned a trip to the beach and wanted to look good in her new bathing suit! [In re Unborn Baby H., No. 84C01 8804JP185, slip opinion at 1-2 (Vigo County, Indiana Circuit Court, April 8, 1988). Also see "Woman Defies Court, Father, Aborts Child." Washington Times, April 15, 1988].
11) Frances Kissling. "Defining Personhood/Developmental Views." Conscience, Spring 1992, page 25; also repeated in Steve Askin. "Challenging the Right." Conscience, Spring 1994, page 66.
12) Patricia Wilson-Kastner and Beatrice Blair. "Biblical Views on Abortion: An Episcopal Perspective." Conscience, November/December 1985, pages 4 to 8.
[pic]
CFFC Argument #7:
"Please don't call us 'pro-abortion.' Nobody
is for abortion. We are instead 'pro-choice.'"
What Catholics for a Free Choice Says.
"I don't consider myself in any way, shape or form pro-abortion. I think it depends on the circumstances. I think there are women who have been raped ― they are few and far between ― who would be better off carrying the pregnancy to term. I also think there are many, many reasons for which abortion is justified. ..."
― Frances Kissling.1
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
1) Although CFFC prefers the term "pro-choice," its actions show that it is truly pro-abortion.
2) Liberals have no trouble labeling conservative groups as being "for" something if they fight for its availability. This standard should be applied to CFFC as well.
(1) Why Use the Term "Pro-Choice" in the First Place?
The very term 'pro-choice' shows that the pro-abortionists don't really believe their own rhetoric. They know that the word "ABORTION" conjures up vivid pictures of a bloody, cowardly act of outright slaughter, and so they slyly dodge the much more accurate term "pro-abortion."
CFFC has a self-image that it carefully cultivates for public consumption: That of a beneficent, neutral and even prophetic observer passively monitoring abortion from the political sidelines, free of any ideology or self-interest.
However, CFFC's actions by no means accurately reflect its preferred media image;
• CFFC only supports one choice: Abortion. Its writers have repeatedly condemned adoption and do everything they can to direct the woman's so-called "free choice" towards abortion.2 They write brochures for abortion clinic waiting rooms that are grossly biased towards abortion, and whose sole purpose is to ease the consciences of Catholic women who are about to abort. Not a single word in these brochures even hints at any other choice.
• CFFC demands that pro-lifers, along with everyone else, pay for abortions for poor women, both in the United States and overseas. It has even tried to use force of law to coerce Catholic pro-lifers into printing its anti-Catholic and pro-abortion literature.3
• CFFC opposes institutional conscience clauses for Catholic hospitals, claiming that they must perform sterilizations and distribute abortifacient methods of birth control.4
• CFFC vigorously opposes all informed consent laws that would give women more information on the abortion decision.
• CFFC has never condemned the forced family planning programs in China and a number of other countries. In fact, it darkly hints that such coercion should not be "ruled out." One CFFC writer said that "... human population growth and consumption rates do not seem to be slowing quickly and uniformly enough to rule out future need for coerced contraception and sterilization."5
• CFFC provides no help whatever to women who want to carry their babies to term ― it only supports women who want to abort.
• CFFC has even distributed "liturgies" to celebrate women having abortions ― but has no "liturgy" for women who decide to keep their babies.6
In summary, when you only support one choice, and condemn and oppose all other choices, you are certainly not "pro-choice." It seems that CFFC is less "pro-choice" than any of the pro-life groups it denounces so frequently.
One writer in Conscience showed how extreme CFFC's pro-abortion position really is. Incredibly, abortion for any reason (or for no reason at all) through all nine months of pregnancy, right up until the instant of birth, is not enough for CFFC. It wants the "right" to abortion expanded;
We need to advocate for the expansion of the right to abortion, the removal of all restrictions to access to abortion ― eliminating parental or judicial permissions for underage girls and cutoff points based on fetal viability, rescinding the Hyde Amendment and other laws limiting federal funding of the service both here and abroad. We need to adamantly state that the only criteria for the service should be a woman's word. ... And we need to be willing to declare that, yeah, abortion causes the death of the fetus ..."7
Even Frances Kissling occasionally let slips that her group is a little more for abortion than perhaps it wants known. She said that
We firmly believe that women are moral agents and as a matter of law should be allowed to make the decision whether or not to have an abortion with minimal state intervention. If this is how one defines "abortion on demand," then one would conclude we are for abortion on demand.8
The most certain way to refute the 'pro-choice' slogan in a discussion is to ask the pro-abortionist what they or their group personally does to help mothers carry their babies to term. After all, that's what the term "pro-choice" implies: Support for all of the choices a mother might make (even though some of those choices are evil). If the pro-abortionist is an activist whose efforts are entirely directed towards making sure abortion remains 'safe and legal,' then their actions are not consistent with their words.
This is certainly the case with Catholics for a Free Choice.
(2) CFFC and the National Rifle Association.
The term "pro-choice" is a public relations ploy, mere semantic quibbling. When a person or organization works for unlimited access to something, and fights tooth and nail against even the most trivial restrictions upon it, they are certainly "for" it.
To illustrate this point, let us draw a parallel with NRA activism and gun ownership.
Let us say that, in 1965, there was a total ban on the private ownership of all guns in the United States. Let us imagine for a moment that a group organizes for the purpose of having all anti-gun laws thrown out, so that anyone could own a gun for any reason. Further, after gun ownership was legalized, this group fights to have the states pay for guns for poor people so that everyone has access to guns. It also fights against even the most trivial restrictions on gun ownership, so that children of 10 or 11 can own guns (paid for by the state) without their parents even knowing about it. This group also ignores the thousands of people who are killed by guns each year and refers to people who wants to limit gun ownership in any way as "fanatics" and "lunatics" who want to "control other people's lives." Finally, this group insists that certain people have to own guns (such as the Chinese), and that the American people have to pick up part of the tab for forcing the Chinese people to own guns.
Any sane person would call such an organization "pro-gun."
The behavior of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in no way approaches the extreme described above. Yet its opponents call the NRA "pro-gun," and the NRA is honest enough to refer to itself as "pro-gun."9
Therefore, it is logical to refer to Catholics for a Free Choice, which is much more extreme in its advocacy than the NRA, "pro-abortion."
Conclusion. The term "pro-choice" shows that CFFC is not principled enough to describe itself accurately.
"Pro-choice" should mean support for all of the choices a mother might make. CFFC's efforts are entirely directed towards making sure abortion remains "safe and legal," which means that its actions are not consistent with its self-description. CFFC criticizes pro-lifers, falsely claiming that they are concerned with children only until they are born, and that they ignore the women ― yet CFFC offers mothers who choose to keep their babies no help whatsoever.
Certainly, CFFC frequently bemoans the "oppression" of women in its literature, but talk is cheap. Because its concrete efforts are directed almost exclusively towards preserving the abortion "right," we can accurately refer to CFFC as "pro-abortion."
Notes on CFFC Argument #7.
1) Excerpts from Frances Kissling's input to Annie Lally Milhaven's book Inside Stories: 13 Valiant Women Challenging the Church. Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 29 to 37.
2) Mary Jean Wolch. "An Open Letter From a Catholic Birth Mother." Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 25 to 28; Daniel C. Maguire. "Reflections of a Catholic Theologian on Visiting an Abortion Clinic." Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 29 to 34.
3) Paquette v. Regal Art Press, Inc. [656 A.2d 209 (Vt. 1994)]. Atlantic Reporter, 2d Series, pages 209-211; "Pro-Life Printers Wage Battle of Conscience." Free Speech Advocates newsletter, January 1991, pages 2 and 3; "Vermont Printers Win Three-Year Fight." Catalyst [Journal of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights], April 1994, pages 1 and 12.
4) Ethel Klein. "Whose Health ― Catholic Hospitals'? Or Women's?" Conscience, Spring/Summer 1995, pages 29 to 36; Patricia Miller. "Religion, Reproductive Health and Access to Services." Conscience, Summer 2000, pages 2 to 8; and "Respecting Conscience." Conscience, Summer 2000, page 9.
5) Christine E. Gudorf. "Earth's Inhabitants." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, page 25.
6) Diann Neu, pamphlet entitled "Liturgy of Affirmation for Making a Difficult Decision." At the bottom of this pamphlet, it says "Liturgies by Diann Neu, feminist liberation theologian and co-director of WATER, the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual in Silver Spring, MD."
7) Marcia Gillespie, Editor-in-Chief of Ms. Magazine. "Gotta Be Bolder." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, pages 22 to 25.
8) Frances Kissling. "Abortion: Articulating a Moral View." Conscience, Summer 2000, pages 21, 22 and 27.
9) Author's conversation with researchers at the NRA's Institute for Legal Action, May 1, 2001.
[pic]
CFFC Argument #8:
"The majority of Catholics are pro-choice."
What Catholics for a Free Choice Says.
CFFC IS THE VOICE OF THE
77% OF AMERICAN CATHOLICS WHO
BELIEVE IN ABORTION RIGHTS.*
― Undated CFFC flyer.
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
1) CFFC chronically misrepresents the results of various public opinion polls in order to buttress its allegations. In reality, most Catholics and most Americans would ban more than 99 percent of all abortions if only given the opportunity to vote on it.1
2) CFFC states that many Catholic theologians support the wide availability of abortion. In reality, CFFC's own polls show that a theoretical maximum of only six percent of Catholic theologians support unlimited access to abortion, the current situation in the United States.
3) CFFC does not really believe that public opinion polls should guide public morality, because it only mentions poll results when they appear to support its position. CFFC simply disregards poll results when they do not agree with its ideology.
(1) How CFFC Uses Opinion Polls to Deceive People.
CFFC Omits Crucial Information. The typical issue of CFFC's journal Conscience is sprinkled with more than a dozen references to polls and surveys showing that most American Catholics disagree with or ignore the Church's teachings on sexual ethics. The group is so fixated on polls that Conscience sometimes features several full pages plastered with the results of public opinion polls.2
But CFFC often deliberately omits crucial information when it reports on the results of these polls.
For example, anyone who sees CFFC's flyer quoted above would simply assume that 77% of all American Catholics believe in abortion law as it now stands, i.e., abortion on demand for any reason (or for no reason at all) through all nine months of pregnancy.
What CFFC neglects to mention is that the 1980 Gallup Poll referred to by the asterisk in "CFFC IS THE VOICE OF THE 77% OF AMERICAN CATHOLICS WHO BELIEVE IN ABORTION RIGHTS*" breaks down as follows;
▪ 23% of all American Catholics believe that abortion is wrong, even to save the life of the mother, and
▪ 77% of all American Catholics are distributed among all other attitudes, i.e., a single exception for the life of the mother; another exception for rape and incest; yet another for fetal anomalies (eugenics); or all the way to no restrictions whatever.
In other words, if a Catholic believes that abortion should be strictly banned except to save the life of the mother, then CFFC counts him among the "77% of American Catholics who believe in abortion rights!"
Technically, this would mean that CFFC would count even a pro-lifer who would only permit abortions to save the life of the mother as 'pro-choice!'
This Gallup Poll is flawed in that it includes many Catholics who do not even practice their faith ― so-called "cafeteria Catholics," or, as CFFC sometimes calls them, "Good Enough Catholics."
What Does "Pro-Choice" Mean? Dissenting and liberal groups prefer to use words whose meanings are infinitely flexible and elastic, so they can change them at will to suit their morality. Nowhere is this more evident than in their use of the term "pro-choice."
Catholics for a Free Choice studiously avoids any hard definition of the term "pro-choice," but occasionally one of its writers gives us a hint as to what this expression means.
Ex-priest Daniel Maguire says that
Saint Antoninus, the revered fifteenth-century Dominican bishop of Florence, presented common Catholic teaching when he defended early abortions to save a woman's life ― a broad exception in the medical context of his day. Today's Catholic hierarchy might well begin their deliberations with a prayer to St. Antoninus, this pro-choice bishop, canonized a saint in 1523. He is a saintly representative of a pro-choice Catholic view."3
CFFC's and Maguire's manipulation of Saint Antoninus' teachings convey the false idea that even people who think that it is legitimate to perform a surgical intervention to save a mother's life, and which unfortunately results in the indirect and unintended taking of the life of the preborn child, are "pro-choice."
We shall explain in more detail the case of "indirect abortion" in the next section. At this point it is sufficient to show how CFFC distorts the historical teachings of prominent Church theologians to support its own agenda.
If a national referendum were held on abortion in the United States today, the people would ban more than 99 percent of all abortions, since the most popular exceptions supported by the general public (to save the life or physical health of the mother, rape, incest and eugenics) constitute less than one percent of all abortions.4 Once again, we must stress that a surgical procedure done to save the life of the mother, and which indirectly results in the death of the preborn child, is not classified as an abortion.
The "Double Effect." The very rare cases of pregnancy that pose a real and immediate threat to the mother's life ― including uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies ― are a source of great confusion, especially among Catholics.
It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans direct abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother's life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the preborn baby's life.
The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother's life against that of her preborn child's are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.
In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the preborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this kind of surgery would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.
The principle of the twofold, or double effect, states that it is morally allowable to perform an action that will produce both good and bad effects as long as the following conditions are all met. The example shown is for the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, where the preborn child is developing in the Fallopian tube. If the child continues to grow there, the tube will eventually rupture and will probably cause the death of both the mother and the child.5
1) The object of the action to be performed must be good in itself or at least morally neutral. In this case, the object of the surgery is to remove a pathological organ which presents a threat to the life of the woman. By contrast, the object of surgical or chemical abortion is simply to kill the preborn child ["object" is the end toward which an action tends, and does not connote the intention(s) of the operator, as does the word "objective"].
2) The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself. In this case, the good effect (saving the mother's life) is not caused by the bad effect (the death of the preborn child). By contrast, in the case of direct abortion (surgical or chemical abortion), the death of the child is wrongly considered to be the "good" effect.
3) The evil effect must not be desired in itself but only permitted. In the case of the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, the surgeon does not intend or want to kill the baby; his death is an unintended and unwanted side effect of the surgery. By contrast, the intent of abortion is to kill the preborn child.
4) There must be a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the evil effect to occur. In this case, the reason is to save the life of the mother, a good that is greater than or equal to the evil effect of the baby's death. Pro-abortion groups often stretch this principle to absurd lengths, going so far as to justify all abortions under the principle of the double effect because, as they allege, all abortions threaten the life of the mother.6
5) Sometimes a fifth condition is added, implicit in (4), above, namely, that there is no other alternative available to solve the problem at hand. If there are alternatives other than the intervention that offer better possibilities to save both mother and preborn child, these of course must be used.
In fact, this last condition is the one that most clearly distinguishes the "indirect abortion" case (the case under the double effect principle) from the "therapeutic" abortion case. "Therapeutic" abortion is direct abortion, and therefore is always gravely evil. It is the abortion committed with the (supposed) intention of saving the mother's life, but where one or more of the above conditions are not met. Basically, the doctor in this case does have alternatives to save both mother and preborn child, but chooses abortion as the most expedient way to solve the problem at hand. The phrase "therapeutic abortion" is in fact an oxymoron, since no direct abortion is therapeutic, i.e. it does not "cure" anyone of an illness, but instead kills an innocent human being.
It is perhaps a sign of the times that abortionists see pregnancy itself as a disease, and abortion as the "cure" for this dreaded malady. At an Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians conference, Willard Cates compared the miracle of pregnancy to a venereal disease when he said that "Unwanted pregnancy is transmitted sexually, is socially and emotionally pathologic ... and has many other characteristics of the conventional venereal diseases. The incubation time, defined as the period between exposure (mid-cycle coitus) and the development of initial symptoms (usually missed menses), averages approximately two weeks."7 Barbara Roberts said that "It's obvious, therefore, that unwanted pregnancy is the most common venereal disease ... This disease is associated with immense suffering. Seeking to be cured of this disease, women from time have risked pain, mutilation, and death in numbers that really stagger the imagination."8 And third-trimester abortionist Warren Hern has said that "[Pregnancy] is an episodic, moderately extended, chronic condition ... defined as an illness ... treated by evacuation of the uterine contents. ... The relationship between the gravid female and the feto-placental unit can be understood best as one of host and parasite. Pregnancy should be seen as a biocultural event in the context of other human illnesses."9
The promotion of "therapeutic" abortion by pro-abortionists in countries where abortion is illegal is a strategy they use to not only legalize abortion in these cases, but also to eventually legalize abortion on demand. Exceptions to direct abortion are not only evil in themselves, they also and always lead to abortion on demand.
As medical science advances, surgeons might be able to save the preborn child despite even these serious medical problems. If we ever arrive at the point where the lives of both mother and child can be saved in all cases, the principle of the double effect would not apply.10
The principle of the "double effect" also applies to sexual sterilization. If a non-pregnant woman must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously cancerous uterus, this will result in her sterilization, but is not a sinful act (provided the above conditions are met). However, if the purpose of the operation is not to heal or safeguard health, but to directly sterilize, then that act is intrinsically evil and is always a mortal sin.11
(2) Do Catholic Theologians Really Support Abortion?
CFFC's (in)famous 1984 New York Times advertisement stated that Catholic theologians take a variety of positions regarding abortion. Naturally, CFFC never revealed just how many Catholic theologians described themselves as "pro-choice" ― and for good reason.
CFFC had surveyed 2,000 Catholic scholars and theologians. The results of its own poll are shown below;12
|Summary of CFFC's Survey of |
|Catholic Scholars and Theologians |
| Total surveys mailed |2000 (100%) |
| Responses |498 (25%) |
| Of these responses: | |
| Abortion is unacceptable: |364/498 (73%) |
| Abortion as it legally stands now is acceptable: |30/498 (6%) |
| Other answers or "not sure:" |104/498 (21%) |
Once again, CFFC's own polls show it to be in a tiny minority: In this case, only six percent! And we can bet the farm that this number would be far lower if CFFC had not polled its own sympathetic "house theologians."
(3) Morality is Not Determined by Public Opinion Polls.
CFFC's Inconsistent Use of the Polls. Principled people on all sides of any moral issue seldom listen to the results of public opinion polls. However, Catholics for a Free Choice constantly quotes polls showing that the majority of Catholics use birth control or support abortion.
Why does it do this?
CFFC's primary goal is to influence uninformed Catholics who believe that sexual morality and Church dogma can be determined by popular vote. After all, most American Catholics have never heard abortion, sterilization or contraception condemned from the pulpit. Many have been psychologically conditioned to buy into the "live and let live" philosophy of the Culture of Death. They may believe such acts are immoral or wrong, but they think that they must not "impose their morality" on others by speaking out. CFFC and other pro-abortion groups encourage this silence and misinterpret it as support.
CFFC's use of public opinion polls highlights another of the logical inconsistencies in its actions ― it only quotes polls when the polls agree with its ideology.
Certainly CFFC would have approved of the activities of Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) when the public opinion polls were heavily against her. CFFC itself has agitated in favor of partial-birth abortion when the polls ran a consistent 80% or more against it. The group also pushes for tax funding of abortion even when the people strongly oppose it. In other words, CFFC only mentions poll results if they can be manipulated into supporting its position. If the polls do not support CFFC's beliefs, it simply disregards them or distorts them until they support abortion.
This proves that CFFC only uses polls as a tool if they support its position on abortion. Therefore, it does not really believe that morality can be guided by vote.
CFFC also talks all the time about how a "consensus" should determine morality. However, the group doesn't really believe this either, since, if "consensus" was against CFFC, then it can be simply be disregarded.
CFFC writer Mary Segers illustrates this inconsistency;... Catholic politicians can remind their bishops that in a liberal democracy, not even consensus is controlling, because prudent policy making always looks to the consequences of laws enacted. ... Thus even if a popular consensus develops in favor of restrictive abortion law, a public officeholder is still obliged to judge whether the proposed policy will make sound law.13
Conclusion: Where Would We Be Today If ...?
If Jesus and His Apostles had assessed their comparative numerical strength, they would have found that they comprised about 0.0004 percent of the population of their region. If they had taken a public opinion poll, they would have certainly found that they were very unpopular indeed. In fact, Our Lord and eleven of his thirteen Apostles were murdered for the Faith.
If they had given up because the "polls were against them," certainly many people would have breathed a sigh of relief.
But what would the world look like today?
Fortunately, there have been millions of people through the ages who have echoed the words of the Apostle Peter: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God" [John 6:68-69].
Donum Veritas outlines the Church's teachings on "morality by vote;"
Polling public opinion to determine the proper thing to think or do, opposing the Magisterium by exerting the pressure of public opinion, making the excuse of a "consensus" among theologians, maintaining that the theologian is the prophetical spokesman of a "base" or autonomous community which would be the source of all truth, all this indicates a grave loss of the sense of truth and of the sense of the Church [¶39].
Once again, we must point out that Jesus Christ entrusted the authentic interpretation of His teachings only to the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Only the Pope and those bishops in communion with him may authoritatively interpret the teachings of Our Lord. In the absence of such unbroken authority throughout the past twenty centuries, the Church would have been reduced from a uniform belief to a diverse and unruly riot of creeds, thereby fatally injuring Her oneness, holiness, catholicity and apostolic mission.
But we must remember that this is exactly what the dissenters want to achieve.
Notes for CFFC Argument #8.
1) In the United States, 99.31% of all abortions performed in the United States are for social reasons, or to "save the lifestyle of the mother." For detailed calculations and documentation, see Chapter 19 of The Facts of Life, "United States Abortion Statistics."
2) Two examples are Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, pages 18-19, and Summer 1996, pages 9 to 11.
3) Daniel C. Maguire. "Reflections of a Catholic Theologian on Visiting an Abortion Clinic." Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 29 to 34.
4) See Chapter 19 of The Facts of Life, "United States Abortion Statistics."
5) Rev. Edward J. Hayes, et.al. Catholicism and Ethics [Norwood, Massachusetts: C.R. Publications], 1997, pages 54 to 57.
6) For example, at the 1980 national convention of the National Abortion Federation (NAF), abortionist Lise Fortier said that "Each and every pregnancy threatens a woman's life. From a strict medical viewpoint, every pregnancy should be aborted" [Andrew Scholberg. "The Abortionists and Planned Parenthood: Familiar Bedfellows." International Review of Natural Family Planning, Winter 1980, page 308].
One of the most ridiculous pro-abortion abuses of the "double effect" was committed by John M. Swomley of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (now RCRC), of which CFFC is a member organization. Swomley claimed that "The Roman church argues that although the death of the fetus is foreseen, it is not intended because the intention is to preserve the health and life of the woman. Isn't it just as reasonable to assert that the intention of most women is the separation of the fetus from the woman, not the killing of the fetus, though its death may be foreseen?" [June 1987 propaganda pamphlet by RCAR entitled "Six Ethical Questions"].
7) Willard Cates Jr., M.D., et al. "Abortion as a Treatment for Unwanted Pregnancy: The Number Two Sexually-Transmitted Condition." Address presented to the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians Conference, Miami Beach, Florida, November 11-12, 1976.
8) Barbara H. Roberts, M.D. "Abortion Laws Murder Women." Essay in a Women's National Abortion Action Coalition booklet entitled "Abortion is a Woman's Right: March on Washington, DC and San Francisco, November 20 [1972]."
9) Warren Hern. "Is Pregnancy Really Normal?" Alan Guttmacher Institute's Family Planning Perspectives, January 1971, page 9; Warren Hern. Abortion Practice. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1984.
10) In some countries there currently exist advanced techniques that can save both the mother and her preborn child even in the extreme case of a tubal pregnancy. Abdominal pregnancies present a less difficult scenario insofar as saving both mother and child, because less advanced technology is required than in the case of tubal pregnancies.
In the case where the particular medical facility does not have such technology available to save tubal babies, competent moralists and doctors affirm that with the present medical technology we can diagnose such pregnancies earlier than before, and we can also accompany expectantly (ready to act but without intervening) a woman pregnant with a tubal preborn baby until we can attempt to save him (if that is indeed possible) or until we know the tubal baby has unfortunately died, in order to then remove him or her without damage to the mother. This way of acting is more respectful towards the preborn baby and the one to be followed, and we should set aside utilitarian considerations about costs, etc. [Niceto Blázquez. Bioética Fundamental. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos], 1996.
Of course, where none of the above techniques are available, the doctors will do the best they can to save both mother and child or at least one of them under the principle of the double effect.
We must also clarify that many times doctors, when faced with what they think is a tubal pregnancy, immediately rush to intervene without the proper diagnosis. And when they do intervene, they use drugs or other means to kill the tubal baby and then remove him or her. This is gravely immoral and does not constitute a correct use of the principle of double effect but a direct abortion.
Every effort should be made to obtain those techniques to save mother and preborn child and also to prevent ectopic pregnancies, since not enough is being done in this area. Let us keep in mind that many ectopic pregnancies are caused by promiscuity, which can result in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and/or the use of the intrauterine device (IUD), which is also abortifacient [see Chapter 2 of The Facts of Life, "Abortifacients"].
The case of the cancerous uterus in a pregnant woman no longer presents a problem in saving both mother and preborn child. Therefore the principle of the double effect cannot be invoked any longer in this case to justify an intervention that results in the death of the preborn baby [Blázquez, op. cit.].
11) Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (¶14), July 25, 1968, and Pope Pius XII, "Allocution to Midwives," (¶27), October 29, 1951.
12) Pete Sheehan. "'Pro-Choice Catholics:' What Do They Want?" Catholic Twin Circle, June 25, 1989, pages 4 to 9; Lou Jacquet. "Director: Planned Parenthood Not Involved in Ad." Our Sunday Visitor, February 24, 1985, page 21.
13) Mary C. Segers. "Catholics and Pluralistic Society." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, page 24.
[pic]
CFFC Argument #9:
"If you want to cut the abortion rate, you must
support the widespread availability of contraception."
What Catholics for a Free Choice Says.
"NOBODY WANTS TO HAVE AN ABORTION.
Picture a world ... where safe birth control is available to everyone who needs it. In this world, abortion isn't legal. It's unheard of. Isn't that the best choice of all?"
― Full-page CFFC ad.1
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
1) If contraception is so great, why do women still have nearly a million and a quarter abortions in the United States every year?
2) CFFC's assertion that abortion is a "difficult" and "tragic" choice for all women is a mere public relations smokescreen, and does not reflect the reality: That abortion is a trivial event to many women, equivalent to "removing a wart or straightening a nose," as one pro-abortion writer put it.2
3) CFFC neglects to mention that many men support abortion, since its legalization was not a victory for women's rights, but for men's rights.
Introduction.
In its publications, CFFC portrays abortion as "tragic" and states that "nobody wants to have an abortion." It goes on to claim that, if pro-lifers would simply join CFFC to make sure that contraception is available to everyone, abortion would be "unheard of."
Incredibly, CFFC often blames the Bishops of the Catholic Church for the high abortion rate that CFFC itself helps promote!
Frances Kissling says that "The bishops' lack of recognition of birth control as a central and critical tool for achieving a reduction in abortion dooms their [anti-abortion] campaign to failure. They must give up their unrelenting opposition to birth control and come into the mainstream if they truly want to reduce the incidence of abortion."3 And Rosemary Ruether claims, "It is not too much to say that the Roman Catholic Church, by promoting female subordination and dependency and opposing contraception, is one of the major factors in the high abortion rate globally."4
The purpose of CFFC's propaganda, of course, is to make itself appear to abhor the very act that it spends all of its time promoting and spreading.
In fact, because the widespread use of contraception leads to more, not less, abortions, we might say that CFFC is covering all its bases to make sure that as many abortions are performed as possible.
(1) How Does More Contraception Lead to More Abortion?
Overview. Since contraception is designed to prevent pregnancy, it seems contradictory at first glance to say that it leads to more "unwanted" pregnancies, and therefore more abortions.
To clarify this matter, we turn to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), which is the research arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).
The AGI's figures show that there are two ways that contraception can lead to more abortion: (a) by being used, and (b) by not being used, as described below.
(a) Contraception Fails ― Frequently. Western countries are saturated with contraceptives. Anyone can get them virtually anywhere, and without restriction.
Yet the abortion rate in all of these nations is high and is holding steady. In some countries such as the United States, the absolute number of abortions is slowly declining, but only in direct proportion to the number of women of childbearing age. If what CFFC alleges is true ― that widespread contraceptive distribution leads to less abortions ― we should have almost no abortions in the United States today. Abortion should, as CFFC says, be practically "unheard of."
The primary reason that abortion rates are so high in countries where contraceptives are common is that people have been propagandized into believing that "family planning" methods are reliable. In the United States, 57.5% of all abortions are performed on women who were using contraception at the time they became pregnant.5
The most commonly used methods of birth control in the United States are the oral contraceptive and the condom.6
The user effectiveness rate ("real world" conditions) for the oral contraceptive is 97.0% (89.0% for teenaged girls). The user effectiveness rate for the condom is 86.0%.7
This means that, if a girl begins using the oral contraceptive pill on her 15th birthday, the probability of her unintentionally becoming pregnant by the time she is 20 is 44 percent. If her 'partner(s)' all use condoms, this probability increases to 53 percent.8
Experienced researchers have compared reducing the teen pregnancy rate by making contraceptives freely available to chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow ― the more the methods are used, the further the goal of eliminating "unwanted pregnancies" recedes into the distance.
The Report of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families concluded that reducing the teen pregnancy rate in this manner is statistically impossible; "The contraceptive failure rate for teens who always use contraceptives is about 10% [annually]. Therefore, hypothetically, if sexual activity among teens reached 100% and the constant use of contraceptives 100%, we would still have a pregnancy rate of about 10%."9
Abortion statistician Christopher Tietze stated baldly that women who use contraception are inevitably going to have several "failures" during their reproductive lives:
The safest regimen of [birth] control for the unmarried and for married child-spacers is the use of traditional methods [of contraception] backed up by abortion; but if this regimen is commenced early in the child-bearing years, it is likely to involve several abortions in the course of her reproductive career for each woman who chooses it.10
This is one reason why there are so many abortions in the United States: Half of the two million annual contraceptive failures end in abortion.11
(b) Many Aborting Women Have Stopped Using Contraception. More interesting are the 42.5% of women who were not using contraception when they became pregnant.12 This means that they are using abortion as birth control.
No matter how perfect a contraceptive the scientists develop, it will not affect the pregnancy rate of such women, because they know that they will always have abortion as a backup.
Maria Romero's attitude may be typical: "Sometimes I'm kind of lazy about using my cervical cap ... I think it's wonderful to share the [at-home "do-it-yourself" abortion] experience with my friends."13
Pro-abortion author Kristin Luker wrote in her book Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision Not to Contracept,
To obtain information on these points the author analyzed medical records and conducted lengthy interviews of a large sample of women who were clients of a California abortion clinic. She found that eight out of ten women obtaining abortions had previously used contraception, but then ― for reasons that appeared sufficient to them ― elected to take chances.14
(2) Many Women Think Abortion is a Trivial Event.
Every pro-abortion group, including CFFC, states as fact that "nobody wants to have an abortion," or that, for all or most women, abortion is a "tragic" and "difficult" choice.
This is simply not true. The only purpose of such propaganda is to drape a thin mantle of humanity over a brutal and bloody act.
Pro-abortion feminists themselves admit that plenty of women treat abortion as a trivial or even a desirable event.
Leslie Savan writes that
Many women of my generation are replacing having children with having abortions, not only in a literal sense but also as a major rite of passage ... 'Wanted unwanted pregnancies' become attractive in the first place because of interacting and not-always conscious motives, among them:
― A desire to know if we're fertile ...
― To test the commitment of the man ...
― Abortion as a rite of passage ... the fact that more women are aborting makes it more permissible, even intriguing ...
― Torn between 'femininity' and feminism, getting pregnant 'proves' we are feminine while getting an abortion 'proves' we are feminist."15
Marilyn Buckham, the director of a large New York abortion mill, said that "'Women don't do this [abortion] lightly.' I'm sick and tired of hearing this. 98 percent of the women do do it lightly in here, but I never say that. And they do it lightly. They think of abortion like brushing their dime teeth, and that's OK with me."16
As long as abortion is easily available as a backup to failed contraception (or no contraception), women will obtain them in vast numbers for reasons that sound incredibly trivial to the majority of Americans.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) performed a major 1988 study designed to find out why women obtain abortions. The primary reasons women gave included;17
| "I can't afford a baby right now." |21% |
| "I'm not ready for the responsibility." |21% |
| "A baby would change my life." |16% |
| "I have problems with my relationship." |12% |
| "I'm not mature enough to have a baby." |11% |
| "I have all the children I want." |8% |
| "I don't want others to know I was pregnant or having premarital sex." |1% |
For such trifling excuses, nearly 4,000 preborn children have their lives snuffed out in the United States every day.
Only ten percent of the respondents cited their health, rape or incest, eugenics or pressure from others as reasons to abort. A review of studies in foreign nations revealed that even smaller numbers of women gave serious reasons to abort.18 Of course, no reason at all justifies the killing of a preborn human being. The point here is that most of the time the reasons women invoke for aborting are trivial.
Since AGI's study contradicted the pro-abortion claim that all abortions are "agonizing decisions made for perfectly good reasons," many pro-abortionists, as Frances Kissling said, "... gave it grief for having done this study because the reasons women gave for having abortions weren't serious enough."19
Kissling's admission decisively proves that pro-abortionists do not care what the truth is; all that really concerns them is their public relations image ― and, of course, the vast amounts of money they make in their grisly business.
(3) The Legalization of Abortion Was a Victory for Unscrupulous Men.
CFFC and other pro-abortionists constantly refer to abortion as a "woman's basic human right." They also relentlessly complain about how men have oppressed women throughout the ages.
Pro-abortionists are so intent on preserving and defending the abortion "super-right" that they are stone blind to the fact that abortion is a tool tailor-made for the millions of men who sexually exploit and abuse women.
Illicit "rights" generated by mortal judges always violate the cardinal virtue of justice on a massive scale. Abortion is a preeminent example of this principle.
Has the easy availability of abortion advanced women's rights? Ask the 14-year old girl who was forced to have an abortion because her parents would have thrown her out of the house if she didn't. Ask the millions of young women whose boyfriends have said to them "Get rid of the kid or I'm leaving you." Ask the frightened teenagers whose boyfriends beat them or even tried to kill them because they refused to have abortions [visit Human Life International’s Pro-Choice Violence Web site to find documentation on thousands of extreme incidents of pro-abortion violence, from mass murder and torture to rape and arson. Notice how many women have been beaten and even killed by men because they refused to abort their preborn children].
Many men use abortion as a straightforward weapon against women, forcing them to become little more than sterile sex objects. Roe v. Wade was a great advance for men's rights, because now all they have to do is give their girlfriends a couple of hundred dollars (half the cost of the abortion) and abandon them to let them face the consequences by themselves.
CFFC never mentions the most pitiful cases of all: When older men impregnate young girls and then force them to have abortions to cover up their incest and other sexual abuse. The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health has found that more than 70 percent of all babies born to teenaged girls are fathered by men over age 20, and who are often much older. The percentage of older fathers is even greater for babies born to girls 14 years old and younger. Three-fourths of pregnant girls 14 years old and younger report having been coerced into sex by older men.20 By promoting abortion, Catholics for a Free Choice and other pro-abortion organizations directly help many predatory incestuous situations to continue, because it is so easy to destroy the "evidence."
Finally, rich men use abortion as a powerful weapon against women on a national and global scale as well.
In the United States, the abortion rate for minority women is 250 percent greater than the abortion rate for White women.21
Most tragically, the legal abortion death rate for minority women is also much higher than that of White women.22
Yet CFFC says nothing.
All over the world, abortion and contraception are used as mighty weapons to suppress the fertility of poor women, often by brute force. We all know about the forced abortion and "family planning" program in China, but what about those in Peru, Vietnam, Cambodia, India and a score of other nations? More than three decades ago, feminist writer Lynn Phillips had already identified the strong link between abortion and the oppression of women;
[Birth control] is an international strategy in application throughout the world; in Vietnam population control of uncontrollables takes the form of outright genocide, but in Latin America, India, here, and in American colonies, birth control is the favored method ... If there is any truth to the idea of a genocide campaign against black and other minority women, our sisterly concern for [illegal] abortion victims begins to look like a blind.23
Such genocidal programs are funded by the rich nations of the West and billionaires like Bill Gates, Ted Turner and Warren Hubbard. Their billions also support Asian sex-selection abortion campaigns that have exterminated tens of millions of preborn baby women, entirely because they are female ― the ultimate in sex discrimination and abuse.
And still CFFC says nothing.
What will it take before CFFC finally gets sick of the injustices committed against poor women, and stands up and says "Enough!"
Perhaps never, because CFFC derives a large percentage of its income from foundations that specifically earmark their grant money for the suppression of the population in Latin America (see Appendix D). And CFFC would certainly not want to bite the hand that feeds it ― even if that hand is helping perpetrate injustice against women on a huge scale.
Summary and Conclusion. It may appear at first impression that the widespread use of contraception would lead to a decrease in abortions. This is precisely what CFFC depends upon ― first impressions and false perceptions.
Even the most superficial research reveals that the real reason for the high abortion rate in the United States is a casual attitude towards sex. The AGI study cited above found that more than four in five women obtaining abortions were unmarried. This means that more than 80% of aborting women use abortion as a convenient cover-up for premarital sex.24
Pro-abortion writer Carolyn Hax expanded on the real reason why CFFC and other pro-abortion groups fight so hard to keep abortion legal when she said that;
The abortion right is being left undefended by its true champions ― the women who owe not their lives, but their lifestyles to the convenience of legal abortion. ... Abortion has validated a lifestyle that allowed room for irresponsibility. ... Among its perks are extended travel, higher education, unbroken career paths, choosing a different father, limiting family size, and going out and getting drunk after work ...25
Notes for CFFC Argument #9.
1) Full-page CFFC ad, displayed in Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, page 41.
2) Beryl Benderly in her book Thinking about Abortion, said that "The Supreme Court placed the decision to end a pregnancy, like that to remove a wart or straighten a nose, in the hands of the patient and her doctor." Quoted in Leslie Bond. "Pre-Natal Program Funds Used for Abortion." National Right to Life News, May 1, 1986, page 9.
3) Frances Kissling. "The Abortion Debate ― Moving Forward." Conscience, January/February 1991, pages 1 and 3.
4) Rosemary Radford Ruether. "Women, Sexuality, Ecology and the Church." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, pages 6 to 11.
5) Stanley K. Henshaw and Jennifer Van Vort. "Abortion Patients in 1994-1995: Characteristics and Contraceptive Use." Family Planning Perspectives [Alan Guttmacher Institute], July/August 1996, pages 140 to 148.
6) Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce. National Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2011 (131st Edition). Table 97, "Current Contraceptive Use by Women by Age, Race, Hispanic Origin, Marital, and Cohabitation Status: 2006 to 2008.”
7) Robert A. Hatcher, et. al. Contraceptive Technology (17th Revised Edition). New York: Ardent Media, Inc., 1998. Table 31-1, "Percentage of Women Experiencing an Unintended Pregnancy During the First Year of Typical Use and the First Year of Perfect Use of Contraception and the Percentage Continuing Use at the End of the First Year: United States," page 800; Robert A. Hatcher. Contraceptive Technology, 1986-1987 (13th Revised Edition). New York: Irvington Publishers, 1986, page 139. Also see Kim Painter. "'Disturbing' Data on Birth Control Failure." USA Today, July 13, 1989, page 1D.
8) Accumulated failure rates can be calculated with the formula 1-(1-f)n, where f equals the failure rate and n equals the number of years.
9) Report of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families. "Teen Pregnancy: What is being Done? A State-By-State Look." Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1985, pages 378 and 385.
10) C. Tietze, J. Bongaarts, and B. Schearer. "Mortality Associated with the Control of Fertility." Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1976, pages 6 to 14.
11) For figures on the number of contraceptive users: Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce. National Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1990 (110th Edition). Table 97, "Current Contraceptive Use by Women by Age, Race, Hispanic Origin, Marital, and Cohabitation Status: 2006 to 2008.” For figures on contraceptive failure rates: William R. Grady, Mark D. Hayward, and Junichi Yagi. "Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Estimates for the 1982 National Survey of Family Growth." Alan Guttmacher Institute's Family Planning Perspectives, September/October 1986, page 204.
12) Stanley K. Henshaw and Jennifer Van Vort. "Abortion Patients in 1994-1995: Characteristics and Contraceptive Use." Family Planning Perspectives [Alan Guttmacher Institute], July/August 1996, pages 140 to 148.
13) Maria Romero, quoted in Janice Perrone. "Controversial Abortion Approach." American Medical News, January 12, 1990, pages 9, 18, and 19.
14) Kristin Luker. Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision Not to Contracept [Berkeley: University of California Press], 1975. Inside front dust jacket cover.
15) Leslie Savan. "Abortion Chic: The Attraction of 'Wanted-Unwanted Pregnancies'," The Village Voice, February 4, 1981, pages 10 to 13.
16) Marilyn Buckham, director of the Buffalo GYN Womenservices Clinic abortion mill, quoted in the Revolutionary Communist Party's Revolutionary Worker, March 6, 1989.
17) Stanley K. Henshaw and Jennifer Van Vort. "Abortion Patients in 1994-1995: Characteristics and Contraceptive Use." Family Planning Perspectives [Alan Guttmacher Institute], July/August 1996, pages 140 to 148.
18) Aida Torres and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest. "Why Do Women Have Abortions?" Family Planning Perspectives [Alan Guttmacher Institute], July/August 1988, pages 169 to 176, Table 1. In 1998, the AGI published the results of studies showing that "lifestyle" reasons also predominate among aborting women all over the world. Its summary of surveys performed in 27 countries including the United States showed that the primary reasons for aborting given by the 62,658 women interviewed were: "I want no (more) children" (30.9%); "I want to postpone childbearing" (21.1%); "Having a child will disrupt my education or job" (19.9%) "My mental health is at risk" (9.8%); "I can't afford a baby now" (6.6%); "I have a problem with my relationship or my partner does not want this pregnancy" (4.4%); "There is a risk to fetal health" (negative eugenics) (3.1%); "I am too young; my parent(s) or other(s) object to my pregnancy" (1.5%); "My physical health is at risk" (1.1%); and other reasons (1.6%) [Akinrinola Bankole, Susheela Singh and Tayl Haas. "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries." International Family Planning Perspectives, August 1998. Table 2, "Percentage Distribution of Women Who Had an Abortion, by Main Reason Given for Seeking Abortion, Various Countries and Years"].
19) Frances Kissling, quoted in "Late-Term Abortion: Speaking Frankly." Ms. Magazine, May/June 1997, pages 67 to 71.
20) "Are Young People Different Today?" Population Reports [Series J], October 1995, page 13. Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
21) United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. 2011 (131st Edition). Table 100, "Abortions by Selected Characteristics: 1990 to 2006."
22) Human Life International has documented the deaths of 378 women who were all victims of so-called "safe and legal" abortion. The races of 270 of these women could be positively identified. They included 133 Blacks, 42 Latinas, eight Asians/Pacific Islanders/Native Americans and 87 Whites. This means that 68 percent of the identifiable legal abortion deaths have occurred among minority women. Minority women obtain 60 percent of all abortions. This means that the death rate among minority women who abort is about 50 percent higher than that of White women who abort. Planned Parenthood confirms this figure by admitting that the risks of abortion for Black women are more than three times as high as for White women. Planned Parenthood says that the death rates for second-trimester abortions for Black and White women respectively are 24.8 and 6.8 deaths per 100,000 abortions [John Benditt. "Special Report: Second-Trimester Abortions in the United States." Family Planning Perspectives, November/December 1979, page 359]. For further details on the deaths of women killed by "safe" and legal abortion, see Human Life International’s Abortion Violence Web site at .
23) Lynn Phillips. Everywoman. January 22, 1971, pages 17 and 18. Reprinted from the December 14, 1970 Liberated Guardian.
24) Stanley K. Henshaw and Jennifer Van Vort. "Abortion Patients in 1994-1995: Characteristics and Contraceptive Use." Family Planning Perspectives [Alan Guttmacher Institute], July/August 1996, pages 140 to 148.
25) Copy Editor Carolyn Hax of the Washington Post, quoted in Stephen Settle. "There's No Middle Ground." National Catholic Register, April 25, 1993, page 5.
[pic]
CFFC Argument #10:
"The celibate male priesthood has no right to
pronounce doctrine in areas outside its expertise."
"Would you trust a chef who never eats food? Or a car mechanic who never drives a car? Or a swimming coach who's never been in the water? It's an old liberal complaint, of course ― sexual morality being dictated by a celibate, male clergy. But old complaint or not, that sure is a loony place to look to for wisdom and guidance on sexuality. ... I don't have an interest in any way in anything the Vatican is likely to say. ...
― CFFC writer Christopher Durang.1
"After Roe v. Wade in 1973, I attempted to understand how women considering an abortion felt. It was clear to me that men shouldn't speak or advise on this subject. They have no direct life experiences to draw on, I reasoned ..."
― CFFC writer Marie Baldwin.2
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
1) CFFC is being grossly hypocritical yet again with this argument. It wants to prohibit men from speaking out against abortion, but allows male writers to speak for abortion in its journal Conscience.
2) CFFC alleges that only a person who can experience something may speak about it. But CFFC doesn't follow its own rules; women writing and speaking for CFFC constantly criticize the priesthood, even though they will never have the experience of being priests. And, of course, Frances Kissling boasts of being sterilized, so she will never experience pregnancy; what gives her the right to speak about pregnancy and abortion?
3) Truth has nothing to do with the sex of the person speaking it. To assert otherwise is sexist.
4) Attempting to deprive a group of people of their voice because of their opinions is a key element in any program of systematic oppression. CFFC has become an oppressor by attempting to silence men ― and, of course, women who speak out against abortion.
Background.
CFFC repeatedly asserts that, since the Catholic hierarchy is composed of a male, celibate clergy, it has no standing to speak about sexual morality.
This is simply a repetition of the general feminist complaint that men can't get pregnant, so they have no right to speak out against abortion. One of their favorite slogans is "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
CFFC's assertion that celibate men may not speak about sexual morality is just another red herring designed to intimidate men into giving up their free speech rights in the area of abortion.
Sex (and Sexual Practice) are Irrelevant to Truth.
The truth (or lack thereof) in an argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the speaker's gender, age, race, religion, sexual preference, or any other personal variable. If a statement or argument is true, then it is true ― it matters not who is saying it! Anyone who says that bishops or priests have no right to speak on sexual morality ― or that men in general have no right to oppose abortion ― is, by definition, a sexist.
CFFC's rank hypocrisy really stands out when it attempts to ban men from speaking about abortion. As proven by its own writings, the only real question is whether or not a person agrees with CFFC on the issues.
Celibacy and sex are mere distractions.
▪ When a celibate male Catholic bishop agrees with Catholics for a Free Choice on any subject, its writers laud him as being "thoughtful," "carrying out the Catholic tradition of social justice," and "rejoicing in the work of the Holy Spirit."3 When a celibate male Catholic bishop disagrees with Catholics for a Free Choice on any subject, it calls him every filthy name in the book (see Argument #12 for many examples).
▪ There are plenty of lay Catholic men speaking out for abortion ― like Teddy Kennedy, Mario Cuomo, Daniel Maguire, Joseph O'Rourke, Kevin Gordon, Andrew Merton, and countless others. None of them will ever get pregnant. None of them will ever face the possibility of abortion. Why does CFFC approve of them speaking out on the abortion issue? Why doesn't CFFC tell them to mind their own business?
▪ Nobody agitates for abortion availability more aggressively than CFFC's president, Frances Kissling, who brags about being sterilized decades ago.4 If Kissling is never going to face the "agonizing choice" of abortion, and will never experience pregnancy, what gives her the right to speak about it?
▪ We might also ask CFFC to be more consistent when it celebrates Roe v. Wade. After all, this decision was handed down by seven old men on the United States Supreme Court. Did CFFC reject Roe, saying that these men had no right to speak about something they would never experience? Of course not!
It is grossly hypocritical for CFFC to approve of men and sterile women speaking for abortion while attempting to intimidate men into not speaking against it.
If CFFC would like to be consistent in applying its sexist "no men" standard, then it should say that only those persons of either sex who are fertile and not using any kind of birth control should be able to speak out on abortion.
However, it is generally futile to expect pro-abortionists to be consistent ― or honest.
No Rights for the "Unaffected?"
Rosemary Ruether echoes CFFC's opinion that the bishops are "not qualified to speak on the subject of women."5 This, she says, is simply because they are not women themselves.
If she desires to be consistent, she should mirror this statement by acknowledging that pro-abortion women are "not qualified to speak on the subject of men," and should halt their ceaseless criticism of the Catholic bishops, who of course are all men.
In general, CFFC and other pro-abortion groups seem to believe that only people who may potentially be faced with a certain experience may speak of it. This may sound reasonable until we see how inconsistently they implement this principle.
If we applied this axiom to other issues, only soldiers and those in current or potential war zones could talk about war and only women could speak out against rape and female genital mutilation. Only South African Blacks would have been allowed to speak out against apartheid, because only they were adversely affected by it. Only homosexuals could speak out about anti-sodomy laws, because only they are directly affected by it. Only Jews would be allowed to speak out about the original Holocaust, American Nazis, and anti-Semitism, because only they were and are directly affected by it. Only the poor could defend the rights of the poor. Only drug addicts could talk about drugs. Only cancer patients could speak about cancer. Only people on death row, and their immediate relatives, could speak about capital punishment, because only they are directly affected by the death penalty.
Mike Royko's trenchant observation about partial-birth abortion best exposes CFFC's hypocrisy: "True, a man doesn't know what it is like to bear a child. On the other hand, I don't know of any woman who knows what it feels like to have a hole poked in the base of her skull and her brains sucked out, although some talk as if they may have experienced it."6
Conclusion.
"Oppression" is defined as any attempt to strip a group of people of their voice. This means that any pro-abortionist who tries to divest men of their right to speak out against abortion is trying to oppress men.
This is significant, in light of the fact that gender feminists constantly grumble that they are "oppressed by men." Their assertion is hypocritical, since radical feminists seem to see nothing wrong with oppressing those who disagree with them on the abortion issue.
CFFC's ideal male is a chestless, spineless, gutless creature who will grovel at their feet and conform his thinking to the "approved" regimen, which considers women superior to men in every aspect of their beings ― physical, mental, emotional and spiritual. Pro-life men must realize that CFFC is terrified of men (and women) who confront it, strip away its thin shroud of respectability, and expose it for what it really is. The "no men" argument is a mere subterfuge, and even contradicts the so-called "pro-choice" ideology.
Finally, the laws of the United States guarantee that any person can speak out publicly for or against anything ― despite the wishes of those who would dearly love to stamp out all viewpoints they do not agree with.
The United States Constitution gives men the right to speak out against abortion. Anyone who uses the "men prohibited" slogan should be asked if he or she has heard of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Notes on CFFC Argument #10.
1) Christopher Durang. "Natural Law and Disorder." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1995, pages 7 and 8.
2) Marie Baldwin. "Ardently Prochoice." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, pages 15 and 16.
3) Margaret Conway. "Public Funding: CFFC Makes Waves in Michigan Abortion Rights Battle." Conscience, May/June 1988, pages 12 to 16; and Mary E. Hunt. "Limited Partners." Conscience, May/June 1988, page 7.
4) "Kissling Takes Debate to London: Challenging the Vatican on Abortion." Conscience, May/June 1988, story beginning on back cover. This article was also printed in the March 31, 1988 edition of The Irish Times.
5) Rosemary Radford Ruether. "The Catholic Bishops' Pastoral on Women: A Flawed Effort." Conscience, May/June 1988, pages 5 and 6.
6) Mike Royko, quoted in "The Late Mike Royko Answers Feminist Attack." The Life Advocate [Foundation for Life, Houston], September/October 1998, page 11.
[pic]
CFFC Argument #11:
"The Church's teachings on abortion
have changed many times over the centuries.”
What Catholics for a Free Choice Says.
"Most people think that the church's current position is the result of 2000 years of unchanged teaching. This is a false perception. The opinion of all church scholars and theologians has never been unanimous on abortion. ... Currently, a majority in the church hierarchy believes that to procure an abortion is a serious sin and grounds for excommunication. This view, however, has only been a part of official church discipline since the Apostolicae Sedis [sic] of Pius IX in 1869. ..."
― CFFC writer Jane Hurst.1
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
1) In contrast to what CFFC alleges, the Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is a grave sin. This argument is just another distraction, since CFFC ignores other Church teachings that have never changed through the centuries, including those on divorce, fornication, adultery and homosexual activity, which have been in place since the very beginning of Church history.
2) Various Middle Age-era theories about 'formed' and 'unformed' fetuses and 'delayed ensoulment' or 'delayed animation' have nothing to do with the fact that even the theologians who held these theories condemned abortion in the strongest possible terms.
3) Let us assume for the moment that the Catholic Church did not ever condemn abortion until yesterday. Whatever the history of the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion, the fact remains that the Church condemns abortion unequivocally today. Nobody can claim that they are free from a civil law because the law did not exist more than a century ago; yet this is just what CFFC is trying to say we can do with Church law.
What CFFC is Trying To Accomplish With This Argument.
The deadliest sin to pro-abortionists is hypocrisy. So they feel compelled to "prove" that pro-lifers are inconsistent hypocrites, just like themselves. They are especially desperate to undermine confidence in Catholic teachings on abortion. They say that, if the Catholic Church has not taught a doctrine since its very inception, then the teaching or doctrine is changeable, and the Church is being "inconsistent" by insisting that its "current position" is the correct one.
Since CFFC knows full well that the Church has taught that abortion is gravely sinful from the beginning, it tries to distract attention from the core issues by focusing on various tangential issues, counting on the fact that most Catholics are not intimately familiar with this aspect of Church history.
But CFFC is being inconsistent once again.
CFFC says that Catholics can generally ignore a teaching that has not been held from the very beginning of Church history, with the implication that, if it had been taught from the beginning, they would be obliged to obey it. Yet CFFC simply ignores teachings proclaimed by Jesus Christ Himself, including His admonishments against fornication, divorce, homosexual activity and adultery.2
This shows that CFFC's emphasis on the "changeability" of the Church's teaching on abortion is just another diversion.
(1) Original Church Teachings Against Abortion.
From the very beginning of Her history, the Church has always taught that abortion is gravely sinful.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that
Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law [¶2271].
The earliest known teaching against abortion was the Didache of about 100 AD, which commands "Thou shalt not kill the fruit of the womb by an abortion."
Many of the Early Church Fathers condemned abortion. In about 177 AD, Athenagoras wrote that "Those women who use drugs to bring about an abortion commit murder and will have to give an account to God for their abortion." Tertullian, Hippolytus, St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine all condemned abortion in the strongest possible terms.
The Church's earliest Councils also legislated against abortion. The Council of Elvira, in 305 AD, held that a woman who aborted a child was not to be given communion even at the end of her life.3
The Council of Ancyra (314 AD) repeated this teaching, and stated that "Women who prostitute themselves, and who kill the children thus begotten, or who try to destroy them in their womb, are by ancient law excommunicated to the end of their lives. We, however, have lessened their punishment and condemn them to the various appointed degrees of penance for ten years."4
Scores of other Early Church Fathers and Councils condemned abortion, and many prescribed excommunication for women who obtained abortions. Appendix B quotes and summarizes many of these pronouncements.
In conclusion, this very brief review of early Church history decisively proves that CFFC's statement alleging that abortion has only been an excommunicable offense since 1869 is completely false. It has, in fact, been a teaching of the Church from the very beginning of Her history.
(2) On 'Formed' and 'Unformed' Fetuses.
At various times in Church history, certain theologians have expressed opinions that differed from the teachings of the Church. However, such opinions are not binding on Catholics, who have a moral obligation towards the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which is comprised of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Much as CFFC would like to believe otherwise, the opinions of theologians have no binding effect on Catholic consciences.
CFFC's problem is not that it honestly misunderstands the issues; its primary difficulty is that it rejects legitimate Church authority. As Frances Kissling has said, "We are all mavericks. We are people who don't take authority seriously."5
CFFC has written about the "inconsistency" of the Catholic Church regarding its ancient belief that there were two classes of preborn children: The "formed" and the "unformed." This concept was sometimes expressed as "delayed animation" or "delayed ensoulment," which was based on the obsolete biology of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who claimed that God infused the soul in the human body some time after conception.6
Despite theological debate over ensoulment, the Catholic Church and all of Her theologians have continued to teach that abortion is always a grave moral evil, though the canonical penalties for aborting a "formed" fetus were for a time greater than those for aborting an "unformed" fetus.
The Declaration on Procured Abortion tells us that
It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous [¶7].
(3) More Recent Teachings of the Church.
As we have seen, the Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is murder. However, some confusion exists because the penalties for the murder of a preborn child have been changed several times in the history of the Church.
In 1588, Pope Sixtus V tried to discourage abortion by reserving absolution to the Holy See alone. Because of the numbers of abortions taking place, it soon became evident that such an arrangement was impractical, and so in 1591, just three years later, Pope Gregory XIV returned absolution for abortion to the local ordinary (the local bishop).7
Paolo Zacchia, Physician-General of the Vatican, published a book in 1620 entitled Quaestiones Medico-Legales in which he argued that ensoulment takes place at conception and that development is a continuum.8 This was a decisive rejection of the "delayed animation" theory.
In 1679, Pope Innocent XI condemned the writings and teachings of two theologians, Thomas Sanchez and Joannis Marcus, who believed that abortion was lawful if the fetus was not yet animated or ensouled and the purpose of the abortion was to prevent shame to the woman.9 This act showed decisively that the Church did not tolerate abortion, and was willing to prosecute those who spread error regarding prenatal child-killing.
The French Jesuit Theophile Raynaud (1582-1663) believed that indirect abortion of a viable baby to save the mother's life was allowable. This was notable because he was the first theologian to hold this view and his teachings were unique in the Church until about 1850. This is an early statement of the principle of the "double effect," as described above.
In 1869, Pope Pius IX took the action that pro-abortionists deliberately misrepresent in order to buttress their views. The Pope officially removed the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus from the Code of Canon Law.10 This action dealt not with theology, but with discipline, and merely made the punishment for abortion at any stage uniform. The Pope removed the distinction in order to clarify the Church's stance that life and ensoulment both begin at fertilization.
Summary and Conclusion.
With its "historical inconsistency" argument, Catholics for a Free Choice is attempting to show two things: (1) that Church teachings on abortion have changed in the past, so they can be changed again, and (2) Catholics need not obey a teaching that is allegedly "changeable."
However, both of these allegations are invalid because the Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is gravely sinful.
Evangelium Vitae confirmed this teaching in an authoritative and solemn declaration:
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops ― who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine ― I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church [¶62].
It is true that poorly catechized Catholics may be confused about the Church's teachings on abortion, especially when groups like CFFC exist to cultivate such confusion.
However, in light of the constant teaching of the Church against abortion, we must wonder how anyone who has studied the relevant history in any depth ― as CFFC constantly boasts it has ― can possibly hold that the Church ever has or ever will accept abortion.
Notes for CFFC Argument #11.
1) Jane Hurst. "Abortion in Good Faith: The History of Abortion in the Catholic Church: The Untold Story." Conscience, March/April 1991, pages 1 and 3 to 17 [italics in the original].
2) Homosexual activity: See Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; and 2 Kings 23:7. Divorce: See Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Luke 16:18; and 1 Corinthians 7:10-15. Fornication: See 2 Chronicles 21:11; Isaiah 23:17; Ezekiel 16:26,29; Matthew 5:32, 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20,29, 21:25; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1, 6:13,18, 7:2, 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 1:7; and Revelation 2:14,20-21, 9:21, 14:8, 17:2,4, 18:3,9, and 19:2. Adultery: See Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:20, 19:20, 20:10-12; Deuteronomy 5:18, 22:13-29, 27:20, 27:23; Proverbs 6:26, 6:29, 6:32; Matthew 5:27,28,32, 15:19, 19:9,18; Mark 7:21, 10:11-12,19; Luke 16:18, 18:20; John 8:4-11, Romans 7:3, 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:5; and Hebrews 13:4.
3) Canon 63 of the Council of Elvira states "If a woman shall have conceived in adultery while her husband was absent, and afterwards shall have killed the conceptus (child conceived), she shall not be given communion even at death, because she did this twofold wicked deed" [J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, 2,16].
4) Canon 21 of the Council of Chalcedon, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta. Alberigo, Joannou, Leonardi and Prodi [editors]. Friburg: Herder Press, 1962 page 63.
5) Frances Kissling's talk during the National Abortion Federation (NAF) 16th Annual Meeting, theme: "Abortion: Moral Choice and Medical Imperative," April 12-15, 1992, in San Diego, California, closing session entitled "Cooperation and Competition."
6) Donald DeMarco. In My Mother's Womb: The Catholic Church's Defense of Natural Life [Manassas, Virginia: Trinity Communications], 1987. Pages 7 through 25 include an excellent and detailed account of the teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion. Additionally, for an excellent summary of the history of Church teaching on abortion, see Most Reverend Rene H. Gracida, D.D., Bishop of Corpus Christi, Pastoral Letter on Abortion and Excommunication, "Choose Life, Not Death!" September 8, 1990, Appendix A, "An Historical Review of Law Relating to Abortion."
7) Lucius Farraris, Bibliotheca Iuridica Moralis Theologica. Roma: 1885, I, pages 36 to 38.
8) Paolo Zacchia, Physician-General of the Vatican State. Quaestiones Medico-Legales. Lyons: 1701. Library 6, Title 1, Questions 7 and 16.
9) Denzinger-Schoenmetzer. Enchiridion Symbolorum [Rome: Herder], 1965. Pages 2,134 to 2,135.
10) Codicus Iuris Canonici Fontes. 9 Volumes [Rome, 1923 to 1939], specification number 552.
[pic]
CFFC Argument #12:
"We respect the right of others to hold opinions different from our own."
What Catholics for a Free Choice Says.
"We are convinced that only open, honest, and respectful dialogue will bring the Catholic community to some resolution of this problem. ... We hope that the discussion can be carried forward in a manner that is respectful of the consciences and persons of all its participants."
― Conscience Magazine.1
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
1) CFFC acknowledges that those who believe abortion is murder must morally protest it.
2) Yet CFFC stridently condemns all pro-life activities. This is schizophrenic, hypocritical and inconsistent.
3) CFFC proves, by its constant stereotyping and labeling of Church leaders and pro-lifers, that it does not respect the sincerely held beliefs of anyone who disagrees with it.
(1) CFFC Acknowledges that Pro-Lifers Should Take Action ...
Catholics for a Free Choice frequently claims that it respects the opinions of those people it calls "anti-choicers."
However, both the organization's actions and rhetoric prove that its vaunted tolerance is just another public relations facade.
If a person really believes that preborn children are human beings, then he logically believes that abortion is the deliberate murder of these human beings. Anyone of good will who believes that a human being is in danger of being murdered is going to be driven by his conscience to do something about it. In fact, rescuing those in danger of death is the duty of all Christians ― indeed, of all men and women who care about humanity.S
Garry Wills acknowledges this point in CFFC's Conscience magazine: "Abortion is like genocide to those who think human persons are being killed ― not a thing one can witness without moral protest."G Perhaps Wills is referring to the injunction in Proverbs 24:11-12; "Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, "Behold, we did not know this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not requite man according to his work?"
In light of these sincerely held moral beliefs, even those who call themselves "pro-choice" should respect the motives of activist pro-lifers, even if they do not agree with them.
(2) ... But Condemns All Pro-Life Activities.
CFFC concedes that men and women who think abortion is murder must take action to stop it. Yet CFFC betrays the hypocrisy in its thinking by condemning literally every form of peaceful pro-life activity, thereby showing that it cares little about the consciences of pro-lifers.
CFFC would like to prohibit all pro-life street activity. It says that pro-lifers must not peacefully block clinic doors to save preborn children, because this is "committing direct violence against women."4 We may not picket, because this is "Cromwellian fanaticism."5 We can't sidewalk counsel, because the women "have already made their minds up, and any interference will just cause them pain and distress."6 We must not quietly pray in front of the clinics, because, as Frances Kissling says, even this "offends and hurts women."7
CFFC would also like to ban all behind-the-scenes activities by pro-lifers. It says that we should not be allowed to offer alternatives to women through crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), which CFFC calls "fraudulent and deceptive clinics." These CPCs, of course, may never give women factual biological information on fetal development, because this constitutes a "propaganda tool for the anti-abortion position."8
Adoption is off limits, because, as CFFC writers say, it is "misogynist" and "devastating."9 Pro-lifers must not try to enact any kind of restrictions on abortion, even if they are massively supported by public opinion, because such activity is "a violation of the wall of separation between Church and State." We can't lobby Congress, because this is "partisanship."10 We can't organize, because such activity is a "conspiracy." We must not educate the public, because we are pushing "anti-choice propaganda." We cannot try to convince others to embrace our position through one-on-one dialogue, because that is "shoving our philosophy down other people's throats," and, believe it or not, "spiritual battering!"11
Pro-life priests may never mention abortion in their homilies or have a Sanctity of Life Sunday, because this may cause "frustration" and "anger" among so-called "pro-choice Catholics."12 Bishops cannot even exert any control over their own property by banning pro-abortionists, because this is "controlling public practices."13 CFFC would even deny pro-lifers the right to express their belief that preborn children are human beings, because this encourages "terrorism."14 In fact, CFFC alleges that the Catholic Church cannot even refuse to donate money to pro-abortion groups because, as Frances Kissling says, this is "intimidation," "strong arm tactics," and a "dirty little war" against "every good thing."15
Finally, CFFC condemns even pro-life attempts to help women through the aftermath of abortion with programs such as Project Rachel, which Kissling has labeled "offensive" and "dumb."16 Incredibly, CFFC even denounces pro-lifers who offer money and other aid to pregnant women to help them through their pregnancies and beyond, because, as CFFC says, this is "questionable," "manipulative," "unethical," and "dangerous."17
CFFC not only refuses to offer real help to women in crisis pregnancies, it would deny them help from any other source as well. No wonder former CFFC Board member Marjorie Reiley Maguire now refers to CFFC as "anti-woman!"18
In conclusion, CFFC's claim that it respects the consciences of pro-lifers is laughable, since it condemns every type of pro-life activism without exception. Simultaneously, when referring to aborting women, CFFC hypocritically asserts that "Freedom cannot be refused whole classes of persons on the grounds that some of them might, or even probably would, use that freedom to commit grievous sin."19
CFFC constantly asserts that "pro-choice Catholics" must be allowed to "follow their consciences" in all areas, even to the point of disregarding all church and civil laws. Meanwhile, it works tirelessly to force pro-lifers to abandon their consciences, because it strenuously denounces every known pro-life activity.
This is not "respect" in any way, shape or form. It is, instead, the most blatant hypocrisy and injustice.
As an aside, Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit, wrote a letter to Conscience magazine praising the United States bishops who supported the peace movement in Latin America, saying that "Strong public statements and actions, including civil disobedience, arrest, and jail mark this involvement."20 Once again, we see a dazzling display of liberal hypocrisy: If you're on their side of an issue, you can do anything you want. If you disagree with them, you had just better shut up and do nothing.
(3) CFFC Certainly Does Not Respect the Consciences or Persons of Pro-Lifers.
CFFC's Bigotry. CFFC board member Rosemary Radford Ruether defines "bigotry" as "... a stereotyping of an entire other religious or racial group as essentially evil and demonic by nature."21
By its own definition, Catholics for a Free Choice is a group of committed bigots, because its literature is saturated with stereotypes and sweeping generalizations about pro-lifers.
CFFC writers are adept at playing the victim, because it garners sympathy and is an effective fundraising ploy.
One CFFC writer sniffled that "We must hold our hands out in friendship even when our faces are slapped. We have to listen and seek to understand even when our ears are assailed with venomous words."22 Significantly, CFFC also says that "Epithets, on the other hand, lack specific semantic connections, existing only to arouse emotions by circumventing intellectual comprehension."23
Yet it is not their "antichoice" opponents, but CFFC, which frequently uses "venomous words." And it is obviously CFFC which constantly attempts to "arouse emotions by circumventing intellectual comprehension."
Even as they plead for tolerance and nonjudgmentalism, Frances Kissling and other CFFC leaders refer to the Pope and the bishops as "absolutist," "angry," "anti-woman," "arrogant," "blind," "bullies," "callous," "coercive," "confused," "cruel," "dangerous," "dogmatic," "dumb," "embarrassing," "fanatical," "hard-hearted," "harsh," "hypocritical," "illogical," "imperialistic," "irresponsible," "liars," "loony," "Luddites," "manipulative," "mean," "misogynist," "nasty," "narrow-minded," "obsessive," "obstructive," "pathological," "pernicious," "pig-headed," "prattlers," "ranting," "reactionaries," "rigid," "ruthless," "sanctimonious," "self-righteous," "simplistic," "slippery," "terrible," "totalitarian," "tyrannical," "unethical," "unhinged," "unjust," "unkind," "vehement," "virulent," and "vituperative," and even "betrayers of Christ" and "the seed of Satan," among many other labels.24 CFFC writers even go so far as to accuse the Church hierarchy of using "force, threats and violence" to obtain its objectives ― but of course never gives examples of such abuse.25
Naturally, if a bishop agrees with CFFC on any issue, it says that he is "rejoicing in the work of the Holy Spirit," but when he opposes CFFC, it calls him every filthy name it can think of.26
You cannot shout insults in a person's face while claiming that you respect him. CFFC's allegation that it respects the beliefs and actions of its opponents is simply more pro-abortion public relations propaganda designed to make it look reasonable and inclusive.
Frances Kissling has boasted that "God put me on earth to give the pope a hard time."27 She has also said that
We are still treating the leadership [of the Church] with an enormous amount of respect. They don't deserve our respect. ... I would like to see women reach the point they understand that every bishop in this country should be so embarrassed that he is afraid to show his face in public. ... But these men [the bishops] don't deserve good manners. We must get to the point where once we know they don't deserve good manners, we're capable of taking to the streets. ... Nothing will drive them crazier than to be treated without dignity.28
Once again, we might ask how "giving people a hard time," "treating them without dignity," and "driving them crazy" constitutes showing them respect as human beings.
Many of CFFC's other actions show that they do not respect the Catholic Church they claim to love so much. CFFC's first public action was to ridicule the Church by crowning one of its three founders, Patricia McQuillan, "Pope Joan I" on the steps of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City.29 Since that time, CFFC has continued its tradition of aggressively mocking and attacking the Church and Her Pope. For example, during the 1987 Papal visit to the United States, CFFC ran a full-page advertisement in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled "Where Motherhood Kills: The Women's Message for the Papal Visit," condemning the Pope for opposing abortion and birth control. Kevin Gordon, a member of CFFC's national Board of Directors, publicly burned Vatican documents he did not agree with. And, just to rub salt in the wounds they inflicted, CFFC boasted that it "decided in May to play the lead role in organizing and assisting local [abortion] clinics facing threats from antichoice people during the Pope's visit."30
Incredibly, after engaging in all of this activism and agitation during the Pope's visit, CFFC accused the Pope of causing "dissention and debate ... oppression and pain!"31
[pic]
CFFC Board Member Rosemary Radford Ruether says that
those who oppose her agenda, including Pope John Paul II,
"are the seed of Satan and continue in the fallen state, not
having received the inner light of the redemptive Spirit."32
CFFC's Absurd Stereotyping. One of the most common tactics used by pro-abortion groups is calling their opponent's motivations into question. They know full well that it is hard to whip up hatred against a group of people who sincerely follow Christ's example of loving the sinner while hating the sin. Therefore, they must construct a stereotypical caricature of pro-lifers that is much easier to despise and ridicule.
CFFC writers consistently make ridiculous generalizations about pro-lifers, without making the slightest attempt to understand their motivations.
One must tremble when contemplating the level of fevered paranoia from which such preposterous fantasies arise. CFFC is a conspiracy theorist's dream come true.
For example, according to CFFC, the purpose of the right-to-life movement "... has been to deny women opportunity, to deny women choice, to deny women a moral existence. They are only interested in women in a negative sense."33 Frances Kissling says that "... hatred of women and fear of sexuality are the roots of Vatican positions on birth control and abortion. ... This lack of respect for women and the palpable aversion to sexuality are timeless. ... This ethic is characterized by historic and present day hostility, even hatred of women, the body, and sexuality."34 Janet Parker alleges that "... the core of the Religious Right's agenda is to reestablish a white, heterosexual-patriarchal, Christian theocracy. ... The social order that the Religious Right wants to enforce and maintain is a racist, patriarchal system in which white, Christian males dominate and rule nation and family."35 CFFC board member Rosemary Radford Ruether claims that "... the motivation of the antiabortion movement is primarily about patriarchal control over women and youth and not about concern for life in the broader sense. ... Most of the antiabortion camp has little concern for life after birth."36
CFFC often claims to respect pro-lifers. However, it is not respectful to present your own paranoid fabrications about your opponents as established fact, without even the most superficial attempt to understand their true motivations.
As could be expected, CFFC repeatedly pillories and ridicules the "anti-choicers" they claim to "respect" so much. Some of the printable epithets they use to describe pro-lifers in general include "criminal," "deceptive," "fanatical," "fascist," "hypocritical," "irrational," "murderous," "racist," "sexist," "strident," "stupid," "vicious" and "vindictive."37 In the eyes of CFFC, in fact, there is no such thing as a "good" pro-lifer ― unless he or she supports hedonistic sex education and the widespread distribution of contraceptives.
Remember that CFFC claims that "anti-choice rhetoric leads to violence." Perhaps CFFC should listen to itself and turn down its own level of hatred and malice a few notches.
Conclusion.
While Catholics for a Free Choice demands that people respect the consciences of people who disagree with Church teachings on abortion and contraception, it engages in a deliberate propaganda campaign that is carefully designed to demonize and stereotype pro-life Catholics.
First CFFC clearly acknowledges that pro-lifers must do something to fight an act they consider evil. But then it condemns all of the possible courses of action pro-lifers can take, ridicules them relentlessly, and stereotypes them ruthlessly.
This blatant double standard leads us to conclude that, in CFFC's view, the only consciences worthy of respect are those of so-called "pro-choice Catholics." In fact, CFFC believes that the conscience of a pro-lifer must always yield to the conscience of a pro-abortionist in every possible circumstance. To CFFC, the conscience of a pro-lifer has exactly the same value as the life of a preborn child ― i.e., exactly none.
This attitude is summed up in a brazenly witless statement by Malcolm Potts, who said that "The most uplifting vision of religious liberty I can envisage for the twenty-fifth anniversary of Roe v. Wade [the United States Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion] would be a person who sincerely believes abortion is murder driving a woman with a different belief to an abortion clinic."38 We must wonder if CFFC would agree that another "uplifting vision of religious liberty would be a person who sincerely believes abortion is acceptable driving a man with a different belief (and a homemade bomb) to an abortion clinic at 3 AM."
Of course not. After all, with CFFC, religious liberty goes only one way.
Notes for CFFC Argument #12.
1) Thomas A. Shannon and Patricia Beattie Jung [editors]. Abortion and Catholicism: The American Debate (1988), page 6. Excerpted in Lisa M. Hisel. "Abortion: A Reader's Guide." Conscience, Autumn 1996, page 40.
2) See Genesis 9:5-6; Jeremiah 7:5-6; Isaiah 1:10-17, and 29:13; Proverbs 24:11-12; and Matthew 25:34-40.
3) Garry Wills. "Mario Cuomo's Trouble with Abortion." Conscience, September/ October 1990, pages 1, 4-9, 16, 17 and 20.
4) Ellen Carton, New York executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), quoted in "Gazette." Conscience, May/June 1988, page 17.
5) Annie Lally Milhaven. "Fatherly Fanaticism." Conscience, July/August 1988, page 6.
6) Ellen Carton, New York executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), says that " ... commotion outside a clinic increases stress and affects the performance of medical personnel." Quoted in "Gazette." Conscience, May/June 1988, page 17.
7) Frances Kissling has said that "Protesting or praying outside women's health centers by cardinals and other church leaders, no matter how non-violent it appears, offends and hurts women." Quoted in Cathleen Falsani. "Abortion Foes Gather to Pray: Cardinal Bernardin Leads Mass at Chicago Clinic." Daily Southtown, June 27, 1999, pages 1 and 10 [NOTE: Falsani, the alleged "religion writer" for this newspaper, could not even get the name of the Cardinal right in her article. It was Cardinal George who let the Mass at the abortion mill, not Cardinal Bernardin, who died more than a year earlier]. CFFC also boasted that "In June, we held a press conference to criticize Cardinal John O'Connor's "prayer picket" in front of a New York City abortion clinic" ["CFFC Notebook." Conscience, Summer 1992, pages 38 and 39].
8) Richard Doerflinger. "Who are Catholics for a Free Choice?" America, November 16, 1985, page 313.
9) Mary Jean Wolch. "An Open Letter from a Catholic Birth Mother." Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 25 to 28.
10) "Gazette." Conscience, May/June 1988, page 17.
11) Letter by Rev. E.L. O'Hickey, Conscience, May/June 1988, page 19.
12) Margaret Conway. "State Updates." Conscience, July/August 1989, pages 16 and 17.
13) "In the News: Not in My Building, You Don't." Conscience, January/February 1991, page 22.
14) "In Brief." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1995, page 57 ["If religious leaders sincerely want to deter the terrorists, they must disavow one premise, ... that there is no significant difference between the human life of the unborn and human life of the born human being"].
15) Frances Kissling. "The Vatican's Cheap Shot at UNICEF." Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, pages 36 and 37.
16) Excerpts from Frances Kissling's input to Annie Lally Milhaven's book Inside Stories: 13 Valiant Women Challenging the Church. Conscience, September/ December 1987, pages 29 to 37.
17) Various pro-abortionists, interviewed by Lisa M. Hisel and Patricia Miller. "Bribery or Benevolence: Prochoice Leaders Examine the Generosity of a Scottish Cardinal." Conscience, Winter 1999/2000.
18) Marjorie Reiley Maguire (former member of the CFFC Board of Directors). "Not Catholic." Letter published by the National Catholic Reporter, April 21, 1995, page 18.
19) Christine E. Gudorf. "To Make a Seamless Garment, Use a Single Piece of Cloth." Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 10 to 21.
20) Letter from Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit, to Conscience, Autumn 1996, page 45.
21) Rosemary Radford Ruether. "The Mantra of "Anti-Catholicism:" What is Bigotry?" Conscience, Autumn 2000.
22) Valerie J. Stroud, United Kingdom liaison for the dissenting group International Movement We Are Church. "Where We Go From Here: What Ad Tuendam Fidem ― "To Defend the Faith" ― Means for Progressive Catholics." Conscience, Autumn 1998, pages 2 and 3.
23) Robin Tolmach Lakoff. "Radical Cheek: The Evolution of a Revolutionary Word." Conscience, Autumn 1997, pages 21 to 24.
24) "Mean" [Frances Kissling, on John Cardinal O'Connor. Quoted in E. Bumiller. "As Pope's Important Ally, Cardinal Shines High in Hierarchy." New York Times, October 8, 1995, page 41]; "terrible" [Frances Kissling's talk during the National Abortion Federation (NAF) 16th Annual Meeting, theme: "Abortion: Moral Choice and Medical Imperative," April 12-15, 1992, in San Diego, California, closing session: "Cooperation and Competition"]. The following are all from Conscience Magazine: "Absolutist" [Winter 1996/1997, page 5]; "angry," "dogmatic," "harsh" and "unkind" [Winter 1996/1997, pages 14 and 17]; "angry," "dogmatic," "hard-hearted," "harsh" and "unkind" [Winter 1996/1997, pages 14 to 17]; "arrogant" [Winter 1993/1994, page 27]; "betrayers of Christ" and "the seed of Satan" [Spring 1997, page 4]; "blind" and "hard-hearted" [September-December 1987, page 8]; "bullies" [Spring 1996, page 32]; "callous" and "coercive" [Summer 1999]; "confused" and "narrow-minded" [January/February 1996, page 9]; "cruel," "ruthless," "vehement," "anti-woman," "slippery, a clerical Barbie Doll" [referring to Bernard Cardinal Law], and "rigid" [September-December 1987, pages 40 and 41]; "dangerous" and "nasty" [Summer 2000, pages 10 to 13]; "dumb" and "hypocritical" [September-December 1987, pages 29 to 37]; "embarrassing," "misogynist" and "pernicious" [Winter 1993/1994, page 38]; "fanatical" [September-December 1987, pages 22 and 23]; "harsh" [Winter 1996/1997, page 24]; "illogical," "loony," "pig-headed" and "tyrannical" [Spring/Summer 1995, pages 7 and 8]; "imperialistic" [Winter 1996/1997, inside front cover]; "irresponsible" [September-December 1987, page 27]; "liars" [Winter 1995/1996, page 8]; "Luddites" and "reactionaries" [Spring 2001, page 7]; "manipulative" and "unethical" [Winter 1999/2000]; "mean" [Spring 1996, page 32]; "obsessive" [Winter 1996/1997, page 5]; "obstructive" [Winter 1995/1996, page 12]; "pathological" [Winter 1993/1994, page 32]; "prattlers" [September/October 1989, page 3]; "ranting" [speech given at the candlelight vigil of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights by Rosemary Stasek of California CFFC, January 19, 1992]; "self-righteous" and "sanctimonious" [Autumn 1996, pages 29 to 34]; "simplistic" [Spring/Summer 1993, page 9]; "totalitarian" [Autumn 1998, page 3]; "unhinged" [September/October 1990, page 9] "unjust" [Spring/Summer 1993, page 18]; "vehement" [Spring/Summer 1995, page 27]; "virulent" [Spring/Summer 1993, page 16, and Winter 1999/2000]; and "vituperative" [July/August 1989, page 8, and January/February 1996, page 5].
25) Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey. "... A Response." Conscience, July/August 1986, page 11.
26) Mary E. Hunt. "Limited Partners." Conscience, May/June 1988, pages 6 to 10.
27) Frances Kissling, quoted in a fundraising pitch on page 17 of Conscience, September-December 1987.
28) Excerpts from Frances Kissling's input to Annie Lally Milhaven's book Inside Stories: 13 Valiant Women Challenging the Church. Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 29 to 37.
29) Magaly Llaguno. "'Catholics for a Free Choice:' A Dossier." Vida Humana Internacional, December 1994, page 2.
30) Lisa Desposito. "High Hopes ― Quickly Dashed." Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 6 and 7; Conscience, September-December 1987, page 18.
31) Ibid.
32) Rosemary Radford Ruether (member of the CFFC Board of Directors). "Created Second, Sinned First: Women, Redemption, and the Challenge of Christian Feminist Theology." Conscience, Spring 1997, pages 3 to 6.
33) Mary M. Sullivan. "Defying Tradition: One Irish Woman's Struggle for the Right to Choose." Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 20 and 21.
34) Frances Kissling. "Holy Role Models: The Vatican's Beatifications Send a Message to Girls." Conscience, Autumn 1994, pages 41 and 42; Frances Kissling. "Latin American Feminists Speak Out." Conscience, July/August 1989, pages 21 to 23.
35) Janet L. Parker. "Religious, "Right," and Heterosexist." Conscience, Spring 1996, pages 3 to 14.
36) CFFC board member Rosemary Radford Ruether. "Women, Sexuality, Ecology, and the Church." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993,, pages 6 to 11.
37) Robin Tolmach Lakoff. "The Rhetoric of Reproduction." Conscience, Summer 1992, pages 4 to 12; Frances Kissling and Denise Shannon. "Who's Right?" Conscience, Spring 1994, page 4; Annie Lally Milhaven. "Fatherly Fanaticism." Conscience, July/August 1988, page 6; Frances Kissling. "Summer Releases: Four 'Must' Reads." Conscience, July/August 1988, pages 19 and 20. Rabbi Balfour Brickner. "Matters Sexual." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, pages 18 and 19; Frances Kissling and Denise Shannon. "Who's Right?" Conscience, Spring 1994, page 3.
38) Malcolm Potts, President, Family Health International [FHI]. "Religious Liberty." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, page 35.
[pic]
Appendix A
The Catholic Church Condemns
Catholics for a Free Choice
“Catholics for a Free Choice”
Lexicon of Ambiguous and Debatable Terms
Regarding Family Life and Ethical Questions
Pontifical Council for the Family, 2006
Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) is a Washington, D.C.-based organization whose objective is to convince lawmakers, the popular media and Catholics that there can be an authentic "Catholic pro-choice" philosophy.
Soon after its founding, CFFC defined its identity as "a national educational organization that supports the right to legal reproductive health care, especially family planning and abortion."
CFFC’s vision is not limited to the full acceptance of abortion and contraception. Its other stated objectives include;
° The formulation of Catholic morality and theology by popular vote;
° The ordination of women and married men, followed by the eventual elimination
of the priesthood and the hierarchy;
° The elimination of the Sacrament of Penance;
° Acceptance of premarital sex and divorce;
° Acceptance of homosexual acts and homosexual marriage; and
° Acceptance of all illicit reproductive technologies.
The purpose of Catholics for a Free Choice is to advocate abortion and population control in all nations. By assuming the name "Catholic," the organization can neutralize organized opposition to its initiatives, confuse less-informed Catholics, and give the media an "alternative" Catholic voice that supports contraception, sterilization and abortion.
Catholics for a Free Choice has demonstrated by its history, philosophy and actions that it is Catholic in name only.
Since its founding, it has vigorously attacked and undermined the dogma, teachings and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, seeking to legalize abortion and contraception throughout the world by confusing the faithful. It has caused incalculable damage to Catholics by leading them into sin with its rationalizations and misrepresentations.
The threat posed by CFFC cannot be overemphasized. Because it poses as a Catholic organization and is backed by millions of dollars of foundation money, its impact is greatly increased, especially in developing nations where the media is receptive to its message.
There are only two sure defenses against CFFC: (1) Exposing its radical agenda to the world, and (2) constant preaching and teaching on authentic Catholic doctrine regarding sexual ethics.
Statement on Catholics for a Free Choice
on Behalf of the Bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities
by Reverend Edward M. Bryce
November 25, 1981
With the announcement that the National Conference of Catholic Bishops supports the Hatch Human Life Federalism Amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 110, a certain amount of media coverage focused on a group calling itself "Catholics for a Free Choice." In order to remove any confusion that might attend the name of the organization or the position it holds in the public debate on abortion we wish to state the following:
(1) "Catholics for a Free Choice" is an organization of a small number of people claiming
some affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church. It carries no official status within
this Church.
(2) To the extent that this or any other organization advocates abortion as a morally
acceptable choice (as a "free choice"), it is in direct contradiction with what the
Church has consistently taught on this matter since its earliest centuries. This
teaching was recently re-affirmed with all the authority of a general council, when
Vatican II condemned abortion as an "abominable crime."
We do not presume to question the sincerity of this group, or of any group claiming theological arguments in support of legalized abortion. Rather, we invite them to study again the moral teaching of the Church on the sanctity of all human life and on the obligation to protect life.
"Abortion and "Free Choice:" The Catholic Church
Teaches Direct Abortion is Never a Moral Good."
National Council of Catholic Bishops, Committee on Doctrine
November 1984
Among the various contributions to this year's debate on abortion and public policy was a statement issued by a group which calls itself a "Catholic Committee on Pluralism and Abortion," and publicized by "Catholics for a Free Choice."
This statement says it is mistaken to believe that the Catholic Church teaches that deliberately chosen abortion is morally wrong in all instances, and it suggests that abortion can sometimes be a legitimate moral choice.
As the Committee on Doctrine of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, responding to the general concern of our brother bishops, we want to affirm that such an opinion, however sincerely motivated, contradicts the clear and constant teaching of the Church that deliberately chosen abortion is objectively immoral. It is not a legitimate moral choice 1
The assertions contained in the statement of the Committee on Pluralism and Abortion which imply that Church teaching about abortion has not always been clear and constant are not correct, and are not substantiated by scholarly research. For example, the statement appeals to philosophical discussions about "ensoulment," and to canonical discussions about when the person who commits the sin of abortion also incurs the penalty of excommunication, as if these discussions provided a basis for legitimate diversity of opinion. But such philosophical and canonical discussions have always presumed the Church's constant teaching about the immorality of abortion. The Committee also appeals to principles of moral theology, such as probabilism, religious liberty, and the centrality of informed conscience, as justifying its opinion. But Catholic theology does not allow the application of the theory of probabilism in cases which contradict Church teaching or where the risk of taking life is present. Furthermore, legitimate freedom of conscience requires the responsible formation of conscience in accord with the truth of the Gospel message as handed on in the constant teaching of the Church.
The members of the Committee on Pluralism and Abortion present a personal opinion which directly contradicts the clear and constant teaching of the Church about abortion, a teaching which they as Catholics are obliged to accept. At the same time, the Committee on Doctrine reaffirms its confidence in the many theologians who explore and present the implications of moral teaching in fidelity to the Catholic tradition.
1 This teaching was cogently reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council, which referred to abortion as an "abominable crime" (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, no. 51); it has been authoritatively explained in the Declaration on Procured Abortion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1974), and has frequently been restated by the Bishops of the United States in various Pastoral Letters (e.g., Human Life in Our Day in 1968, no. 84; To Live in Christ Jesus in 1976, nos. 637-65; The Challenge of Peace in 1983, nos. 286-289), and numerous other statements.
"Statement Regarding Catholics for a Free Choice"
National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Administrative Committee
November 4, 1993
During Pope John Paul II's recent visit to this country, programs about dissent in the Catholic Church often included a spokesperson for a group calling itself "Catholics for a Free Choice" (CFFC). Both before and since World Youth Day, because of CFFC's presuming to speak for American Catholics, and because of the attention the media have paid to the group, many people, including Catholics, may be led to believe that it is an authentic Catholic organization. It is not. It has no affiliation, formal or otherwise, with the Catholic Church.
In fact, Catholics for a Free Choice is associated with the pro-abortion lobby in Washington, D.C. It attracts public attention by its denunciations of basic principles of Catholic morality and teaching ― denunciations given enhanced visibility by media outlets that portray CFFC as a reputable voice of Catholic dissent.
CFFC can in no way speak for the Catholic Church and its 59 million members in the United States. Most of CFFC's funding is from secular foundations supporting legal abortion in this country and abroad. It shares an address and funding sources with the National Abortion Federation, a trade association which seeks to advance the financial and professional interests of abortionists.
Therefore it is important to educate the public, especially Catholics, about CFFC's insistence on claiming a Catholic label. This group has rejected unity with the Church on important issues of longstanding and unchanging Church teaching. In fact, there is no room for dissent by a Catholic from the Church's moral teaching that direct abortion is a grave wrong.
Our Catholic position embraces the truth regarding the sacredness of every human life, before as well as after birth. CFFC endorses the violent destruction of innocent unborn human beings and regularly issues legal briefs and other publications endorsing legalized abortion for all nine months of pregnancy and for any reason. Most Americans do not support its extreme agenda.
Because of its opposition to the human rights of some of the most defenseless members of the human race, and because its purposes and activities deliberately contradict essential teachings of the Catholic faith, we state once again that Catholics for a Free Choice merits no recognition or support as a Catholic organization.
"Status of 'Catholics for a Free Choice'"
Joseph A. Fiorenza , Bishop of Galveston-Houston
President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
United States Catholic Conference
May 10, 2000
For a number of years, a group calling itself Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) has been publicly supporting abortion while claiming it speaks as an authentic Catholic voice. That claim is false. In fact, the group's activity is directed to rejection and distortion of Catholic teaching about the respect and protection due to defenseless preborn human life.
On a number of occasions the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) has stated publicly that CFFC is not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church as articulated by the Holy See and the NCCB.
CFFC is, practically speaking, an arm of the abortion lobby in the United States and throughout the world. It is an advocacy group dedicated to supporting abortion. It is funded by a number of powerful and wealthy private foundations, mostly American, to promote abortion as a method of population control. This position is contrary to existing United Nations policy and the laws and policies of most nations of the world.
In its latest campaign, CFFC has undertaken a concentrated public relations effort to end the official presence and silence the moral voice of the Holy See at the United Nations as a Permanent Observer. The public relations effort has ridiculed the Holy See in language reminiscent of other episodes of anti-Catholic bigotry that the Catholic Church has endured in the past.
As the Catholic Bishops of the United States have stated for many years, the use of the name Catholic as a platform for supporting the taking of innocent human life and ridiculing the Church is offensive not only to Catholics, but to all who expect honesty and forthrightness in public discourse. We state once again with the strongest emphasis: "Because of its opposition to the human rights of some of the most defenseless members of the human race, and because its purposes and activities deliberately contradict essential teachings of the Catholic faith, ... Catholics for a Free Choice merits no recognition or support as a Catholic organization" (Administrative Committee, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1993).
Excerpts from
The Bishops of Chiapas, Mexico
"The New Campaign Against Life"
July 1, 1991
On the occasion of the so-called "National Forum on Voluntary Motherhood and the Decriminalization of Abortion" held in the city of Tuxla Gutierrez, Chiapas, we, the Bishops of Chiapas, proclaim the following:
1. Moral laws and objective truth are not determined by the amount of pressure exerted on the Legislative Authorities. Therefore, even though many people might unite to urge that the congress of the State of Chiapas proceed with its Decriminalization of Abortion bill, and were our congressmen to allow themselves to be swayed by publicity, acceding to such demands, indeed abortion would still be a crime, simply because it is the murder of a helpless and innocent human being. …
7. To this Forum was invited a group of foreigners that calls itself "Catholic Women for Choice," [Catholics for a Free Choice], that is, women who say they support legalized abortion. If this be true, we have to affirm with utmost clarity that such a position nullified their claims to be Catholics. They have excommunicated themselves; they have placed themselves outside the Church. A truly Catholic woman is one who accepts the Church's doctrines. If she does not accept them, she is free to change her religion or to lose it; but she has no right to use the word "Catholic"; because she is not a Catholic. Such manipulation of this word is deplorable, for only confusion results. Could it be a ploy by the organizers of the Forum to make people believe that within the Church there is no unanimity on this point? The Devil works that way.
† Samuel Ruiz Garcia, Bishop of San Cristobal de Las Casas
† Felipe Aguirre Franco, Bishop of Tuxla
† Felipe Arizmendi Esquivel, Bishop of Tapachula
Appendix B
Early Teachings of the
Catholic Church against Abortion
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child."
― The Didache ("The Lord's Instruction to the Gentiles through the Twelve Apostles"). II, 2, translated by J.A. Kleist, S.J., Ancient Christian Writers, Volume 6. Westminster, 1948, page 16.
[pic]
"And near that place I saw another strait place ... and there sat women ... And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion."
― The Apocalypse of Peter, 25 (A.D. 137).
[pic]
"The way of light, then, is as follows. If any one desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following ... Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born."
― Barnabas (c. 70-138), Epistle, Volume II, page 19.
[pic]
"For us [Christians], murder is once and for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb, while yet the mother's blood is still being drawn on to form the human being, it is not lawful for us to destroy. To forbid birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one takes away the life once born or destroys it as it comes to birth. He is a man, who is to be a man; the fruit is always present in the seed."
― Tertullian, 197, Apologeticus, page 9.
[pic]
"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? ... [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it."
― Athenagoras of Athens, letter to Marcus Aurelius in 177, Legatio pro Christianis ("Supplication for the Christians"), page 35.
[pic]
"It is among you that I see newly-begotten sons at times exposed to wild beasts and birds, or dispatched by the violent death of strangulation; and there are women who, by the use of medicinal potions, destroy the unborn life in their wombs, and murder the child before they bring it forth. These practices undoubtedly are derived from a custom established by your gods; Saturn, though he did not expose his sons, certainly devoured them."
― Minucius Felix, theologian (c. 200-225), Octavius, p. 30.
[pic]
"... if we would not kill off the human race born and developing according to God's plan, then our whole lives would be lived according to nature. Women who make use of some sort of deadly abortion drug kill not only the embryo but, together with it, all human kindness."
― Clement of Alexandria, priest and the "Father of Theologians" (c. 150-220), Christ the Educator, Volume II, page 10. Also see Octavius, c.30, nn. 2-3.
[pic]
"Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife."
― St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430), De Nuptius et Concupiscus ("On Marriage and Concupiscence"), 1.17.
[pic]
"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother ... Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder."
― St. Jerome, Bible Scholar and translator (c. 340-420), Letter to Eustochium, 22.13.
[pic]
"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!"
― Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies (A.D. 228).
[pic]
"When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but he warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men ... Therefore, let no one imagine that even this is allowed, to strangle newly-born children, which is the greatest impiety; for God breathes into their souls for life, and not for death. But men, that there may be no crime with which they may not pollute their hands, deprive [unborn] souls as yet innocent and simple of the light which they themselves have not given.
"Can anyone, indeed, expect that they would abstain from the blood of others who do not abstain even from their own? But these are, without any controversy, wicked and unjust."
― Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6:20 (A.D. 307).
[pic]
"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it die upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees."
"The hairsplitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us. Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty for homicide. ... Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years' penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not."
― St. Basil the Great, priest (c. 329-379), First Canonical Letter, from the work Three Canonical Letters. Canons 2 and 8. Loeb Classical Library, Volume III, pages 20 to 23.
[pic]
"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication ... Why sow where the ground makes its care to destroy the fruit? ― where there are many efforts at abortion? ― where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine."
― St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24 (A.D. 391).
[pic]
"Among surgeons' tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.
"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive ...
"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive. ..."
"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does."
― Tertullian, theologian (150-225), Treatise on the Soul, pages 25 and 27.
[pic]
"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees."
― Council of Ancyracanon 21, (A.D. 314).
[pic]
"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for He says, 'You shall not suffer a witch to live' [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for "everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed."
― The Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 (A.D. 400).
[pic]
"Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the foetus, are subjected to the penalty for murder."
― Trullian (Quinisext) Council (692), Canons, 91.
[pic]
Summary of the Most Significant Early Church Teachings against Abortion
† The Apocalypse of Peter.
† Hippolytus, Bishop of Pontius and theologian (died 236), Refutation of All Heresies, 9.7.
† Origen, theologian of Alexandria (185-254), Against Heresies, page 9.
† Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200-258), Letters, page 48.
† Methodius, Bishop of Olympus (died 311).
† Council of Elvira in Granada, Spain (305), Canons, 63 and 68.
† Council of Ancyra in Galatia, Asia Minor (314), Canon, 21.
† Ephraem the Syrian, theologian (306-373), De Timore Dei, page 10.
† Ephipanius, Bishop of Salamis (c. 315-403).
† St. Basil the Great, priest (c. 329-379), Letters, 188.2, 8.
† St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 339-397), Hexameron, 5.18.58.
† Apostolic Constitutions (late Fourth Century)
† St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430), Enchiridion, page 86.
† St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407), Homily 24 ("On The Book of Romans")
† St. Jerome (died in 420)
† Council of Chalcedon (451)
† Caesarius, Bishop of Arles (470-543), Sermons, 1.12.
† Council of Lerida (524).
† Second Council of Braga (527), Canons, 77.
† St. Martin of Braga (580)
† Consillium Quinisextum (692).
Appendix C
How to Defeat Catholics for a
Free Choice at the Local Level
"Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God ... We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies."
― 2 Corinthians 4:1-4,8-10.
Getting Started.
"Therefore it is important to educate the public, especially Catholics, about CFFC's insistence on claiming a Catholic label."
― National Council of Catholic Bishops (NCCB). "Statement Regarding Catholics for a Free Choice," November 4, 1993.
Every faithful Catholic is deeply concerned about what is happening in the Church today, not only in Canada and the United States, but all over the world. The Catholic Church is literally under siege by those who would undermine or even destroy its most basic dogma and teachings.
This has been the situation since the founding of the Church at the original Pentecost, and it will be this way until Our Lord returns again.
Unfortunately, concern alone will not safeguard the Faith. Decisive action by a large number of priests and lay people is also required if the Church is to persevere.
The late Father John Hardon, S.J. said at the 1996 Call to Holiness conference that "The Church cannot be destroyed, but let's be clear: The Church in any particular country can be wiped out. We have some 1,900 extinct dioceses in the world today. Barring a miracle of grace, one diocese after another in the United States will disappear."
There are many things an individual Catholic can do to defend the One True Faith, and these actions fall into two general categories. You can either confront the dissenters directly, or, if for some reason you cannot do this, you can support those who are battling on the front lines.
This Appendix includes suggestions for fulfilling your role as a member of the Church Militant. These proposals are only a starting point; anything you can do to blunt or lessen the baleful influence of the Modernist dissenters is precious in the eyes of God and Holy Mother Church.
How CFFC Operates.
The Situation. All dissenting organizations, including Catholics for a Free Choice, operate primarily by stealth. They use a tactic called "infiltration and subversion," which means that they present themselves as Catholic scholars who preach and teach about social justice, freedom, inclusiveness and toleration. Meanwhile, they actively conceal their true beliefs and goals. Chapter 5 of HLI's Basic Pro-Life Training Program describes the anti-life tactic of infiltration and subversion in detail.
CFFC's primary mission is to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. To this end, it attempts to influence the organizations and individuals that have the greatest amount of influence on the largest number of people. CFFC therefore focuses on Catholic and secular universities, other learning institutions, religious orders, politicians, the media, and the United Nations. Occasionally it will attempt to exert influence at the diocesan or parish level, especially if the bishop or pastor has been effective at opposing its agenda.
Once established, CFFC does its real work, which is the subversion, or undermining, of authentic Catholic teaching regarding sexual ethics.
How does an ordinary group of Catholics fight such expert and experienced deception and treachery?
Faithful Catholics often feel helpless and anxious as they see what dissenters are doing to Holy Mother Church, and the almost universal indifference towards the systematic subversion of Church teachings. They know that, if they attempt to take action against the dissenters, they may be stonewalled, stereotyped and ridiculed. This leads to a kind of paralysis among orthodox Catholics and a resulting unwillingness to take action against heresy. They think "What's the use? If I raise my head and protest, I'll simply be labeled a fanatic."
Experienced dissent fighters have heard this plaintive story from bewildered Catholics many times, and know that it springs from a feeling of helplessness and anxiety.
What is the answer to this problem?
How can average Catholics effectively defend their Faith? How can they ensure that their efforts bear fruit?
The Solution. A feeling of helplessness is caused by a lack of power, and a lack of power is caused by disorganization. Anxiety is caused by uncertainty, and uncertainty is caused by lack of knowledge.
Knowledge dispels anxiety and gives us confidence.
Organization eliminates helplessness and gives us power.
The purpose of this short Appendix is to give concerned Catholics basic information on the theory of dissent and dissenters in general, and some practical information on how to organize against CFFC in particular. It supplements the book, which defines and explains Church teaching in certain critical areas, so that readers can discern between truth and the subtle and polished falsehoods presented by dissenting groups.
Before we can defeat Catholics for a Free Choice and its agenda, we must look upon ourselves as members of the Church Militant who have enlisted as Soldiers of Christ (Miles Jesu). Next, we need to study CFFC in order to learn exactly what kind of people we are dealing with and what their beliefs are. Then we must examine their tactics and their arguments and learn how to defeat them. Finally, we must take concerted and organized action against them, while realizing that it is Satan, not the dissenters themselves, who is the real enemy.
How to Defeat Them? With the "POPE."
"Training, at once many-sided and complete, is indispensable if the apostolate is to attain full efficacy. ... Not a few types of apostolate require, besides the education common to all Christians, a specific and individual training, by reason of the diversity of persons and circumstances."
― Vatican II, Apostolicam Actuositatem ("Decree On the Apostolate of the Laity"), November 16, 1965. ¶28, "The Need for Training."
Over the years, experienced dissent fighters have developed a very effective method for fighting Catholics for a Free Choice and the hundreds of other dissenting groups that lead so many souls astray.
This general procedure is summarized by the acronym "POPE" ― Pray, Organize, Plan and Expose. The following paragraphs describe these steps in detail.
The First Step: Pray.
General Intentions. If you feel called to fight Catholics for a Free Choice and other dissenters, you must first of all pray.
Every true Catholic must pray for Holy Mother Church and Her faithful priests and religious. The battle between the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death is like an iceberg; the part of the struggle that is visible to us is only a small portion of the conflict. The vast majority takes place in the invisible supernatural sphere. Prayer for the general intentions of the Church and the Holy Father is essential to the success of our temporal efforts, and prayer for specific intentions regarding the defense of the Faith is also most efficacious.
In particular, we should remember that the most powerful enemy of Satan and his minions is the Mother of God, Mary Most Holy. Our prayers to Mary, particularly on behalf of Pope Benedict XVI, who has such devotion to her, will not go unanswered.
Keep in mind that the holy sacrifice of the Mass is the most powerful prayer of all. If you can, try to attend at least one weekday Mass a week, and offer intentions for the conversion of specific dissenters.
Specific Intentions. Eventually you must determine your specific role in fighting dissent. Ask God for guidance, and ask Him to make your course of action perfectly clear. Listen to what He has to say with a willing heart and an open mind. If He has a mission for you, He will make it clear to you. But you have to faithfully listen in order to hear.
You must recognize that you will be facing an implacable opponent that represents a direct and immediate threat to the Catholic Faith. This opponent, knowingly or unknowingly inspired and directed by Satan, naturally uses all of his tools, including lies, deception, and the most vicious of personal attacks.
If you become effective at fighting dissent ― and you must set out to become effective ― the dissenters will relentlessly attack you, both directly and indirectly. You must assess your own personal situation, and that of your family, and insure that both can hold up under the additional stress you will inevitably have to endure.
Keep in mind that this is no abstract or hypothetical war. Every Catholic is called to defend the Faith. Throughout the ages, the Catholic Church has been in continuous danger because She has been under constant attack by the Devil, who roams throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls [1 Peter 5:8-9]. As terrible as attacks from the outside can be, they pale in comparison to attacks from within by people who represent themselves as Catholics while actively undermining the Faith.
We must stress that many souls are at stake. Those who believe the dissenters are being deceived by Satan; those who hold fast to the Truth will be saved. When you fight error and heresy, you are contributing directly to the salvation of souls and following in the footsteps of a long line of Saints who have done exactly the same thing.
Remember that fighting for the Faith requires sacrifice. It can be a difficult and even dangerous task at times. You will be reviled and mocked; you will feel alone and abandoned; and you will feel like giving up and quitting the field of battle at times.
But if you endure, Our Lord will reward you richly with something that all human beings long for: Perfect peace and joy, the likes of which you can find no place else on earth! You will be able to confidently proclaim with Saint Paul: "I am filled with comfort. With all our affliction, I am overjoyed" [2 Corinthians 7:4].
No reward could possibly be greater.
Pray for the Dissenters. While we recognize that Satan might be influencing the dissenters, we must also remember that most of them might be sincere individuals who have been deceived by others, so that it is quite possible that they are not conscious of the fact that there is a diabolical influence at work upon them. Very few dissenters are deliberately malicious. Instead, they sincerely believe they are working for the liberation of people they believe are oppressed.
Some dissenters have suffered much in their lives, causing them to misdirect their rage against the Church. They may have suffered harsh treatment at the hands of members of the Church leadership or family members. Some may even have been victims of bigotry or domestic violence. Many women have had their husbands abandon them. Others have been wounded by the abortion industry, which is geared to protect the (usually male) abortionists, not the women, as proven by its fanatical resistance to regulation by any official body whatsoever. It also completely denies the existence of post-abortion syndrome or any suffering after abortion, thus abandoning women to their fate.
When people have been hurt, they tend to band together and take action against a common 'enemy.' In this case, their foe is the Catholic Church, which they perceive as sexist and repressive. They do not see that their pain and suffering has been inflicted by the world and their own bad decisions. All they see is the Church, and they believe the Church is condemning them along with their actions.
While you diligently work against their plans, pray for the dissenters with equal fervor. Of all the people on earth, those who have heard the Truth and have rejected it need prayers most of all. Pray for conversion and healing in the hearts of the dissenters. Pray that they will find peace in Jesus Christ. Pray that they will return to the Sacraments and once again become faithful sons and daughters of the Catholic Church. Pray that you will never lose your Faith.
The Second Step: Organize.
One Voice is Powerless. Seasoned campaigner Edmund Burke once said that "When bad men combine, the good must associate [with each other]; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Never has this been so true as in the struggle for the heart of the Roman Catholic Church in America. A single person who raises his or her voice in opposition to heresy, schism and apostasy will quickly be crushed under a tidal wave of ridicule, condemnation and vituperation; but a dozen well-organized true Catholics or, better yet, a hundred with truth on their side will be an obstacle that even a permissive diocesan hierarchy will be unable to ignore or overcome.
If you have organized dissent in your parish or diocese, you have a problem that is endangering souls. You absolutely must organize as quickly as you possibly can.
A bishop, parish priest, director of religious education (DRE) or Catholic school principal will probably not listen to one or two people complaining about dissent or false teachings; but if a dozen or two dozen determined Catholics begin to raise their voices as one and promise to take concrete action, they will listen.
You cannot do anything by yourself; so immediately start to ask your orthodox Catholic friends (you know who they are) to get involved. Make up a list of names and a telephone or computer e-mail tree.
Many Voices Acting Together Are Powerful. Don't worry about sheer numbers; the Lord will raise up exactly enough missionaries to do His work effectively. If you have only three friends who feel as strongly you do, surely they will know others. See if you can get a dozen together. Fifty, of course, would be even better.
It is also essential to have a good spiritual director who will guide your steps and give you the "inside information" on the diocese you will need to operate effectively. You know who he is: The faithful priest who has spoken up fearlessly for truth many times and who is an object of ridicule and contempt to quite a number of the laity and his brother priests.
He is the one you need.
Getting Started. Regular meetings are essential, especially in the beginning of any group's existence. Remember three tactical principles as you get started;
(1) Anonymity. Don't give the opposition an easy target to attack. The minute the dissenters learn the name of your group, they will undertake a systematic campaign of slander and ridicule at the local level which is designed to undermine your effectiveness and your credibility.
This is standard operating procedure (SOP) for social liberal and dissenting groups, and it is a very effective tactic. It does not matter that they know nothing about your group beyond your name; suddenly local clergy and Church lay leaders will hear that you are "fanatics," "anti-woman," "extremist" and "divisive."
You can take measures to blunt or completely avoid this kind of crippling attack.
We must use prudence and discretion when engaged in fighting dissent, because in some situations and some places it is impossible to know who to trust completely. Dissent busters must be very selective when disclosing information, especially in the early stages of the existence of a group or of the development of a plan. Remember that dissenters are expert at infiltration and propaganda; never do or say anything they can legitimately use against you.
(2) Security. Keep your plans confidential for as long as you possibly can. Operate strictly under a "need to know" principle ― only inform the minimum number of people required to plan your activities effectively. This will allow you to avoid attacks by the dissenters and will give you the element of surprise, which is a decisive advantage. Your objective is to achieve a stunning victory on your first try. This will boost the esprit de corps of your people and demoralize the dissenters.
(3) Information. You should begin gathering information on the dissenters as soon as you possibly can. In a group of a dozen or more people, there are generally one or two who enjoy doing research and investigation.
The information you should look for includes;
√ the dissenter's viewpoints and attitudes, the way they think, and their psychology. When dissent busters understand their opposition, they can accurately project what they will do in the future and how they will react to their initiatives.
√ the dissenter's level of morale and their opinions on what directions the Catholic Church is taking.
√ concrete and specific information about dissenting organizations, to include how many people they have, what resources they have, where their money comes from, and who backs them. This is especially important if you are facing a local affiliate of a national group like CFFC.
√ the dissenter's long-range plans (strategies) and short-term plans (tactics).
When you are gathering and processing your information, remember the four "X"s:
X Explore: Take some time right "up front" to research the most likely sources of relevant information so that you will use your time in the most efficient manner. These include the dissenter's Web sites and newsletters.
If they have a local chapter, have one of your people join it and gather information. This is absolutely the best way to keep an eye on the dissenters. But be careful that you remain in the background and do not contribute economically to them or make statements contrary to Faith or morals. Your job is strictly to observe, not to contribute to the ruin of souls.
X Examine: Carefully scrutinize the information you gather and rank it according to relevancy and usefulness. Should you take the time to process and use it right away, or should you file it for future use?
X Explain: Compile the information you have gathered from various sources into a single readily understandable and handy document that is clear and pertinent to the situation. Be very careful to document everything you publicly write or say about the dissenters, or you may expose yourself and your organization to costly and distracting litigation.
X Exchange: Give your processed information to whatever groups or individuals will find it most useful, both at the local and national levels.
You do not have to learn all of this information by researching it yourself. There are several nationally-based dissent-fighting groups that can give you information and expertise. These include;
† Adoremus Society, .
† Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, .
† Catholics United for the Faith (CUF), .
† Human Life International, .
† Keep the Faith, .
† Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc. (RCF), .
† St. Joseph Foundation, .
Please keep these organizations in your prayers, because they are on the front lines of defending the Faith.
Beginning Your Field Work. After you have gathered a group of committed people and have organized them properly, your real work begins. Every member of your group must educate themselves regarding the field of battle and the dissenters.
You must learn the following things;
A. Background on the dissenting groups that are causing trouble in your diocese or parish. How do they operate? Who funds them? What are their standard operating procedure (SOPs)?
B. You must also educate yourself regarding the standard propaganda that the dissenting groups use. There is nothing more effective, powerful and inspiring than having a faithful Catholic stand up and debunk the lies of the dissenters on the spot, in front of a crowd of people. However, you cannot do this until you know exactly what the dissenters are going to say, and until you study the many weak points in their arguments.
Fortunately, dissenters are notoriously unoriginal and inflexible thinkers. They repeat the same falsehoods and distortions over and over again, and become confused and flustered when confronted with a knowledgeable opponent.
This book has a long section on the twelve arguments Catholics for [a free] Choice (CFFC) uses most frequently to deceive the faithful. All dissenters use these arguments from time to time. It will probably take you several hours to learn this material, but consider it time well-spent. Not only will this knowledge permit you to defend the Faith against Her enemies, but it will strengthen your faith and embolden you to do more for the Church as well.
It will be easier for you to learn this material with others in your group. Get together a couple of times and practice rebutting these arguments with each other. Practice builds confidence and boldness.
The Third Step: Plan.
Take Advantage of the Experience of Others. When you have a number of people willing to help you, meet with them as soon as possible and decide exactly what your mission is, and how you intend to accomplish it.
Whatever course of action you take, it is often very helpful to have an experienced dissent-buster speak to your group in order to train it in strategy and tactics. If you do not have outside expertise, you are much more likely to fail in your mission, because the struggle between truth and dissent at the diocesan or parish level is fraught with pitfalls and concealed obstacles. You may even be able to bring in several speakers and hold a mini-conference open to the public, which would be a great recruiting tool. After the conference, you could have the speakers instruct the leaders of your group during a confidential session in the art of thwarting dissent.
It is also absolutely necessary that you have an orthodox priest as your spiritual advisor. When you finish your preparation phase and step out to fight the dissenters, you will encounter spiritual obstacles you never dreamed existed. A good priest can help you get through these difficult times and can help you prepare yourself for the abuse and ridicule you are likely to suffer. He can help you avoid the bitter and complaining nature that some orthodox Catholics fall prey to, and can instead help you become an optimistic and effective fighter for the Faith. Additionally, the priest can give you insight as to diocesan and parish politics when you need such information.
The Mission Planning Statement. You can maximize your chances of success by writing a mission planning statement and sticking with it. This statement is a summary of the following six elements. Chapter 4 of the Basic Pro-Life Training Program, "The Basics of Effective Pro-Life Planning," includes a much more detailed explanation on how to properly prepare a mission planning statement.
1) The Mission. What exactly do you want to accomplish? How will you know if you were successful in your mission? The dissenters work by stealth and infiltration, so your primary objective is to raise their profile by exposing them and showing to the world what they really believe. The primary rule is: Do not bite off more than you can chew! Begin small and work your way up from there, giving your people experience and confidence in their dissent-busting activities.
2) The Focus. Who are you trying to influence? Select your focus and tailor your plans accordingly. Are you trying to influence your bishop to take action against a conference featuring dissenting speakers, or are you trying to focus your efforts on a DRE [director of religious education] who refuses to remove a scandalous sex education program from your Catholic school?
3) The Opposition. Who are the persons and organizations that will directly or indirectly try to stop you from accomplishing your mission, and what are the strategies and tactics they commonly employ? If you know this information, you can better prepare yourselves to blunt the reaction of the dissenters to your initiatives.
4) Resources. What qualities, persons, and equipment will you need to accomplish your mission? If you are missing something vital, can you obtain it? Make certain you have budgets for tangible resources that you follow closely during the execution of your mission.
5) The Environment. What are the physical and psychological conditions under which you must work to accomplish your mission? Are your people ready to operate in this environment?
6) Tactics. What concrete methods will you employ to accomplish your mission or prevent the dissenters from accomplishing their objectives?
Really Learn Your Faith! Do you know how to confidently and accurately answer a dissenter who claims that "we can use birth control now, because the Vatican said that we can use our consciences in the Declaration on Religious Freedom?"
Can you clearly explain the Church's "double effect" principle as it applies to abortion for the mother's life and to sterilization?
Can you convincingly demonstrate why the Church cannot ordain women to the ministerial priesthood?
If you can do all three of these, congratulations ― you are among the select group of only about one percent of Catholic lay people who can do so.
[pic]
As a dissent-buster, you will be following the example of St. Paul in
being a “light in the darkness” despite all obstacles thrown in your path.
These are the issues you will encounter when you fight dissent on any level. You will not just hear them from professional dissenters and agitators; you will also hear them from friends, family members, fellow parishioners, and even uninformed priests.
Learning how to defend the Faith is a difficult process, but is mandatory if you are to be effective. The best way to do this is to study the Catechism of the Catholic Church in detail, with the same level of attention as you would give a college course. It is best to study by yourself and then meet on a weekly basis for a couple of hours with the other members of your dissent-busting group to strategize and discuss difficult concepts and how to explain them clearly.
This process may take a year or more, but it will transform you into a much more effective soldier for Christ.
Learn the Battlefield! You cannot be effective unless you know the topography of the battlefield. Educate yourself about the Church's situation. You can do this by reading good books on the history of dissent, learning about its origins, history and current forms. Then you can become familiar with the current situation in the Church by subscribing to one or more of the journals which are dedicated to fighting dissent and promoting the truth. The idea behind all this reading is to familiarize yourself with both the theory behind dissent and current news and trends in the Church.
The best place to go for accurate information on Church teachings is, of course, the Church. Documents that explain Catholic doctrine regarding the life issues include the following, which are all contained on Human Life International’s Pro-Life Library DVD;
† "Declaration on Procured Abortion." Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 18, 1974. This is the most succinct and authoritative expression of the Catholic Church's position on abortion, and is written to be easily understandable. Paragraphs 6 and 7 include an especially useful summary of Church history on abortion. Donum Veritas ["Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian"]. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 24, 1990. This excellent and concise document explores the proper role of the theologian in the Catholic Church, pointing out that his function is not to lead, but to explore and advise. The document also shows how a person with a genuine difficulty with a Church teaching may resolve it.
† Humanae Vitae ("Human Life: On the Regulation of Birth"). Pope Paul VI's historic Encyclical Letter dated July 25, 1968.
† Pascendi Dominici Gregis ("On the Doctrine of the Modernists"). Pope St. Pius X's encyclical of September 8, 1907. Though more than a century old, this timeless encyclical reads as if it were written yesterday. Pope St. Pius X explores the roots and methods of Modernism, delves into the sources of human error, and explains how to combat heresy and dissent at every level.
† Most Reverend Rene H. Gracida, D.D., Bishop of Corpus Christi. Pastoral Letter on Abortion and Excommunication, "Choose Life, Not Death!" September 8, 1990. See especially Appendix A, "An Historical Review of Law Relating to Abortion."
† Theological Observations by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent." July 1998.
† Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei." June 29, 1998. This document clearly explains the various grades of Church teachings and the degree of assent every Catholic is obligated to show them. This commentary was issued coincident with the promulgation of Pope John Paul II's Ad Tuendam Fidem, which modified the Oriental and Latin Codes of canon law.
† Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Regulations for Doctrinal Examination" (New Vatican Norms on Theological Dissent), June 29, 1997.
There are literally hundreds of magazines and journals devoted to fighting abortion, euthanasia, the homosexual rights movement, pornography, population control and other evils. When fighting dissent, you should instead subscribe to orthodox journals and magazines that specialize in this area or at least address it on a regular basis. These include;
† The Catholic Answer, .
† Catholic World Report, .
† Crisis: Politics, Culture & the Church, .
† Envoy: Catholic Apologetics & Evangelization, .
† First Things, .
† Homiletic and Pastoral Review, .
† Human Life Review, .
† Inside the Vatican, .
† National Catholic Register, .
† New Oxford Review, .
† This Rock, .
† The Wanderer, .
Many orthodox books that examine the subject of dissent in detail include those distributed by the following Catholic publishing houses. You may be able to find these in your local public or diocesan libraries, but don't count on it. Your dissent-busting organization may wish to purchase these books and pass them around among its members. In order to keep up with the latest offerings, make sure that you subscribe to catalogs from orthodox book publishing companies such as;
† Keep the Faith, 810 Belmont Avenue, Post Office Box 8261, North Haledon, New Jersey 07508, telephone: (201) 423-5395.
† Ignatius Press, Post Office Box 1339, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522, telephone: 1-800-651-1531.
† Neumann Press, Route 2, Box 30, Long Prairie, Minnesota 56347, telephone: (320) 732-6358.
† Our Blessed Lady of Victory Mission, Rural Route 2, Box 25, Brookings, South Dakota 57006-9307, telephone: (605) 693-3983.
† Our Lady's Book Service, Servants of Jesus and Mary, Post Office Box 93, Constable, New York 12926, telephone: 1-800-263-8160.
† Roman Catholic Books, Post Office Box 2286, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-2286.
† Sophia Institute Press, Box 5284, Manchester, New Hampshire 03108, telephone: 1-800-888-9344.
† Tan Books and Publishers, Post Office Box 424, Rockford, Illinois 61105, telephone: 1-800-437-5876.
Some of the most detailed books written by orthodox authors on the dissent movement include;
† Donald DeMarco, Ph.D. In My Mother's Womb: The Church's Defense of Natural Life. An eloquent defense of the Catholic Church's defense of human life. An examination of abortion's terminology and perspectives, the preborn, contraception and bio-engineering. DeMarco also covers the Church's perspective on new technologies, including in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, fetal experimentation, and genetic engineering. See especially Chapter 1, "Abortion and Church Teaching," pages 7 to 25.
† Monsignor George A. Kelly. Keeping the Church Catholic with John Paul II. Order from Ignatius Press. Interesting background and history of the Church mechanism for decision-making, and detailed information on dissent and the battle for the soul of the Church, particularly with regards to contraception and obedience to the Pope.
† Father Vincent P. Miceli. Women Priests and Other Fantasies. Order from Keep the Faith, address given above. The author examines the pandemonium that results in the Christian Church (particularly the Catholic Church) when the senses of the sacred and supernatural are lost. The instant that Holy Scripture is judged by secular standards, the message of Christianity is hopelessly compromised and lost.
† William Oddie. What Will Happen to God?: Feminism and the Reconstruction of Christian Belief. Order from Ignatius Press. The Neofeminists are striving to eliminate from all church documents and prayers what they consider to be "sexist" language. The author exposes the fallacies of this goal, and shows what will happen if we allow radical feminism to continue to dictate to the Church. The elimination of so-called "sexist" language is only the beginning!
† Donna Steichen. Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1992, 420 pages. A very detailed and absorbing account of how the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has been infiltrated and subverted by Neoliberals and Neofeminists for the express purpose of blunting its effectiveness in its reaction to evils such as divorce, abortion, and euthanasia. This book has much detailed information on many dissenters and dissenting organizations, with an emphasis on feminist and "New-Age" groups.
† Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Walter Kasper, et.al. The Church and Women: A Compendium. Order from Ignatius Press. A collection of articles by leading Church scholars on the role of women in the Catholic Church today and contemporary issues regarding feminism, including the ordination of women and the role and importance of the family. The role of women is developed in a context faithful to Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church.
† Dietrich von Hildebrand. The Devastated Vineyard. Order from Sophia Press. The author describes in harrowing detail the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church in America and in Europe, and the methods of infiltration and subversion now being used to confuse and paralyze all conservative Christian churches in our country today.
The Final Step: Expose Them.
Introduction. Take confidence in the fact that the one thing the dissenters cannot stand is opposition. Lies only flourish when a shroud of darkness and secrecy surround them; they will wither up and die when you shine the powerful light of truth on them.
Remember that dissenters work by the principle of infiltration and subversion, which requires secrecy. Remove the secrecy and they cannot function. The principle of infiltration and subversion is described in detail in Chapter 10 of the Basic Pro-Life Training Program.
The Gospel of John tells us
And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God [John 3:19-21].
Dissenters speak endlessly about tolerance and inclusiveness, but you will soon learn that they ardently desire to stamp out any viewpoint but their own. They know that they can only hoodwink people if alternative voices cannot be heard.
Take Two Simultaneous Courses of Action. When countering dissenters, you should initiate two concurrent courses of action: (1) attempt to influence the responsible decision-makers before the event in question, and (2) plan to be at the event to influence the public and the dissenters themselves.
The first course of action involves identifying the decision-maker(s) who are responsible for inviting the dissenters into their diocese, parish, school, university, order, or other Catholic organization. Contact these people by letter and provide them with solid evidence that the specific dissenting groups and/or individuals depart radically from approved Church teaching on various issues. Ask for a meeting so that you can discuss what positive alternatives can be taken at this point.
It is human nature for people not to admit their mistakes, reverse their decisions or modify their plans, so expect indifference or active resistance. Most commonly, the decision-maker(s) will simply not respond to your requests for a meeting, and will try to "run out the clock," doing nothing so that the event featuring the dissenters goes on exactly as planned.
If the decision-maker stonewalls you, do not simply give up. Continue to try to contact him or her, and keep a record of your attempts. If it becomes obvious that the decision-maker is not interested in talking to you, do not waste any time. Approach the authority at the next higher level, which is usually your local ordinary, or bishop, and repeat the process.
If your bishop refuses to listen to you, continue up the "chain of command." Contact the Apostolic Nuncio. By this time, the event in question may have already occurred, but don't give up. It is vital that the Nuncio and the Vatican be informed of what is happening, so that they have the information and documentation they need in order to take action later.
The second course of action involves being at the event in question and attempting to influence the public and the dissenters themselves. As Americans and Catholics, you have certain rights. Do not be afraid to exercise them, regardless of how loudly the dissenters complain or condemn you.
Your objectives are to present authentic Catholic teaching on the issues and to derail the dissenter's plans to present themselves as the "mainstream," which is one of their primary deceptive tactics. At the dissenter's event, you can use certain tactics to get your message across;
√ Picket the building where the event is taking place, whether it is a church, school building, or other public arena. Check beforehand to make sure that you know where you may and may not picket. Even if you are standing on public property, the dissenters will use every trick in the book to get you to move as far away as possible. Don't budge! Know exactly what your limits are.
√ Leaflet the building where the event is taking place. Use documentation you obtain from the dissenting groups themselves, or from a dissent-busting group, to draw up a leaflet that features extreme quotes from their leaders and extracts from their manifestos showing how anti-Catholic their beliefs really are. The HLI Pro-Life Library DVD features an "Anti-Life Quote Archive" that lists hundreds of quotes by leaders of dissenting groups. This book also contains, in the last Appendix, hundreds of quotes by leaders of Catholics for a Free Choice.
√ Stand up during the question and answer period (if there is one), ask pointed questions and quote authentic Catholic teachings. Do not let them waffle or dodge your questions. Keep after them! If they refuse to answer or try to evade your questions, they will look deceitful and misleading.
√ Once again, document everything. When confronted, many dissenters become outraged and will slander and libel you and your organization. This is fertile ground for legal action against the dissenter and his or her organization. There is no better way to divert the attention of dissenting groups and use up their resources than through litigation. Orthodox Catholics have suffered at the hands of dissenters for years, so let's turn the tables!
The objective of this second course of action is not pure confrontation, but to demonstrate that the dissenters are distorting authentic Catholic teaching. Once again, your objective is to save souls and preach the truth in charity and love.
If, as a side effect, lots of publicity is generated by the conflict, the dissenters will probably not be invited back. All the better!
Summary. The general idea is to operate in two ways simultaneously; within the "system," documenting and watching and gathering information; and, since this might take months or even years, outside the "system" with leafleting, preaching and publicity.
The wellspring of hope is entrusting the outcome of your efforts to God. You should never feel depressed or despairing when fighting for the Faith and for souls, which is truly the most important work on earth.
Taking action will remove your feeling of helplessness and will heighten your fervor once again. Your watchwords should be vigilance, endurance and courage. No dissenter can beat this combination.
Concluding Notes.
Maintain the Right Attitude. As a dissent-buster, there are several things you must be.
You must be immune to discouragement. The dissenters exist because they cause concern among Catholics by constantly exaggerating the problems in the Church. Remember that their primary objective is the deconstruction and reconstruction of the Church to fit their own false ideology, and that things are nowhere near as bad as they say. Also keep in mind that there is an ongoing revival in the Catholic Church today, and you can be a vital part of it. Above all, remember 1 Corinthians 15:58: "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain."
You must be eternally watchful. Examine the catechetics and sex education programs in your Catholic schools, keeping in mind that any program, no matter how orthodox, can be changed on the spot by Modernist teachers with an agenda. The only way to ensure that your children are raised chaste and faithful is to teach them yourself at home ― something that half a million families are doing in the United States today.
Don't be lulled into complacency by the fact that most dissenters are over 50 years of age, and that they are obviously not doing a good job of recruiting from the young. Keep in mind that these are the people who are still infected with the iconoclastic mood of the 1960s and therefore continue in their activism. Modernism and indifferentism are not high ideals that young people want to fight for, and so they are not replenishing the ranks of dissenting groups. Instead many youth simply live lazy, spiritless lives, which is just as dangerous to their Faith as outright dissent.
You should also keep an eye on the literature rack in your church. Dissenting groups often manage to establish a "beachhead" there, because the pastor doesn't have time to read everything that goes in the rack. Read the literature yourself, and if it contains dissent, show your pastor the problems in doctrine or dogma and ask him to remove the material. If he refuses, ask him in the name of "diversity" to include authentic Catholic literature. If he denies this request, you will know that you have a close-minded pastor, and you may have to take measures such as leafleting the church.
Finally, you must be prepared to go for the long haul. Many chanceries are infested with dissenters who have held their positions for many years and may seem to be almost unassailable because of their many connections and because their bishop may be afraid to take them on. You should accumulate information on these people and let them know that you are carefully watching them. This alone will usually make them less brazen in their dissent. Above all, remember that if you watch enough, document enough, agitate enough and pray enough, the toughest and most entrenched dissenter will eventually give up.
If you have a particular complaint that receives a negative response or no response from your pastor or bishop, you may want to take the matter up with higher authority. There is a specific procedure you must follow if you want to be certain that your protest will be properly attended to at higher levels. You can get this procedure, entitled "Effective Lay Witness Protocol," from Catholics United for the Faith, 827 North Fourth Street, Steubenville, Ohio 43952, telephone: (614) 283-2484 or 1-800-693-2484, or download it from .
Think Papally, Act Locally. A soldier would never be sent into an armed conflict without intense and appropriate training.
Your work is infinitely more important than that of even the highest ranking general. You will be ready to step onto the battlefield only after you have established a firm foundation of prayer, organized with other orthodox Catholics, and learned your Faith and the tactics of the dissenters. It may take you a year or more of preparation before you are ready to act; but do not become discouraged. The better prepared you are, the more effective you will be as a soldier in the eternal struggle between the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death. Your spiritual advisor and seasoned dissent-busters will be able to help you determine when you are ready to engage in battle against the Modernists.
Appendix D
Foundation Funding of Catholics for a Free Choice
[pic]
NOTES
1) The most interesting grant allocation justifications are outlined in bold red typeface.
2) Foundations often support multiple projects for a particular group in one year. Therefore, this list may show more than one grant for each foundation in a specific calendar year.
3) General information on foundations is from the Foundation Center, .
4) Abbreviations
▪ CDD: Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir [Catholics for the Right to Decide, or Catholics for a Free Choice in Latin America]
▪ FGI: Foundation Grants Index.
▪ FGIQ: Foundation Grants Index Quarterly.
▪ TFR: Taft Foundation Reporter.
[pic]
Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1981-1992: $60,000
EIN: 56-0690140
Web Site:
Assets: $117,939,218 (December 31, 1999)
Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation Grants to CFFC
1998-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Babcock Foundation IRS Forms 990].
1993-1997 ― Unknown.
1992: $20,000 "For "New Approaches Project: Reaching Out to the Uncommitted Middle"" [FGI, 1995, page 214].
1983: $20,000 to CFFC Public Information Program "For 2nd year of funding to distribute press kits and participate in media interviews, provide technical assistance to other Catholic organizations wishing to discuss abortion, and conduct a direct-mail campaign to acquaint Catholic activists with pro-choice position and need for addressing the issue" [FGI, 1985, page 442].
1981: $20,000 to CFFC Media Program "For campaign to educate public on Catholic position favorable to responsible family planning, contraception, and abortion" [FGI, 1983, page 343].
[pic]
Beidler Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2001-2008: $94,000
EIN: 36-4260449.
Web Site: None.
Assets: $16,195,208 (December 31, 2009).
Beidler Foundation Grants to CFFC
2008 ― $13,000 [Beidler Foundation 2008 IRS Form 990].
2007 ― $13,000 [Beidler Foundation 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― $12,000 [Beidler Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― $12,000 [Beidler Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $11,000 [Beidler Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $11,000 [Beidler Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $11,000 [Beidler Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $11,000 [Beidler Foundation 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 and Previous ― Unknown.
[pic]
Bergstrom Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2002-2008: $410,000
EIN: 91-2155835.
Web Site: None.
Assets: $69,646,386 (September 30, 2009).
Bergstrom Foundation Grants to CFFC
2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2008 ― $125,000 ― “This grant provides partial support for the work of Catholics for A Free Choice to improve reproductive health in South America” [Bergstrom Foundation 2008 IRS Form 990].
2005-2007 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2004 ― $125,000 ― “This grant provides partial support for the work of Catholics for A Free Choice to improve reproductive health in South America” [Bergstrom Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $125,000 ― “This grant provides partial support for the work of Catholics for A Free Choice to improve reproductive health in South America” [Bergstrom Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $35,000 ― “This grant provides partial support for the work of Catholics for A Free Choice to improve reproductive health in Brazil” [Bergstrom Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2000 and Previous ― Unknown.
[pic]
Blair Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2001-2009: $
EIN: 65-6072965.
Web Site: None.
Assets: $77,409,206.
Bergstrom Foundation Grants to CFFC
2009 ― $83,164 [Blair Foundation 2009 IRS Form 990].
2008 ― $62,500 [Blair Foundation 2008 IRS Form 990].
2007 ― $6,500 [Blair Foundation 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― $5,500 [Blair Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― $4,500 [Blair Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $4,000 [Blair Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $3,850 [Blair Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $3,500 [Blair Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $3,000 [Blair Foundation 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 and Previous ― Unknown.
[pic]
Brush Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1980-2008: $247,353
EIN: 34-6000445
Web Site: None
Assets: $6,316,957 (December 31, 2009)
Notes: Interestingly, the Brush Foundation’s original name was the Brush Foundation for Racial Betterment. The mission statement of the Brush Foundation is "To ensure that family planning is acceptable, available, accessible, affordable, effective and safe."
Almost all Brush Foundation grants go to the most hard-core pro-abortion groups, including;
• Abortion Access Project
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
• Americans for UNFPA
• Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception (AVSC)
• Center for Adolescent Health and the Law (CAHL)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW)
• EngenderHealth
• Family Care International (FCI)
• Funders Network on Population, Reproductive Health and Rights
• Guttmacher Institute
• International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC)
• IPAS
• Marie Stopes International (MSI)
• National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA)
• National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)
• Our Bodies, Ourselves
• Pacific Institute for Women’s Health (PIWH)
• Pathfinder International
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Population Action International (PAI)
• Population Communications International (PCI)
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
• Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP)
• Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
• Venture Strategies for Health & Development
Brush Foundation Grants to CFFC
2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2008 ― $5,000 for “Education and advocacy with pro-choice advocates and policymakers at every level” [Brush Foundation 2008 IRS Form 990].
2007 ― $10,000 “To counter the influence of the Roman Catholic Church in domestic politics, where it creates a major challenge to policies that favor reproductive health and population stabilization” [Brush Foundation 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― $5,000 to “Expand network of prochoice legislators, train new legislators to respond to attacks, ensure media coverage of illegal partisan activities of Catholic organizations [Brush Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990].
2004-2005 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2003 ― $25,000 “For general support” [Brush Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $25,000 “For general support” [Brush Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2000 ― $12,500 [Brush Foundation 2000 IRS Form 990].
1999 ― $37,500 [Brush Foundation 1999 IRS Form 990].
1998 ― $22,500 [Brush Foundation 1998 IRS Form 990].
1992-1997 ― Unknown.
1991 ― $20,000 [Brush Foundation Quadrennial Report, 1989-1992].
1997-1990 ― Unknown.
1986 ― $5,000 [CFFC's 1986 Federal income tax return].
1984-1985 ― Unknown.
1983 ― $30,000 [CFFC's 1983 Federal income tax return].
1982 ― Unknown.
1981 ― $21,103 [CFFC's 1981 Federal income tax return].
1980 ― $28,750 [The Brush Foundation: 1928-1980, page 21].
[pic]
Buffett Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1994-2009: $12,007,135
EIN: 47-6032365.
Web Site: .
Assets: $2,241,538,887 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: In addition to being the number one funder of CFFC over the past few years, the Buffett Foundation has become the number one private foundation funder of pro-abortion organizations all over the world, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars annually into the coffers of organizations such as;
• Dozens of abortion mills
• Abortion Access Project
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLORR)
• DKT International
• EngenderHealth
• Family Health International (FHI)
• Funders Network on Population, Reproductive Health and Rights
• Guttmacher Institute
• Gynuity Health Projects
• Ibis Reproductive Health
• International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
• IPAS
• Medical Students for Choice (MSC)
• Marie Stopes International (MSI – More than $80 million in 2009)!
• National Abortion Federation (NAF)
• National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy (NCPTP)
• National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF)
• National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)
• Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) (more than $34 million in 2009)!
• Population Council
• Population Reference Bureau (PRB)
• Population Services International (PSI)
• Public Health Solutions (PHS)
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
• World Health Organization (WHO)
Buffett Foundation Grants to CFFC
2009 ― $2,310,157 to CFFC in two grants: (1) $1,171,712 “For project support;” and (2) $1,138,445 “For project support” [Buffett Foundation 2009 IRS Form 990].
2008 ― $2,232,662 to CFFC in two grants: (1) $1,103,603 “For project support;” and (2) $1,129,059 “For project support” [Buffett Foundation 2008 IRS Form 990].
2007 ― $1,624,316 to CFFC in two grants: (1) $614,660 “For project support;” and (2) $1,009,656 “For project support” [Buffett Foundation 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― $1,850,000 to CFFC in two grants: (1) $850,000 for “General support;” and (2) $1,000,000 for “General support” [Buffett Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― $1,985,000 to CFFC in two grants: (1) $1,100,000 for “General support;” and (2) $885,000 for “Project support” [Buffett Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2003-2004 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2002 ― $485,000 for “General support” [Buffett Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $485,000 for “General support” [Buffett Foundation 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― $485,000 "For general support" [Buffett Foundation 2000 IRS Form 990].
1999 ― $125,000 "For general support" [Buffett Foundation 1999 IRS Form 990].
1998 ― $125,000 "For general support" [Buffett Foundation 1998 IRS Form 990].
1997 ― Unknown.
1996 ― $100,000 "For general support" [FGI, 1998, page 227].
1995 ― $100,000 [TFR, 1998, page 149].
1994 ― $100,000 "For general support" [FGI, 1996, page 217].
[pic]
Robert Sterling Clark Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
(all data from Foundation Annual Reports)
Total grants to CFFC, 1985-2009: $1,224,000
EIN: 13-957792.
Web Site: .
Assets: $90,894,758 (October 31, 2010).
Notes: In 2010 alone, the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, through its "Protecting Reproductive Rights and Ensuring Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Information Services" program, gave $1,756,000 to the most fanatical pro-abortion groups in the United States ― Advocates for Youth, the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the Feminist Majority Foundation, Law Students for Reproductive Justice, MergerWatch, the NARAL Foundation, the National Abortion Federation, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), the National Institute for Reproductive Health, the National Women's Law Center, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Sexuality Information and Educational Council of the United States (SIECUS) [Robert Sterling Clark Foundation at recent-grants&program_id=5].
The Robert Sterling Clark Foundation is the longest-standing and most consistent foundation supporter of Catholics for [a Free] Choice.
Robert Sterling Clark Foundation Grants to CFFC
2009 ― $32,500 for unspecified activities.
2008 ― $65,000. “Since 1973 CFFC has played a key role in balancing the Catholic Church hierarchy's opposition to a wide range of reproductive health options with pro-choice Catholic perspectives. As we entered the 2008 election cycle, the bishops and their allies in conservative Catholic organizations again launched attacks designed to deny pro-choice Catholic candidates electoral victory. With our support, CFC will help these candidates defend pro-choice positions and monitor conservative Catholic groups to determine if they overstep the legal limits on electioneering to which all nonprofits are subject. In addition, our grant supports CFC’s work to preserve access to reproductive health care services within the Catholic health care system.”
2007 ― $65,000, same as 2008.
2006 ― $65,000, same as 2008.
2005 ― $65,000. “When numerous religious leaders asked CFFC for help in advancing a truly progressive religious agenda that respects the separation of church and state and promotes the health care interests of women, CFFC initiated the Moral Values and Reproductive Rights Project. The Project is designed to work with the religious and reproductive rights communities to articulate a morals-based framework to discuss abortion, and to equip these communities to advocate effectively with policymakers and the general public. Our grant supports this Project.”
2004 ― $65,000. “Specifically, conservative Catholic groups have begun to launch a major assault on Democratic policymakers and candidates for public office who are Catholic and pro-choice. Our grant will support CFFC's efforts to address possible violations of federal election law, inform media about pro-choice Catholic positions, and mobilize Catholics to stand up and support the right of pro-choice Catholic politicians to run for office without fear of being condemned by the Catholic Church or of having to sacrifice their faith” [NOTE: Can you believe this Orwellian nonsense?!?]
2003 ― $65,000. “In recent years, the Church has joined forces with Protestant fundamentalist "pro-life" activists to make major gains in extending their vision of "morality" to the public at large, convincing policymakers to slash funds for family planning programs and pass laws making abortion services more difficult to obtain. In view of these developments, CFFC has worked to expose the links between these groups, track the activities of the Catholic right, and to draw public attention to their impact on policymaking. Our grant will support CFFC's ongoing efforts to monitor and publicize the unique role played by the institutional Catholic church as both lobbyist and health care provider as well as the organization's work to monitor the Conservative Catholic presence in Congress and the White House.”
2002 ― $75,000. “Our grant will support CFFC's efforts to research and disseminate materials about Catholic voters, monitor and publicize the conservative Catholic presence in the Congress and the White House, as well as its ongoing work to combat the Catholic health care system's denial of reproductive health care to patients.”
2001 ― $75,000. “President Bush's commitment to give more government funding to religious groups to provide social services will dramatically increase the power of the Catholic Church in the U.S. Our grant will support CFFC's efforts to monitor and publicize the conservative Catholic presence in Congress and the White House, as well as its ongoing work on mergers of Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals.”
2000 ― $75,000 for unspecified activities.
1999 ― $150,000 (over 2 years). “Over the past several years, CFFC has worked to draw public attention to these developments through a series of illuminating studies and reports. These include a series of monographs that describe the role played by the Catholic Bishops in denying women access to contraceptive and abortion services; the anti-choice activities of conservative Catholic organizations; and the Church's involvement in health care delivery and the implications of that involvement for reproductive rights. This year our grant is for continued support of CFFC's research on the Catholic Right, mergers of Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals, and a new initiative challenging the Vatican's obstruction of the United Nation's delivery of reproductive health care internationally” [NOTE: This would be the failed “See Change” initiative].
1998 ― $75,000. “Our current grant is in support of CFFC's continued research on the Catholic Right and on mergers of Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals and the impact of such mergers on the availability of comprehensive reproductive health care.”
1997 ― $65,000. “This year, our grant is in support of CFFC's continued research on the Catholic Right as well as the organization's efforts to establish a coalition of progressive Catholic groups to challenge the Catholic Right.”
1996 ― $60,000, same budget justification as 1997.
1995 ― $50,000, same budget justification as 1997.
1994 ― $60,000. “Last year, with support from this Foundation, CFFC compiled a comprehensive first-of-its-kind compendium of information and analysis of anti-choice organizations that are Catholic or allied with the Catholic right entitled A New Rite: Conservative Catholic Organizations and Their Allies. This year, in the context of health care reform, CFFC will undertake a study of the Catholic health care system which is designed to inform the public debate about the scope of the Catholic Church's involvement in health care delivery, its role in the health care reform debate, and the implications of this activity for reproductive health care delivery in the future. Our grant is in support this research, as well the expanded distribution of A New Rite: Conservative Catholic Organizations and Their Allies.”
1993 ― $60,000. “This year, in the interests of raising the level of debate on these issues and reaching a larger readership, CFFC will expand its publications program. Our grant will support research on the relationship between conservative Catholic organizations and the broader anti-choice religious movement, and the creation and dissemination of a major monograph on this subject.”
1992 ― $47,000 for unspecified activities.
1991 ― $47,000. “The Church fathers continue to prohibit family planning for their own parishioners, and have actively worked to make these services more costly and difficult to obtain for the general population, both at home and abroad. If the Church's anti-family planning campaign is to be countered, CFFC believes that the bishops' extremist views and activities must be made known to policymakers and the public. In the coming year, CFFC will issue a series of contraceptive factsheets/booklets with the aim of making this information known to Catholic constituents, the broad public, and the press.”
1987-1990 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1986 ― $12,500 for unspecified activities.
1985 ― $25,000 "For a program to educate American Catholics about wide diversity of opinion that exists within the Church on the issue of reproductive freedom, and to provide Catholic citizens with rational alternative to Church doctrine" [FGI, 1986, page 329].
1980-1984 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
[pic]
Compton Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
(all data from Foundation Web site except where noted)
Total grants to CFFC, 1992-2010: $558,000
EIN: 94-3142932.
Web Site: .
Assets: $63,615,067 (December 31, 2009).
Compton Foundation Grants to CFFC
2010 ― $25,000 for “Reproductive Health and Justice in Central America” [Compton Foundation 2010 IRS Form 990].
2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Compton Foundation 2009 IRS Form 990].
2008 ― $15,000 for “Catholics in public life” [Compton Foundation 2008 IRS Form 990].
2007 ― $20,000 for “Catholics in public life” [Compton Foundation 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― $58,000 in two grants: (1) $20,000 to CFFC for “Reproductive Health/Rights: Visions and Values;” and (2) $38,000 for “Equidad de Genero: Ciudadania, Trajabo, y Familia, A.C. Institutionalizing Emergency Contraception in Zacatecas” [Compton Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― $70,000 in two grants: (1) 20,000 to CFFC for “Reproductive Health/Rights: Visions and Values;” and (2) $50,000 to Catolicas por el Derecho a Decidir for “EC: Promoting Progressive Catholic Messages” [Compton Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Compton Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $35,000 for “Defending Reproductive Rights in the US & Abroad” [Compton Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $25,000 for “Family Planning Advocacy Project” [Compton Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Compton Foundation 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― $60,000 "For Catholic Voices: An International Forum" [Compton Foundation 2000 IRS Form 990].
1999 ― $60,000 "For Catholic Voices: International Forum on Population and Develop-ment" [Compton Foundation 1999 IRS Form 990].
1998 ― $40,000 "For Catholics for Contraception" [FGI, 2001, page 278; TFR, 2002, page 218].
1997 ― $40,000 "For Catholics for Contraception" [FGI, 2000, page 268].
1996 ― $40,000 [FGI, 1999, page 235].
1994 ― $40,000 [FGI, 1997, page 205].
1992 ― $30,000 "For New Constituencies/New Approaches Project" [FGI, 1995, page 191].
[pic]
Nathan Cummings Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1991-1993: $173,500
EIN: 23-7093201.
Web site: .
Assets: $414,947,042 (December 31, 2000).
Nathan Cummings Foundation Grants to CFFC
1997-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1994-1996 ― Unknown.
1993 ― $55,000 "for Latina Initiative, to increase participation of national Hispanic organizations in the reproductive health debate" [Nathan Cummings Foundation Web site at ; FGI, 1996, page 219].
1992 ― $79,000 in two grants: (1) $45,000 to CFFC "To increase participation of national Hispanic organizations in the reproductive health debate" [Foundation Center DIALOG search by Mr. Bruce Gumm requested by Human Life International dated September 10, 2001]; and (2) $34,000 to CFFC "To explore strategies for moderating abortion debate by developing middle-ground solutions" [FGI, 1995, page 205].
1991 ― $39,500 "to encourage Hispanic organizations to develop reproductive health positions which support health of their constituents" [FGI, 1994, page 798].
[pic]
Dallas Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2002-2005: $7,000
EIN: 75-2890371.
Web Site: .
.Assets: : $175,000,000 (December 31, 2009).
Dallas Foundation Grants to CFFC
2006-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2005 ― $1,000 [Dallas Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $2,000 [Dallas Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $2,000 [Dallas Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $2,000 [Dallas Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 and Previous ― Unknown.
[pic]
Educational Foundation of America (EFA) Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
(all data from Foundation Annual Reports except where noted)
Total grants to CFFC, 1981-2007: $1,457,900
EIN: 13-3424750.
Web Site: .
Assets: $ 162,081,218 (December 31, 2009)
Notes: The Educational Foundation of America was established in New York in 1959 with funds donated by the late Richard Prentice Ettinger, the founder of the Prentice-Hall publishing company.
EFA has funded many pro-abortion and population control organizations, including;
• Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARPH)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Center for Women Policy Studies (CWPS)
• Choice USA
• Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF)
• Friends of the Earth (FoE)
• Guttmacher Institute
• Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ)
• MergerWatch
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• National Audubon Society
• National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH)
• National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
• Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP)
• Scenarios USA
• Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
Educational Foundation of America Grants to CFFC
2008-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2007 ― $200,000 for “Catholics in Public Life.”
2005-2006 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2004 ― $170,000 for “Catholic Health Care Project.”
2001-2003 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2000 ― $200,000 for “Catholic Health Care and Access to Reproductive Health Project.”
1999 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1998 ― $200,000 (over two years) "For educating and reaching out to religious community" [FGI, 2001, page 284].
1996-1997 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1995 ― $225,000 (over three years) "For educating and reaching out to religious community" [FGI, 1997 TFR, 2002, page 313].
1993 ― $50,000 "for communications project" [FGI, 1995, page 194].
1992 ― $57,900 (over two years) "for Hispanic Outreach Project" [FGI, 1994, page 186].
1991 ― $50,000 (over two years) "for grassroots organizing and Hispanic outreach projects" [FGI, 1993, page 182].
1990 ― $80,000 "for education and communications program" [FGI, 1992, page 173].
1988 ― $80,000 "for education and communications programs to further national dialogue on ethical questions related to human reproduction and implementation of sound public policy related to family planning" [FGI, 1990/1991, page 94].
1985 ― $20,000 "for Spanish publications dissemination program" [FGI, 1986, page 106].
1983 ― $25,000 "to educate the community about the issues of reproductive choice and advance public debate about abortion" [FGI, 1985, page 95; TFR, 1985, page 175].
1982 ― $50,000 "to further develop Catholic involvement in reproductive rights through an intensive program of public education, publications and publication dissemination, and media visibility" [FGI, 1984, page 88]; "education: materials, media and outreach" [TFR, 1984 page 174].
1981 ― $50,000 [CFFC's 1981 Federal income tax return].
[pic]
[pic]
Leland Fikes Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1985-2007: $405,000
EIN: 75-6035984.
Web Site: None.
Assets: $90,752,290 (December 31, 2009).
Note: Other pro-abortion groups the Leland Fikes Foundation supports include:
• Advocates for Youth
• Family Health International (FHI)
• International Services Assistance Fund (ISAF)
• Jane’s Due Process
• Medical Students for Choice (MSC)
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Population Institute
• Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health and Ethics
• Texas Abortion Rights Action League (TARAL)
• Venture Strategies for Health and Development
Leland Fikes Foundation Grants to CFFC
2008-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2007 ― $25,000 “for general support” [Leland Fikes 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― $25,000 “for projects in U.S. and Latin America” [Leland Fikes 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Leland Fikes 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $10,000 “for general support” [Leland Fikes 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $25,000 “for general support” [Leland Fikes 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $25,000 “for general support” [Leland Fikes 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Leland Fikes 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― $10,000 “for work in Mexico” [Leland Fikes 2000 IRS Form 990].
1999 ― $10,000 “for work in Mexico” [Leland Fikes 1999 IRS Form 990].
1998 ― $35,000 in two grants: (1) $10,000 “for prochoice activities in Mexico” and (2) $25,000 "for projects in Latin America" [FGI, 2001, page 316; TFR, 2002, page 335; IRS Form 990].
1997 ― $25,000.
1996 ― $20,000 "for projects in Central/South America ― reproductive rights" [IRS form 990-PF, "Return of Private Foundation," Leland Fikes Foundation, 1996; FGI, 1999, page 263].
1995 ― $20,000 "for projects in Latin America" [FGI, 1998, page 243].
1994 ― $20,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1997, page 232].
1993 ― $20,000 "for projects in Latin America" [FGI, 1996, page 231].
1992 ― $30,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1995, page 216].
1991 ― $30,000 "for projects in Mexico and general support" [FGI, 1994, page 209].
1990 ― $25,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1993, page 203].
1989 ― $25,000 [TFR, 1992, page 259].
1988 ― $15,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1990/1991, page 695].
1985 ― $10,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1987, page 630].
[pic]
Ford Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1982-2011: $14,506,778
EIN: 13-1684331.
Web Site: .
Assets: $ $10,881,598,073 (September 30, 2010).
Notes: Although the Ford Foundation was originally funded with hundreds of millions of dollars of Ford Motor Company stock, it has completely divested itself of all Ford Company holdings. Today the Ford foundation has no ties whatsoever to the Ford family or the Ford Motor Company.
In 1968, a Ford Foundation representative said that
“Over the past sixteen years, the Ford Foundation has devoted $100 million to work directed to world population problems — more than any other agency, public or private. We in the Foundation believe that the quality of life is threatened by excessive rates of population growth. ... We believe, therefore, that a foundation concerned with human welfare must give high priority to helping nations reduce their fertility” [Oscar Harkavy, Lyle Saunders and Anna L. Southam of the Ford Foundation. "An Overview of the Ford Foundation's Strategy for Population Work." Demography [Volume 5, Number 2, 1968], pages 541 to 552].
Other pro-abortion groups the Ford Foundation supports include:
• Action Canada for Population and Development (ACPD)
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• American Bar Association (ABA)
• American Civil Liberties Association (ACLU)
• Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice (ACRJ)
• Black Women for Reproductive Justice (BWRJ)
• Black Women’s Health Imperative (BWHI)
• California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
• Center for American Progress (CAP)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Center for Women Policy Studies (CWPS)
• Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLORR)
• Family Care International (FCI)
• Global Fund for Women (GFW)
• Global Health Council (GHC)
• Institute of Women and Ethnic Studies (IWES)
• International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
• International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC)
• IPAS
• Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ)
• Ms. Foundation for Women
• National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW)
• National Assembly on School-Based Health Care (NASBHC)
• National Black Women’s Health Project (NBWHP)
• National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA)
• National Health Law Program (NHeLP)
• National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH)
• National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF)
• National Organization for Women (NOW)
• National Women’s Health Network (NWHN)
• National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)
• Park Ridge Center
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Population Action International (PAI)
• Population Communications International (PCI)
• Population Council
• Population Reference Bureau (PRB)
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
• Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health and Ethics
• Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP)
• Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
• SisterSong ― Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective
• United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
Ford Foundation Grants to CFFC
2011 ― $300,000 to CFFC for “General support to assist Catholic policy makers, groups that empower women of color and others disproportionately impacted by public policies that affect reproductive health care options” [Ford Foundation Web site].
2010 ― $200,000 to CDD-Mexico “To build public support for sexual and reproductive rights and legal abortion among Catholic constituencies in Mexico and Central America” [Ford Foundation Web site].
2009 ― $950,000 in three grants: (1) $300,000 to CFFC “To assist Catholic policy makers & groups that focus on empowering women of color & other communities disproportionately impacted by public policies that affect reproductive health care options;” (2) $200,000 to CDD-Brazil for “Final support for the "Multipliers" project to conduct training seminars on women's sexual and reproductive rights for lower income women and college students and to help purchase office space;” and (3) $450,000 to CDD-Mexico “To establish a regional alliance against feminicide in collaboration with other Mexican and Central American women's organizations and promote access to justice for women victims of violence” [Ford Foundation Web site].
2008 ― $793,000 in four grants: (1) $150,000 to CDD-Mexico “To promote the sexual and reproductive rights of women throughout Latin America” [2008 Ford Foundation IRS Form 990, page 91]; (2) $181,000 to CDD-Mexico “To establish a regional alliance against feminicide in collaboration with other Mexican and Central American women's organizations and promote access to justice for women victims of violence” [2008 Ford Foundation IRS Form 990, page 93]; (3) $62,000 to CDD-Mexico “To provide a closer articulation between human rights defenders and sexual and reproductive rights organizations and integrate sexual and reproductive rights and women’s rights” [2008 Ford Foundation IRS Form 990, page 93]; and (4) $400,000 to CFFC for “General support” [2008 Ford Foundation IRS Form 990, page 128].
2007 ― $923,018 in four grants: (1) $400,000 to CFFC for “Final general support for education, outreach and advocacy programs to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights” [2007 Ford Foundation IRS Form 990, page 188]; (2) $285,018 to CDD-Brazil “For education, social mobilization, advocacy and networking to promote sexual and reproductive rights in Brazil and throughout Latin America [2007 Ford Foundation IRS Form 990, page 134]; (3) $150,000 to CDD-Mexico “To promote the sexual and reproductive rights of women throughout Latin America” [2007 Ford Foundation IRS Form 990, page 147]; and (4) $88,000 to CDD-Mexico “To provide a closer articulation between human rights defenders and sexual and reproductive rights organizations and integrate sexual and reproductive rights and women’s rights” [2007 Ford Foundation IRS Form 990, page 148].
2006 ― $250,000 in two grants: (1) $100,000 to CDD-Mexico “To promote a closer articulation between human rights defenders and sexual and reproductive rights organizations and to integrate women’s rights and sexual and reproductive rights,” and (2) $150,000 to CDD-Brazil “For public education and dissemination of Catholic prochoice values to grassroots groups” [Ford Foundation Web site].
2005 ― $2,050,000 in two grants: (1) $2,000,000 to CFFC “For education, outreach and advocacy programs aimed at advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights;” and (2) $50,000 to CDD-Mexico “To promote a closer articulation between human rights defenders and sexual and reproductive rights organizations and integrate sexual and reproductive rights and women’s rights” [Ford Foundation 2005 Annual Report].
2004 ― $120,000 to CDD-Brazil “For public education and dissemination of Catholic pro-choice values” [Ford Foundation 2004 Annual Report].
2003 ― $420,000 to CDD-Brazil “To promote sexual rights and prochoice Catholic perspectives in Latin America” [Ford Foundation 2003 Annual Report].
2002 ― $1,300,000 in two grants: (1) $1,200,000 to CFFC “For research, policy analysis, education, constituency building, communications and advocacy on gender equality, reproductive health and tolerance;” and (2) $100,000 to CDD-Brazil “For public education and dissemination of Catholic pro-choice values” [Ford Foundation 2002 Annual Report].
2001 ― $100,000 to CDD-Argentina “For activities to strengthen the network’s institutional development and advocacy skills” [Ford Foundation 2001 Annual Report].
2000 ― $820,000 in three grants: (1) $334,000 to CDD-Uruguay “To strengthen progressive Catholic groups in Latin America and to promote prochoice Catholic perspectives on sexual and reproductive rights;” (2) $186,000 to CDD For public education and dissemination of pro-choice information;” and (3) $300,000 to CDD-Mexico “For capacity building to help the Catholic Youth Movement build a pro-choice alliance in Mexico” [Ford Foundation 2000 Annual Report].
1999 ― $1,200,000 in two grants: (1) $1,200,000 to CFFC “For research, education and advocacy work in issues of sexual and reproductive health and rights;" and $100,000 to CFFC “For conference "Catholic Voices: An International Forum on Population and Development"" [Ford Foundation Web site; FGI, 2001, page 301].
1998 ― $775,000 in five grants: (1) $218,000 (2-year grant) to CDD-Uruguay “For continued support to consolidate pro-choice Catholic groups and promote public discussion on sexual and reproductive health;" (2) $200,000 (2-year grant) to CDD-Mexico “For continued support for public education and dissemination of Catholic pro-choice values;" (3) $190,000 to CDD-Mexico “For preparatory activities for International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Plus 5;" (4) $100,000 (2-year grant) to CDD-Mexico “For working group of senior developing country ethicists in reproductive health;" and (5) $67,000 to CDD-Mexico “To promote public discussion among Catholics in Mexico on sexual and reproductive health."
1997 ― $50,000 to CDD-Uruguay “For Latin American Regional Conference for Catholics for the Right to Decide Network."
1996 ― $1,623,000 in four grants: (1) $1,300,000 to CFFC “For general support;” (2) $150,000 to CDD-Brazil “For public education and dissemination of Catholic pro-choice values;" (3) $100,000 to CDD-Uruguay “For consolidation of pro-choice Catholic groups in four Latin American countries: Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Peru;" and (4) $73,000 to CDD-Mexico “To promote public discussion among Catholics in Mexico on sexual and reproductive health” [FGI, 1998, page 231]
1995 ― $117,000 in three grants: (1) $30,000 to CFFC “For general support" [FGI, 1997, page 221; Ford Foundation 1995 Annual Report, page 89]; (2) $42,000 to CFFC “For participants from developing countries to attend Kennedy Institute of Ethics' advanced course on feminist perspective on bioethics" [FGI, 1997, page 833; Ford Foundation 1995 Annual Report, page 86]; and (3) $45,000 to CFFC “To consolidate pro-choice Catholic groups in four countries."
1994 ― $1,076,200 in four grants: (1) $770,000 to CFFC “For general support" [FGI, 1996, page 221; Ford Foundation 1994 Annual Report, page 83]; (2) $210,000 (18-month grant) “To consolidate a Latin American network on women's reproductive health and rights;" (3) $46,200 to CDD-Brazil “For ethics, law, and policy analysis" [Ford Foundation 1994 Annual Report, page 87]; and (4) $50,000 to CDD-Uruguay “For community involvement" [Ford Foundation 1994 Annual Report, page 86].
1993 ― $210,000 “For international program, institutional evaluation and convening religious consultation on population and reproductive health" [FGI, 1995, page 206].
1992 ― $200,000 in two grants: (1) $100,000 (18-month grant) “For participants from developing countries to attend Kennedy Institute of Ethics' advanced course on feminist perspective on bioethics" and (2) $100,000 “Toward consolidation of Latin American Women's Reproductive Health and Rights Network" [FGI, 1994, page 800].
1991 ― $500,000 in three grants: (1) $150,000 “For family planning and reproductive health program in developing countries" [FGI, 1993, page 740]; (2) $50,000 “For education on reproductive health and rights in Latin America" [FGI, 1993, page 193]; and (3) $300,000 (over 2½ years) “For supplement for public policy and education programs on reproductive choice in U.S." [FGI, 1993, page 193].
1990 ― $200,000 (over two years) “For supplement for research and education on reproductive rights in U.S." [FGI, 1992, page 183].
1989 ― Unknown.
1988 ― $120,000 (over two years) “For public education on issues related to reproductive choice" [FGI, 1989, page 426].
1987 ― $90,000 “For public education and policy analysis in area of reproductive choice" [FGI, 1988, page 400].
1986 ― Unknown.
1985 ― $50,000 “To expand distribution of organization's publications, which explore religious, ethical and policy issues related to abortion" [FGI, 1986, page 361].
1984 ― $25,000 [CFFC's 1984 Federal Income Tax Return].
1983 ― $25,000 "For fellowship program in journalism and moral theology dealing with theme of Catholics and abortion" [FGI, 1984, page 291].
1982 ― $19,560 "For study of effects of religious upbringing and religious attitudes on decision to have abortion" [FGI, 1983, page 249].
[pic]
General Service Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1986-2007: $1,132,635
EIN: 36-6018535.
Web Site: .
Assets: $ 58,625,715 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: Beginning in 1970, world population control became ― and has remained ― a major concern of the General Service Foundation. A 1981 Foundation publication commemorating its first 35 years of operation disclosed that the GSF has "worked closely over twenty years with ... Planned Parenthood, American Friends Service Committee, Population Council, Population Crisis Committee, Columbia University, and others" to cope with the "awesome ... consequences of unrestricted population growth" [Foundation booklet entitled General Service Foundation 1946 to 1981, pages 2 and 6]. In 1979 and 1980, GSF made population control its main area of concentration, with "up to two-thirds of the Foundation's income" during that period designated for such activity. Accordingly, "a major contribution [was made] to the Population Council in support of its [population programs] in Latin America and the Caribbean, with emphasis on Mexico." Thanks to GSF funding, the Population Council was able to expand "similar activities ... [in] Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Peru, and El Salvador." In recent years, GSF has funded International Projects Assistance Services (IPAS), a manufacturer of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) abortion machines, for the purpose of placing its devices and training physicians in their use in Ecuador (1988 and 1990, $25,000 each year), Nicaragua (1989, $28,000; 1990 and 1991, $20,000 each year), and Mexico (1992-1993, $40,000) [TFR, 1990, page 238; TFR, 1992, page 305; General Service Foundation Annual Reports, 1989 (page 10), 1990 (page 11), 1991 (page 11) and 1992/1993 (unnumbered).
Interestingly, James Patrick Shannon sat on the Board of Directors of the General Service Foundation for many years. Shannon, a defrocked Roman Catholic priest, was formerly auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul from 1965 to 1968. In November 1968, Shannon abandoned the priesthood and married outside the Church. He grumbled that "In my pastoral experience I have found that this rigid teaching (Humanae Vitae) is simply impossible of observance [sic] by many faithful and generous spouses, and I cannot believe that God binds men to impossible standards" [Megan Hartman. "Humanae Vitae: Thirty Years of Discord and Dissent." Conscience, Autumn 1998].
Some of the hard-core pro-abortion groups funded by the General Service Foundation include;
• Abortion Access Project
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• Asians for Reproductive Justice (ARJ)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Choice USA
• Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLORR)
• Family Care International (FCI)
• Funders Network on Population, Reproductive Health and Rights
• Global Fund for Women (GFW)
• Ibis Reproductive Health
• Institute for Reproductive Health Access (IRHA)
• Law Students for Choice
• Ms. Foundation for Women
• National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW)
• National Health Law Program (NHLP)
• National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH)
• National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF)
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
• SisterSong
• Third Wave Foundation
• Tides Center
General Service Foundation Grants to CFFC
2008 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2007 ― $35,000 for “General support” [GSF 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― $35,000 for “General support” [GSF 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― $80,000 in two grants, both for “General support” [GSF 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $35,000 for “General support” [GSF 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $95,000 in two grants: (1) $45,000 to CFFC for “General support;” and (2) $50,000 to CDD-Mexico for “General support” [GSF 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $65,000 to CDD-Mexico for “National Prochoice Alliance Project” [GSF 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $95,000 in two grants: (1) $100,000 to CFFC for “General support;” and (2) $130,000 to CDD-Mexico for “National Prochoice Alliance Project to increase access to legal abortion in Mexico” ” [GSF 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― $73,335 in two grants: (1) $8,335 “To cover the costs of three Mexican participants from Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir/Mexico to attend the Beijing+5 meetings" [GSF Web site]; and (2) $65,000 "for general support of CDD's efforts to ensure the exercise of reproductive and sexual rights in Mexico, including access to adequate services and the ultimate goal of ensuring safe, legal abortion" [GSF Web site].
1999 ― $100,000 (over two years) “To raise awareness of Catholic support for reproductive health care and to counter the Catholic Church's attempts to undermine reproductive freedom" [GSF Web site].
1998 ― $20,000 “To CDD to develop educational publications used to support the organization's activities to strengthen the voices of prochoice Catholics in Mexico" [GSF Web site].
1997 ― $80,000 (2 years) "for general support of CFFC's core domestic programs" [General Service Foundation Web site at ; FGI, 2000, page 272].
1996 ― Unknown.
1995 ― $90,000 in two grants: (1) $80,000 (over two years) to CFFC “Toward educating and building networks of pro-choice Catholics at state, local and national levels as participants in public debate over sexuality and reproductive providers" [FGI, 1998, page 218]; and (2) $10,000 "for work with organizations and coalition in Latin America to help implement International Conference on Population and Development Program of Action in region" [FGI, 1998, page 830].
1994 ― Unknown.
1993 ― $90,000 (over two years) "for Latin America Program which seeks to educate and mobilize Latin American citizens on important reproductive health and population issues in the region" [FGI, 1996, page 206].
1992 ― $4,800 “To support the International Network of Feminists Interested in Reproductive Health and Ethics (IN/FIRE)" [FGIQ, September 1994, page 18].
1991 ― $80,000 (2 years) "for general program support to provide analysis, education and advocacy on reproductive health issues from a religious and ethical perspective" [FGI, 1994, page 186].
1990 ― $32,000 "for general program support" [FGI, 1993, page 182].
1989 ― $32,500 "for general support of this organization which provides analysis, education and advocacy on reproductive health issues from a religious and ethical perspective for a domestic and international audience" [1989 General Service Foundation Annual Report, page 9].
1988 ― $28,000 "for organization's work to counter efforts of Roman Catholic Church to limit legal access to reproductive health care" [FGI, 1990/1991, page 88].
1987 ― $31,500 “To support Latin American Program which utilizes ethical and theological perspectives and service-oriented methods to assist Latin American Catholics with issue of reproductive choice" [FGI, 1989, page 88].
1986 ― $30,500 in two grants: (1) $7,500 to CFFC “To disseminate radio documentary to members of Congress which provides expert scientific information on fetal brain development to counter assumptions put forth in film The Silent Scream" [FGI, 1988, page 94]; and (2) $23,000 to the CFFC International Program: Latin America “To support Latin American component of organization's 1986 conference, Ethical Issues in Reproductive Health: Religious Perspectives, and to support their Latin American program in 1987" [FGI, 1988, page 94].
[pic]
Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1989-2008: $1,000,000
EIN: 94-6065226.
Web Site: .
Assets: $ 51,781,475 (December 31, 2008).
Notes: The Gerbode Foundation makes many grants to pro-abortion organizations but, unlike other foundations, funds pro-euthanasia groups as well, including the following;
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
• Asia Foundation
• Center for Gender Equality (CGE)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Choice USA
• Compassion in Dying Federation of America
• Death with Dignity National Center
• DKT International
• Exhale ― An After-Abortion Counseling Talkline
• Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF)
• Global Fund for Women (GFW)
• Global Justice Center (GJC)
• Guttmacher Institute
• Ibis Reproductive Health
• Medical Students for Choice (MSC)
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• National Women's Law Center (NWLC)
• Oregon Death With Dignity Legal Defense and Education Center
• Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP)
• Tides Foundation
Wallace Alexancer Gerbode Foundation Grants to CFFC
2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2008 ― $150,000 to CFFC for “Support of its work in the area of reproductive rights and health” [Gerbode Foundation 2008 IRS Form 990].
2007 ― $50,000 to CFFC for “Support of its work” [Gerbode Foundation 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2005 ― $150,000 to CFFC for “Support of its work” [Gerbode Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $50,000 to CFFC [Gerbode Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $50,000 to CFFC [Gerbode Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $50,000 to CFFC [Gerbode Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $50,000 to CFFC [Gerbode Foundation 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― $50,000 to CFFC [Gerbode Foundation 2000 IRS Form 990].
1999 ― $150,000 (over three years) "For support of its work in the area of reproductive rights and health" [Gerbode Foundation Center Web site].
1998 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1997 ― $15,000 "For support of its work to advance sexual and reproductive rights" [Gerbode Foundation Center Web site].
1996 ― $30,000 "For support of its work to advance sexual and reproductive rights" [Gerbode Foundation Center Web site].
1995 ― $15,000 "For support of its work to advance sexual and reproductive rights" [Gerbode Foundation Center Web site].
1994 ― $90,000 "For work to advance sexual and reproductive rights" [FGI, 1996, page 204].
1992-1993 ― Unknown.
1991 ― $25,000 for "Support of its family planning and abortion rights work" [TFR, 1994, page 491].
1990 ― Unknown.
1989 ― $75,000 (over three years) "For family planning and abortion rights work" [FGI, 1990/1991, page 31].
[pic]
Global Fund for Women Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1991-2009: $538,500
EIN: 77-0155782.
Web Site: .
Assets: $22,957,280 (June 30, 2009).
Notes: Longtime CFFC President Frances Kissling is a co-founder of the Global Fund for Women, so it is no surprise that the GFW has been very generous to CFFC.
Global Fund for Women Grants to CFFC
2009 ― $15,000 to CDD-Mexico [GFW 2009-2010 Annual Report].
2008 ― $45,000 in three grants: (1) and (2) $25,000 in two grants to CDD-Argentina; and (3) $20,000 to CDD-Brazil [GFW 2008-2009 Annual Report].
2007 ― $65,000 in two grants: (1) $50,000 (over three years) to CDD-Bolivia; and (2) $15,000 to CDD-Colombia [GFW 2007-2008 Annual Report].
2006 ― $105,000 in four grants: (1) $50,000 (over three years) to CDD-Argentina; (2) $30,000 (over three years) to CDD-Mexico; (3) $20,000 to CDD-Brazil; and (4) $5,000 to CFFC [GFW 2006-2007 Annual Report].
2005 ― $50,000 (over three years) to CDD-Chile [GFW 2005-2006 Annual Report].
2004 ― $79,000 in four grants to CDD [GFW 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $83,500 in five grants to CDD [GFW 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $15,000 to CDD [GFW 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $32,000 in two grants to CDD [GFW 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― $19,000 in two grants to CDD [GFW 2000 IRS Form 990].
1999 ― $15,000 to CDD “To build grassroots mobilization, increase legislative support and improve availability of services to make abortion safe and legal in Mexico" [Global Fund for Women Web site at ].
1992-1998 ― Unknown.
1991 ― $15,000 to CFFC “To develop a national strategy to make abortion safe and legal in Mexico” [GFW 2007-2008 Annual Report].
[pic]
Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1994-2004: $490,000
EIN: 94-6064502.
Web Site: .
Assets: $301,688,264 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: In addition to funding CFFC, the Goldman Fund gives grants to many other leading pro-abortion groups, including;
• Abortion Access Project (AAP)
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
• Americans for UNFPA
• Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Choice USA
• Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC)
• EngenderHealth
• Exhale ― An After-Abortion Counseling Talkline
• Family Care International (FCI)
• Guttmacher Institute
• Ibis Reproductive Health
• International Center for Research on Women (ICRW)
• International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC)
• IPAS
• Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ)
• Legal Momentum
• Medical Students for Choice (MSC)
• Ms. Foundation for Women
• NARAL Pro-Choice Foundation
• National Abortion Federation (NAF)
• National Center for Youth Law (NCYL)
• National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA)
• National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH)
• National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF)
• Pathfinder International
• Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Population Action International (PAI)
• Population Media Center (PMC)
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
• Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP)
• Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP)
• Sexuality Information and Education Center of the United States (SIECUS)
• Sierra Club
• Tides Center
• Women's Health Rights Coalition (WHRC)
Goldman Fund for Women Grants to CFFC
2005-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2004 ― $25,000 to CFFC for “General operating support” [Goldman 2004 IRS Form 990]
2003 ― $25,000 to CFFC for “General operating support” [Goldman 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $65,000 in three grants: (1) $25,000 to CFFC for “General support;” (2) $25,000 to CDD-Mexico for “Teen Reproductive Health Program;” and (3) $20,000 to CDD-Mexido for "Development of Skills and Capacity Building for Reproductive and Sexual Rights and Health" [Goldman 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $25,000 to CFFC [Goldman 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1999 ― Unknown.
1998 ― $200,000 (2 years) "for the Catholics for Contraception Campaign" [Goldman Fund Web site at ; FGI, 2001, page 279].
1997 ― $50,000 "for general support" [FGI, 2000, page 269].
1996 ― $50,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1999, page 236].
1995 ― $25,000 "for final payment of grant for Catholic Health Care System and Health Reform Study, to examine Catholic health care system, its role in national health care reform and implications for reproductive health care delivery in U.S." [FGI, 1998, page 816].
1994 ― $25,000 "for Catholic Health Care System and Health Reform study, to examine Catholic health care system, its role in national health care reform and implications for reproductive health care delivery in U.S." [FGI, 1997, page 768].
[pic]
George Gund Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1981-2003: $856,208
EIN: 34-6519769.
Web Site: .
Assets: $ 424,655,582 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: George Gund's fortune began with the purchase of a decaffeinated coffee firm which became Sanka coffee under Kellogg's and General Foods' auspices. The Gund Foundation has long been a funder of abortion and population control groups, including the following;
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Reproductive Freedom Project
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC)
• Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF)
• Funders Network on Population, Reproductive Health and Rights
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• National Abortion Federation (NAF)
• Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Preterm Cleveland (abortion mill)
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
• Scenarios USA
George Gund Foundation Grants to CFFC
2004-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2003 ― $25,000 to CFFC for “Operating Support” [George Gund Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $50,000 (over two years) to CFFC for “Operating Support” [George Gund Foundation Web site].
2000-2001 ― Unknown.
1999 ― $100,000 (over two years) to CFFC for “Operating Support” [George Gund Foundation Web site; FGI, 2001, page 314].
1998 ― $100,000 (over two years) to CFFC for “Operating Support” [George Gund Foundation Web site; FGI, 2000, page 301].
1997 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1996 ― $100,000 (2 years) "for operating support" [FGI, 1998, page 241].
1995 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1994 ― $90,000 (2 years) "for operating support" [FGI, 1996, page 229].
1993 ― $30,000 "for retreat for pro-choice leadership" [FGI, 1995, page 215; TFR, 1996, page 550. NOTE: That must have been some retreat!]
1992 ― $85,000 (2 years) "for operating support" [FGI, 1994, page 207].
1991 ― $41,708 "for operating support" [FGI, 1993, page 201].
1990 ― $30,000 "for reproductive rights activities" [FGI, 1992, page 190].
1989 ― $12,500 "for operating support for CFFC's advocacy and public education programs related to abortion rights" [CFFC's 1989 Federal income tax return].
1988 ― $50,000 "for operating support for advocacy and public education programs related to abortion rights" [FGI, 1990/1991, page 595].
1987 ― $25,000 "for continued operating support for public education and advocacy efforts supporting Catholic dissent on issue of abortion" [FGI, 1989, page 589].
1986 ― $25,000 “Toward general operating expenses and for such activities as expanded publication distribution effort, conference on Ethical Issues in Reproductive Health Care, and continued public educative activities" [FGI, 1987, page 539].
1985 ― $15,000 "for operating assistance for national membership organization dedicated to preserving reproductive freedom and upholding separation of church and state" [FGI, 1986, page 522].
1984 ― $17,000 "for operating support for national membership organization dedicated to preserving reproductive rights and upholding separation of church and state" [FGI, 1985, page 459].
1983 ― $20,000 "for third year operating assistance for national membership organization dedicated to preserving reproductive rights and upholding principle of separation of church and state" [FGI, 1984, page 427].
1982 ― $20,000 "for projects aimed at increasing public understanding of issues related to reproductive freedom" [FGI, 1983, page 357].
1981 ― $20,000 "for operating support for organization dedicated to preserving reproductive freedom and upholding principle of church and state separation" [FGI, 1982, page 336].
[pic]
William & Flora Hewlett Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1995-2010: $4,398,000
EIN: 94-1655673.
Web site: .
Assets: $2,738,945,087 (December 31, 1999).
Note: The Hewlett Foundation is one of the nation’s leading funders of pro-abortion and population control organizations, including;
• Abortion Access Project
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• American Civil Liberties Association (ACLU)
• American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA)
• Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice (ACRJ)
• Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP)
• California Family Health Council (CFHC)
• California Latinas for Reproductive Justice (CLRJ)
• Center for the Advancement of Women (CAW)
• Center for Health and Social Policy (CHSP)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Center for Women Policy Studies (CWPS)
• Choice USA
• Funders Network on Population, Reproductive Health and Rights
• Guttmacher Institute
• Ibis Reproductive Health
• Marie Stopes International (MSI)
• Medical Students for Choice (MSC)
• Ms. Foundation for Women
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy
• National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA)
• National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH)
• National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF)
• National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)
• Pathfinder International
• Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Population Action International (PAI)
• Population Connection
• Population Reference Bureau (PRB)
• Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP)
• Scenarios USA
• Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
• SisterSong
• Tides Center
Hewlett Foundation Grants to CFFC
2010 ― $43,000 to CFFC “For strengthening evaluation systems” [Hewlett Foundation Web site].
2009 ― $800,000 to CFFC “For general operating support” [Hewlett Foundation 2009 IRS Form 990].
2008 ― $1,200,000 (over three years) to CFFC “For general operating support” [Hewlett Foundation Web site].
2007 ― $30,000 to CFFC “For strategic planning” [Hewlett Foundation Web site].
2006 ― $675,000 to CFFC [Foundation Center Web site search, June 27, 2011].
2005 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2004 ― $600,000 to CFFC [Foundation Center Web site search, June 27, 2011].
1999-2003 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1998 ― $600,000 (3 years) "for general support, with focus on international programs" [FGI, 2000, page 269].
1996-1997 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1995 ― $450,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1997, page 206].
[pic]
Huber Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1982-2009: $1,160,000
EIN: 21-0737062.
Web Site: None.
Assets: $48,965,140 (December 31, 2000).
Notes: The secretive Huber Foundation was established in 1949 by members of the Huber family, owners of the 1.2 billion-dollar J.M. Huber Corporation. In the mid-1970s, the Huber Foundation "stepped into the spotlight ... to announce that all future grants would promote 'reproductive freedom.'" The foundation then "slipped back into the obscurity that had shrouded it since its creation ..."
One article reported that "[m]embers of the Huber family are wary about discussing their philanthropy" and ignored "repeated calls to the foundation." Indeed, so secretive is the foundation that its official annual reports simply list the organizations receiving Huber grants without disclosing the amounts each was awarded. A review of the foundation's Internal Revenue Service Forms 990 was required to ascertain that information.
True to its earlier declaration, the Foundation's Annual Report states that the Huber foundation "focuses its grant-making on the issues of Reproductive Health, Population Education and Family planning ... Only organizations that make a substantial commitment of time and resources to these issues will be considered for funding."
The Huber Foundation gives large grants to radical pro-abortion groups, including the following;
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
• Association for Voluntary Sterilization (AVS)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Choice USA
• Family Planning Association of Maine
• Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF)
• Guttmacher Institute
• Medical Students for Choice (MSC)
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• National Abortion Federation (NAF)
• National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW)
• National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA)
• National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)
• People for the American Way (PAW)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Population Crisis Committee (PCC)
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
• Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
• Zero Population growth (ZPG)
Huber Foundation Grants to CFFC
2009 ― $85,000 for “General support” [Huber Foundation 2009 IRS Form 990].
2008 ― $85,000 for “General support” [Huber Foundation 2008 IRS Form 990].
2007 ― $75,000 for “General support” [Huber Foundation 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― $60,000 for “General support” [Huber Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― $60,000 for “General support” [Huber Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $50,000 for “General support” [Huber Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $50,000 for “General support” [Huber Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $50,000 for “General support” [Huber Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $50,000 for “General support” [Huber Foundation 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― $50,000 for “General support” [Huber Foundation 2000 IRS Form 990].
1999 ― $50,000 for “General support” [Huber Foundation 1999 IRS Form 990].
1998 ― $120,000 for “General support” [Huber Foundation 1998 IRS Form 990].
1997 ― $30,000 "for general support" [FGI, 2000, page 286].
1996 ― $40,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1999, page 249].
1995 ― $30,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1997, page 218].
1994 ― Unknown.
1993 ― $30,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1996, page 217].
1992 ― $40,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1995, page 203].
1991 ― $25,000 "for general support" [TFR, 1994, page 657].
1990 ― $55,000 "for general support" [TFR, 1993, page 446].
1989 ― $30,000 "for general support" [TFR, 1992, page 403].
1988 ― $20,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1990/1991, page 338].
1987 ― $20,000 "for general support" [TFR, 1990, page 320].
1986 ― Unknown.
1985 ― $20,000 "for general support" [TFR, 1987, page 303].
1984 ― Unknown.
1983 ― $20,000 "for general support" [TFR, 1986, page 315].
1982 ― $15,000 "for general support" [TFR, 1984, page 288].
[pic]
Esther A. and Joseph Klingenstein Fund
Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1994-1996: $75,000
EIN: 13-6028788.
Web Site: .
Assets: $73,237,833 (September 30, 2009).
Note: The Klingenstein Fund gives a lot of money to groups supporting Church/state separation and animal research, but few grants to pro-abortion groups. It last funded CFFC in 1996.
Klingenstein Fund Grants to CFFC
1997-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1996 ― $25,000 "for family planning and teenage pregnancy programs" [FGI, 1999, page 972].
1995 ― $25,000 "for family planning and teenage pregnancy programs" [FGI, 1998, page 897].
1994 ― $25,000 [FGI, 1997, page 224].
[pic]
Leuthold Family Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2004-2009: $62,000
EIN: 41-1680986.
Web Site: None.
Assets: $38,651,022 (December 31, 2009).
Leuthold Family Foundation Grants to CFFC
2009 ― $22,000 for “Operating” [Leuthold Foundation 2009 IRS Form 990].
2008 ― $22,000 for “Operating” [Leuthold Foundation 2008 IRS Form 990].
2007 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2006 ― $5,000 for “Operating” [Leuthold Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― $5,000 for “Operating” [Leuthold Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $8,000 for “Operating” [Leuthold Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2002-2003 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2001 and Previous ― Unknown.
[pic]
Albert A. List Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1993-1999: $248,850
EIN: 51-0188408.
Web Site: .
Assets: $15,463,161 (December 31, 1999).
Albert A. List Foundation Grants to CFFC
2006-Present — No IRS Forms 990 available.
2003-2005 — No grants listed for CFFC [List Foundation IRS Forms 990].
2000-2002 — Unknown.
1999 — $20,000 "for Challenging the Religious Right: Focus on Gender, Sexuality and Reproduction" [Foundation Center DIALOG search by Mr. Bruce Gumm requested by Human Life International dated September 10, 2001].
1998 — $30,000 "for Challenging the Religious Right: Focus on Gender, Sexuality and Reproduction" [FGI, 2001, page 306].
1997 — $60,000 [FGI, 2000, page 294].
1996 — $75,000 [FGI, 1999, page 255].
1995 — $33,850 [FGI, 1998, page 235; TFR, 1998, page 763].
1994 — No grants listed for CFFC
1993 — $30,000 for ""Freedom of Choice" area grant" [TFR, 1995, page 820].
[pic]
John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1991-2009: $6,602,650
EIN: 23-7093598.
Web site: .
Assets: $ 5,237,796,061 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: The MacArthur Foundation gives millions of dollars every year to extreme pro-abortion groups, the vast majority of which specifically target Latin America. It also gives tens of thousands of dollars to Latin American researchers for such purposes as “To support investigation of ideology and activities of conservative, pro-life groups in Mexico" [The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation 1993 Report on Activities, pages 152 to 166].
Other pro-abortion groups the MacArthur Foundation supports include:
• Americans for UNFPA
• Boston Women's Health Collective
• Center for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA)
• Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHGE)
• Center for Population Options (CPO)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• EngenderHealth
• Family Care International (FCI)
• Global Fund for Women (GFW)
• Guttmacher Institute
• International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
• International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC)
• IPAS
• JHPIEGO
• Marie Stopes International (MSI)
• Pathfinder International
• Population Council
• Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH)
• Reproductive Health Matters
• United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
MacArthur Foundation Grants to CFFC
2009 ― $870,000 in two grants: (1) $600,000 (over three years) to CFFC “In support of educational and advocacy efforts on population and reproductive health in Europe and in the United Nations system” [2009 Report on Activities, page 2]; and (2) $270,000 (over three years) to CDD-Mexico “To improve the implementation at the state level of federal policy that promotes young people’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in Mexico” [2009 Report on Activities, page 5].
2008 ― $166,000 to CFFC “To support educational efforts on population and reproductive health” [2008 MacArthur Foundation IRS Form 990, page 643].
2007 ― $266,000 in two grants: (1) $186,000 to CFFC “To support educational efforts on population and reproductive health;” and (2) $80,000 to CDD-Mexico “To support sexual and reproductive health and rights in Mexico” [both grants listed on 2007 MacArthur Foundation IRS Form 990, page 756].
2006 ― $643,000 in three grants: (1) $248,000 to CFFC “To support educational efforts on population and reproductive health” [MacArthur Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990, page 675]; $270,000 (over three years) to CDD-Mexico “To improve the implementation at the state level of federal policy that promotes young people’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in Mexico” [2006 Report on Activities, page 47]; and (3) $125,000 to CDD-Mexico “To promote sexual and reproductive health and rights in Mexico” [MacArthur Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990, page 675].
2005 ― $970,000 in three grants: (1) $600,000 (over three years) to CFFC “In support of educational and advocacy efforts on population and reproductive health in Europe and in the United Nations system” [2005 MacArthur Foundation IRS Form 990, page 454]; (2) $300,000 (over three years) to CFFC “In support of activities supporting reproductive health and rights in national and international policy efforts” [2005 MacArthur Foundation IRS Form 990, page 315]; and (3) $70,000 (over three years) to CDD-Mexico “For an outreach program promoting sexuality education among young Catholics in Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca” [2005 MacArthur Foundation IRS Form 990, page 315].
2004 ― No grants listed for CFFC [MacArthur Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $280,000 in three grants: (1) $30,000 (over three years) to CDD-Brazil “In support of communication strategy to improve dissemination of alternative Catholic views on reproductive health and rights;” (2) $150,000 (over three years) to CDD-Mexico “In support of outreach work to promote comprehensive sexuality education among young Catholics in the states of Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca” [both grants listed on 2003 MacArthur Foundation IRS Form 990, page 494]; and (3) $100,000 to CDD-Mexico “In support of outreach work to promote comprehensive sexuality education among young Catholics in the states of Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca” [2003 MacArthur Foundation IRS Form 990, page 323].
2002 ― $478,150 in four grants: (1) $300,000 (over three years) to CFFC “In support of activities supporting reproductive health in national and international policy efforts;” (2) $80,000 (over three years) to CDD-Brazil “In support of a communication strategy to improve dissemination of alternative Catholic views on reproductive health and rights;” (3) $98,000 (over three years) to CDD-Mexico “For efforts to build a national pro-choice movement and to increase activism among pro-choice Catholics” [all three grants listed in 2002 MacArthur Foundation IRS Form 990, page 2,109]; and (4) $150 for “unrestricted” [2002 MacArthur Foundation IRS Form 990, page 2,027];
2001 ― $150,000 to CDD-Brazil “To improve dissemination of alternative views on Reproductive Health Rights” [2006 MacArthur Foundation IRS Form 990, page 170].
2000 ― $200,000 to CDD-Mexico.
1999 ― $650,000 (over three years) to CFFC "for reproductive rights work in Latin America" [MacArthur Foundation Web site at ; FGI, 2001, page 296].
1998 ― $300,000 in two grants: (1) $150,000 to CDD-Brazil; and $150,000 to CDD-Mexico.
1997 ― $80,000 in two grants: (1) $40,000 to CDD-Brazil; and $40,000 to CDD-Mexico.
1996 ― $600,000 (over three years) "for research, seminars and publications in Latin America" [FGI, 1999, page 243; TFR, 2002, page 687].
1995 ― $49,500 "for activities related to Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China" [FGI, 1998, page 1,271].
1994 ― Unknown.
1993 ― $525,000 (over 3 years) "in support of the organization's Latin America program. Catholics for a Free Choice is an international educational organization dedicated to supporting the right for reproductive health care, especially family planning and abortion. The organization also works to reduce the incidence of abortion and to increase women's choices in childbearing and child-rearing through advocacy of social and economic programs for women, families, and children. This grant will support efforts to deepen public dialogue and raise awareness of reproductive health issues in Latin America by publishing educational materials in English, Spanish, and Portuguese and by strengthening the group's regional programs in Uruguay, Brazil, and Mexico" [The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation 1993 Report on Activities, page 157; FGI, 1996, page 211].
1992 ― Unknown.
1991 ― $375,000 (over 3 years) "for Latin American programs" [FGI, 1994, page 766].
[pic]
Marin Community Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2007-2009: $31,500
EIN: 94-3007979.
Web Site: .
Assets: $1,014,427,025 (June 30, 2010).
Marin Community Foundation Grants to CFFC
2010 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Marin Foundation 2010 IRS Form 990].
2009 ― $3,250 [Marin Community Foundation Web site].
2008 ― $5,000 [Marin Community Foundation Web site].
2007 ― $10,500 to CFFC [Foundation Center Web site].
2006 ― Unknown [IRS Form 990 does not specify individual grants].
2005 ― $5,000 to “Provide operating support” [Marin Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $4,750 in two grants to CFFC to “Provide operating support” [Marin Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Marin Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $3,000 to “Provide operating support” [Marin Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2000 and Previous ― Unknown.
[pic]
MARPAT Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2002-2009: $95,000
EIN: 52-1358159.
Web Site: None.
Assets: $22,258,360 (December 31, 2009).
MARPAT Foundation Grants to CFFC
2009 ― $15,000 “To support “Condoms4Life" and "Prevention Not Prohibition" initiatives” [MARPAT Foundation 2009 IRS Form 990].
2008 ― $15,000 “To support “Condoms4Life" and "Prevention Not Prohibition" initiatives” [MARPAT Foundation 2008 IRS Form 990].
2007 ― $15,000 “To support “Condoms4Life" and "Prevention Not Prohibition" initiatives” [MARPAT Foundation 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― No grants listed for CFFC [MARPAT Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― $20,000 “To support work with pro-choice groups at colleges and universities in the Washington region” [MARPAT Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $10,000 “To support work with pro-choice groups at colleges and universities in the Washington region” [MARPAT Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $10,000 “To help increase reproductive health information and services in the greater metropolitan DC area” [MARPAT Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $10,000 “To expand work in DC area Catholic hospitals, AIDS, Hispanic and African American populations, high schools, Catholic social service agencies and universities” [MARPAT Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― No grants listed for CFFC [MARPAT Foundation 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 and Previous ― Unknown.
[pic]
John Merck Fund Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1989-1995: $268,775
EIN: 23-7082558.
Web Site: .
Assets: $156,239,400 (December 31, 2009).
Note: The John Merck Fund has given grants to virtually every major pro-abortion organization in the United States, including;
• Abortion Access Project
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• Alliance for Justice
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
• American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA)
• Answer
• Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Choice USA
• Guttmacher Institute
• Healthy Teen Network (HTN)
• Institute for Reproductive Health Access (IRHA)
• Ibis Reproductive Health
• IPAS
• Legal Momentum
• Medical Students for Choice (MSC)
• MergerWatch
• Ms. Foundation for Women
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• National Abortion Federation (NAF)
• National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA)
• National Institute for Reproductive Health (NIRH)
• National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH)
• National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF)
• National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)
• Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center (NAWHERC)
• Network for Family Life Education (NFLE)
• Pacific Institute for Women’s Health (PIWH)
• People for the American Way (PAW)
• Pharmacy Access Partnership (PAP)
• Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH)
• Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH)
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
• Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP)
• Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
• Tides Foundation
• Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
John Merck Fund Grants to CFFC
2001-2010 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1996-2000 ― Unknown.
1995 ― $50,000 "for Constituency Building Project, to enlarge base of active support among Catholics for reproductive freedom" [FGI, 1998, page 223].
1994 ― $85,000 in two grants: (1) $50,000 “To promote reproductive rights and health in Catholic countries in Central America, South America and Europe" [FGI, 1997, page 214]; and (2) $35,000 “To analyze and publicize role and impact of Catholic hospitals and medical facilities in providing health care in U.S." [FGI, 1997, page 214].
1992-1993 ― Unknown.
1991 ― $83,775 “To assist local activists in responding to recent legal challenges to reproductive rights in Poland and Germany and to maintain branch office in Uruguay for promoting reproductive rights in Latin America, and to expand reproductive rights advocacy in Mexico" [FGI, 1994, page 193].
1990 ― $30,000 "for Latin American program" [FGI, 1993, page 188].
1989 ― $20,000 “To support a program based in Uruguay that promotes access to family planning and the full range of reproductive health care for Latin American women and men" [FGI, 1992, page 179; foundation's 1989 Annual Report, page 8].
[pic]
Moriah Fund Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1992-2010: $725,000
EIN: 31-1129589.
Web Site: .
Assets: $ 115,323,005 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: The Moriah Fund gives grants to a wide range of pro-abortion organizations, including;
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice (ACRJ)
• Better World Fund (BWF)
• Black Women's Health Imperative (BWHI)
• Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
• Center for Population and Development Activities (CEDPA)
• Choice USA
• Christian Community
• Exhale ― An After-Abortion Counseling Talkline
• Funders Network on Population, Reproductive Health and Rights
• Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ)
• Legal Momentum
• National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA)
• National Health Law Program (NheLP)
• National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH)
• National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF)
• National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF)
• National Women's Health Network (NWHN)
• National Women's Law Center (NWLC)
• Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP)
• Tides Center
Moriah Fund Grants to CFFC
2010 ― $50,000 in two grants: (1) $25,000 “For general support of this organization, which seeks to shape and advance sexual and reproductive ethics that are based on justice, reflect a commitment to women’s well being, and respect, and affirm the moral capacity of women and men to make moral decisions about their lives;” and (2) $25,000 “Recommended for Instancia por la Salud y el Desarrollo de las Mujeres (Alliance for Women’s Health and Development), which educates policymakers, health officials, advocates and the public about policies to improve women’s health in Guatemala” [Moriah Fund RH grant summary of 2010].
2009 ― $70,000 in two grants: (1) $40,000 “Recommended for Instancia por la Salud y el Desarrollo de las Mujeres (Coalition for the Health and Development of Women), which educates policymakers, health officials and the public about progressive policies related to women’s health in Guatemala ($25,000); and Red Incidejoven (Young Advocate Network), an organization comprised of youth advocates who promote and defend the sexual and reproductive rights of Guatemalans ages 10 - 24 through advocacy and youth participation in policy debates ($15,000)” [Moriah Fund RH grant summary of 2009]; and (2) $30,000 to CFFC for unspecified reasons [Foundation Center Web site search of June 27, 2011].
2008 ― $85,000 in two grants: (1) $60,000 (over two years) “For general support of this organization, which shapes and advances sexual and reproductive ethics that are based on justice, reflect a commitment to women’s well being, and respect and affirm the moral capacity of women and men to make sound decisions about their lives;” and (2) $25,000 “Recommended for the Instancia por la Salud y el Desarrollo de las Mujeres (Coalition for the Health and Development of Women), which educates policymakers, health officials and the public about progressive policies related to women’s health in Guatemala” [Moriah Fund RH grant summary of 2008].
2007 ― $50,000 in two grants: (1) $20,000 “Recommended for support of the Instancia por la Salud y el Desarrollo de las Mujeres (coalition for the Health and Development of Women), which educates policymakers, health officials and the public about progressive policies related to women’s health in Guatemala” [Moriah Fund RH grant summary of 2007]; and $30,000 for unspecified reasons [Foundation Center Web site search of June 27, 2011].
2006 ― $75,000 in two grants: (1) $60,000 (over two years) “For general support of this organization, which promotes morally and ethically sound population and reproductive health policies consistent with liberal religious thought within the US and internationally;” and (2) $15,000 “Recommended for support of the Istancia por la Salud y el Desarrollo de las Mujeres (Coalition for the Health and Development of Women), which educates policymakers, health officials and the general public about progressive policies related to women’s health in Guatemala” [Moriah Fund RH grant summary of 2006].
2005 ― $35,000 for “General support” [Foundation Center Web site search of June 27, 2011].
2004 ― $35,000 for “General support” [Moriah Fund 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $35,000 for “General support” [Moriah Fund 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $35,000 for “General support” [Moriah Fund 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $35,000 for “General support” [Moriah Fund 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― $30,000 for “General support” [Moriah Fund 2001 IRS Form 990].
1999 ― $30,000 "for general support" [Moriah Fund 1999 IRS Form 990].
1998 ― $30,000 "for general support" [FGI, 2000, page 275].
1997 ― Unknown.
1996 ― $30,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1999, page 240].
1995 ― Unknown.
1994 ― $30,000 "for reproductive rights education in Latin America and Eastern Europe" [FGI, 1997, page 214].
1993 ― $35,000 "for reproductive rights and health program in Latin America and Eastern Europe" [FGI, 1996, page 212].
1992 ― $35,000 "for reproductive rights and health program in Latin America and Eastern Europe" [FGI, 1995, page 199].
[pic]
North Short Unitarian Veatch Program
Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1979-1983: $82,500
1983 — $5,000 [Veatch Program's 1983-1984 Annual Report, page 49].
1981 — $10,000 [CFFC's 1981 Federal income tax return].
1980 — $22,500 for "Small group providing a forum for dissenting Catholics and is a member of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights" [Veatch Program's 1979-1980 Annual Report, pages 20 and 44].
1979 — $45,000 [Veatch Program's 1979-1980 Annual Report, pages 20 and 44].
[pic]
Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1989-1992: $95,000
EIN: 13-5600408.
Web Site: .
Assets: $ 44,534,986 (December 31, 2009).
Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation Grants to CFFC
2001-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1993-2000 ― Unknown.
1992 ― $20,000 “To support education, advocacy and outreach initiatives designed to further dialogue and policymaking, and to forge consensus around important reproductive health issues in Latin America" [FGI, 1994, page 203].
1991 ― $20,000 "For Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir (Uruguay)" [1991 Noyes Foundation Annual Report, pages 52 and 55].
1990 ― $40,000 “To build grassroots support for reproductive rights in targeted states and regions, and to provide outreach and technical assistance to Hispanic organizations concerning this issue" [FGI, 1992, page 187].
1989 ― $15,000 "For Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir (Uruguay), for initial support for newly formed organization dealing with population and reproduction rights" ["Family Planning & Reproductive Health," 1990/1991, card #42].
[pic]
Open Society Institute Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1998-2003: $850,000
EIN: 13-029285.
Web Site: .
Assets: $1,102,893,795 (December 31, 2009)
Note: It is no surprise that George Soros’ Open Society Institute funds many extreme pro-abortion groups, including;
• Abortion Access Fund (AAF)
• American Bar Association (ABA)
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
• Boston Women’s Book Collective
• Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG)
• Center for American Progress (CAP)
• Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
• Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)
• Doctors without Borders
• Global Fund for Women (GFW)
• International Women s Health Coalition (IWHC)
• Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Ruckus Society
• Susan G. Komen for the Cure
• Tides Center
Open Society Institute Grants to CFFC
2002-2010 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2003 ― $200,000 “For general support” [OSI 2003 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $200,000 “For general support” [OSI 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― $200,000 “For general support” [OSI 2000 IRS Form 990].
1999 ― $150,000 "for general support" [Foundation Center DIALOG search by Mr. Bruce Gumm requested by Human Life International dated September 10, 2001].
1998 ― $100,000 "for general support" [FGI, 2001, page 308].
[pic]
David & Lucile Packard Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1982-2011: $7,593,800
EIN: 94-2278431.
Web Site: .
Assets: $5,699,231,606 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: The Packard Foundation was founded in 1964 by David Packard, co-founder of the Hewlett-Packard Company, and his wife, the late Lucile Salter Packard. Hewlett-Packard is an acknowledged leader in a wide variety of computer products, including HP Laser Jet and DeskJet printers. Besides its long-time support of Catholics for a Free Choice, the Packard Foundation has been an enthusiastic supporter of world population control measures, and has donated millions to many pro-abortion groups, including;
• Center for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA)
• Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Choice USA
• Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC)
• Concept Foundation
• DKT International
• Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF)
• International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
• International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC)
• IPAS
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• National Abortion Federation (NAF)
• National Institute for Reproductive Health (NIRH)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Population Council
• Population Reference Bureau (PRB)
• Population Services International (PSI)
• Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP)
• United Nations Foundation
Packard Foundation Grants to CFFC
2011 ― $30,000 to CFFC “To develop an assessment and strategic plan for advocacy activities in Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda” [Packard Foundation Web site].
2006-2010 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2005 ― $47,500 to CFFC “For executive coaching and management training” [Packard Foundation 2005 IRs Form 990].
2004 ― $250,000 to CFFC “For phase-out general support” [Packard Foundation 2005 IRs Form 990].
2003 ― $720,500 in two grants: (1) $20,500 to CDD-Mexico “For IRS withholding;” and (2) $700,000 (over two years) to CDD-Mexico “For general support” [Packard Foundation 2005 IRs Form 990].
2002 ― $450,000 to CDD-Mexico “For general support” [Packard Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $1,000,000 to CFFC (over three years) “For general support” [Packard Foundation 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― $2,655,000 in two grants: (1) $655,000 (over three years) to CDD-Mexico for “Support for two components of a collaborative reproductive rights initiative m Mexico with a focus on developing and disseminating Catholic arguments about reproductive rights and to reach out to Catholic communities at the national and international levels;” and (2) $2,000,000 "For initiative, Securing Reproductive Rights in Latin America" [Foundation Center DIALOG search by Mr. Bruce Gumm requested by Human Life International dated September 10, 2001].
1999 ― $360,000 (over three years) to CDD-Mexico for “Support for the implementation of mayor organizational goals including efforts to intensify networking activities "thin the community, and to expand public outreach and communications efforts for family planning education” [Packard Foundation 1999 IRS Form 990].
1998 ― $1,170,800 in three grants: (1) $1,000,000 (over three years) to CFFC "For general support;" $150,000 “To CDD-Mexico “For work to strengthen voice of pro-choice Catholics in Mexico and to train primary school teachers to implement sex education programs in Mexico;" and $20,800 “To improve paper and electronic data management" [all three grants listed at FGI, 2000, page 270].
1997 ― $200,000 to CFFC "For continued general support" [FGI, 1999, page 237].
1996 ― $100,000 to CFFC "For general support" [FGI, 1998, page 216].
1995 ― $75,000 to CFFC "For general support of domestic programs" [FGI, 1997, page 207].
1994 ― $80,000 to CDD-Mexico "For Mexico program and for general support for domestic program" [FGI, 1996, page 205].
1993 ― $145,000 in three grants: (1) $40,000 to CFFC "For general support of domestic programs" [FGI, 1995, page 192]; (2) $40,000 to CDD-Mexico “To expand Mexican program" [FGI, 1995, page 192]; and (3) $65,000 to CDD-Mexico for "Nonlegislative publications and outreach programs and preparation for the North South Dialogue in Mexico City" [TFR, 1995, page 1,045].
1992 ― $65,000 in two grants: (1) $40,000 to CFFC "For non-legislative publications and outreach programs;" and (2) $25,000 to CDD-Mexico "For preparation costs for North South Dialogue in Mexico City" [both grants listed in FGI, 1994, page 184].
1991 ― $30,000 "for U.S. and Latin American programs" [FGI, 1993, page 180].
1990 ― $45,000 in two grants: (1) $35,000 "For general support;" and (2) $10,000 “To print and distribute copies of publication Guide for Pro-Choice Catholics: The Church, the State, and Abortion Politics" [both grants listed in FGI, 1992, page 172].
1989 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1988 ― $45,000 "For general support" [FGI, 1990/1991, page 61].
1987 ― $40,000 "For general support" [FGI, 1989, page 55].
1986 ― $30,000 in two grants: (1) $25,000 to CFFC "For general educational effort to help Catholics consider reproductive options and ethics" [FGI, 1988, page 52]; and (2) $5,000 to CFFC "For two educational briefings on population issues for Catholic members of Congress and their staffs" [TFR, 1988, page 538].
1985 ― $40,000 "For general support and translating and disseminating Spanish publications" [FGI, 1987, page 53].
1984 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1983 ― $10,000 "For general support" [FGI, 1985, page 59].
1982 ― $5,000 "For community contact program" [FGI, 1984, page 50].
[pic]
Prospect Hill Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1987-2006: $214,500
EIN: 13-6075567.
Web Site: .
Assets: $52,985,454 (June 30, 2009).
Prospect Hill Foundation Grants to CFFC
2007-2011 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2006 ― $40,000 for “Operating support” [Prospect Hill Foundation 2006 IRS Forms 990].
2005 ― $40,000 (over two years) for “General operating support” [Prospect Hill Foundation 2005 IRS Forms 990].
2004 ― $40,000 (over two years) “To advocate for access to a full range of reproductive health care options in Catholic settings” [Prospect Hill Foundation 2004 IRS Forms 990].
1997-2003 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1995-1996 ― Unknown.
1994 ― $7,000 "For meeting in Latin America on ethical issues of abortion" [Jim Miller's personal communication with foundation spokesperson, December 8, 1994].
1993 ― $2,500 “To promote reproductive choice in Latin America" [Foundation 1000 1994/1995, page 2,097].
1992 ― $12,500 "For International Program's activities in Central and South America" [FGI, 1994, page 204].
1991 ― $17,500 “To promote reproductive choice in Latin America" [TFR, 1991, page 1,109].
1990 ― $20,000 “To promote reproductive choice in Latin America" [FGI, 1992, page 187].
1989 ― Unknown.
1988 ― $20,000 "For international program that enhances family planning efforts of health and religious workers in Latin American countries by making available supportive information prepared by Catholic scholars" [FGI, 1990/1991, page 529].
1987 ― $15,000 "For international program that enhances family planning efforts of health and religious workers in Latin American countries by making available supportive information prepared by leading Catholic scholars" [FGI, 1989, page 521].
[pic]
Public Welfare Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1991-1996: $590,000
EIN: 54-0597601.
Web Site: .
Assets: $445,896,838 (October 31, 2009).
Notes: The PWF has funded 15 different Planned Parenthood abortion and population programs run by a dozen different Planned Parenthood affiliates, and, through Planned Parenthood affiliates in New York City and London, has funded Planned Parenthood activities in Upper Guinea, Colombia, Mexico, Thailand, Bangladesh and Vietnam. The PWF has also been very generous to Population Services International (PSI), funding its programs to distribute condoms in the United States, Benin, Central African Republic, Zaire and Rwanda (while Rwanda was in the midst of a savage civil war and severe famine, Public Welfare Foundation and Planned Parenthood donated not food, not clean drinking water, not shelter ― but thousands of condoms). The PWF has also funded International Projects Assistance Service (IPAS) to send its abortion machines to Eastern and Southern Africa. Altogether, PWF donated nearly $3,000,000 in 1993 alone for the promotion of abortion, sterilization and population control, almost entirely in developing nations [Foundation's Annual Report, 1992-1993, pages 38 to 41].
Public Welfare Foundation Grants to CFFC
1997-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC. [Foundation Center Web site].
1996 ― $230,000 in two grants: (1) $160,000 to CFFC [TFR, 1998, page 1,028]; and (2) $70,000 "For general support for work supporting the right to legal and accessible reproductive health care, including family planning and abortion" [Public Welfare Foundation Web site; FGI, 1998, page 220].
1995 ― $70,000 "For general support of this organization that supports the right to legal and accessible reproductive-health care, including family planning and abortion" [Public Welfare Foundation Web site; FGI, 1997, page 210].
1994 ― $80,000 "For its work to secure the right to legal and accessible reproductive health care, including family-planning and abortion services" [Public Welfare Foundation Web site]; "for general support for international educational organization dedicated to supporting right to legal and accessible reproductive health care, including family planning and abortion" [FGI, 1996, page 208].
1993 ― $80,000 "For continued general operating support" [FGI, 1995, page 195].
1992 ― $80,000 "For continued general operating support for international educational organization, supporting right to legal reproductive health care, especially family planning and abortion" [FGI, 1994, page 187].
1991 ― $50,000 "For general support for work to reduce incidence of abortion and to increase women's choices in child-bearing and child-rearing through advocacy of social and economic programs for women, families and children" [FGI, 1993, page 183].
[pic]
Rockefeller Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1994: $60,000
EIN: 13-1659629.
Web Site: .
Assets: $ 3,317,100,678 (December 31, 2009).
Note: The Rockefeller Foundation has only given one grant to CFFC, in 1994. It is no surprise that the Rockefeller Foundation funds many other population control projects in developing nations through pro-abortion organizations, including the following;
• Abt Associates
• Academy for Educational Development (AED)
• Americans United for Separation of Church and State
• Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC)
• Interfaith Alliance (IA)
• March of Dimes (MoD)
• National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF)
• National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)
• Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH)
• Population Council
• Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH)
• Tides Center
• United Nations Foundation
• World Health Organization (WHO)
1993-2010 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Rockefeller Foundation Annual Reports].
1994 ― $60,000 "For a public education project concerning the role religious organizations played in setting the agenda for 1994 United Nations International conference on Population and Development" [Rockefeller Foundation 1994 Annual Report].
1990-1993 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Rockefeller Foundation Annual Reports].
[pic]
Scherman Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1981-2009: $770,000
EIN: 13-6098464.
Web Site: .
Assets: $ 69,604,419 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: The Scherman Foundation was established in 1941 by Harry Scherman, founder of the Book-of-the-Month Club. "Family planning" is one of the "main interests of the Scherman Foundation." Among the radical population control and pro-abortion groups it has funded are;
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Reproductive Freedom Project
• Association for Voluntary Sterilization (AVS)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Funders Network on Population, Reproductive Health and Rights
• International Projects Assistance Services (IPAS)
• Medical Students for Choice (MSC)
• Ms. Foundation for Women
• National Abortion Federation (NAF)
• National Institute for Reproductive Health (NIRH
• National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH)
• Population Action International (PAI)
• Pro-Choice Public Education Project
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
• Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
• Zero Population Growth (ZPG)
Scherman Foundation Grants to CFFC
2010 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2009 ― $20,000 (over two years) [Scherman Foundation 2009 Annual Report].
2008 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2007 ― $40,000 (over two years) [Scherman Foundation 2007 Annual Report].
2006 ― $20,000 [Scherman Foundation 2006 Annual Report].
2005 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2004 ― $40,000 (over two years) [Scherman Foundation 2004 Annual Report].
2003 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2002 ― $50,000 (over two years) [Scherman Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2000 ― $60,000 (over two years) [Scherman Foundation 2000 IRS Form 990].
1999 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1998 ― $85,000 in two grants: (1) $20,000 "For 25th anniversary gift;" and (2) $60,000 (over two years) "For general support" [Scherman Foundation 1998 IRS Form 990].
1997 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1996 ― $50,000 (over two years) "for general support" [FGI, 1999, page 260].
1995 ― $50,000 [TFR, 1998, page 1,111].
1994 ― $50,000 "for general support" [FGI, 1997, page 229].
1993 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1992 ― $50,000 (over two years) "for general support" [FGI, 1995, page 213].
1991 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1990 ― $50,000 (over two years) "for general support" [FGI, 1993, page 200].
1989 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1988 ― $40,000 (over two years) "for general support" [FGI, 1990/1991, page 553].
1987 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1986 ― $35,000 (over two years) "for general support" [FGI, 1988, page 534].
1985 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1984 ― $30,000 (over two years) "for general support" [FGI, 1986, page 475].
1983 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1982 ― $25,000 (over two years) [TFR, 1984, page 555].
1981 ― $75,000 [CFFC's 1981 IRS Form 990].
[pic]
SKB Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2004-2009: $9,888
EIN: 94-3024121.
Web Site: None.
Assets: $ $4,805,582 (November 30, 2009).
SKB Foundation Grants to CFFC
2009 ― $5,000 “For improving Internet presence” [SKB Foundation 2009 IRS Form 990].
2007-2008 ― No grants listed for CFFC [SKB Foundation IRS Forms 990].
2006 ― $1,888 for “General” [SKB Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― No grants listed for CFFC [SKB Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $3,000 for “General” [SKB Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2001-2003 ― No grants listed for CFFC [SKB Foundation IRS Forms 990].
2000 and Previous ― Unknown.
[pic]
Stern Memorial Trust Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2000-2008: $19,000
EIN: 95-6495222.
Web Site: None.
Assets: $25,541,234 (August 31, 2009).
Stern Memorial Trust Grants to CFFC
2008 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Stern Memorial Trust 2008 IRS Form 990].
2007 ― $2,000 [Stern Memorial Trust 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― $2,000 [Stern Memorial Trust 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Stern Memorial Trust 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $3,000 [Stern Memorial Trust 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $2,000 [Stern Memorial Trust 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Stern Memorial Trust 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $5,000 [Stern Memorial Trust 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― $5,000 [Stern Memorial Trust 2000 IRS Form 990].
1999 and Previous ― Unknown.
[pic]
Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2001-2008: $115,500
EIN: 23-7002554.
Web Site: .
Assets: $ $13,044,892 (December 31, 2008).
Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust Grants to CFFC
2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2008 ― $15,000 [Mott Trust 2008 IRS Form 990].
2007 ― $15,500 in two grants [Mott Trust 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― $15,000 [Mott Trust 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― $15,000 [Mott Trust 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $15,000 [Mott Trust 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $15,000 [Mott Trust 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $15,000 [Mott Trust 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $10,000 [Mott Trust 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 and Previous ― Unknown.
[pic]
Summit Charitable Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1999-2005: $120,000
EIN: 521743817.
Web Site: .
Assets: 68,269,520 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: One of the two primary missions of the Summit Charitable Foundation is “preventing teen pregnancy.” To do so, and to support international population control, the Foundation funds the following radical pro-abortion groups, among others;
• Action Canada for Population and Development (ACPD)
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• Americans for UNFPA
• Better World Fund (BWF)
• Carolina for Kibera
• Center for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA)
• Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
• Choice USA
• Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC)
• DC Abortion Fund
• DC Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy
• DKT International
• EngenderHealth
• Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
• Family Care International (FCI)
• Family Health International (FHI)
• Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF)
• Funders Network on Population, Reproductive Health and Rights
• Guttmacher Institute
• Inter-European Parliamentary Forum on Population & Development
• International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
• International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC)
• Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA)
• Marie Stopes International (MSI)
• Pacific Institute for Women’s Health (PIWH)
• Pathfinder International
• PCI-Media Impact
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Population Action International
• Population Council
• Population Reference Bureau (PRB)
• Population Services International (PSI)
• Public Health Institute (PHI)
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
• Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
• SisterLove
• Tides Center
• United Nations Fund
• United States Fund for UNICEF
• World Population Foundation (WPF)
• Young Women’s Project (YWP)
• Youth Coalition for Sexual and Reproductive Rights (YCSRH)
Summit Charitable Foundation Grants to CFFC
2006-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2005 ― $10,000 “For general support” [Summit Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990]
2004 ― $25,000 “For international education and advocacy” [Summit Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990]
2003 ― $25,000 “For the project “Advocacy for International Family Planning” [Summit Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990]
2002 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2001 ― $10,000 “To provide general support” [Summit Foundation 2001 IRS Form 990]
2000 ― Unknown.
1999 ― $50,000 "For public education and policy outreach targeting International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Plus Five process" [FGI, 2001, page 286].
[pic]
Sunnen Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1980-1993: $1,066,700
EIN: 43-6029156.
Web Site: None.
Assets: $12,280,000 (December 31, 2010).
Notes: Sunnen is a manufacturer of high precision tools and gauges, including honing machines, abrasive supplies, auto engine rebuilding equipment, and precision hole gauges. The Sunnen Products Company produced Emko contraceptive foam as a sideline business before selling it off to the Johnson and Johnson Company.
Since 1997, the Sunnen Foundation has made a few grants, ranging in total from half a million to a little over a million dollars a year. Pro-abortion groups funded by the Sunnen Foundation include;
• Girls Incorporated
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
• Women’s Reproductive Rights Assistance Project (WRRAP)
Sunnen Foundation Grants to CFFC
1998-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1994-1997 ― Unknown.
1993 ― $25,000 [TFR, 1995, page 1,302].
1992 ― $50,000 [Jim Miller's personal communication with Foundation spokesperson, December 6, 1994].
1991 ― $100,000 [TFR, 1994, page 1,315].
1990 ― $100,000 [TFR, 1993, page 889].
1989 ― $75,000 [TFR, 1992, page 797].
1988 ― $100,000 [TFR, 1990, page 634].
1987 ― $126,700 [TFR, 1989, page 642].
1986 ― $75,000 [TFR, 1988, page 676].
1985 ― $100,000 [TFR, 1987, page 637].
1984 ― $100,000 [TFR, 1986, page 676].
1983 ― $70,000 [TFR, 1985, page 639].
1982 ― $63,500 [TFR, 1984, page 605].
1981 ― $6,500 [CFFC 1981 IRS Form 990].
1980 ― $75,000 [TFR, 1982, page 614].
[pic]
Tides Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1992-2007: $197,335
EIN: 51-0198509.
Web Site: .
Assets: 192,219,967 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: The Tides Foundation funds hundreds of extreme-left organizations, including many pro-abortion groups such as;
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
• Audubon Society
• Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG)
• Doctors without Borders
• Exhale ― An After-Abortion Counseling Talkline
• Friends of the Earth (FoE)
• League of Conservation Voters (LCV)
• MADRE
• March of Dimes (MoD)
• Mercy Corps
• Ms. Foundation for Women
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• People for the American Way (PAW)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Sierra Club
Tides Foundation Grants to CFFC
2008-2010 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2007 ― $5,000 to CDD [Tides Foundation 2007 IRS Form 990].
2005-2006 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2004 ― $3,200 to CDD-Mexico [Tides Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $45,000 in two grants: (1) $40,000 to CFFC; and (2) $5,000 to CDD [Tides Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $84,135 to CFFC [Tides Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
1999-2001 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1998 ― Unknown.
1997 ― $15,000 [Tides Foundation 1997 IRS form 990].
1994-1996 ― Unknown.
1993 ― $20,000 "for general program support" [Tide Foundation's 1993 Annual Report].
1992 ― $15,000 "for general program support" [Tide Foundation's 1992 Annual Report].
[pic]
Tosa Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2002-2004: $270,000
EIN: 94-3165171.
Web Site: None.
Assets: $495,404,135 (December 31, 2009).
Tosa Foundation Grants to CFFC
2005-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Tosa Foundation IRS Forms 990].
2004 ― $10,000 [Tosa Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 ― $20,000 [Tosa Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
2002 ― $240,000 in two grants [Tosa Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― No grants listed for CFFC [Tosa Foundation 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 and Previous ― Unknown.
[pic]
Turner Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1996-2002: $345,000
EIN: 58-1924590.
Web Site: .
Assets: $5,780,751 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: Despite the extreme anti-life beliefs of its founder, Ted Turner, the Turner Foundation does not currently grant money to as many anti-life groups as most of the other foundations listed here. However, the Turner Foundation has given grants to;
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• American Women’s Medical Association (AMWA)
• Better World Fund (BWF)
• Captain Planet Foundation
• Center for the Advancement of Women (CAW)
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Choice USA
• Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC)
• Feminist Womens Health Centers (FWHCs, abortion mills)
• Guttmacher Institute
• International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
• IPAS
• March of Dimes (MoD)
• Ms. Foundation for Women
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• National Audubon Society
• National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy (NCPTP)
• National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF)
• National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Sierra Club
• Tides Center
• UNICEF
• World Population Foundation (WPF)
Turner Foundation Grants to CFFC
2003-2009 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2002 ― $75,000 “For general support to protect the reproductive health and rights of women worldwide through programs which include monitoring Catholic health care systems and mergers; raising awareness of and questioning the Vatican’s status at the U.N.; and mobilizing Catholics to speak out in favor of women’s reproductive rights” [Turner Foundation 2002 IRS Form 990].
2001 ― $75,000 (funding justification same as 2002) [Turner Foundation 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― $75,000 [Turner Foundation 2000 IRS Form 990].
1999 ― Unknown.
1998 ― $60,000 [FGI, 2001, page 288].
1997 ― $35,000 [FGI, 2000, page 277].
1996 ― $25,000 [FGI, 1999, page 242].
[pic]
Wallace Global Fund Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1998-2009: $415,000
EIN: 52-1918002.
Web Site: .
Assets: $ 188,913,374 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: The Wallace Global Fund gives grants to a wide variety of pro-abortion and population control groups, to include;
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• Better World Fund (BWF)
• Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG)
• Center for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA)
• Center for a New American Dream (CNAD)
• Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevoelkerung (DSW, the German Foundation for World Population)
• Doctors without Borders
• Family Care International (FCI)
• Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF)
• Friends of the Earth (FoE)
• Greenpeace
• Guttmacher Institute
• International Center for Research on Women (ICRW)
• International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
• International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC)
• IPAS
• JHPIEGO
• League of Women Voters (LWV)
• Marie Stopes International (MSI)
• Pathfinder International
• People for the American Way (PAW)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Population Concern
• Population Connection
• Population Council
• Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP)
• Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
• Sierra Club
• Tides Foundation
• United Nations Foundation
• Women’s International Network (WIN)
• Worldwatch Institute
• Zero Population Growth
Wallace Global Fund Grants to CFFC
2009 ― $75,000 for “Translating research into action” [2009 WGF IRS Form 990].
2006-2008 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2005 ― $40,000 to CFFC for unspecified purposes [2005 WGF IRS Form 990].
2002-2004 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2001 ― $50,000 to “Support Catholics for Contraception and “The See Change Campaign”” [2001 WGF IRS Form 990].
1999-2000 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1998 ― $250,000 (over two years) "For support of CFFC's efforts to protect and expand access to family planning and to safe, legal abortion around the world. CFFC's work in constituency building, publications, communications and educational programs is designed to articulate sound ethical arguments in favor of family planning and choice, and to mobilize Catholics to speak out in favor of such policies" [Wallace Global Fund Web site; FGI, 2001, page 286].
[pic]
Weeden Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
(all data from Foundation Annual Reports except where noted)
Total grants to CFFC, 1991-2007: $275,000
EIN: 94-6109313.
Web Site: .
Assets: $27,366,849 (December 31, 2009).
Weeden Foundation Grants to CFFC
2008-2011 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2007 ― $20,000. Same description (and misspellings) as 2006.
2006 ― $20,000. “Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) recieved [sic] $20,000 in funding for their Latin America program, which supports a network of country-level reproductive health rights organizations under the banner of Catolicas por el Derecho a Decidir (CDD). Despite several victories for reproductive health rights in Mexico in recent years, CFFC will shift this year’s focus to Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina. Thier [sic] goals include implementing any existing laws that permit abortion, advocating for continued liberalization of abortion laws, empowering Catholic youth to make decisions about their own reproductive health, and providing education and training workshops on women’s rights and reproductive health for a variety of audiences. Smaller CFFC grants in Argentina, Colombia, and Chile will support education efforts such as public forums, meetings with legislators, media outreach and publications.”
2005 ― No grants to CFFC listed.
2004 ― $20,000. “Catholics for a Free Choice received $20,000 for their Latin America program. Despite several victories for reproductive rights in Latin America over the last year, including positive changes in Mexican abortion and emergency contraception laws, progress in breaking the Church's influence on Latin American governments has been slow. In 2004, CDD will build pro-choice constituencies among youth, indigenous women, opinion leaders, policy makers, the progressive church community, and health care educational sectors as part of their Pro-Choice Alliance Project. Because it is critical to defend and ensure the enforcement of laws that protect or guarantee reproductive and sexual rights in Mexico, CDD will also concentrate on educating state-level policy makers. CDD will also hold one regional forum for dialogue between policy makers and high level representatives of government institutions and social organizations. Smaller CFFC grants in Argentina, Colombia, and Chile will support education efforts such as public forums, meetings with legislators, media outreach and publications.”
2003 ― $20,000. “A $20,000 grant was awarded to CFFC to fund their Mexico program that falls under the work of the 8 sister organization in the CDD (Catolicas por el Derecho a Decidir). A key activity in the program will be to train health workers to provide abortion services and to act as pro-choice advocates within their own facilities and professional associations. CDD Mexico will expand their youth program, focusing on the promotion of reproductive rights, and continue their grassroots efforts with Catholic social justice groups and the national indigenous women's associations. CDD Mexico will also distribute a half hour novella style film that affirms that Catholic women can have an abortion and still be Catholic.”
2002 ― $30,000. “Catholics for a Free Choice received $30,000 for it's [sic] Latin America program. The program has two goals in the coming year: increase the number of Catholics active in the prochoice movement and increase the visibility of prochoice arguments. CFFC hopes to focus each of its spinoff organizations in Latin America (Catolicas por el Derecho a Decidir) on the pertinent and urgent issues facing their respective countries. These organizations will receive more resources to build their staff and expand their programs in an effort to increase their number of activists and supporters.”
2001 ― $25,000. Same description as 2000.
2000 ― $25,000 "general support for work with their Latin American partners - Catόlicas por el Derecho a Decidir. CFFC is the leading Catholic-based critic of the Church's contraception and abortion positions. Funds will help them maintain a strong media presence in Mexico, counter the efforts of Human Life International in Bolivia, and support their publications and technical assistance services."
1999 ― $25,000 "in support of special activities in Mexico and their general operations in Latin America. CFFC is focusing on strengthening their Mexican partners so they may be better equipped to counter the Catholic Church's mass media campaign against legalizing abortion. They are expanding their Spanish-language publications program, and will continue to offer technical assistance, an information clearinghouse, and a trilingual Web site to assist partner groups in Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina."
1998 ― $15,000 "funding for their 1998 efforts to build a pro-choice, pro family planning Catholic voice in Latin America. CFFC's Latin American network includes groups in Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Chile. CFFC will continue to publish and translate materials, offer networking and outreach services, research policy, hold workshops, and provide technical assistance to these groups" [FGI, 2000, page 300].
1997 ― Unknown.
1996 ― $30,000 "for Latin America program and global initiative on population policy" [FGI, 1998, page 240].
1995 ― $15,000 "for continued support for Latin America program" [FGI, 1997, page 1,005].
1994 ― $15,000 "for education for women in Latin America who are seeking reproductive health services" [FGI, 1996, page 1,222].
1993 ― $10,000 “To promote awareness of reproductive health issues in Latin America" [FGI, 1995, page 816].
1992 ― Unknown.
1991 ― $5,000 "an unrestricted grant in support of this organization's educational efforts."
[pic]
Westwind Foundation Grants to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2006-2011: $230,000
EIN: 52-6358830.
Web Site: .
Assets: $54,454,012 (December 31, 2009).
Notes: In addition to funding CFFC, the Westwind Foundation (formerly named the CarAm foundation) heavily emphasizes its “reproductive health” program, giving grants to many pro-abortion organizations, including the following;
• Advocates for Youth (AFY)
• Answer
• Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
• Doctors Without Borders
• Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF)
• Funders Network on Population, Reproductive Health, and Rights
• IPAS
• International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
• Marie Stopes International (MSI)
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
• Population Justice Project (PJP)
• Population Media Center (PMC)
• Public Health Institute (PHI)
• Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP)
• Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
Westwind Foundation Grants to CFFC
2011 ― $45,000 to CFFC “In general support” [Westwind Foundation Web site].
2010 ― $40,000 to CFFC “In general support for work in Latin America” [Westwind Foundation Web site].
2009 ― $40,000 to CFFC “In general support for work in Latin America” [Westwind Foundation Web site].
2008 ― $20,000 to CFFC “To fund operating needs” [Westwind Foundation 2008 IRS Form 990].
2007 ― $40,000 to CFFC “To fund operating needs” [Westwind Foundation 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― $40,000 to CFFC [Westwind Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990].
2001-2005 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
[pic]
Wohlford Foundation Donors to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 2001-2009: $145,000
EIN: 94-3318493.
Web Site: None.
Assets: $16,894,853 (June 30, 2010).
Wohlford Foundation Grants to CFFC
2009 ― $10,000 [Wohlford Foundation 2009 IRS Form 990].
2008 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2007 ― $20,000 [Wohlford Foundation 2007 IRS Form 990].
2006 ― $20,000 [Wohlford Foundation 2006 IRS Form 990].
2005 ― $40,000 [Wohlford Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 ― $45,000 [Wohlford Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2002-2003 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
2001 ― $10,000 [Wohlford Foundation 2001 IRS Form 990].
2000 ― No grants listed for CFFC.
1999 and Previous ― Unknown.
[pic]
Minor or Intermittent Donors to Catholics for a Free Choice
Total grants to CFFC, 1980-2009: $342,202
2009 — Flora Family Foundation, EIN: 77-0500183, $600 to CFFC [Flora Foundation 2009 IRS Form 990].
2007 — Flora Family Foundation, EIN: 77-0500183, $1,200 to CFFC in two equal grants [Flora Foundation 2007 IRS Form 990].
2005 — $1,800 in two grants;
1) Dallas Foundation, EIN: 75-2890371, $1,000 to CFFC [Dallas Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990]; and
2) Flora Family Foundation, EIN: 77-0500183, $800 to CFFC [Flora Foundation 2005 IRS Form 990].
2004 — Dallas Foundation, EIN: 75-2890371, $2,000 to CFFC [Dallas Foundation 2004 IRS Form 990].
2003 — Dallas Foundation, EIN: 75-2890371, $2,000 to CFFC [Dallas Foundation 2003 IRS Form 990].
1998 ― $115,000 in three grants;
1) Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, EIN: 23-7406010, $50,000 to CFFC “To mobilize Catholics in support for family planning, for Lifting Up Catholic Voices: Family Planning at Home and Abroad, which seeks to involve U.S. Catholics in activities to make pro-family planning position known" [FGI, 2001, page 1,071];
2) Alfred Jurzykowski Foundation, EIN: 13-6192256, $25,000 to CFFC “To support the prochoice movement in Poland" [Jurzykowski Foundation 1998 IRS Form 990-PF]; and
3) Alfred Jurzykowski Foundation, EIN: 13-6192256, $40,000 "in support of their Brazil project" [Jurzykowski Foundation 1998 IRS Form 990-PF; TFR, 2002, page 594].
1995 ― $35,000 in two grants;
1) S.H. Cowell Foundation, EIN: 94-1392803, $25,000 to CFFC "For population program" [FGI, 1998, page 214]; and
2) Dyson Foundation, EIN: 13-6084888, $10,000 to CFFC "For public education and research to monitor access to reproductive health care services in changing health care environment" [FGI, 1998, page 231].
1994 ― S.H. Cowell Foundation, EIN: 94-1392803, $10,000 [FGI, 1997, page 205].
1993 ― Alfred Jurzykowski Foundation, EIN: 13-6192256, 1993: $30,000 "In support of their program activities in Brazil" [TFR, 1996, page 739].
1992 ― $25,030 in two grants;
1) Cabot Family Charitable Trust, EIN: 04-6036446, $5,030 to CFFC "for general support" [1992 Annual Report]; and
2) Alfred Jurzykowski Foundation, EIN: 13-6192256, $20,000 "For programs to further reproductive rights in Brazil" [FGI, 1995, page 209].
1989 ― Ruth Mott Fund, $24,625 "for conference component on reproductive health ethical and policy perspectives" [FGI, 1992, page 686].
1984 ― C.S. Fund, EIN: 95-3607882, $10,000 to CFFC "for general support of programs of public education and technical assistance on reproductive rights issues" [FGI, 1986, page 28].
1983 ― $22,500 in three grants;
1) Cabot Family Charitable Trust, EIN: 04-6036446, $2,500 to CFFC "for general support" [1983 Annual Report];
2) Playboy Foundation, $10,000 to CFFC [Playboy Foundation's 1983 Annual Report, page 8]; and
3) J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation, EIN: 51-0214450, $10,000 to CFFC [CFFC’s 1983 IRS Form 990].
1982 ― Playboy Foundation, $10,000 to CFFC "For reproductive freedom programs" [FGI, 1983, page 114].
1981 ― $19,947 in two grants;
1) Alida Rockefeller Dayton Fund, $9,947 to CFFC [CFFC's 1981 IRS Form 990]; and
2) Norman Foundation, $10,000 to CFFC [CFFC's 1981 IRS Form 990].
1980 ― $32,500 in four grants;
1) Field Foundation, $15,000 to CFFC "For defense of reproductive rights of women" [TFR, 1982, page 193; FGI, 1982, page 209];
2) Ms. Foundation, EIN: 23-7252609, $2,500 to CFFC “To publish booklets in Spanish for dissemination in the Hispanic community" [CFFC's 1980/1981 IRS Form 990];
3) Norman Foundation, $10,000 to CFFC "For general support of educational activities aimed at articulating and airing the pro-choice position of many Catholics on abortion" [FGI, 1982, page 279]; and
4) Louise L. Ottinger Foundation, $5,000 to the CFFC Education Fund "For educational program about history and practices of Catholic Church on reproductive matters" [FGI, 1982, page 282].
1979 ― $20,500 in two grants;
1) Ms. Foundation, EIN:, 23-7252609, $13,000 to CFFC [Ms. Foundation's 1979 Annual Report]; and
2) Norman Foundation, $7,500 to CFFC Education Fund “To support educational activities aimed at articulating and airing the pro-choice position of many Catholics on the subject of abortion" [FGI, 1980, page 262; TFR, 1982, page 469].
[pic]
Appendix E
Interesting Quotes by `Catholics’ for a Free Choice
If you are looking for a particular category of quote, you can search for them by using the keys below. For example, if you are looking for pro-homosexuality quotes by leaders or members of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice, just search for the symbol [HOM].
Asterisks [*] mean a particularly outlandish example of the category of quote. So, if you are looking for a particularly stupid quote by 'Catholics' for a Free Choice, search for [STU*].
If you have any quotes by members of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice that are not listed here, please send them to the following address so they can be added to this list. Be sure to include documentation.
Brian Clowes
Human Life International
4 Family Life Lane
Front Royal, Virginia 22630 USA
Telephone: (540) 622-5241
E-mail: bclowes@
| |
|QUOTE CODES |
|[ABO] | Pro-abortion quotes |
|[ADO] | Anti-adoption quotes |
|[ADU] | Pro-adultery, pro-fornication and pro-prostitution quotes |
|[BIG] | Bigoted quotes |
|[COE] | Quotes advocating forced abortions, sterilization and contraception |
|[EUG] | Pro-eugenics quotes |
|[EUT] | Pro-euthanasia quotes |
|[FAM] | Anti-child, anti-marriage and anti-family quotes |
|[HIS] | Quotes that lie about history |
|[HOM] | Pro-homosexual quotes |
|[HYP] | Hypocritical quotes |
|[ILL] | Quotes advocating illegal activities |
|[MAS] | Pro-masturbation quotes |
|[PED] | Pro-pedophilia quotes |
|[POR] | Pro-pornography quotes |
|[RAC] | Racist quotes |
|[REL] | Anti-religious quotes |
|[SBC] | Pro-sex education and pro-school-based clinic (SBC) quotes |
|[SEX] | Sexist quotes |
|[SIT] | Pro-situational ethics (moral relativism) quotes |
|[SLO] | Sloganistic quotes |
|[STU] | Just plain stupid quotes |
|[VIC] | Quotes seeking the victim status |
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1982
[ABO][HIS][STU] "I think that the Church's position on abortion is just bad Catholicism. It practically defiles the Declaration on Religious Freedom, is certainly inconsistent with any concept of social justice, and is effectively a prescription for mother death."
― Joseph P. O'Rourke, former President of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice, quoted in William McGurn. "Catholics & 'Free Choice'." National Catholic Register, February 14, 1982, pages 1, 6 and 7.
[pic]
[ABO][BIG] "On the sidewalk in front of the NCAN [National Coalition of American Nuns] offices in Chicago, anti-abortionists painted in yellow, "Sister, abortion is murder." Sister Traxler was unabashed. "I don't think those people can read beyond the predicate of a sentence," she said of the graffitists. ... Sister Traxler, in a phone interview, stressed that NCAN is not the first group of nuns to take an affirmative position on free choice for abortion. Both of the other significant organizations of women religious in the U.S., the Leadership Conference and the National Assembly of Women Religious have gone on record opposed to the notion of anti-abortion legislation."
— "Nun-Sense." Conscience, July/August 1982, pages 1 and 6.
[pic]
[HIS][MAS] "I was a practicing and communicating Catholic until I discovered that 15% of tax-exempt church funds are used for lobbying on anti-abortion issues. That's when I joined NOW and also the League of Women Voters. I am currently legislative chair and handle women's issues. My turn-off from attending church was accomplished by a priest preaching against birth control — and masturbation! I walked out of Mass and have put much of my anger to good use. I have two female children, four and 12 years, and an understanding, tolerant husband (he'd better be!) who was also raised Catholic."
Letter from Natalie Babinski of West Springfield, Massachusetts. Conscience,, July/August 1982, page 2.
[pic]
[STU][VIC] "It [Federal Abortion Funding Restriction Bill] would appear to allow any individual to hail into court the girl next door who was looking a little bulgy and now is slender on suspicion of having had an abortion. Could this be possible? It smacks of the technique of Hitler, who taught children to inform on their parents for political views, which has been adopted by Iran's super-conservative religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini.
"But such is the fervor and the litigious disposition of the super-conservative religious anti-abortionist in America, that it appears to be entirely possible from this passage in Hatfield's bill.
"What is this passion for minding other people's private lives that occasionally obsesses this nation? It didn't work in the case of prohibition of alcohol, as we found out during the great deterioration of society and the entrance of organized crime to provide the illicit booze.
"Organized crime no doubt stands ready to activate abortion opportunities, as soon as the procedure is made illegal once again. ... Surely, it is not in character for such a distinguished senator as Mark Hatfield to offer legislation so abusive to half the population — the half that gets pregnant."
"Hatfield, Hatch, Helms: The 3-H Club." Conscience, July/August 1982, page 3.
[pic]
[ABO][HIS] "One philosopher wonders what would happen to people's positions on abortion if a mutation or technology make it possible for them to see a developing fetus in the womb, even perhaps to observe and to fondle it. The idea created the sort of unease we feel when a beggar threatens to unwrap his ulcerated leg, and the discomfort points to the uniqueness of the issue [NOTE: This shows in what contempt CFFC holds the preborn child, God's greatest creation — by comparing it to an ulcer]. ... To compare abortion to murder is a best naïve. And yet there is no other human act to which it comes closer. ... The [pro-life] movement tends to attract those whose lives reflect extremes and reactions against those extremes. ... Pro-lifers do not debate issues or answer criticism. Abortion is wrong because they believe it is wrong" [NOTE: Hmmmmmmm … If this is true, why is it that the pro-abortionists are invariably the ones who refuse to debate?]
— Mary Gordon and Rudi Gannascoli. "Summer Reading: Catch Up and Look Ahead." Conscience, July/August 1982, pages 4 and 5.
[pic]
[HIS][BIG][ABO] "One of the first things that these ["right-wing"] movements try to do is gain power over people through control of their sexuality. There is a long historical tradition of involvement by right-wing factions in sexuality questions. Look at fascism in Europe. To raise the German birth-rate, the Nazis promoted a pro-motherhood ideology. ... A characteristic of Catholicism is that, like Judaism, it absorbs the dominant values from the society in which it exists. ... Parishes are local. They are supposed to be in touch with people, with reality, with what is actually going on in each life. Yet here was a parish priest taking his stand on dogma. I saw how one can get so carried away with theory and principle that one loses touch with reality. ... The Church has an elaborate intellectual edifice that is built on a notion of natural law. There is an aesthetic appeal to natural law that is dangerous, because it supposes that everything fits together. It eliminates the sloppiness of reality. ... I no longer accept the notion of natural law [NOTE: This is sort of like saying "I no longer accept the notion of gravity"!] ... Ideology hides behind natural law; note the political leverage won by the Church when it waves the flag of "absolute." It protects itself from the basic fact that there are certain things that we, as individual human beings, will never know. Those things have to remain open to discussion and dissent. It is the arrogance of the New Right that they expect somehow to crack the mystery of life, which is, when does it begin?" [NOTE: Of course, it never occurs to CFFC that it is arrogant to proclaim that we can never know when life begins].
— An interview of a naturally anonymous 'Catholic' man who was allegedly an instructor at the University of Maryland and an activist with the Reproductive Rights National Network, printed in CFFC's booklet "I Support You But I Can't Sign My Name" [Because My Story is Completely Fabricated and I am Too Cowardly to Stand Up for My Principles]. Conscience, July/August 1982, page 6.
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1983
[ABO][SEX]
“In making moral judgments about abortion, it is important to avoid rigid and negative attitudes toward sexuality itself.
The decision to abort can be a moral decision justified by many circumstances; the decision can also be unjustified.
Abortion must be legal for women to even begin to make a moral choice with real freedom.
The abortion decision involves intrinsic values. These values include, but are not limited to, the value of a woman's life and her life plan and the value of the fetus.
We all have an obligation to work actively to create a society in which women will not need to choose between the value of their own well-being and that of the fetus.
It is important to understand that while abortion does involve the taking of a human life — because all life that is in and of a human being is human life — in order to call it murder we would have to believe that prenatal life in the early stages of pregnancy is a human person and that there were absolutely no reasons that justified the taking of that life. ... [However], you may feel you have reasons that justify abortion regardless of your beliefs about personhood."
"Nor is [abortion] a question of the man's rights. You have no moral obligation to consult him or to consider his desire that you continue the pregnancy. ...
"Thus, the Catholic Church, when considered in its rich diversity, teaches that some abortions can be moral and that conscience is the final arbiter of any abortion decision. Unfortunately, the Catholicism that is taught in many Catholic parishes does not reflect the richness of the Catholic faith."
— Marjorie Reiley Maguire and Daniel C. Maguire (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Abortion: A Guide to Making Ethical Decisions." 'Catholics' for a Free Choice," September 1983 [NOTE: Obviously, the Maguires believe that parishes that are liberal on abortion are "mature," "diverse," "open," and "rich." Those that uphold authentic Catholic teaching on abortion are "narrow," "punitive," and "impoverished." Notice how they slyly 'compliment' the Church while asserting that pro-life priests and laity are not part of the "real" Church].
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1984
[ABO][REL] "Personhood begins when the bearer of life, the mother, makes a covenant of love with the developing life within her to bring it to birth. It is in the nature of things that woman creates the 'soul' just as much as she nourishes the body of developing human life."
— Marjorie Reiley Maguire, in the March/April 1984 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC) newsletter Conscience. Also quoted in Mary Meehan. "The Maguires Bring Abortion Issue to a Turbulent Boil." National Catholic Register, May 27, 1984, pages 1 and 7.
[pic]
[ABO*] What are the real 'hard cases' for pro-abortionists? Try Daniel and Marjorie Maguire. Daniel said of his wife; "She is anti-abortion, as you would know, but allows for tragic moral exceptions." What are these "tragic moral exceptions?" She says "Such factors as your age, health, financial ability to care for yourself and a child, the health of the fetus, whether you are married or single, the kind of emotional support you have from family or friends, and your plans for your own future need to be considered in deciding if your reasons are justifiable."
— Daniel Maguire (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors) and Marjorie Reiley Maguire, quoted in Mary Meehan. "The Maguires Bring Abortion Issue to a Turbulent Boil." National Catholic Register, May 27, 1984, pages 1 and 7.
[pic]
[ABO] "The assumption that the fetus is a person, currently a matter of lively debate in Catholic theological journals, is by no means a constant moral teaching. Even the Vatican Declaration on Procured Abortion, published in 1974, states that "there is not a unanimous tradition on this point, and authors are as yet not in agreement."
— Frances Kissling. "Bishops and Abortion." Boston Globe, August 17, 1984.
[pic]
[ABO*]
A DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS
REGARDING ABORTION EXISTS
AMONG COMMITTED CATHOLICS.
A CATHOLIC STATEMENT ON PLURALISM AND ABORTION.
"Continued confusion and polarization within the Catholic community on the subject of abortion prompt us to issue this statement.
"Statements of recent Popes and of the Catholic hierarchy have condemned the direct termination of pre-natal life as morally wrong in all instances. There is the mistaken belief in American society that this is the only legitimate Catholic position. In fact, a diversity of opinion regarding abortion exists among committed Catholics.
• A large number of Catholic theologians hold that even direct abortion, though tragic, can sometimes be a moral choice.
• According to data compiled by the National Opinion Research Center, only 11% of Catholics surveyed disapprove of abortion in all circumstances.
• "These opinions have been formed by;
• Familiarity with the actual experiences that lead women to make a decision for abortion;
• A recognition that there is no common and constant teaching on ensoulment in Church doctrine, nor has abortion always been treated as murder in canonical history;
• An adherence to principles of moral theology, such as probabilism, religious liberty, and the centrality of informed conscience; and
• An awareness of the acceptance of abortion as a moral choice by official statements and respected theologians of other faith groups.
"Therefore, it is necessary that the Catholic community encourage candid and respectful discussion on this diversity of opinion within the Church, and that Catholic youth and families be educated on the complexity of the issues of responsible sexuality and human reproduction.
"Further, Catholics — especially priests, religious, theologians and legislators — who publicly dissent from hierarchical statements and explore areas of moral and legal freedom on the abortion question should not be penalized by their religious superiors, church employers, or bishops.
"Finally, while recognizing and supporting the legitimate role of the hierarchy in providing Catholics with moral guidance on political and social issues and in seeking legislative remedies to social injustices, we believe that Catholics ;should not seek the kind of legislation that curtails the legitimate exercise of the freedom of religion and conscience or discriminates against poor women.
"In the belief that responsible moral decisions can only be made in an atmosphere of freedom from fear or coercion, we, the undersigned, call upon all Catholics to affirm this statement."
CATHOLIC COMMITTEE ON PLURALISM AND ABORTION
• Anthony Battaglia, Ph.D., Associate Professor, California State University
• Roddy O'Neil Cleary, D.Min., Campus Ministries, University of Vermont
• Joseph Fahey, Ph.D., Professor, Manhattan College
• Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Ph.D., Professor, University of Notre Dame
• Mary Gordon, M.A., author of Final Payments and Company of Women
• Patricia Hennessey, J.D., New York City
• Mary Hunt, Ph.D., Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER)
• Frances Kissling, Executive Director, Catholics for a Free Choice
• Justus George Lawler, Executive Editor, Academic Bookline, Winston-Seabury Press
• Daniel C. Maguire, Ph.D., Fellow in Ethics and Theology, Catholics for a Free Choice
• J. Giles Milhaven, Ph.D, Professor, Brown University
• Rosemary Radford Ruether, Ph.D., Professor, Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary, IL
• Thomas Shannon, Ph.D., Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, MA
• James F. Smart, Ph.D., Professor, Indiana University
OTHER SIGNERS
• Agnes P. Alber, M.S., Chestnut Hill College, PA
• Everet Bellmann, Minnesota State College, ND
• Michael H. Barnes, Ph.D., University of Dayton, OH
• Barbara Bemache-Baker, Ph.D., Loomis Institute, CT
• Kathryn Bissell, Wider Opportunities for Women, MD
• Mary C.I. Buckley, S.T.D., St. John's University, NY
• Ronald Burke, Ph.D., University of Nebraska at Omaha, NB
• Mary J. Byles, Ph.D., Maryville College, MO
• Ann Carr, Ph.D., University of Chicago Divinity School, IL
• Rev. Joseph M. Connolly, S.T.L., pastor, Archdiocese of Maryland, MD
• Margaret Cotroneo, Ph.D., University of Pennsyvania, PA
• Patty Crowley, Chicago Catholic Women, IL
• Barbara A. Cullom, Ph.D., Quizote Center, VA
• Maryann Cunningham. S.L., Colorado
• Mary Louise Denny, S.L., MO
• Daniel DiDomizio, Marian College, WI
• Mauriece C. Duchaine, S.T.D., San Francisco, CA
• Emmaus Community of Christian Hope, NJ
• Margaret A. Farley, Yale Divinity School, CT
• Darrell J. Fasching, Ph.D., University of South Florida, FL
• Barbara Ferraro, Sisters of Notre Dame, WV
• Maureen Fiedler, Ph.D., S.L., Catholics for the Common Good, MD
• Silvia E. Fittipaldi, Ph.D., Pastoral Institute of Lehigh Valley, PA
• George M. Frein, Ph.D., University of North Dakota, ND
• Lorine M. Getz, Ph.D., Somerville, MA
• Kevin Gordon, Director, Consultation on Homsexuality, Social Justice and Roman Catholic Theology, CA
• Jeannine Gramick, School Sisters of Notre Dame
• Christine E. Gudorf, Ph.D., Xavier University, OH
• Terry Hamilton, Woodstock/St. Paul Roman Catholic Community, NY
• Jack Hanford, Th.D., Ferris State College, MI
• Kathleen Hebbeler, Dominican Sister of the Sick Poor, OH
• Patricia Hussey, Sisters of Notre Dame, WV
• Caridad Inda, Council of Women Religious, MD
• Dorothy Irvin, S.T.D., Dunbar, NC
• Fr. Jerry Kaelin, O.F.M., Cincinnati, OH
• Janet Kalven, Loveland, OH
• Elizabeth Nelson Keating, Yale University, CT
• Pat Kenoyer, S.L., Loretto Women's Network, MO
• Joseph E. Kerns, S.T.D., Center for Christian Living, VA
• Paul F. Knitter, Th.D., Xavier University, OH
• Joseph A. LaBarge, Ph.D., Bucknell University, PA
• Eleanor V. Lewis, Ph.D., Baltimore, MD
• Wayne Lobue, Ph.D., Gilmour Academy, OH
• Agnes Mary Mansour, Ph.D., Lansing, MI
• Roseann Mazzeo, S.C., NJ
• Bro. Ray McManeman, F.S.C., Lewis University, IL
• Kathleen E. McVey, Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary, NJ
• John A. Melloh, S.T.L., Milwaukee, WI
• Joe Mellon, M.A., University of Notre Dame, IN
• Diane Neu, M.Div., S.T.M, Co-director, Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER), Washington, DC
• Jeanne Noble, National Assembly of Religious Women, MD
• Sr. Margaret Nulty, Sisters of Charity of New Jersey
• Kathleen O'Connor, Marynoll School of Theology, NY
• Margaret A. O'Neill, Ed.D., Sisters of Charity of New Jersey, NJ
• Ronald D. Pasquarlello, Ph.D., Marist Brothers, Washington, DC
• Richard Penaskovic, Ph.D., Auburn University, AL
• Gerald A. Pire, M.A., Seton Hall University, NJ
• Stanley M. Peton, S.T.L., Franklin Pierce College, NH
• Dolly Pomertess, Catholics for the Common Good, MD
• John E. Price, S.T.L., Evanston, IL
• Donne Quinn, National Coalition of American Nuns, IL
• Jill Raitt, Ph.D., University of Missouri, MO
• Maureen Reiff, Chicago Catholic Women, IL
• John Q. Rusnak, Ph.D., Phoenix, AZ
• Mary Savage, Ph.D., Albertus Magnus College, CT
• Jane Schaborg, Ph.D., University of Detroit, MI
• Mary Jane Schutzius, Federation of Christian Ministries, Association of the Rights of Catholics in the Church, MO
• Ellen Shanahan, Ph.D., Rosary College, IL
• Emil Ann Staples, University of Minnesota, MN
• Marilyn Thie, Sisters of Charity of New Jersey, Colgate University, NY
• Sr. Rose Dominic Trapasso, Lima, Peru
• Sr. Margaret Allen Traxler, National Coalition of American Nuns, IL
• Marjorie Tuite, Church Women United, NY
• Alan F. Turner, Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, Valley Forge, PA
• Judith Vaughan, National Assembly of Religious Women, CA
• E. Jane Via, Ph.D., J.D., University of San Diego and Superior Court of San Diego, CA
• Gerald S. Vigna, Ph.D., Pennsauken, NJ
• Ann Patrick Ware, M.A., National Coalition of American Nuns, NY
• Sallie Ann Watkins, National Coalition of American Nuns, CO
• Mary Jo Weaver, Ph.D., Indiana University, IN
• Virginia Williams, S.L., MO
• Arthur E. Zannoni, Ph.D., University of Notre Dame Extension Program, IN
— Complete text of the October 7, 1984 New York Times statement entitled "A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion," signed by 97 theologians and members of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice and other dissenting groups [emphasis in the original].
[pic]
[ABO] "CFFC really was just kept alive for years because the mainline pro-choice movement wanted a Catholic voice."
— Joseph O'Rourke (former Jesuit priest and former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors), quoted in Mary Meehan. "Foundation Power." Human Life Review, Fall 1984, pages 42 to 60.
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1985
[POP][REL*] "I could hardly tell her [a nun] that my devotion to Mary was something less than my devotion to far more powerful females I knew: Isis, Athena and Artemis. ... The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease in the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease."
— 1985 interview with U.S. Catholic by Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Rosemary Radford Ruether Unmasked." HLI Reports, November 1994.
[pic]
[REL*] "As Women-Church we repudiate the idol of patriarchy... Our God and Goddess, who is mother and father, friend, lover and helper, did not create this idol and is not represented by this idol ... this idol blasphemes by claiming to speak in the name of Jesus and to carry out his redemptive mission, while crushing and turning to its opposite all that he came to teach ... all social reforms superimposed upon our sick civilization can be no more effective than a bandage on a gaping and putrefying wound. Only the complete and total demolition of the social body will cure the fatal sickness. Only the overthrow of the three-thousand-year-old beast of masculist materialism will save the race. … No token accommodations will satisfy us. What is required is the total reconstruction of God, Christ, human nature, and society ... we know we will die unless a WomanChrist pops up (like a rabbit out of a hat) between breasted mountains ...
"... we see the death of Baal, overwhelmed by the forces of drought and death ... [the goddess Anath] buries him with rites of mourning ... From her sowing of the new wheat in the ground, Baal rises. With a cry of exaltation, we rejoice at the close of the drama: The Lord has arisen, is seated again on the throne. He reigns! Alleluia!"
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology [Boston: Beacon Press], 1985.
[pic]
[STU] "I've never felt that by taking money from someone indicates that we support them."
— Frances Kissling, President of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC), when questioned about Playboy Magazine funding of CFFC. Quoted in "Playboy Funds Pro-Abortion Group." National Federation for Decency Journal, February 1985, page 16 [NOTE: Kissling also stated that CFFC would never accept money from Hustler magazine, because, as she put it, "There are boundaries of good taste"].
[pic]
[ABO][HYP][STU] "The right to choose abortion is not all that different from other constitutionally protected individual rights. Both free speech and the rights to choose provide unequalled opportunities for people to become responsible thinking citizens" [NOTE: Notice the extraordinary level of self-deception here: Killing preborn babies leads to responsible citizenship? This from the same people who say that pro-lifers have no right to free speech outside abortion mills]. ... We argue that minor girls must be free to choose abortion without consent or notification so that may have opportunities for growth into free and independent women and citizens."
— Lynn M. Paltrow. "Religious Freedom and Family Life: Reflections on the Right to Choose." Conscience, November/December 1985, pages 1, 3 and 12.
[pic]
[ABO*][STU*][SEX][SLO][VIC] "Those moral theologians who condemned abortion were almost all males, and great many of them were celibate. They also had no direct experience of sex as an expression of mutual love rather than simply for procreation. They had no connection with the realities of childbearing — their methods and thus their ability to perceive the complex realities of reproduction and the necessary choices were defective and limited. ...
"Clearly, no decision can be made simply. The more serious and substantial the decision, the more complex the process. ... No simple guidelines can be given, and none should be looked for [NOTE: Notice how complicated the writers try to make the act of killing. They would never consider rape to be so complicated].
"Theologically, the basis for maintaining that abortion must remain legal rests on the acknowledgement that the woman is a fully human moral agent. If this is granted, then enforced pregnancy is reprehensible. ... We can assume then that the revelation of God's will is available to human reason. Since abortion will occur whether it is legal or not, is it reasonable to make such a simple, safe procedure painful, degrading, dangerous and even fatal by making it illegal? Particularly, is it reasonable to impose this burden on those who would suffer the most — the young and the poor? ... Therefore, for any church to recommend that one particular doctrine or dogma, to which others of different faith do not subscribe, be enforced by law, such as making abortion illegal, would certainly be coercive and therefore unacceptable [NOTE: Then why do pro-abortionists insist that such acts as female genital mutilation, which some religions support, be made illegal? Once again, we have an extraordinary level of inconsistency in these statements]. ... We submit that any statement by our church that would persuade by religious pressure or would recommend by legal sanction against abortion would be "unworthy of the Gospel" [NOTE: Then would these good ladies condemn fornication, sodomy, divorce and adultery, which are all repeatedly and directly condemned by the Gospels? Of course not! Once again, they are being very selective in their allegiances].
"Any interference in the abortion decision is an attempt to come between a woman and God. This is in our understanding a direct contradiction of the Gospel. ...
"If one uses the genetic definition of person one would have to regard every body cell as a human being since each cell has the potentiality for becoming another person through cloning. Think also of the implications of this definition for surgery or the excision of cancer cells from the body! [NOTE: This statement shows how incredibly ignorant of both basic biology and basic Christian dogma these writers are]. ...
"It is estimated that there are as many natural miscarriages as there are live births. Many of these occur because the fetus is defective. It seems a thin line between the natural and the induced miscarriage in cases of fetal deformity [NOTE: This is like saying that there is a thin line between strangling your wife and letting her die naturally after a long life]. ...
"There is no doubt that if abortion should become illegal, safe, dignified, appropriate medical care would no longer be available to many women who are too young and/or too unsophisticated to know about such care. One does not need to subscribe to liberation theology's "preferential option for the poor" to realize the immorality of forcing such inequality and suffering on those least able to afford it. There is a law on the books at present which does enforce such inequality. This is the law that prohibits funding for abortion for women who depend on the Federal Government for their health care. ... This policy, which allows payment for pregnancy care and birth but not for abortion, is unfair on its face. For women on welfare it means that they often have to resort to crime or prostitution to get the needed money. ... For some it means a resort to the back-alley or lye-douche abortion which is responsible for so much morbidity and mortality. ...
"An ethical issue is also raised by the make-up of the committee and of the House of Bishops. As neither group has any women, we believe it could be considered sexist for such a group, none of whom will ever be unwillingly pregnant, to make any statement other than one which unequivocally supports the woman's right to follow the dictates of her own conscience before God and choose abortion if that appears as the most responsible decision [NOTE: This tired old pro-abortion slogan is sexist on its face. It is like saying that women cannot speak against war, that those not affected directly by racism or apartheid may not speak about it, and so on. This slogan is an attempt by these sexist women to deprive men of their voice and strip them of their First Amendment rights, while all the time hollering about their rights]. ..."
— Patricia Wilson-Kastner and Beatrice Blair. "Biblical Views on Abortion: An Episcopal Perspective." Conscience, November/December 1985, pages 4 to 8.
[pic]
[ABO*] "A Catholic candidate for vice-president, Geraldine Ferraro, was being characterized by Cardinal John O'Connor of New York as a politician for whom Catholics could not vote because of her mildly prochoice position on abortion [NOTE: Notice that CFFC calls support for any abortion, at any time, for any reason throughout pregnancy a "mildly prochoice" position on abortion. We wonder what a "radically prochoice" position would be!] ...
"In the months following the [1984 New York Times] ad's appearance, however, its admonition that dissenters should not be penalized has not been heeded. Threats and penalties have rained thick and fast upon priests, religious and theologians from religious superiors, church employers and bishops. ...
"The ban on contraception means that the Catholic Church is willing, in practice, to see fetuses and their mothers die for the sake of the principle that women should submit to "nature" and "God" in matters of reproduction. ... An effort to declare the ban on contraception "infallible" would have the immediate effect of focusing Catholic dissent on the doctrine of infallibility itself. ... A storm of dissent, and even ridicule, directed at infallibility itself would ensue from such a declaration."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether. "Catholics and Abortion: Authority vs. Dissent." Conscience, November/December 1985, pages 9 to 11.
[pic]
[SEX] "How long can male celibates ignore the voices of women and dare to speak about sexuality and reproduction?"
— Deb Barret, executive director of the pro-abortion group 'Catholic' Women for Reproductive Rights, quoted in "Women-Church Convergence Demonstrates at Bishops' Conference." Conscience, November/December 1985, page 15.
[pic]
[HYP] "Hamer is misusing his authority by threatening to have women religious dismissed from their communities for exercising their powers of conscience in signing The New York Times advertisement published on October 7, 1984. ... "He is incapable of resolving issues between U.S. religious women and Rome" [NOTE: The disrespectful reference is to Jean Jerome Cardinal Hamer, the Vatican Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes. The reason he cannot "resolve issues" is because the U.S. religious women obstinately refused to cooperate with him. Notice the pro-abortion tendency to cause all kinds of strife and problems and then blame everyone else for them].
— "NCAN Calls for the Dismissal of Hamer." Conscience, November/December 1985, page 16.
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1986
[REL] "[Radical leftists] should stay in the Church and use whatever parts of it they can get their hands on. This way they will have far more impact, both on the Church and on the world ... than they could possibly gain if they separated from it."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). Quoted in "Crises and Challenges of Catholicism Today." America, March 1, 1986, page 152. Also quoted in "War on the Faith: How Catholics for a Free Choice Seeks to Undermine the Catholic Church" [New York City: Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute], White Paper Number One, 2002, page 33.
[pic]
[REL] "In October 1984, at the height of the presidential campaign, twenty-four women religious signed a full page advertisement in The New York Times entitles [sic] "A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion." A Vatican demand that each sister recant of face dismissal from her religious community precipitated one of the most complex and well-publicized cases of the abuse of church power in modern times. This panel will provide insight into the Vatican action by comparison with McCarthyism at home and right-wing dictatorships abroad."
— Description for the panel entitled "The Ethics of Resistance: A Case Study of the Vatican," one of the events at the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice conference entitled "Ethical Issues in Reproductive Health: Religious Perspectives." Conscience, July/August 1986, outer front cover.
[pic]
[ABO] "Supposing that the fetus is sentient, could its suffering in the abortion process be qualitatively or quantitatively much worse that the suffering of, say, a mouse being mauled by a cat? And with all due respect to the fetus, and the mouse, are we adult human beings obliged to shape our future, our professional careers, our whole lives, around the avoidance of that suffering? ...
[STU] If two healthy, fertile people, very much in love but ignorant of the ways of contraception, are sexually active for a year or more, the probability that a child will be conceived is quite high. It follows that if the two remain chaste for that period of time, the probability that a potential child has been lost is equally high. One can condemn abortion or the prevention of implantation because each results in the sure loss of a potential child, therefore, only if one is prepared to condemn chastity for the same reason. ... If those who tolerate abortion are said to trample on the rights of the unborn, then those who praise chastity may with equal justification be said to trample on the rights of the unconceived."
— David Randall Luce. "Potential Personhood and the Rights of the Unconceived." Conscience, July/August 1986, pages 2 to 5.
[pic]
[HIS] "The Question: Do Catholics employed as directors of clinics or administrators of hospitals in which abortions are performed incur the latae sententiae excommunication provided by canon 1398 of the 1983 Code of Cannon Law? ... Might they incur the penalty as accomplices? Administrators manage clinics or hospitals, carry out their policies, oversee their activities, including the hiring and firing of personnel; but they cannot be described as "necessary collaborations" in their institutions. The operations take place whether or not a given administrator is at work on a given day or is removed from that office and replaced by someone else.
"Moral theologians, too, when treating of the canonical penalty for abortion, seem to envision procurers and necessary cooperators as those directly implicated in the abortive act. And, whatever might be said concerning the moral implications of any other species of cooperation, close or remote, slight or grave, the penal canon is inapplicable to the case in question [Mary Ann Sorrentino, a Planned Parenthood clinic director]. ... Serious moral responsibility exists at all of these levels (e.g., Support staff, counselors, medical assistants, managers, executives, trustees, donors, licensing agents, lawmakers, etc.) but none of them fall under the canonical sanction of canon 1398.
— "Canon Lawyer Disagrees on Excommunication." Conscience, July/August 1986, pages 5 to 7 [emphasis in original] [NOTE: Administrators and directors of concentration camps during World War II argued that they had no "direct hand" in the killing of prisoners, either — but this defense was found unpersuasive by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal].
[pic]
[ABO][REL][VIC] "We believe that dialogue is essential for the very life of the Church.
"We regret that male, celibate Church is ignoring and trivializing the experience of women. We regret that the official Church cannot deal with women as full persons and moral agents in our own right. We regret that official Church is neutralizing and negating the serious reflection of Catholic theologians and theologians in other faith traditions on the issue of reproductive rights.
"We believe that women are to be affirmed in their reproductive decisions on the basis of individual conscience and personal religious freedom. We believe that by the official Church's inability to deal with birth control that in practice, it promotes the high abortion rate it claims to abhor.
"We believe that dissent on all controversial issues including reproductive right is essential for the life of the Church. We believe that the dissent falls within the rights and responsibilities of all Roman Catholics. The official Church has a responsibility of foster a climate in which faithful dissent is incorporated into the ongoing life of the community.
"We regret that the official Church is prepared to and has used force, threats and violence to obtain submission [NOTE: We wonder what “violence” she is referring to].
"We believe that the hierarchy has given scandal by: their disruption of and intervention in women's religious communities; extracting what amounts to loyalty oaths; attempting to compromise the integrity of many religious signers, and deliberately misinterpreting and miscommunicating nun-signers' statements to the public.
"The cornerstone of the Catholic tradition is the search for truth. Unfortunately the actions of the official Church thwart that goal and are totally contrary to our "vision of Church as a discipleship of equals."
— Former nuns Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey. "... A Response." Conscience, July/August 1986, page 11.
[pic]
[VIC*] "Feminism arises from the recognition that the oppression of women has been universal; it is global and it is derived from structures. And we know that the kind of change feminists want has to take place at a structural, ideological level. Feminism has helped us see the connections among many kinds of oppression. Whether it is racial, military or economic impression, there are connections. And they are all linked to the fundamental domination, the original domination, which is that of male over female in a patriarchal system. It is the basis of our order, our hierarchy. So we are talking not just about the liberation of women or about equality with men, but about a much deeper questioning of society and the types of relationships found in the hierarchical ordering of society.
"The feminist struggle is not just anti-capitalist, rather, it is anti-patriarchal in that it proposes to put an end to all inequality. ... Feminists seek a democratic society in which all people have the freedom to choose. ...
"Without confronting the issues or patriarchy and hierarchy — which continue to oppress people on the basis of race, sex and class — there is little possibility of advancing to a more just society.
"However, throughout the centuries the Church has maintained control over women and their sexuality as a way of conserving its power. At the same time, it has legitimized sexism within Latin American society. ... The Church has not modified its position or criticized injustices against women because it has been and continues to be a patriarchal institution.
"But why haven't liberation theologians more emphatically denounced sexism and racism? Why haven't they explicitly denounced the oppression of women within the Church's own structures and in society as a whole? Liberation theologians haven't challenged a church that continues to oppress not only women but all those who suffer the effects of a hierarchical structure. ... Feminists would ask liberation theologians to specifically condemn the sin of sexism and to recognize that the Church has been one of the major oppressors of women throughout the centuries. ... theology has been and continues to be male-dominated. When pressed, any one of these male theologians would have to admit that they have oppressed women in their own lives.”
— Comments by Maryknoll Sisters Rose Timothy Galvin and Rose Dominic Trapasso, and writer Ana Maia Portugal. "Otra Voces: Latina Feminists and the Church." Conscience, July/August 1986, page 13 to 15.
[pic]
[ABO] "If RU-486 is also used monthly, prolifers would have a hard time convincing the public that the drug isn't just another contraceptive. Indeed, a 1982 New York Times story on Beaulieu and RU-486 described the drug as "a new birth control pill." Planned Parenthood released a "Fact Sheet" in October that refers to RU-486 as a type of "interceptor (luteal contraception)." If most people hear a new drug described as "birth control," they'll think of the pill and IUD, not abortion. ... If more women come to use RU-486 than traditional contraceptives, abortion would be the preferred method of birth control in the United States."
— Tony Kaye. "Are You for RU-486?: A New Pill and the Abortion Debate." Conscience, July/August 1986, pages 15 to 17.
[pic]
[HIS] "The [Human Life] amendment asserts two things: (1) The fertilized human ovum is a person; (2) the fertilized human ovum, like all persons, ought never be deprived of life unless perhaps indirectly in efforts to save the mother's life. Before modern times, neither of these two assertions made up an official position of the Catholic Church. At no point in the past was either assertion made universally by pope and bishops. This is an historical fact that no one denies. ... The fetus is human life, precious and demanding respect" [NOTE: But never quite enough respect to keep it from being killed for convenience or any other reason, in CFFC's view].
— J. Giles Milhaven (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "The Problems with an Anti-Choice Amendment." Conscience, July/August 1986, page 18.
[pic]
[ABO*][ADU][REL] "What I am doing is not just dealing with the issue of abortion or reproduction, but with the structure of the Catholic Church. ... I do not agree with the Catholic Church's position on sexuality. Nor do I think there is any sense to the position in which a person who chooses not to marry is expected to lead a chaste life. ... I don't think God cares very much about our sexual activity. I think he cares about how we treat each other. ...
"That's [having children] not part of my personal life plan. [I used contraception] because I knew I didn't want to get pregnant. ... I would arrive at the [abortion] clinic at 8 o'clock in the morning and the parking lot would be filled with cars from Kentucky, Alabama, Maine, Massachusetts, with young kids, boyfriends and girlfriends who drove all night because they didn't have any money or families. Most people I saw knew what they were doing. It was a hard [abortion] decision, but given their circumstances, it was the best decision they could make [NOTE: Notice how Kissling makes this blanket statement, as if none of the thousands of women who aborted in her abortion mill had made a decision that was not the "best"]. ... I felt that what we were doing [opening an illegal abortion mill in Rome] was correct, that abortion goes on whether it's legal or illegal. The question was what kind of abortion is a woman going to get. ...
"I don't consider myself in any way, shape or form pro-abortion. I think it depends on the circumstances. I think there are women who have been raped — they are few and far between — who would be better off carrying the pregnancy to term. I also think there are many, many reasons for which abortion is justified. ... I don't believe that God created me to bear children. I think that God had a whole other plan in mind for Frances Kissling. ... [NOTE: True, true. God’s mission for Kissling is to demonstrate to the world how extreme and self-deluded the “pro-choice” movement really is].
"However, the fact that I value fetal life doesn't mean that the value of the fetus, is absolute, or that I value it in precisely the way as [a grown] women's life [NOTE: This is an understatement! Kissling and CFFC frequently talk on and on about the "value of fetal life," but this value never rises to the point that an abortion would not be justified. So this statement is pure window-dressing, meant to make her look compassionate]. ...
"The Catholic religion makes the fetus into an icon, a figure of religious veneration, which I think is sick, really sick. ... I'm challenging the boundaries of the pro-choice movement in the same way that I'm challenging the boundaries of the Church [NOTE: What nonsense! CFFC and Kissling relentlessly and directly attack Church teachings and call the bishops and even the Pope all kinds of filthy names — but they only gently chide the pro-abortion movement, and then only occasionally. This is an obviously transparent and comically clumsy attempt to paint herself as being "middle of the road"]. ...
"I'm saying abortion is not an easy decision, there are moral and ethical considerations. ... [The secular media] no longer considers 300 men in dresses as representative of the Catholic Church. ... Jesus Christ didn't come here and say, 'You gotta have a pope, you gotta have cardinals, you gotta have bishops, you gotta have priests [NOTE: That's true, of course, but He did say, 'You gotta have apostles' (see Matthew 16:18-19), and they would need successors, or the bishops] ... This system is man-made and really modeled upon a European feudal system ... What I am trying to do is to democratize and humanize the Church. ...
"The people in the right to life movement or the very right wing, authoritarian Catholic groups, feel compelled to say we're not really Catholics. They can't deal with diversity [NOTE: This is another amazingly stupid remark. In reality, diversity is just fine — we just can't deal with apostasy, heresy and schism]. ...
"I think the reality is that, first of all, I and many Catholics no longer think in those classic terms [of Heaven and Hell]. My language choices are not dichotomies like Heaven and Hell, good and evil ... I believe in an afterlife. I believe in a personal God. I believe in the sacramental life of the Catholic Church. I certainly believe in Jesus Christ ... In the classic Catholic sense, Hell is that one would be denied the possibility of being united with God; Heaven is being united with God. I'm going to be united with God. I have no doubt about that" [NOTE: Well, Kissling has proudly boasted of being guilty of just about every other sin; might as well add presumption to the list!].
— Janet Wallach. "The Cardinal of Choice: Frances Kissling's Crusade to Change the Church." The Washington Post Magazine, August 24, 1986 cover story.
QUOTES FROM 1987
[ABO][STU] "Thereby they [the Catholic bishops of the United States] hope to lay the groundwork for attaining civil rights for the fetus — civil rights the bishops have consistently refused to support for women [NOTE: CFFC shows how confused its logic really is with this statement. The bishops want the simple right to live for the preborn child, but CFFC treasures abortion so supremely that it considers life not living without its availability].
"With this obvious overstatement, he made clear the priorities of the bishops' public policy effort — no issue, no interest, no persons are more important than the fetus. Every other public good is to be sacrificed on the "pro-life" altar [NOTE: Paterson's silly statement obscures the fact that no right can have any meaning without the right to life, without being born first. Of course it is a priority with the bishops!] ... in spite of their words in support of women's rights the fact remains that the bishops have not fully accepted women as equals in either church or society. ... the winds of repression are already being felt by many Catholics in politics and academia. Strictly dogmatic beliefs and behavior on sexual issues, especially abortion, have become the test of orthodoxy to which all in the university are expected to conform [NOTE: Oh, my, those awful bishops! How could they actually expect professors at Catholic universities to teach Catholic dogma?!] ... The pressure to conform is so widespread and so insidious that Dr. Mary Buckley, associate professor of theology at St. John's University in New York, says it amounts to "friendly fascism." The Catholic media and the academic communities have begun to censor themselves out of fear of reprisal. She says, "They can't allow themselves to think" [NOTE: Oh, brother!] ...
"Clearly, the institutional Roman Catholic Church desires to buttress a status quo that includes discrimination against women. Even more dangerous in terms of cherished American freedoms is the rising evidence that it wants to be free to discriminate against people who merely hold unprescribed opinions about behavior related to abortion and sexual issues. The widely-publicized withdrawal of the Rev. Charles E. Curran's license to teach as a Catholic theologian at Catholic University is the most dramatic of the recent attacks on influential Catholics who favor a less punitive approach to moral issues surrounding sexuality and pregnancy. A respected scholar and popular lecturer for more than 20 years, the theologically mainstream Curran was censured for moderate attitudes toward birth control, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and premarital intercourse [NOTE: The "moderate" Curran essentially said that all of these activities were perfectly fine all of the time. This is "moderate?" Once again, CFFC is crying about the right of Catholic universities to actually teach Catholic sexual morality]. ... Many fear that if the Vatican succeeds with Curran, no Catholic professor who expresses dissenting views will be safe. ... Writing in Christianity and Crisis, Christine Gudorf, who teaches theology at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio, voiced the objections of many Catholic academics: "In this case, it is important that supporters of Curran speak out on the substantive theological issues as well as issues of process. The area of sexual ethics is a wasteland in the Catholic church. Teachers of Catholic sexual ethics have the choice of either addressing real life with useful critical moral reflection, or being faithful to the magisterium (the official teaching authority of the Catholic church located in the pope and bishops). It is impossible to do both. More bluntly put, one can either be Christian, or one can be faithful to the magisterium" [NOTE: This goes to the heart of what CFFC thinks — that you cannot be a true Christian if you follow the teachings of the Catholic Church]. ... philosophically and politically, the bishops no longer represent the laity nor, it would seem, the needs of Catholic colleges and universities."
— Judith Paterson. "The Civil Rights Restoration Act and the Bishops." Essay in "Civil Rights Held Hostage: The United States Catholic Conference and the Civil Rights Restoration Act." Conscience, March 1987, pages 7 to 23.
[pic]
[REL] "The pope came on Shepherd One, but he did not find sheep awaiting him. He found people who take Judeo-Christianity seriously and who do not feel that it can be reduced to the patriarchal, hierarchical, authoritarian model the pope thinks to be the one, true Catholicism. ... There are many alien presences in the church which, when recognized for what they are, must be rejected. The model of political monism which led political leaders to say "L'Etat c'est moi!" [the State, it is me!] and popes, in effect, to say: "L'Eglise c'est moi!" [the Church, it is me!] is one of these objectionable foreign objects. ... The reform of the papacy is past due. A central figure who could give voice to the main moral and religious hopes of Christendom, who could speak the thundering prophetic certitudes on hunger, racism, militarism, sexism, and the abuse of economic and political power, would be a welcome voice. ... this pope has managed to squander this moral authority by charging into issues where he has no privileged expertise. He tries to speak last words while first words are being spoken. He violates the Aristotelian principle that in moral matters we should seek no more certitude than is available. He fails to realize in James Gustafson's phrase that it has pleased God to leave some things unclear. By trying to shut down debatable issues like in vitro fertilization, the pope discredits his own considerable moral authority."
— Daniel C. Maguire (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "The Pope and Post-Clerical Catholicism.” Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 1 to 3.
[pic]
[REL][ABO] "God wills dissent to reach the blindness and hardness of heart of many Church leaders. Dissent is a constructive not a destructive activity in the religious community. ... If the Church were like a woman's club or the national football league, then rules would be paramount in determining membership. I could be kicked out for dissenting from the opinions and directives of Church leaders in such areas as women's ordination, contraception, sterilization, abortion, divorce, and even the right to dissent. However, since the Church is a community whose members are gathered together by God, membership is not a gift from Church leaders that can be taken away at their command. Dissent with laws and rules of the Church does not mean that I have put myself outside Church membership. It is simply an indication that the rules and laws must be examined anew by all the members of the Church to determine whether they have ceased to serve the whole Church. ... No one ... should allow herself to be drummed out of the corps or badgered into leaving by those who cannot tolerate diversity in the Body of Christ."
— Marjorie Reiley Maguire. "Dissent in the Catholic Church." Conscience, September-December 1987, page 8.
[pic]
[HOM] "Once again churches lag behind science. Long after social and behavioral scientists have proven that homosexuality is healthy, good and natural for a certain percentage of our population, the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach antiquated and harmful theology."
— Mary E. Hunt (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors and co-director of the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER)). "Lesbian/Gay Catholics Are Church." Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 10 and 11 [NOTE: A more profoundly nonsensical statement can scarcely be imagined. With millions dead of AIDS, we also know that sexually active homosexuals are infected with many diseases, suffer a very high murder and suicide rate, and lose an average of 30 years from their lives, regardless of whether or not they die of AIDS. How can such a disastrous lifestyle be "healthy, good and natural?"]
[pic]
"There is an increasing demand from Roman Catholic women that they be recognized as full members of the Church. This must include ordination to all priestly ministries. ... The assumption is that anything the Church has done or not done for a long time must be right. ... Women are also increasingly present in equal numbers in theological seminaries. As a result, feminist theological criticism and reconstruction of the basic curriculum of the theological seminaries have begun to develop. ... Roman declarations cannot be regarded as definitive if they do not reflect the consensus of theological scholarship and the mind of ordinary Catholics."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "The Church and the Ordination of Women." Conscience, September-December 1987 [NOTE: This is a statement of what we might call 'theology by consensus,' which has destroyed the mainline Protestant churches].
[pic]
"I expect to be treated as a mature, educated and responsible adult. Not to question, not to challenge, not to have authorities involve me in a process of understanding is to deny my dignity as a person and the rights granted to me both by church and society. ... I rejoice that within my culture there is room for this incredible diversity. The challenge before the church in the United States is to be welcoming of these same diversities. Can we be as inclusive as Christ, who reached out to the woman at the well, who invited a tax collector to be his apostle, who brought the centurion's daughter back to life? Can we reach out and be more inclusive of women, our inactive clergy, homosexuals, the divorced and all people of color?"
— Donna Hanson, Chairwoman, U.S. Bishop's National Advisory Council. "Voices of Concern: Excerpts from Addresses Delivered to the Pope." Conscience, September-December 1987, page 13 [NOTE: This is key — to be 'diverse' — the dissenters never try to understand or reiterate church teachings on the issues].
[pic]
[STU] "... the church really does not have a viable sexual ethic. ... If the Roman Catholic church is ever to regain credibility in matters of sexuality, it will need to develop an appropriately sophisticated and complicated sexual ethic beyond what it has at present."
— Kevin Gordon (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors), who publicly burned Vatican documents he did not agree with. "A Little Secret." Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 14 and 15 [NOTE: Notice that Gordon wants a complicated sexual ethic, an ethic where any possible sexual perversion can easily be justified and rationalized. This is how the anti-lifers work: They condemn what they call "black and white" thinking, and strive to make as large a "grey area" as possible, in order to give themselves maximum freedom and sow as much doubt and uncertainty as possible. One of the beauties of the Church's teachings is that it is so simple and elegant that anyone can understand it. Six words summarize it: "Abstinence before marriage and faithfulness after." The only people who cannot understand this supremely simple sexual ethic are educated idiots. Those who cannot accept have far worse problems].
[pic]
[HYP] "While maintaining respect for the Pope and his followers, we affirmed that it would be disrespectful to people of different religious persuasions to be denied access to abortion on that day."
— Marla Smith of Arizona Right to Choose, referring to escorting at abortion mills during the Pope's 1987 visit to the United States, in a letter entitled "Positive Impact." Conscience, September-December 1987, page 16.
[pic]
[REL*] "God put me on earth to give the pope a hard time."
— Frances Kissling, President of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC), quoted in Conscience, September-December 1987, page 17
[pic]
[STU][BIG] "[Ruth] Riddick says the purpose of the right-to-life movement "has been to deny women opportunity, to deny women choice, to deny women a moral existence." She added, "they are only interested in women in a negative sense."
— Mary M. Sullivan. "Defying Tradition: One Irish Woman's Struggle for the Right to Choose." Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 20 and 21.
[pic]
"... at the "Women-Church Claiming our Power" meeting in Cincinnati, the weekend of Oct. 9-11. Theresa Kane observed, "This is the real Synod. The alternative one is the one being held in Rome. ... This is holy ground, sacred space. You who are here make it so. God is in the the [sic] midst of us; we claim Her power!" ... Patricia Camp spoke on the perspective of separation of church and state, saying "It is morally permissible not to want to impose one religious group's moral perspective on abortion upon others."
— Ruth McDonough Fitzpatrick. "Women-Church Claimed Its Power in Cincinnati." Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 22 and 23.
[pic]
"The whole point of the Women-church movement is to say that women as women cannot be full religious agents in the patriarchal church and, therefore, the only way we can be church is to be Women-church."
— Mary E. Hunt (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors and co-director of the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER)), quoted in Adelle-Marie Stan. "A Decade of Dissent." Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 24 to 26.
[pic]
[RAC] "U.S. Catholics have long been ignoring the sacrament of penance as an antiquated rite and an invasion of privacy. ... Most priests, overworked due to a lack of priestly brethren, prefer to grant a general absolution to their congregations during the mass rather than to hear the individual confessions of each churchgoer. ... Latinos are the great brown hope of the Vatican, which is counting on them to set the church back on course by bringing their fervent piety and ethic of machismo into the mainstream of American Catholicism."
— Adelle-Marie Stan. "A Decade of Dissent." Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 24 to 26.
[pic]
"C.F.F.C. director Frances Kissling explained to me the "two complementary strategies" employed by Women-church in its struggle for a transformed church. "One is the strategy of confrontation and challenge — you know, directing one's attention to the hierarchy," Kissling said. "But the other, in [holding] a meeting like this, is ignoring the hierarchy. The name of the conference, Women-church: Claiming Our Power, is just women taking their power and going with it — not worrying about what the bishops have to say, not worrying about what the Pope thinks — in essence, taking their own vision of church and making it a reality."
— Adelle-Marie Stan. "A Decade of Dissent." Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 24 to 26.
[pic]
[ABO][REL*][SEX] "The bishops have no more right, based upon church teaching, to decide that abortion should be illegal than I [do]. I have as much right to decide that abortion should be legal. ... What is going on in the church right now, in the broadest sense of the word, is a struggle for political control. The struggles over abortion, birth control, divorce, women's ordination, or any number of other matters, are related to political control, not to church teaching. These struggles have nothing to do with spirituality. It is not a spiritual struggle; it is not a struggle for the heart of the church; it is a struggle over who will prevail in the public arena" [page 149].
"Dissent in the eyes of the institutional church is a very serious thing. People who dissent are marked and marginalized. It is the constant desire of the institutional leadership of the church to marginalize and to cut off people who differ with them. ... If, for instance, one believes abortion is morally justified in certain circumstances, then that becomes a dissenting position. It is fair to call that dissent. But, if one simply believes, as I do, that abortion should be legal, that is not a dissenting position. You are dissenting from no church teaching whatsoever, because there is no church teaching on the legality of abortion. ... Having said that, I also believe that dissent is the lifeblood of the church. Without people, without women willing to dissent, to stand up and challenge the church and indeed take a prophetic stance on the issues that affect us, the church will be a dead organism" [page 149].
"To continue to enjoy this political clout, they [the American bishops] are willing to subvert every other value in the church to maintain their hegemony over the people of God. They are perfectly willing to conduct the crackdowns they do on Catholics around the country. ... I think there is a corruption of the church at the highest levels. It may not be the venal sort of corruption [which] existed in the Renaissance, in the sense of personal and financial gain. But it's a profound corruption eating away at the power of the laity. It can demoralize the people of God and that's a very serious thing" [page 151].
"When I say I came back to the church, I never came back on the old terms. It is true you can't go home again. I came back to the church as a social change agent; I came back to women-church. When I talk about coming back into the church, I'm not talking about coming back to Sunday mass, confession and all of those things that are the memories of my childhood. I'm talking about coming back to a new vision of church established in the late 1970s by women within the church. Women recapturing the church. I believe what happened in the church was parallel to what happened in the secular women's movement. And indeed, if you examine what is going on in the women's movement in the church now, it is similar to what went on in the women's movement in the past" [pages 152 and 153].
"We're entering a period of great polarization. The reality is that we are about to go through an enormously painful time in the church. We are into a stage of intense conflict, confrontation, polarization, and challenge. And this is necessary right now in order to grab the base of support for major change within the church. We must find ways to wake up people who don't really see the injustice in the church. To some extent that means pushing against the system and forcing it to respond [page 154] [NOTE: This is a rare instance where CFFC admits to being divisive — yet, when it opposition reacts to CFFC's initiatives, it calls this kind of 'divisiveness' a bad thing. As always, anti-life groups claim the right to be divisive, while denying the same right to everyone else].
[REL*] "Yes, we really are talking about revolution. You see, when we do this kind of nice resistance, sort of polite, civil disobedience — which isn't terribly disobedient but it's awful civil — we are still treating the leadership with an enormous amount of respect. They don't deserve our respect. Difficult as it is to take it that next step, which is necessary, I would like to see women reach the point they understand that every bishop in this country should be so embarrassed that he is afraid to show his face in public [page 154] [NOTE: This from a person who demands respect for her viewpoints and condemns "right-wingers" if they do not show it].
"There is this very heavy dose of vinegar that is constantly coming out of the church: In their male rage, and in their fear of losing control, these men behave very badly. Every time something as dumb as stopping altar girls happens, it increases the size of the [dissent] movement. Every time you have someone like [Cardinal] Ratzinger or [Archbishop] Laghi coming down on a Charlie Curran, you increase the size of the movement. Our greatest stand right now is in pushing the institutional leadership into corners. We know when we push them into corners, they make mistakes. They don't know how to deal with people who confront them" [pages 154 and 155].
"For example, we get calls frequently from people who work in Planned Parenthood, or in abortion facilities, or health care facilities where abortions are performed. They tell us their priest said, "No, I'm sorry, we won't marry you. You may not be married in this parish." These things really mobilize people and that's what the church is doing to itself. ... Church government is not divinely ordained, and I have no particular overriding respect for that government. It is not sacred and should not be treated as sacred" [page 156].
"I have made a conscious decision that I will speak about abortion. It's not just abstract talk about theology and ethics. Rather, I will speak about who I am; how my life experience and the ethic flowing from it is universal. ... I and many others are not willing to have personal values and ethics lambasted from the altar. It is sheer hypocrisy. We are trying to force the church to a point where pastoral reality becomes consistent with the objective, public, political message. ... In another sense, however, we seek recognition of the moral agency of all women through the abortion issue. The question is, how do we get the church to acknowledge that women can be trusted to make good decisions? That is what we're pushing them to do on the abortion issue, to trust women" [pages 157 and 158].
"First of all, I do not believe that they [the hierarchy] care at all for fetuses. I do not believe they care one iota for fetal life. I have seen no evidence historically, or in recent times. ... This is the kind of hypocrisy that we're dealing with. It's not, I repeat, that bishops care about fetuses" [page 159].
"I come now to my second point. I do believe these men [the bishops] are deeply afraid of women. Deeply, deeply unconsciously afraid of women and the power of women" [page 160].
"Most women won't bother to confess the sin of abortion. First of all, they don't think they've committed a sin, and secondly, therefore, it's not a sin. ... Now, for example, there is this big emphasis within the U.S. church for the various dioceses to set up programs of reconciliation for women who have had abortions. In most places they're called Project Rachel, which I find offensive. It is named after "Rachel weeping for her children" in the massacre of the holy innocents scene. You see how dumb they [the bishops] really are? They even choose names that are inclined to increase guilt" [page 161].
"The Democratic party said in essence to the bishops, "We don't think you're so powerful. Despite your stand on abortion, and what you think about women, we're going to nominate this Catholic woman [Geraldine Ferraro] who's pro-choice. We don't think you bishops have political clout" [page 162].
"I, as a Catholic, don't want to impose the Catholic perspective on people of all faiths [NOTE: CFFC opposes the death penalty, which is a Catholic position on a moral issue that not all people of all faiths agree with]. ... I must show some respect for people who have a religiously based concern about the fetus" [page 165].
"They are much happier of many of us ... if I went away. But I'm not going anywhere. I have no reason to leave. I won't give them the satisfaction of leaving. Secondly, I feel an obligation to other women to stick with it. It's not up to me to leave other women alone in the church. I think I'm a good Catholic. They should be happy to have me" [page 168].
"We will see women ordained in my lifetime. Once women are ordained, that becomes the key to change. ... Even in political terms, you can't get to be an ambassador in this church unless you're a priest. I'd love to be the Vatican ambassador to France. I think that would be a wonderful job. ... To get those changes we have to become nasty. ... In a political structure you first confront and create polarization" [page 169] [NOTE: If CFFC's opponents do exactly the same thing, CFFC condemns them as 'divisive forces'].
"But, in the meantime, I think it's time to stop being nice. ... We have suffered the death of Marjorie Tuite, one of the [1984 New York Times pro-abortion] ad signers. [Although] her case was settled, many people feel she lost her will to fight for life when she got cancer. Intense demoralization occurred in her through the year-and-a-half struggle with the Vatican. She gave up. Her community betrayed her, the church betrayed her, and she was profoundly affected. It was such an enormous shock when this happened to her. She would muse, "How can they do this to me? I have given so many years." She had been faithful and loyal. They slapped her in the face and threw her in the garbage. It destroyed her, and when the cancer came, she had no will to fight it" [page 170] [NOTE: This is a reference to Marjorie Tuite, one of the signers of the CFFC "diversity of opinion New York Times advertisement and Director of Ecumenical Action for the dissenting group Church Women United].
"We have to [challenge] the organization called the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes, CRIS. Two people in that institute come regularly to this country. I don't think they should be allowed to show their faces in the United States of America without the women of this country, and our church, confronting them with their complicity in the death of Marjorie Tuite" [page 170] [NOTE: It is absurd that CFFC either did not expect a reaction from the Vatican, or did not properly prepare the signers of the advertisement for such a reaction. Naturally, CFFC and Kissling, who conceived the idea of the ad and rounded up the signatures, disavow any responsibility whatsoever for Tuite's death]. ...
[REL*] "We women value good manners. But these men don't deserve good manners. We must get to the point where once we know they don't deserve good manners, we're capable of taking to the streets. ... Nothing will drive them crazier than to be treated without dignity" [page 170].
"If Jesus looked at what the church had become in terms of its institutional governmental character, it would not please him. And he'd throw them out! ... One of the things I think is so tragic is that part of me finds that John Paul II has a certain capacity to give a positive message to the world. There's something in his writings and in his glimmers of a mystical spiritual vision which could be very valuable to the church. But that vision is ruled by his need to control. Somewhere in himself, and in our church leadership, [the pope] has lost his ability to trust, not only the people of the church, but to trust himself" [page 171].
— Excerpts from Frances Kissling's input to Annie Lally Milhaven's book The Inside Stories: 13 Valiant Women Challenging the Church [Mystic, Connecticut: Twenty-Third Publications], 1987, pages 147 to 171 [foreword by Rosemary Radford Ruether]. These excerpts are also printed in Conscience, September-December 1987, pages 29 to 37 [emphasis in the original book].
[pic]
"Honest debate is the only way to get this abortion bone out of the Catholic throat so that we can get on to more important pro-life issues [like hunger, health care, overpopulation, and "militarism"].
— Daniel Maguire (former Jesuit priest and former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors), quoted in "The Catholic Legacy and Abortion: A Debate." Commonweal, November 20, 1987, page 657.
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1988
"If there is a symbol of American dissent it is, and has been since 1968, the condom and the pill. ...
— David Earle Anderson. "AIDS Debate: Catholic Teaching Within U.S. Reality." Conscience, January/February 1988, pages 1 and 4 to 6.
[pic]
[ABO] Small wonder it is offensive to those vestigial defenders of the mind-shutting ancien régime which did moral teaching (especially about sex) by dictatorial fiat. ... The bishops, like all religiously-affiliated persons, are legitimate "participants in the public life of this nation" [NOTE: But only if they agree with CFFC's position on an issue]. ...
Matters that we would condemn at the level of personal choice may be countenanced in the public realm to avoid great harm to the common good. Thus, said Aquinas, a Christian legislator might permit prostitution if the attempt to cancel it out might do more harm to society than good. In effect, Aquinas and Augustine were personally opposed to prostitution but said it should nevertheless be legal. ...
"Expertise and teaching authority does not result from being appointed to church office, but from learning and study. Episcopal ordination does not, by transubstantiation, turn a non-theologian into a theologian. We owe a lot to O'Connor and Law for making this so obvious. ... Vatican II almost went overboard on the point: "The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the holy One, cannot err in matters of belief." ...
It is moral to remove a woman's cancerous pregnant uterus, but her loss of fertility and of the embryo, that she hoped would become her child, are painful collateral evils — but not moral evils. The surgery achieves the most good available. ... Contraception can be considerably less negative (a lesser evil) than an unwanted pregnancy. A woman who has an abortion may be making a pro-life choice since life is a rich mix of negatives and positives; she may be doing the least evil and the most possible good in her circumstances. ... When contraception fails, abortion could be positively counseled as the lesser evil. So, again, O'Connor is dead right. This lesser-evil business could shatter the oppressive simplicities that he brings to complex matters in which he has no experience and little expertise."
— Daniel C. Maguire (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Diversity on AIDS: Legitimate and Welcome." Conscience, January/February 1988, pages 3 and 4.
[pic]
[HOM] "Until now, the bishops haven't liked condoms because they prevent conception. Dr. Ruth, or perhaps a yet to be discovered Sister Ruth, needs to tell the John [Cardinal] O'Connors that sex between males isn't about conceiving babies. The church may declare homosexual sex sinful, and warn that it means more business for hell, but can there be a double sin — eternity plus a million years — when a gay puts on a Trojan?
"This rectory fracas would be good for a laugh, or rate only a weary sigh, except that it adds one more insult to those dying and suffering from AIDS. O'Connor, a narrow-minded legalist-moralizer far out of his depth in any public health issue as complicated as AIDS, has detracted from the valuable work that many church people are doing in this field. In his prevenient [anticipatory] way, O'Connor believes, as do other simplifiers, that AIDS would be no problem if people would only behave. ... There is more to be learned about compassion for AIDS patients from Elizabeth Taylor than John O'Connor.
— Colman McCarthy. "AIDS, Condoms and the Cardinal's Answer." Conscience, January/February 1988, page 9.
[pic]
"This victory confirms our understanding of obedience as responsible decision-making. ... And now we know this church can change and we can change this church, but only through struggle, honesty, speaking out, taking risks and being clear [NOTE: There is never any mention by CFFC members that they might change in the slightest, of course]. ...
"We believe that dissent falls within the rights and responsibilities of all Roman Catholics. The official church has a responsibility to foster a climate in which faithful dissent is incorporated into the ongoing life of the community."
— "Statement of Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey." Conscience, May/June 1988, page 4.
[pic]
"Women are said to have a "vocation" to motherhood, while men are never said to have any vocation to fatherhood. This means that parenting is, in fact, not a "partnership," but a female job. Fathers "help" mothers in what remains essentially "women's work." ...
"Women, like laymen, then, in some sense, do not really belong to the church, but are outside and "under" the church. This is reflected in the fact that the bishops still use the term "church" to refer, not to a community that encompasses laity and clergy, but to themselves as hierarchy. Basically, the bishops want women to be the subordinate "helpers" of the "church" — i.e., the clergy."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "The Catholic Bishops' Pastoral on Women: A Flawed Effort." Conscience, May/June 1988, pages 5 and 6.
[pic]
"We don't even see the hint of developing an office of women's concerns in every diocese, a watchdog committee to monitor implementation, nor strategies for breaking the hegemony of the bishops-only decision making of the national church. Until each bishop sits at the conference table with a woman of equal rank from the diocese, this letter [the 1988 USCC letter "Partners in the Mystery of Redemption"] will remain a kind of novel. ...
"We do not want the largess of the bishops for a few women deacons who will solve their priest shortage by their boundless energy and ministerial skill, unless the episcopacy is open to women" [NOTE: This is a warning to those naïve enough to believe some feminists who say they only want the diaconate opened to women, and no more].
— Mary E. Hunt. "Limited Partners." Conscience, May/June 1988, pages 6 to 10.
[pic]
[ABO] "A recent study of views held by U.S. Catholics on abortion — taken from an extensive poll of attitudes on the issue by Hickman-Maslin Research Inc., a Washington, D.C. polling firm — showed that there exists "a lot of misinformation" about the issue, said pollster Harrison Hickman at the briefing [NOTE: This is precisely the mission of CFFC: To create confusion, indecision and division among the faithful].
"Many of Catholic and non-Catholic attitudes against abortion rights are driven by stereotypes which portray women who typically have abortions as liberal, college-educated and single, Hickman said [NOTE: According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the research arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, these are precisely the characteristics of the average abortion patient. Therefore, this is no stereotype]. ...
"People are massively uninformed about Catholic tradition and thought, said [Daniel] Maguire, especially as a result of arguments by Catholic bishops that there exists a "clear and constant teaching" on the issue of abortion [NOTE: This is precisely the opposite of reality: There certainly is a "clear and constant" teaching by the bishops on abortion, and it is CFFC that is trying to muddy the waters]. ...
"There has been no systematic thinking in Jewish-Christian tradition on abortion. There is nothing in the Bible on it," Maguire said. Not until the end of the nineteenth century did the Vatican emerge with a rigid, anti-abortion position, that most persons, including legislators, believe is the "Catholic tradition." Because of this prochoice tradition in legitimate Catholic teachings, legislators who are prochoice must not allow prolifers to claim any moral ground or to challenge their religious integrity, he said" [NOTE: Get this? The Catholic church's legitimate teaching is "prochoice," according to Maguire]!
— Janice Hughes. "The Catholic Constituency: What Church Leaders Don't Tell Congress." Conscience, May/June 1988, pages 2 and 10.
[pic]
[ABO][VIC] "Kissling stressed that while the Catholic Church is suddenly fixated on the powerlessness of the fetus, it has never concerned itself with the powerlessness of women. She described the Church's role in the matter of public funding of abortion: "What is peculiarly disturbing to me is that the church has once again picked on the powerless. Once again the poor are the brunt of the desire of church men, and sometimes legislators, to make a moral statement that this is a country that does not approve of abortion — they are willing to use the poor as a method of making that statement. This is totally contrary to current Catholic teaching, a teaching which we have learned emphasizes standing with the poor, making a preferential option for the poor, trusting poor women, as we should trust all women, to make good decisions about their own life, and creating these options for them. This is what is particularly distasteful to thoughtful Catholics about the Michigan Referendum." ...
"[Kissling] urged members of the audience to reclaim their Catholicism, not to consider themselves "ex-Catholics," nor "lapsed Catholics" but instead, "recovering Catholics" — recovering from the pain of oppression in the church, of making a choice to leave the church because it could not meet their needs; and recovering their Catholic heritage as Catholics.
"During Frances' speeches and in most interviews, one question often arose: "Haven't you automatically excommunicated yourself from the church?" In response, Kissling described the stringent criteria for self excommunication, and explained that Catholics who dissent on abortion as a matter of conscience do not excommunicate themselves. Moreover, no one has ever been excommunicated by Church officials for publicly expressing their views on the matter."
— Margaret Conway. "Public Funding: CFFC Makes Waves in Michigan Abortion Rights Battle." Conscience, May/June 1988, pages 12 to 16.
[pic]
[ABO] "[Pro-lifers are] going far beyond the usual civil disobedience. They are committing direct violence against women. A woman whose abortion is delayed increases her health risks, and commotion outside a clinic increases stress and affects the performance of medical personnel."
— Ellen Carton, New York executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), quoted in "Gazette." Conscience, May/June 1988, page 17.
[pic]
[ABO][HIS*] "Four million abortions are performed annually in Brazil. ... Most significantly, ten percent, or 400,000 of the abortions, result in the death of women, because of poorly performed procedures."
— "Gazette." Conscience, May/June 1988, page 18 [NOTE: This is the wildest exaggeration any pro-abortion group has ever dared print. The Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (IBGE, or Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) showed that only 55,066 Brazilian women between the ages of 14 and 50 died of all causes in 1980. The IBGE figures were confirmed by World Health Organization statistics showing that 41,685 Brazilian women between the ages of 15 and 41 died in 1986 and, of these, 241 died of complications due to both legal and illegal abortions. This means that CFFC is deliberately inflating the actual number of illegal abortion deaths by a factor of (400,000/241) = 1,660! (November 13, 1991 Reuters news service releases of various titles to newspapers all over the world. Also see the December 30, 1991 letter of Dr. Geraldo Hideu Osanai, President, Associacao Pro-Vida de Brasilia, to Andrew M. Nibley and Thomas D. Thompson of the Reuters News Agency in New York City)].
[pic]
[ABO] "A cardinal caught running an illegal abortion clinic in Rome is the stuff of papal nightmares. But Frances Kissling, president of the American lobby group, Catholics for a Free Choice, is no ordinary prince of the church. Nicknamed "The Cardinal" by friends and foes for her determined opposition to the Catholic hierarchy's teaching on abortion, she actually went so far as to defiantly found an abortion clinic within sight of the Vatican's walls.
"Mine is a mission," pronounces Ms. Kissling in unmistakable New York tones. "I think the pope is very conservative. He is the greatest mind of the fifth century, but unfortunately we live in the twentieth century. ... I felt what we were doing at the clinic was correct. Abortion goes on whether it's legal or illegal. The question was what kind of abortion is a woman going to get," she says. "Just because I'm no longer in the convent doesn't mean I've lost the basic principle that God made me to make this world a better place." ... She began running illegal abortion clinics in Mexico and Rome. ... Ms. Kissling, unmarried, childless and sterilized, is not an obvious spokesperson for the pregnant woman. ... "For me to be pregnant would be an enormous violation of my own personal integrity" ... The ex-head of an abortion clinic goes to Confession and takes Communion with a clear conscience. "I have never been threatened with excommunication. I choose not to think about it. I am saying and doing nothing that Catholics don't have the right to say and do," she maintains. ...
"The key to change, Ms. Kissling believes, is the ordination of women. "Now all the positions of responsibility in the church are held not just by men, but by clerics. I'd love to be the Vatican ambassador to France. I think that would be a wonderful job.
"And after that? "Sure, I'll go to Heaven, I'm certainly not going to Hell. The important thing is for us to do our work here on earth. We were put here to do a job and I feel particularly lucky I have found my place."
— "Kissling Takes Debate to London: Challenging the Vatican on Abortion." Conscience, May/June 1988, story beginning on back cover. This article was also printed in the March 31, 1988 edition of The Irish Times.
[pic]
[ABO] "Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) is a national educational organization that supports the right to legal reproductive health care, especially to family planning and abortion."
— Conscience, July/August 1988, page 2.
[pic]
"We now believe that the leadership has affirmed that right to be a member and hold public positions on non-infallible teachings that differ from official church teachings."
— Former nuns Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey. "Prochoice Nuns Move On." Conscience, July/August 1988, page 2.
[pic]
[ABO][BIG] "I view the abortion debate in similar historical and philosophical fashion. Coffin-carrying outside hospitals and doctors' offices, arsoning of women's clinics and excommunicating Catholic women are forms of Cromwellian fanaticism. ... What, we ask, nourishes in "religious" people the stridency, even the criminality we read and observe? ..."
— Annie Lally Milhaven. "Fatherly Fanaticism." Conscience, July/August 1988, page 6.
[pic]
[SEX] "It is important to remember that sexual relations do not necessarily form a relationship, nor does insemination alone create fatherhood. ... You have no moral obligation to consult him or to consider his desire that you continue the pregnancy.
"If you are married to the man, or if you are in a stable, permanent relationship with him which you want to continue, and you both wanted to conceive, you would have a serious obligation to listen to and consider his views. You would owe him a full explanation of the reasons for your decision. Ultimately, however, the decision is yours.
"In the case of an unplanned pregnancy in a marriage it is possible that your husband may want to have a baby while you may not. If he has already proven himself a good father and partner in parenting, providing not just his share of financial support but also his share of child care, you have a serious obligation to be sensitive to his wishes. Your husband also has an obligation to consider your wish not to have a child and not request that you put his desires above your own. ... Again, however, the final decision is yours.
— Excerpt from Marjorie Reiley Maguire and Daniel C. Maguire (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). Abortion: A Guide to Making Ethical Choices. Also excerpted in "What Obligation Do I Have to the Man Who Is Involved?" Conscience, July/August 1988, page 8.
[pic]
[ABO][REL][SLO][HOM] "There is no theological or scientific consensus on the beginning of human life. ... The job of religious progressives is to clearly state that women are to be trusted, that women have and will continue to make just and person-enhancing choices about the quality of life — beginning with the quality of women's lives. ... We need to develop a society where women's reproductive choice is normative and where reproductive options are considered a human right. ...
"Third, clinic bombing and harassment campaigns are a prevalent part of our contemporary moral landscape. Even when the "bombs" are verbal instead of chemical they take a toll. They are destructive of the patient and the providers who fear for their safety, their reputations and their well-being.
"The strategy of civil disobedience, which included bringing about the arrest of a bishop in New York, is designed as much to wear down pro-choice people emotionally, psychically and spiritually as it is to close clinics. It is one more way of accomplishing the heinous goal of preventing women from being moral agents, from honoring our bodily integrity. ...
[REL] "Women's right is choose is what I, as a Catholic, dare to call sacramental. ... Reproductive choice is a sacred trust and women are more than equal to the task. Bringing this to public expression, "praising our choices" as poet Marge Piercy has said, is something that a just society will celebrate as sacramental.
[SEX] "Second, "fathers'" rights need to be considered, but they are far down the ethical ladder when it comes to who decides about abortion. ... I mean especially lesbian mothers who have the right, not the privilege, to use reproductive technology to choose to have children by self insemination (we no linger consider it "artificial." ... Third, in a just society every health maintenance organization, every insurance company and every group practice will include abortion as a regular part of its services without the need to agonize, specialize and ostracize when the word is mentioned. ... It reminds me of the doctors who have chosen not to treat people with AIDS. In a just society, such doctors would, as Dr. Mervyn Silverman suggested, get another kind of work. ..."
— Mary E. Hunt (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Abortion in a Just Society." Conscience, July/August 1988, pages 9 to 12 [emphasis in original].
[pic]
[HIS][VIC][SLO] "Daily in Bogot , Caracas, La Paz and Santiago, hundreds of women receive emergency treatment in maternity hospitals, clinics and other hospitals where they arrive in a critical condition after having tried to induce abortions themselves or been to untrained backstreet abortionists. ... They spoke of thousands of women, unable to pay the high cost of an abortion carried out in hygienic conditions, who were forced to resort to unsafe backstreet abortions, which caused their deaths. ... Maternity hospitals are over flowing with women needing emergency attention, causing congestion in all the services available.
— Ana Maria Portugal and Amparo Claro. "Virgin and Martyr." Conscience, July/August 1988, pages 14 to 18.
[pic]
[ABO] "I also realized the futility and stupidity of those who think that women who risk their lives to get illegal abortions would be deterred from getting an abortion by picketing, sidewalk counseling and violence at abortion facilities.
"Its [the Roe v. Wade decision] greatest strength — and ours — is its own centrist position" [NOTE: Whoa! Roe v. Wade is “centrist?” Abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason or for no reason at all is “centrist?” We’d hate to see a law that is too “pro-choice,” in the opinion of CFFC!]
— Frances Kissling. "Summer Releases: Four 'Must' Reads." Conscience, July/August 1988, pages 19 and 20.
[pic]
[ABO*][EUG] "I am fathering a child for the first time. ...
"A case can be made that those called to a specifically "religious community" (like the Jesuits) rather than the "secular" life of the parish priest chose an obligation to more, and so had an insistent and organizational demand to marry and reproduce for the Church's freer future, once celibacy lost its institutional defenses. ... My religious liberty, to choose children with my priesthood, gains new life with this pregnancy. Now I feel even better about my fight for legal reproductive choice, for the religious liberty, rights of women who choose abortion and children.
"Tomorrow morning Carol will undergo, with my encouragement, a chorionic villi sampling test (CVS) to determine whether our child is chromosomally defective, and whether termination of the pregnancy should be considered. ...
"I believe free choice is the Roman Catholic position, and the only true "anti-abortion" position that works. I believe you can only "out-love" not outlaw abortion [NOTE: So perhaps we can also say that the best "anti-rape" position is that which calls for the decriminalization of rape]. ...
"Only yesterday, I held Carol's hand and watched my baby, the future, The O'Rourke dance in the snowy dark of ultrasound. ... If my wife has an abortion without me, for reasons I didn't approve, wouldn't compromise about, couldn't comprehend, couldn't control at all, to avoid responsibility rather than to gain generosity, I'd be sad and afraid, and then angry, and finally, cold and decisive. It would be a deal-breaker, all right. I might even go to court — and it wouldn't be about her right to choose. I'd feel betrayed, lied to, stolen from. I'd think less of her I'd feel violated [NOTE: And this is from the same people that say that fathers have no rights at all in the abortion decision].
"[CFFC] Editor's Note: We received this article from Joe O'Rourke on July 19. ... That same day Carol O'Rourke received a call from her doctor informing her that the first test results from CVS indicated their child carried the gene called Trisomy 21, which results in Downs Syndrome. Joe and carol spent the day together. On Wednesday, Joe saw a priest, a theologian, three male friends, had lunch with Carol, and then they saw their doctor at 2:00 p.m., the geneticist at 3:00 p.m., and a therapist at 4:00 p.m. They terminated the pregnancy on Friday morning, July 22, 1988" [NOTE: O'Rourke referred to "my baby, the future, The O'Rourke" when he thought it was healthy. Then, when he found it was handicapped, he disposed of it as garbage. This highlights the exploitative, heartless, selfish and utilitarian mindset of pro-abortionists as nothing else could].
— Joe O'Rourke. "Ruminations of a Father to Be." Conscience, September/October 1988, pages 1 and 19 to 21 [italics in the original].
[pic]
[HIS][ABO] "When given an opportunity to vote directly on abortion through state or local referenda, the public has repudiated the antiabortion position."
— "Politicians Remain Out of Sync With Voters on Abortion." Conscience, September/October 1988, page 2 [NOTE: Really? Then why have taxpayers voted in favor of pro-life measures most of the time — such as voting down forced taxpayer funding of abortions almost every chance they get?]
[pic]
[ABO] "Fifteen years ago I was pro-choice because I judged the new fetus to be a little thing. Today I am much more pro-choice that I was then, because I judge the new fetus to be a big thing, important, precious. Not the biggest thing in the world, not the most important, not the most precious. Far from it — the life of the fetus can often be outweighed by other realities of human life. But the life of the fetus is a big enough, important enough, precious enough thing for pregnant women I have listened to that I am more convinced than ever that no one else should restrict their decision on what to do with it [NOTE: This is just a ploy to make pro-abortionists seem humane and sympathetic. Note that a preborn child will never be "big enough, important enough, precious enough" to merit survival if the mother does not want it].
"... pollsters said that the safe position for one running for public office, even in districts where pro-life was strong, was for the politician to express personal abhorrence of abortion in general while recognizing that under circumstances it might be morally and should be legally justified. No politician, said the pollsters, has lost a significant number of votes by taking that position [NOTE: Now we know the real rationale for the cowardly "personally opposed" slogan — to troll for votes].
"No one else, therefore, can know as well how valuable, how precious, how much ought to be respected the obscure reality that is the human fetus. I consequently know no one else better qualified than women to decide when it is best to destroy life and when to let it grow on.
"Theologian Marjorie Reiley Maguire stirs my thinking by suggesting that mutuality is what constitutes "person." But for that, I submit against Maguire, real psychic mutuality is necessary. This happens only when two beings consciously communicate with each other. For real mutuality the mother's welcome or consent does not suffice. The new life must consciously respond [NOTE: This is very frightening. If the "new life" does not "consciously respond," in Milhaven's lofty opinion, then it can be destroyed. Of course, Milhaven probably reserves the definition of "consciously respond" to himself]. ... As mutuality, I see the new life as person only once it consciously responds to either the welcome or rejection of the mother or whatever else it first senses the mother doing to it."
— J. Giles Milhaven (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Becoming Prolife While Staying Prochoice." Conscience, September/ October 1988, pages 15 to 18.
[pic]
[ADU][FOR] "The rules that will emerge when women are part of the policy process will not resemble the obsolete regulations presently prescribed for men and women with regard to birth control, abortion, divorce, and sexual relations outside a context of love."
— "Noted feminist sociologist" Sister Marie Augusta Neal, quoted in Frances Kissling. "Editorial." Conscience, November/December 1988, page 2.
[pic]
"Suggestions for Change
— What the Bishops Can Do …
6. Change the Structures: As it stands now, women cannot even participate at the higher levels of church governance. Canon law should be changed to allow women to take part in decision-making processes at all levels of the church. The structures of the church should be changed to be more democratic to allow involvement of all Catholics.
7. Ordain Women: As long as the priesthood is restricted to men, women cannot participate equally with men in the church. In addition, the all-male priesthood sets up barriers for women and priests working together."
— "All Work and No Say: A Bishops Watch Report on Women's Employment in U.S. Catholic Dioceses." Conscience, November/December 1988, page 18.
[pic]
[REL*] "Pat [Hussey] and Barbara [Ferraro] became a red flag to the hierarchy. No longer having a police force, army, prisons, or the ability to burn people at the stake, the church in the twentieth century relies on the voluntary compliance of the governed to retain power. This is a fact that they like to keep secret, and Barbara and Pat's defiance was screaming it to the world."
— Frances Kissling, quoted in Claudia Dreifus. "Out of Order." Ms. Magazine, December 1988, pages 64 to 67.
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1989
[HYP] "I think these are the images we need to keep before us: Images of women willing to do whatever necessary to secure needed abortions; images of women acting unselfishly and with as much compassion as possible. They are courageous images that clearly contrast with the pictures of individuals who are prepared to force or coerce others into following their ways and their visions of righteousness."
— Frances Kissling. "Operation Rescue." Conscience, January/February 1989, pages 7 and 8 [NOTE: This is a classic example of the persistent pro-abortion urge to stand things on their heads. Women who slaughter their preborn children are "courageous," "unselfish" and "compassionate," and those who are willing to sacrifice much to save them are evil and wicked control freaks].
[pic]
[ABO*][REL] "... I want to suggest how we might reinforce and affirm moral choice through attention to liturgy and ritual about reproduction. ... I want us to see choice as a holy, moral option, one that not only makes us whole but that underscores the reverence we have for life, beginning with our own. ... I come to this issue as a Roman Catholic feminist with all the training and experience to be a bishop in my church. ... I have a strong sense of the importance of liturgy and ritual for reproductive nourishment, for spiritual nourishment. ... I want to affirm as a Roman Catholic woman the value of a prochoice position. Like many theologians, I claim that abortion is always tragic but sometimes necessary. This is simply obvious and needs no argument — unless you live in the rarified atmosphere of the Vatican these days. ...The violent way in which most women are treated by Catholic officials ... indicates just the opposite. I think we're led to see domestic violence within our own churches, within our own religious homes. And just as the anti-domestic violence movement has created safe places for battered women, so too do we in the religious realm need to create the safe places, the sanctuaries for women who are making choices regarding reproduction. ...
"We also need to create a strong supportive community among ourselves so that we can welcome the woman with an unwanted pregnancy into a circle of caring people. Such support will help her believe that her choices are moral and holy as well as assure her that she is not alone, that she stands with other holy women who have walked a similar path before her. ... When we dare to stand up and say that a woman is holy, that a woman is moral by making such a choice, we are shaking the foundations [of the Church]. ... I've been struck over and over by the lack of ritual surrounding choice. But as we look at the rise of women's spirituality I think we will begin to see, and are seeing, more rituals relating to reproductive choices. ... My thesis is that ritual can in fact support women in their reproductive decisions and help them come to make those decisions. ...
"Second example. Sue has made a difficult and wrenching decision to have an abortion. After her procedure, she asks the doctor to give her the remains so that she can dispose of them in a thoughtful way. As you can see, Sue respects the integrity of her body, and she has a deep sense of her own body. At home, she gathers her friends together, including her partner, Tom, for a ceremony of mourning. They unite in a circle with arms around one another as they sing. Her friends express their sadness and affirm Sue in her choice. They pray. "Blessed are you, holy God, mother and father, that you've given us the power of choice. We are saddened that the life circumstances of Sue and Tom are such that the choice to bring this pregnancy to completion is not a life-giving one for all involved. Such a choice is never simple; it’s filled with pain and hurt, with anger and questions. Our beloved sister has made a very hard choice. We affirm her and support her in her choice. We promise to continue to stand with her in her ongoing life. Blessed are you, Holy One, for your presence with her." Then Sue speaks about her choice to have an abortion and why she has made this choice. After she finishes she digs a hole in the earth, and her partner, Tom, does the same, and they bury the material from the abortion in the earth and pray. "O Mother Earth, we lay this spirit to rest in your bosom."
"These rituals and others, including rituals for artificial insemination, rituals of healing for miscarriages, rituals for first menstruation, for menopause, for cleansing after rape and incest. ... [NOTE: Predictably, there is no "ritual" for choosing life and bringing a baby into the world, showing that these people truly are pro-abortion]. ... making responsible choices about reproduction is good for us, good for the churches, and good for our society [NOTE: Naturally, the writer offers no evidence that this is true, because it obviously is not true]. ...
"When we make decisions about reproduction, as women have done throughout history, we are exerting our right to act in a moral realm. And this right belongs to every woman regardless of class, race, or sexual preference. ...
"And finally, celebrating reproductive choices, especially the always tragic choice to abort, gives us the opportunity to name the divine who accompanies all human activity. That she is just (she being the divine), loving, and merciful, a sanctuary and a place of rest is only mirrored by a community that affirms its own in the difficult choices of reproduction. In this sense I think that we can say when a group gathers, even when two or three gather to affirm a woman's right to choose and the integrity of her choice, this group gathers in her name, in the name of the holy, in the name of the divine."
— Diann Neu, Co-Director, Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER). "Affirming Our Work, Creating Our Community." Conscience, January/February 1989, pages 9 to 12. This is the text of a talk Neu gave at a CFFC conference in October 1988 in Albuquerque.
[pic]
[ABO*][STU] "Little boys have had their tear ducts excised. They are told that big boys don't cry. Part of our socialization process has stunted men in their affect while it allowed women to retain their feelings. ... I feel that children are the sacrament of salvation for the human race. I think the rhythms that can save us, if we can indeed be saved, flow through the veins of our children. Children don't need baptism to be put into grace. Baptism celebrates the grace that children are.
"What arrogance for men to move into reproductive methods and suddenly say that either male clergy or male legislators will have to control your choice because we can't trust you. That's what the antichoice movement is. It's strictly a form of misogyny. It is not "prolife;" it is antiwoman. If it were "prolife," it would not have found a home amid the cruelties of right-wing ideology.
"The only morally good decision for any abortion is a prolife decision. And it's only a prolife decision when you understand life as a continuum, an interstitial web of multiple interdependent values that must be considered. And it's affirming life that makes an abortion a good decision. Abortion is moral when it is the best that life offers in a imperfect and often tragic world."
— Daniel C. Maguire (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Whose Decision, Whose Morals? Women as Moral Decision Makers." Conscience, January/February 1989, pages 13 and 12.
[pic]
[ABO][EUG] "I have often used the example of Down's syndrome when talking about abortion and pointed out that from a biological point of view, it is a relatively minor abnormality and apparently can sometimes escape the natural mechanisms for detecting an abnormality which eliminate the trisomes of the other larger chromosomes. In this context I see abortion as truly therapeutic, merely enhancing a natural regulatory mechanism in exactly the same way as an antibiotic helps our white cells fight an infection."
— Letter from Malcolm Potts, President, Family Health International [FHI]. Conscience, January/February 1989, page 23.
[pic]
[VIC][ABO] "For women to become the decision makers over reproduction is to overthrow the material and ideological base of the entire hierarchy of male power over women, based on control over women's capacity to bear children."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether. "Who's Who Among Speakers at the CFFC Conference." Conscience, March/April 1989, pages 10, 11 and 14.
[pic]
[ABO] "What we are doing is telling Catholics they can no longer remain silent. It's essentially time to tell the bishops to get out of this" [abortion battle].
— Frances Kissling, President of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC), quoted in Peggy Simpson. "The Gathering Storm: Politics." Ms. Magazine, April 1989, page 88.
[pic]
[ABO][ILL] "I would like to see a huge underground of activist women learning how to do menstrual extractions and vacuum aspiration abortions, mothers teaching their daughters, sub rosa [covert] classes at campus women's centers ..."
— Frances Kissling, President of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC), quoted in Brett Harvey. "The Morning After." Mother Jones, May 1989, pages 28 to 31 and 43.
[pic]
[ABO] "He [Justice Harry Blackmun] also criticized his fellow justices in unusually harsh language for their bankrupt legal reasoning and their callous lack of concern for the lives, health, liberty, and settled expectations of the country's citizens" [NOTE: This refers to a minor pro-life Supreme Court decision on abortion. Well, golly, we wouldn't want to disturb the "settled expectations" of the nation just to save a few million lives, would we? Perhaps we shouldn't have "disturbed the settled expectations" of the people to allow women to vote, or to free the slaves, either].
— Conscience, July/August 1989, pages 1 to 5 and 13.
[pic]
[HIS][HYP][REL][STU] "What it [the Constitution] does prohibit is writing into law specific sectarian religious views. And the present teaching of the Catholic Church — that abortion is always evil — is a sectarian religious view opposed by other churches with equally valid sacred traditions [NOTE: CFFC never mentions that the present teaching of the Unitarians — that abortion should remain legal with no restrictions through all nine months of pregnancy — is a "sectarian religious view opposed by other churches"].
"What [Cardinal] Mahony conveniently ignores is the fact that there is no Catholic Church teaching on the legality of abortion [NOTE: Really? Try Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae for a start]. ... Additionally, the Catholic Church's teaching on the primacy of informed conscience actually requires that a Catholic follow her conscience rather than the teachings of the church (the immorality of abortion is a noninfallible teaching) when there is a conflict between the two.
"Only when abortion is illegal do we find that the ability of some individuals to practice their faith has been compromised [NOTE: Now getting an abortion is "practicing one's faith]! ... Should we be surprised that the church, which has never done anything to help women fight sex discrimination, is more willing to fight for fetuses than for women? ... If the archbishop truly believed in the sanctity of life, he might not be so willing to sacrifice actual women's lives for the potential person represented by a fetus. ...
"Is there any way in which the Catholic Church's recommended policy creates a kinder, gentler nation? ... In his zeal to claim the ideals of the "American experiment" for partisan church politics, the archbishop mocks everything that the American model represents. Catholics and other persecuted minorities left the Old World to escape a life in which intolerance and fanaticism were allowed to disrupt the civic order. Those who fled religious persecution were particularly concerned with establishing a nation wherein individuals could conduct their lives in accordance with God and their consciences. We in the New World were to establish a land of liberty and thus become a "beacon for the oppressed," a shining light of hope for the tyrannized peoples of the world. Mahony now seeks to extinguish that light [NOTE: Good heavens! Have you ever seen such unmitigated garbage?!] ... In the wake of Archbishop Mahony's battle cry of Catholic hegemony, the eyes of all people will now follow not only Mahony and his coercive tactics, but all Catholics officials who threaten the American way of life with religious tyranny."
— Nancy H. Evans. "Archbishop Mahony's Bully Pulpit." Conscience, July/August 1989, pages 6 to 9.
[pic]
[VIC*] "Meeting attendees were eager to share their experiences: frustration upon attending a mass featuring an antichoice sermon: anger at Catholic support of "prolife Sunday;" their feelings of isolation as prochoice Catholics; incredulity at the church's position on birth control; and dismay at the prohibition on ordination for women, which denies women full participation in their church. ... What Can You Do? ... Write your bishop directly, asking him to stop spending church monies on restricting abortion. Ask him instead to spend that money on programs, which will provide women with a full range of reproductive options."
— Margaret Conway. "State Updates." Conscience, July/August 1989, pages 16 and 17.
[pic]
[ABO] "This book represents the first step in the long journey women in Latin America are taking. They are unraveling the historical truth of a Roman Catholic church hierarchy trapped in its past hatred of women and thus unable to acknowledge women's capacity to make good decisions about when and whether to bear children. Nowhere is this distrust of women more evident than in the church's approach to abortion. ... Church leaders imply — or say outright — that fetuses are persons, entitled to an absolute right to life; abortion therefore is murder. ... As recently as 1974, in the Vatican Declaration on Procured Abortion issued by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Magisterium admitted that the personhood of the fetus could not be determined by science or medicine. It was, they said, properly a theological matter — a theological matter about which church theologians were not yet in agreement. ... All nuance their claims by saying: "Abortion is the equivalent of murder" or "the fetus must be treated as if it were a person" ... [NOTE: Nowhere does the Declaration on Procured Abortion say either of these things].
"Still, probabilism remains "on the books" and is in fact essential to Catholic integrity. Without some such corrective possibility, the church could remain locked into an erroneous consensus with the remedy of corrective dissent precluded. ... A final important lesson of probabilism is this: no moral debate — and that includes abortion — is beyond the scope of a probabilistic solution. To quote Father Henry Davis: "It is the merit of Probabilism that there are no exceptions whatever to its application; once given a really probable reason for the lawfulness of an action in a particular case, thought contrary reasons may be stronger, there are no occasions on which I may not act in accordance with the good probable reason that I have found."
"Why, indeed, when women so desperately seek to make good and faithful decisions about pregnancies, does the church so cruelly limit its information to a simplistic and harsh no?
"From this analogy we draw further evidence that the church's opposition to abortion is not grounded in its ethics about killing but rather in its ethic of sexuality and women. This ethic is characterized by historic and present day hostility, even hatred of women, the body, and sexuality.
"In women-church we come together to celebrate our lives, to study, and to work for a change in the institutional church."
Frances Kissling. "Latin American Feminists Speak Out." Conscience, July/ August 1989, pages 21 to 23 [italics in the original].
[pic]
[ABO] "This approach reflects the fact that the role of ethicists is changing. Instead of being answer-givers in the twenty-first century, pronouncing on values in an absolute and privileged way, ethicists will contribute most creatively by helping people to live more comfortably with ambiguity. We will find ways to be comfortable with the answer "We do not know" about pre-embryonic human life. ... simple prattle from some Catholic prelates is a good example of what to avoid. ... They present attractive solutions, however because they boil down complex consideration into one-dimensional thinking. But they are hopelessly inadequate and morally embarrassing. ...
"My own bias is in the direction of seeing reproduction as a communal responsibility that individuals carry out.
"My proposal for skirting this trap is to think first in terms of the whole human project and then in terms of persons who make it up, and only in a tertiary way touch on the rights of fetuses and even more dimly, if at all, the rights of pre-embryos. The confusion comes in when we use the same word, "rights," to describe our consideration of all of these when in fact rights are properly ascribed to persons while "attention," "respect," and "concern" are more proper for other forms of human life. ...
"This was time for judicial creativity, for admitting that a pre-embryo is neither person nor property. It was a time for creating some new legal status for what belongs to the common good. Ethicists must begin to define this so that judges can "know it when they see it." ...
[EUT] We need to internalize the obligation to do justice to society as well as to individuals. This will take some getting used to in the United States, although countries like Sweden, the Netherlands, and others are far more developed in this way, as evidenced by their medical care and policies about the termination of life. We have much to learn from them. ... I worry that new reproductive technologies will simply produce more of the kinds of people who now have power and access, leaving aside the concerns, and the offspring, of most people who are poor and marginalized. Any ways in which new reproductive technologies contribute to this dynamic are anathema" [NOTE: Of course, reproductive technologies that make more pro-lifers are “anathema,” but reproductive technologies that churn out more anti-life and pro-abortion people would be just fine. Talk about the end justifying the means!].
— Mary E. Hunt (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Ethics on Ice: Soul-Chilling Dilemmas in New Reproductive Technology." Conscience, September/October 1989, pages 1 to 6, 23 and 24.
[pic]
[STU][SLO] "It is imperative that the reproductive rights movement become much more persuasive in convincing middle-of-the-road Americans that antichoice is antilife. ... Antichoice is antilife! This is the motto we need to claim. Antichoice fundamentally opposes all the conditions — cultural, medical, and legal — that promote the possibility of a women being able to conceive and bear children when she want them and is best able to care for them. It is fundamentally against the cultural, social, medical, and legal conditions that help societies limit demographic growth and so have some chance of providing adequate food, housing, education, and health care for those children who are born. ...
"Women have been treated as reproductive vessels to be controlled by male priests, doctors, or social experts, not as moral agents in their own right. This attitude toward women lies at the heart of the antichoice movement and links its adherents to those male family planners who design coercive methods of birth limitation. Both types of men deny the fundamental personhood of women as moral agents."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Prochoice is Prolife: Winning the Propaganda War for Reproductive Rights." Conscience, September/October 1989, pages 9 and 10 [emphasis in original] [NOTE: This is one of the best examples of CFFC leaders deliberately trying to confuse people with terminology. It is an enduring principle that those who try to simplify the issue are those looking for the truth, and those who are trying to confuse things and make them unnecessarily complex are trying to obscure the truth].
[pic]
[HIS*][HYP*] "Abortion providers have long been frustrated by having to supply abortions to women who oppose legalized abortion. A recent news report, however, revealed that the Women's Center in Allentown, Pennsylvania, now confronts such women with a new policy: the woman must sign a special consent form and/or wait twenty-four hours to reconsider her decision. The form indicates that a clinic staff member reviewed all choices with her and that she relinquishes all rights to confidentiality if she publicly claims that the center provided inadequate counseling. According to the clinic's director, the policy is designed to help such women see themselves as free agents capable of making their own decisions rather than understanding themselves as victims.”
— "In the News: Pennsylvania Clinic Delay Abortions for Those Opposed to Legalization." Conscience, September/October 1989, page 31 [NOTE: This little “news item” makes no sense at all. Perhaps it is just another pro-abortion "head game," whereby they allege that pro-life women picket abortuaries one day and schedule their own appointments the next. How would the Pennsylvania clinics know that these women oppose abortion unless they asked them? And what business would they have doing this anyway? Oddly, CFFC fanatically opposes 24-hour waiting periods, but doesn't seem to mind abortuaries imposing them on some women. Also, and most importantly, the pro-aborts are always fanatically squawking about protecting the privacy rights of women, but in this case, are threatening to violate them. Naturally, this little “news item” did not elaborate on any of these points. It seems the primary objective of this little exercise is contained in the third sentence, beginning with "The form indicates ..." — to protect the abortion mills and to make pro-lifers look like hypocrites].
[pic]
[NOTE: The purpose of the following is to show you the ways in which pro-abortion groups typically propagandize their followers with grossly exaggerated stories, "New Age" rituals, and weepy, invariably false "personal experience" stories. These rallies are designed to inflame the emotions of the listeners and cloud their minds, in essence brainwashing them so they are incapable of reasoning correctly.
This text is from a handout distributed at the "interfaith service" sponsored by the 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR) and 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC) for the purpose of giving a thin pseudo-religious veneer of respectability to prenatal child murder. This "service," entitled "Praise Our Choices, Life Our Voices," was held on November 10, 1989 at the Reflecting Pool/Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, to "celebrate the Rally to Mobilize for Women's Lives" (known more accurately by pro-lifers as the "March for Death"). The "service" was written by Diann Neu, co-director of the New Age group called WATER, or the "Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual;" Rabbi Lynne Landsberg, the Associate Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; and Mary Jane Patterson, Director of the Washington Office of the Presbyterian Church, USA.
As you read, note the empty religious posturing and the appeal to raw emotion, with absolutely no consideration whatever for logic, reasoning or thinking. Notice also the paganistic and "New Age" basis of the ceremonies, with absolutely no trace of Judeo-Christian worship or ethics. You can also see how the pro-abortionists condemn pro-lifers and pray to God to forgive them as they go about their God-approved business of aborting his little preborn babies. This entire ceremony was nothing more than well-orchestrated and choreographed crocodile tears masquerading as authentic religious sentiment].
"Call to Celebration
"... We gather here today to prepare this space and ourselves for Sunday's rally, "Mobilize for Women's Lives." We gather to call forth the holiness of this place as we affirm the holiness of women's lives. ...
Blessings of Our Mothers
"We prepare this space by calling on our ancestors.
ANCESTRAL
Reader: Blessed are you, Holy One, All in All. You have given us our ancestral mothers: Sarah, Hagar, Rebecca, Leah, Rachel, Miriam. From these women we gain laughter, rage, grace, strength, tears, and joy.
All: Just as we never abandon them, so do we pray never to abandon ourselves.
PRESENT
Reader: Blessed are you, Holy One, All in All. You have given us our biological and adoptive mothers: Ida May, Gabriela, Mary Catherine, Sadie, Beatrice, and our own mothers. Let us call their names out loud.
All: (Respond with names).
Reader: From these women we gain life, sustenance, knowledge, pain, healing, and courage.
All: Just as we honor them, so do we pray always to honor ourselves.
Song: Second verse to "Walk through These Doors," by Marsie Silvestro.
Foremothers of every race
Women standing strong and free
Walk through these doors with blessing.
Walk through these doors with peace.
Walk through these doors as holy ones.
Enter the words we speak.
Introduction to Stories
"Today we choose to tell the stories of these lives and their choices, especially the whispered stories, those around abortion.
First Story: "One Woman's Prayer," by an anonymous woman
"Introduction: Listen to the confession of an anonymous woman in "One Woman's Prayer."
"I AM GOING TO HAVE AN ABORTION, GOD — and I feel terribly alone.
"FOR SO OFTEN MY FAITH HAS CONDEMNED MY DECISION; and members of my faith have threatened me with expulsion; and others have reviled, cursed, called me "murderer" — for this that I must do.
"I have read the theological arguments and the philosophical debates against abortion, so frequently and so loudly proclaimed as God's Trust. But from them I hear only of the concern for the yet unborn life — I find no concern for the lives of those who face the valley of despair.
"As in Your Word, we find hope, and joy, and peace, and an honesty to face the responsibilities and decisions we must make. It is lonely not to be able to share this awful time with even closest friends and loved ones — but we cannot risk the hatred. And I cannot take this painful hurt to my beloved clergy — as I can not risk rejection. ... God, forgive my bitterness and anger at their coldness and prejudice. Help me to pray in Your words, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." ... It was an act of love that began this unwanted growth, and a decision of love that will end it. For I am too old to bear another child. I already have five at home for whom I am responsible. One of these is severely handicapped and retarded; and I can not forsake her future needs of me" [NOTE: Notice how RCAR and CFFC advance the story of this 'typical' abortion patient, ignoring the reality that more than four out of five abortions are committed by young women to cover up fornication].
Song: From "Singing for Our Lives."
"We are a gentle, loving people
And we are singing, singing for our lives.
We are a gentle, loving people
And we are singing, singing for our lives.
Second Story: Rosie's Story
"Last month, a 27-year-old Mexican-American, the unwed mother of a 4-year-old child, died in a hospital in McAllen, Texas, from complications caused by a cheap abortion in a nearby Mexican border town. The dead woman carried a Medicaid card, but it did her little good. On Aug. 4, the Federal government had stopped paying for abortions for the poor unless the life of the mother is endangered. The woman's life presumably was not in danger — not until she went across the border and paid $40 to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Legal abortions performed in McAllen, Texas, are a lot more expensive than that." — New York Times, November, 1977 [NOTE: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) thoroughly investigated this death and found that Rosie's 1977 abortion was her third in the past five years. She had 'slept around' with literally dozens of men as her fiancee languished in jail, and even tried to conceal and deny her final abortion when dying in a hospital bed. The CDC report concluded that she actually possessed the money she needed to obtain a legal abortion, but had slipped across the border to Mexico for the sole purpose of preserving her confidentiality. She had done the same thing in 1975, even when Federal abortion payments were still available. This shows that pro-abortionists are perfectly willing to omit such vital details in order to advance their cause].
Song: We are women making choices,
And we are singing, singing for our lives.
We are women making choices,
And we are singing, singing for our lives.
Third Story: "An Open Letter to 21 Million Women," by B.J. Isaacson-Jones
"Introduction: Listen to the pleas of those who work in reproductive health services.
Voice 1: Where are you? For over 15 years we have provided you with choices. Painful choices. I remember — I sometimes cried with you. Choices, nonetheless when you were desperate. Remember how we protected your privacy and treated you with dignity and respect when you were famous, had been brought to us in shackles with an armed guard, or wee terrified that you would run into one of your students? I remember each of you.
Voice 2: Our clinic was firebombed. Do you recall? Exhausted and terrified we had been up all night. We re-routed you to another clinic because you wanted an abortion that day. Where are you? Priding ourselves on providing abortion for those who cannot pay, we have spent millions of dollars that we never really had caring for you. We wanted to give you a choice. I also gave you cab fare and money for dinner from my pocket [NOTE: Abortion mills are in it for the money. Not a single reformed abortionist or abortion clinic worker has ever remembered having helped women in this way].
Voice 3: Have you forgotten? I remember you. You cried and asked me how you could carry this pregnancy to term when you were abusing the children you had; were having an affair; tested positive for AIDS; could not handle another; were raped by your mother's boyfriend; pregnant by your father and shocked and torn apart when your very much wanted and loved fetus was found to be severely deformed. Your mother picketed our clinic regularly. We brought you in after dark. Have you mustered the courage to tell her that you are prochoice? You are. Aren't you? [NOTE: Notice the total emphasis on the 'hard cases,' which comprise less than one percent of all abortions].
Voice 4: I recall shielding your shaking body, guiding you and your husband through the picket line. They screamed adoption, not abortion! You wondered how you could explain your choice to your four young children.
Voice 5: You broke our hearts. You had just celebrated your twelfth birthday when you came to us. You clutched your teddy bear, sucked your thumb and cried out for your mom who asked you why you had gotten yourself pregnant. You replied that you just wanted to be grown. You're 20 today. Where are you? [NOTE: Oh, please! Notice that such cases make up less than one out of every thousand abortions, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute].
Voice 6: I pretend I don't know you in the market, at social gatherings and on the street. I told you I would. After your procedure you told me that you would fight for reproductive choices (parenthood, adoption and abortion) for your mother, daughters and grandchildren. You will ... won't you? [NOTE: Can anyone remember any pro-abortion group fighting for motherhood or for adoption?] I have no regrets. I care about each and every one of you and treasure all that you've taught me. But I'm angry. I can't do this alone. I'm not asking you to speak of your abortion, but you need to speak out and you need to speak now. Where are you?
Praise our choices, lift our voices.
Song: We are speaking out together,
And we are singing, singing for our lives.
We are speaking out together,
And we are singing, singing for our lives.
[NOTE: So, in summary, the three "stories" given in this weep-a-thon are from an anonymous woman (which means that it was completely fabricated), a falsified picture of a Latina who died from an abortion that was not funded by the U.S. government, and a woman who runs an abortion mill].
Remembrance
"We are singing for our lives. We are mobilizing for our lives because our lives are in jeopardy. Women before us have been denied choice and therefore have been denied life.
"In their desperation they reached for help to enable them to live, instead the only hand that was extended was the hand of the angel of death.
"Today we mobilize for our lives, we mobilize in their memory.
Reading: "Eulogy for Women Denied Choice," by Maxine Parshall
"A million abortions a year, and before Roe few were done by a doctor — with sterile instruments — in a sterile environment [NOTE: This is yet another blatant lie. None other than Alan Guttmacher, M.D., former Medical Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), said that "Who performs illegal abortions? Here popular literature goes far astray with its lurid pictures of back-street quacks — filthy, ill-trained and incompetent. There are quacks, to be sure, but they are in the minority. Most abortions are performed by licensed physicians, usually at some personal risk. Dr. Guttmacher estimates that 80 percent of the abortions in the U.S. are performed by M.D.'s; Dr. Calderone says 90 percent. In one noted instance of record, a single physician in the Baltimore region, Dr. G. Lotrell Timanus, performed over 5,000 abortions before he was stopped by the law. Is it fair of us to ask physicians to perform operations that we are unwilling either to forego or to legalize?" (Alan Guttmacher, M.D. The Case for Legalized Abortion Now [Berkeley: Diablo Press], 1967, page 92)].
"Hundreds of thousands of you putting your lives in the hands of strangers with all manner of contraptions, none of which should ever have been allowed to touch a human body.
"But you were desperate, so terribly afraid and desperate.
"How many of you survived the coat hangers and knitting needles, they nonsterile injections, the perforations and infections?
"How many women? How many of our mothers? How many of your daughters?
"I want never to forget you, both the maimed and the dead [NOTE: Little chance of that! Those few women who did die of illegal abortions are just too good to pass up as propaganda fodder. Notice that the pro-abortionists never, never mention the hundreds of women who have died of "safe" and legal abortions. Their memories must be buried with their bodies, because they are bad for the image of the pro-abortion movement].
"You — a mother who dearly loved the children you already had but who knew that one more baby would stretch your family's and your own resources to a point where grim determination becomes desperation.
"You — still recovering from the battering you got when they jumped you, tearing your self-respect from your clothes, laughing at your terror as they took their turn; you still saw their faces in nightmares.
"And you — little more than a child yourself except that your body could conceive the seed of a troubled parent [NOTE: Once again, the pro-abortionists only mention the 'hard cases.' How about the unmarried college girl who loves to sleep around, or who forgets her pill, or who just doesn't want a baby because she's having too much fun? These are much more typical abortion cases. But, once again, they are ignored because they would be bad for the image of the pro-abortion movement — which is always the paramount concern].
"You were her mother.
"You were his grandmother.
"You were my sister.
"I want never to forget you, any of you.
"I want to think of you only with kindness and love.
Reflections on Readings
Bread Blessing
"We gather today as we will gather on Sunday to link arms, to support each other and to sustain each other. As on Sunday, today we strengthen and nourish each other for the struggle.
"Bread, as sustenance, symbolizes the prochoice community. Bread is food for the journey, the staff of life. Common, ordinary, daily, bread is food for all people. ...
"We bless a variety of breads today to represent the diversity and harmony of our global prochoice community. Let us fill our table with these breads. ...
"Let us pray in each of our hearts a blessing for this bread as we break it and eat it together. ...
Closing: "A Litany of Challenge," by Diann Neu.
"Filled with the fullness of this day, with the stories of our sisters, with the bread of our community. ... Let us go forth ...
— To stand, sit, cry, pray with women making reproductive choices, especially the difficult choice for abortion.
— To speak to legislators, family members, and friends of our support for women's decisions.
— To challenge our churches, synagogues, and holy congregations to affirm women as moral agents.
— To encourage ministers, rabbis, priests and counselors to counsel women on free choice.
— To the city centers and country corners to tell women that all of their choices, including their choice for abortion, are holy and healthy.
In the name of the holy one, God of our mothers and God/ess of our fathers, to bring about justice.
Song: "Be Not Afraid."
Lighting of Candles"
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1990
[ABO] "Catholics for a Free Choice recently issued a call for the U.S. Catholic bishops to end punitive and harassing actions against prochoice Catholic politicians and others. Titled "Respect for Life Requires Respect For People," the statement asks the bishops both to proclaim a "Year of Dialogue" and to rescind directives forbidding prochoice Catholic politicians access to church forums."
— "Editor's Note." Conscience, September/October 1990, pages 2 and 21 [NOTE: Other signers of this ad were the wackiest of dissenting groups, including the Federation of Christian Ministries (FCM), the National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN), the Quixote Center, the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER), and the Women's Ordination Conference (WOC)].
[pic]
[ABO][MAS][POR*][ADU] "The ban on contraception was part of a whole constellation of rulings that show clerical preoccupation with sexual matters — the maintenance of a celibate and all male priesthood, the policing of reproductive processes (not only as regards contraception and abortion but bans on sterilization and artificial insemination), the nonlegitimacy of any sexual pleasure not "open to" reproduction (not only masturbation, indulgence in pornography, fornication, and adultery but even intercourse in marriage that interrupted, blocked by contraception or conducted after deliberate sterilization), and censorship of explicit sex. ... Most Catholics have concluded that their clerical leaders are unhinged on the subject of sex. ... Abortion is like genocide to those who think human persons are being killed — not a thing one can witness without moral protest. ... But he [Mario Cuomo] does not argue the matter, he merely accepts (privately) and sets aside (in public) the datum that a fetus is to be treated as a human life from conception. This is very different from his eloquence and enthusiasm in opposing the death penalty, on which he has strong personal convictions. ... To say this is not to declare the fetus outside the human community. We humanize each other by our willingness to include others within that basic fellowship — the sick, the deformed, the retarded, the old. We have not become fully human unless we recognize their humanity. It is a mark of the human to extend its own obligations — even to a kindness toward animals."
— Garry Wills. "Mario Cuomo's Trouble with Abortion." Conscience, September/ October 1990, pages 1, 4-9, 16, 17 and 20 [italics in the original].
[pic]
[ABO] "We thought the Vatican was wrong in its teaching that abortion is always an unspeakable sin. And we had agreed to come to the meeting, to fly in from West Virginia that morning, because we wanted to explain why we thought the Vatican was wrong."
— Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey, with Jane O'Reilly. "An Excerpt from No Turning Back: Two Nuns' Battle with the Vatican Over Women's Right to Choose." Conscience, September/October 1990, pages 10 and 15.
[pic]
[ABO][VIC] "Long before the [1984 New York Times pro-abortion] ad appeared both Ferraro and Hussey had, almost without realizing it, implicitly adopted a prochoice stance out of what might be seen as pastoral necessity. Hussey, for example, tells of having dinner in 1970 with a friend who tearfully and guiltily admitted to having had an abortion. she describes her own reaction: "The Catholic Church's teaching on abortion began to fall apart in front of my eyes ... Here was Millie, my friend, flesh and blood, and therefore, abortion could not simply distinction between morality and immorality. People's lives were involved here, and their lives didn't fit into the neat rules of the church's pronouncements." ...
"But for women, abortion is pivotal to asserting their personhood in both church and society. As Hussey put it while detailing the difficulties signers had in standing together once the Vatican began putting pressure on their orders: "Abortion is the issue where we (women) claim ourselves as adult human beings responsible for our own moral choices, and that is the most difficult gesture any woman ever makes — especially a woman who is a nun trained to obey."
"... one of the more enlightening asides are some figures on the relatively high educational attainment of American women religious in contrast to the more modest schooling of priests and bishops [NOTE: In reality, the average priest has seven more years of higher learning than the average nun, a fact the authors blithely ignore]. ...
"But the campaign launched by peripatetic pontiff John Paul II is one of restoration to the preconciliar order, an effort to refigure [sic] the church in its triangular, hierarchical pattern. Control of reproduction — through celibacy, opposition to birth control, and, of course, abortion — is central to the campaign. Only control of reproduction affirms the uniqueness, the set-apartness — and thus power — of the patriarchal hierarchy, from priest to pope. As Ferraro stated it shortly after the Vatican threat to dismiss the 24 form their orders became known: "It is their (Vatican officials) job to deny human experience. ... The pope bases his authority on being male and celibate. If he can't persuade us that sex is bad, and women are inferior, then what is he? What are priests? They are just ordinary folks in the circle of the people of God."
"In what may be the most poignant statement in this moving and significant book, Hussey put it this way: "Abortion was our issue, but to the Vatican it was a tool, an excuse. They really did not want us, never had wanted us. Our faith, our commitment, our years of work and dedication counted for nothing. Literally, for nothing. We could obey and be quiet and thus prove the authority of the hierarchy, or we could get out or be pushed out."
— David Earle Anderson. "The Nuns' Tale: A Review of No Turning Back: Two Nuns' Battle with the Vatican Over Women's Right to Choose." Conscience, September/October 1990, pages 11, 12, 14 and 15.
[pic]
[HYP*] "We need reasoned debate, respectful dialogue, acknowledgement that each of us is entitled to opinions emanating from that secret core inside of us where we are alone with God. That core is conscience. It cannot be coerced, or controlled, or made to conform to the conscience of another. ... We don't need edicts handed down from on high. Such management is out of style. ...
"Does it make sense to you for the institutional Catholic Church to outlaw contraceptives and then complain that there are too many abortions? I have had such respect for our bishops that it is impossible for me to believe that they believe in this position. The bishops should be honest, admit that they too have read "the signs of the times." They should urge Rome to change its teaching. ... And speaking of respect, this bishops' multimillion-dollar public relations contract to sell the abortion position of the institutional church to Catholics and non-Catholics alike is a scandal. ..."
— "Spotlight on Marie Baldwin." Conscience, September/October 1990, pages 18 to 20 [italics in the original] [NOTE: Marie Baldwin was a “convener” of Vermont 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (VCFC). CFFC's glorification of "conscience" is a mere smoke screen. In practical effect, CFFC believes that only "pro-choice" Catholics have the right to follow their consciences. In 1990, CFFC decisively proved in the Paquette v. Regal Art Press case that it has no regard for the consciences of those who disagree with it. Chuck and Susan Baker are Catholics who run a private printing press named Regal Art in Vermont. In 1990, Linda Paquette, a member of the Vermont chapter of Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC), asked the Bakers to print membership forms for her organization. The Bakers refused on the grounds that CFFC deliberately distorts about Catholic teachings regarding abortion and contraception. Paquette argued that pro-abortionism was part of her "religious creed." Incredibly, she said that the Bakers should be forced to print her material, since VCFC "promotes freedom of conscience" and "tolerance." She complained to the Vermont Human Rights Commission, which threatened the Bakers with a $10,000 fine and a lawsuit for compensatory and punitive damages on the grounds of "religious discrimination." Note that the Bakers operate a private printing press. They receive no government money, and are not a tax-deductible charity. In other words, they are a private small business — but CFFC attempted to force them to print material that violates their religious beliefs and their consciences].
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1991
[ABO] "The best, least coercive and most natural alternative to abortion is reduced unintended pregnancy through the development and accessibility of various types of birth control. As they work to make abortion more restricted, the bishops make it more necessary.
"Without doubt, their aversion to facing the need for contraception stems from the papal insistence on orthodoxy on this and all issues of sexuality and reproduction. It also springs, in part, from the church hierarchy's inability to comprehend the naturalness of human sexuality. The institutional church is out of touch with modern, ethical norms of sexuality which accept sex as a healthy, instinctive expression that is likely to be engaged in not only for procreative purposes.
"The bishops' lack of recognition of birth control as a central and critical tool for achieving a reduction in abortion dooms their [anti-abortion] campaign to failure. They must give up their unrelenting opposition to birth control and come into the mainstream if they truly want to reduce the incidence of abortion. ...
"First, we need to be clear and unequivocal in our acknowledgement of the fact that no woman wants to have an abortion. ... abortion itself is a negative act. (Why else would we spend so much energy insisting we are not pro-abortion, but prochoice?)"
— Frances Kissling. "The Abortion Debate — Moving Forward." Conscience, January/February 1991, pages 1 and 3 [italics in the original].
[pic]
[ABO] "Good law has to be enforceable. And enforceable law requires a consensus."
— Richard P. McBrien, referring to Poland's abortion law, which he alleged is "unenforceable." "Poland's Turn." Conscience, January/February 1991, pages 6 and 7.
[pic]
[STU*] "No one delights in having an abortion. The procedure is painful and repugnant. ... Denial to women of their use of the specifically human faculties of intelligence and free will in the fateful area of motherhood is a kind of killing too. ... Mature women are seen as sub-human consciously or unconsciously, in a society that outlaws abortion [NOTE: So there we have it — we exalt motherhood if we let women kill their children, and dehumanize women if we do not let them kill their children]. ... The more intolerant of abortion a society is, the more abortions are performed, legally or illegally" [NOTE: This is a profoundly stupid statement. We challenge CFFC to name one other act that would become more popular if it was criminalized].
— Harriette Lane Baggett. "A Place for Pragmatism." Conscience, January/ February 1991, pages 12 and 13.
[pic]
[REL*] "Often, in Mexico, to become conscious of one's rights as a woman is almost the equivalent of leaving the Catholic Church. ... Catholicism and its moral codes are the social rules that have severely hampered women's independence and self-realization.
"The Virgin Mary, especially Guadalupe as a model, has been instrumental in maintaining our subservience. ... So logically religion, in our case Catholicism, has been lived mostly as an instrument of oppression and sometimes annihilation of our potentialities as women."
— "Mexican Feminism: An Interview with Sylvia Marcos." Conscience, January/February 1991, pages 16 and 17.
[pic]
[REL][HIS] "The Catholic Church has yet to pay its debt to Latin American women. For past five centuries it has laid the foundation for the subordinate position of women in society, for their subservient role, foe the denial of pleasure in all aspects of their lives. ...
"Before Pope Pius IX implied in 1869 that all fetuses are imbued with a soul at conception, the predominant theory held that animation (the infusion of the soul) does not take place before forty days for a male fetus and eighty days for a female. ...
"Attention should be paid to examining the consequences of this in the lives of Latin American women of different backgrounds who suffer the worst consequences of the Church's hegemony: pain, mutilation, death. Because, despite the saying — no hay mal que dura quinentos anos — this evil has already lasted five hundred years."
— Review of the book The Latin American Connection: The Church, Women, and Sexuality. Conscience, January/February 1991, page 21.
[pic]
[VIC] "Catholic prelates across the country recently used their ownership of property as a stick in controlling public practices" [NOTE: Well, gosh, we can't expect the bishops to be able to actually have control over their own property, now can we?]
— "In the News: Not in My Building, You Don't." Conscience, January/February 1991, page 22.
[pic]
[REL][STU] "The book [Uta Ranke-Heinemann's Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven], a best seller in Germany and Italy, examines the church's degradation of women and its subversion of sexuality."
— "In the News: Full Dust Jacket." Conscience, January/February 1991, page 22.
[pic]
[ABO] "Recent scholarly articles, one by leading Catholic moral theologian Richard A. McCormick and another by Catholic ethicist Thomas A. Shannon, doubt whether a developing embryo can be thought of as an individual human life until at least two weeks after fertilization. And Hans-Martin Sass, a Lutheran philosopher, has recently developed model abortion legislation based on his theory that the existence of brain waves should be the criterion for judging personhood — both at the beginning and end of life” [NOTE: More gross inconsistency by CFFC. According to embryology textbooks, brain waves are present no later than one month after conception, yet CFFC supports abortion until birth].
— "In the News: New Outlooks on Life." Conscience, January/February 1991, page 23.
[pic]
[ABO][HIS*] Most people think that the church's current position is the result of 2000 years of unchanged teaching. This is a false perception. The opinion of all church scholars and theologians has never been unanimous on abortion. ... Currently, a majority in the church hierarchy believes that to procure an abortion is a serious sin and grounds for excommunication. This view, however, has only been a part of official church discipline since the Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX in 1869. ...
"It is only on such matters [of faith and morals] that the pope is considered able to give infallible teaching. According to the official doctrine of the church at this time, the prohibition of abortion does not come under the teaching office of the church. It is not governed by papal infallibility.
"The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," has always been a part of the Christian faith. However, this respect for life does not translate easily into a position either for, or against, abortion. ...
"Is it logical to punish abortion as homicide "just in case" the fetus is human from the moment of conception, especially when church teaching against dualism strongly suggests that there is no human soul, and hence no human being, in a less than human body? ...
"The 1974 declaration [on abortion] argues that the fetus is human life from the moment of conception, if not necessarily a full human being. The Declaration states, "In reality respect for human life is called from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor or the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his or her own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already" [NOTE: Notice the gross inconsistency of the writer in this paragraph: She completely inverts the text of the Declaration].
"In modern practice, the church does not always hold to the doctrine of immediate hominization. It does not practice fetal baptism in all cases of miscarriage. It rarely performs baptism, extreme unction or the funeral mass, even when a full-term baby is stillborn. It seems that the church makes a distinction, in every case except abortion, between the potential human being represented in the developing fetus and the actual human being which the fetus eventually becomes. ...
"Whether or not abortion is homicide is a more complicated matter. First, if a human life is in question, we must define what a human being is. The church has done this by the doctrine of hylomorphism, which states that human beings are a unity of the two elements of body and soul. A human soul is found only in a fully human body. This definition of the person implies delayed hominization, for a human soul does not enter the human body until the body is ready to receive it. ...
"The reasons the church has refrained from taking an infallible stand are clear. ... Only a doctrine which "has always been taught in the Roman Catholic Church as an article of faith" is subject to ex cathedra infallible teaching. A continuous, straightforward tradition of abortion as homicide in every circumstance is absent in the church. An infallible statement on abortion is impossible despite the aura of infallibility which seems to surround papal declarations ...
"Theoretical legislative edicts and theological opinions must be applied directly by men and women who are confronted with making decisions about abortion. Catholic theologians currently admit that we do not know exactly when an embryo becomes a human being. Nevertheless, they adopt a "just in case" attitude. The 1974 "Declaration on Abortion" states, "From a moral point of view, this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder" [NOTE: Again, the author precisely inverts the meaning of the text of the Declaration]. ...
"It is certain that there does not exist in the womb of the mother in the period immediately following fecundation a body united to an intellectual soul in such as to form one single nature [NOTE: How can she know this? This is typical — pro-abortionists stating their random musings as solid fact.] In other words, the body which, at that time, exists in the womb of the mother, and which is destined to develop into a human body, is not informed by a rational soul.
"As we have said, the consistent position of the church on abortion has been that it is a sin if its purpose is to hide evidence of sexual acts undertaken with no intend to procreate, i.e., fornication or adultery. Today, we find that most Catholics have grown beyond the archaic understanding of sexuality which is reflected in church teaching. A changing awareness of sexuality as part of a total, loving relationship, and not merely a procreative duty, can be found throughout the church. While the church hierarchy continues to teach that sexuality must always have procreative intent, a broader view of sexuality is found in the writings of many theologians. ...
"Richard P. McBrien writes: "If, after appropriate study, reflection, and prayer, a person is convinced that his or her conscience is correct, in spite of a conflict with the moral teachings of the church, the person not only may, but must, follow the dictates of conscience rather than the teachings of the church." ...
— Jane Hurst. "Abortion in Good Faith: The History of Abortion in the Catholic Church: The Untold Story." Conscience, March/April 1991, pages 1 and 3 to 17 [italics in the original].
[pic]
[ABO] "I have done some writing of my own to suggest possible modifications in the position of Roman Catholics toward abortion. ... It might be wise to consider the withdrawal of punitive sanctions from the field of abortions during the first few weeks of pregnancy. ... When does the human person begin life? ... since we are dealing with human life, we must favor the course of action that assures the greatest safety to the fetus. This is the real reason for the opposition to legal abortion. ... when does the human person begin his or her life? ... "With St. Thomas I teach that at the moment of conception there originates a vegetative organism that will slowly evolve into a sentient organism to become, at a moment I cannot determine, a rational organism, a real human being."
"Canon 871 enjoins that aborted fetuses, if they are alive, are to be baptized, insofar as this is possible. This legislation in itself raises the question whether each menstrual discharge should be baptized because if might contain a fertilized ovum. ...
"In cases of doubt of law, probabilism may be used, but never in situations involving doubts of fact, if the doubts involve considerations of life, justice or the validity of contracts. In there situations, probabilism may not be used, but the safer course is not necessarily the true one.
"Just one word on the Principle of probabilism that operates only in case of doubts of law. It amounts to this: In situations where there is a doubt of law, where there is genuine conflict between freedom and law, if there is a solidly probable argument for the nonexistence of the law, then freedom is in possession because a doubtful law does not oblige. After this explanation the traditional moralist would deny its application in cases of doubts of fact involving consideration of life as in the case of when precisely animation takes place."
— Thomas A. Wassmer, S.J. "A Jesuit Looks at Contemporary Church Attitudes Toward Abortion." Conscience, March/April 1991, pages 18 to 22 [italics in the original].
[pic]
[REL] "I'm actually much happier in the south these days where I have received a promotion and am know as "La Papesa." ... (audience laughs) ... I'm going to pay as much attention to him [the Pope] as Marge did. (audience laughs) I always need, you know, somebody to help me be disobedient."
— Frances Kissling's talk during the conference entitled "Antiprogestin Drugs: Ethical, Legal and Medical Issues," held at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia, December 6-7, 1991, session entitled "Diverse Perspectives: Feminism, Anthropology and Theology" [NOTE: Judy Norsigian concluded her introduction of Kissling by saying "I think that she would make a lot better Cardinal than the one that lives a few blocks from me in Boston" (i.e., Cardinal Bernard Law)].
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1992
[REL][ABO] "I could do that much better if I could I could talk to you about how terrible the Catholic Bishops are, and how bad they've been on sexuality, and that this is about women, and this is about sex, and this is not about unborn babies. ... We are all mavericks. We are people who don't take authority seriously. ... one needs to be ultimately able to control one's fertility, to determine the size of one's family, to do all of those things by having abortion available as well."
— Frances Kissling's talk during the National Abortion Federation (NAF) 16th Annual Meeting, theme: "Abortion: Moral Choice and Medical Imperative," April 12-15, 1992, in San Diego, California, closing session entitled "Cooperation and Competition."
[pic]
[ABO*] "I value the fetus because it is human, that is, of our species, living, and as such represents all our hope for the future of humankind. I feel that the value of the fetus, until the third trimester, never outweighs the value of women's well-being or the social importance of acknowledging women's capacity to weigh all the values in making the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy. I believe that as the fetus comes closer to fulfilling its potential to become a person, more serious reasons are required to morally justify terminating its life. I do not believe that my beliefs in this realm are more factually compelling than others, and thus I am unwilling to see any one of our beliefs enacted into law."
— Frances Kissling. "Defining Personhood/Developmental Views." Conscience, Spring 1992, page 25; repeated in Steve Askin. "Challenging the Right." Conscience, Spring 1994, page 66.
[pic]
[VIC][STU][SLO][ABO][HYP*] "Yet, while flashy, deceptive rhetoric seldom is considered the ethical or moral approach, opponents of choice make regular use of such illegitimate rhetorical strategies. ... It is time we became concerned with the ways in which antichoice rhetorical strategies are deceptive and hypocritical and time we find means to overcome them. ...
Slogans have always been in the propagandist's armamentarium. Like poetry, they circumvent reason or overwhelm it by emotion. They sound good, through alliteration and euphony, and they feel compelling, playing into our deepest hopes and fears. They are memorable because of catch phrases, even if they don't make much sense. ... Debaters who believe their positions are right will choose language that does not intentionally create ambiguities or otherwise mislead listeners.
"As much as a first-trimester fetus is like a baby, it is even more unlike one. In a first-trimester fetus, the central nervous system has yet to achieve the level of development and integration necessary for sentience or pain. It has the potential for these things, but potential is not actuality, or I could write this article by merely thinking about it. ... But to say that, because the fetus has this potential, we cannot destroy it, is equivalent to arguing that because an infant will in time become able to speak and make intelligent choices, we should allow babies to vote.
"Something with the major gaps that a fetus has in its nervous system does not fit that [human] category. It may be potentially human, but is not yet human, and to destroy it is not murder. Arguably, to destroy that which cannot sustain life even briefly on its own is not even "killing."
"... any person or organization claiming a "pro-life" position would have to take a public, explicit, and unambiguous stand that was: antiwar; opposed to capital punishment; absolutist; in favor of contraception and sex education; opposed to violence, including clinic-blockade tactics — such as obstruction, jeering and shoving — that incite violence, as violence tends to lead to injury and death [NOTE: She says above that "potential" does not necessarily lead to reality for the preborn child, but that it probably will with clinic blockades. Such inconsistency!]
"The underlying emotion of "prolife" people is not love but fear, which is at least as strong a motivator but is less comfortably admitted.
"... if we continue to be respectful and legitimate, we soon may be scouring the closet for metal [coat] hangers. ... If their side airs commercials with cuddly babies, how about a few with terrified teenagers — children like your own — encountering filthy back-alley abortionists? Or ads using narratives by women who underwent illegal abortions, with horrendous results? Not sufficiently dramatic? How about hooded Inquisitors stretching women on the rack: "Who did it? Where do we find him?" Or Gestapo types breaking into a sterile operating room, destroying science?" [NOTE: Now killing unborn babies in an assembly-line abortion mill is “science”].
— Robin Tolmach Lakoff. "The Rhetoric of Reproduction." Conscience, Summer 1992, pages 4 to 12.
[pic]
[STU][ABO][SIT*] "And we know that to be "prochoice," to affirm the value of women's lives and moral agency, is the most radically prolife, genuinely biophilic orientation. Women's moral agency on our own terms — the development of feminist, womanist ethics — is a direct contradiction to patriarchy. ... To assert our right to choose is to assert that, even more fundamentally than being "she who can bear children," a women is "she who can create values." ... When women assert our right to reproductive choice, we are asserting our right to make our own world of values, which shatters the standard patriarchal claim to ethical hegemony. ... We are now in a position to see that it is particularly on the denial of women's right to reproductive choice that this male ethical hegemony, and the whole edifice of patriarchy, is based. ... Abortion, and the fact that women may under certain conditions recognize it as a morally defensible choice, especially breaches the patriarchal definition of society. ... I want to conclude by re-emphasizing that the taboo is not simply against committing the act of abortion, but against committing the act of ethical choice. When we see that the deeper taboo is against women acting as moral agents (that is, shapers of culture), we can more easily see the connections among all the manifestations of reproductive choice that patriarchy would deny us. ... As we have seen, asserting ourselves as ethical agents breaks such a root paradigm of patriarchy that it is a profound move globally towards women's liberation. We are equal to the task."
— Emily Erwin Culpepper. "She Who Creates Values." Conscience, Summer 1992, pages 14 to 18 [emphasis in original].
[pic]
[ABO][STU][HIS][RAC] "What has the white, male lawgiver to say to any of us? To those of us who love life too much to willingly bring more children into a world saturated by death?
Abortion, for many women, is more than an experience of suffering beyond anything most men will ever know; it is an act of mercy, and an act of self-defense.
To make abortion illegal again is to sentence millions of women and children to miserable lives and even more miserable deaths.
Given his history, in relation to us, I think the white man should be ashamed to attempt to speak for the unborn children of the black women. To force us to have children for him to ridicule, drug and turn into killers and homeless wanderers is a testament to his hypocrisy."
— Alice Walker. "Right to Life: What Can the White Man Say to the Black Woman?" Conscience, Summer 1992, pages 26 and 27 [emphasis in original].
[pic]
"Because Hollywood tends to be fairly liberal, representatives from abortion-rights groups like the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood have been consulted formally and informally. ... Abortion-rights groups may appear to have greater impact than anti-abortion ones because of their influence during the early stages of production. ... S. Robert Lichter, author of the 1991 study "Watching America: What Television Tells Us about Our Lives," notes that Hollywood has a long tradition of liberal-to-leftist politics. "Hollywood is so overwhelmingly prochoice that they're willing to accept some loss of revenue to tilt a show in the direction of their beliefs. There may be more socialist CEO's on Wall Street than there are pro-life producers in Hollywood"."
— Jan Hoffman. "The Tube's Taboo: Abortion's Too Hot for Prime Time." Conscience, Summer 1992, pages 29 to 31.
[pic]
[ABO] "I believe prochoice Catholics have more to gain; it is important for man to have the opportunity to speak about their dissent from the hierarchy and to be reaffirmed as members of the Catholic community ... the affirmation that different views coexist within the church was both empowering to prochoice Catholics and challenging to the hierarchy's claim that there is only one right Catholic position on abortion."
— Sarita Hudson. "Catholics in Dialogue." Conscience, Autumn 1992, pages 13 and 14 [NOTE: This is a quote that shows why pro-lifers should steer clear of "common ground" projects or roundtables: The pro-aborts always gain, and the pro-lifers always compromise. Much of this edition of Conscience was devoted to praising the "common ground" concept. When the pro-abortionists praise something, you just know it has to be bad news].
[pic]
[HIS][REL][STU*] "But there is a form of control here that goes deeper than economic control, and that is controlling women's bodies as the most basic means of production and reproduction. If you lose control of that, if you lose the ability to say hom many workers or soldiers the country should have and to increase that number, you lose the ability to maintain racism.
"Controlling white women, especially, is key. If you don't have social "purity," pretty soon you don't have a racial caste system at all. The most punished crime in this nation historically wasn't murder or arson or burglary; it was miscegenation. Because if "race mixing" (as they so wonderfully say) kept up, then pretty soon there would be no white race and in the long term, in the very long term, no racism [NOTE: Isn't it wonderful how the fevered imaginations of the pro-aborts can cook up the most ridiculous motivations allegedly harbored by pro-lifers? This is absolutely the best way to divert attention away from your own murderous acts and to salve your own stinging conscience. Steinem's conscience must really be hurting to come up with this stupidity]. ...
"I think it is obvious that the whole concept of original sin works against self-esteem. The whole idea that you need salvation from outside yourself works against self-esteem, and with Catholicism especially, to declare so much normal human activity and expression sinful means that you are inevitably going to be sinful because you express yourself as human beings express themselves. It's like telling a cat that it's sinful to meow; the can is going to end up being sinful" [NOTE: Then why don't we just eliminate all laws, because they make people lawbreakers and because they work against the self-esteem of criminals?]
— Gloria Steinem, quoted in Denise Shannon. "An Interview with Gloria Steinem: Self-Esteem and Unintended Pregnancy, Religion's Role, and the Prochoice Movement." Conscience, Autumn 1992, pages 16 to 19.
[pic]
[ABO*] "Forcing doctors to offer women pictures of embryos and fetuses is another way of putting guilt in a patient's mind."
— Abortionist Irving Rust, quoted in Maggie Hume. "Casey: Promise and Peril. What it Means to "Permit But Discourage" Abortion." Conscience, Autumn 1992, pages 22 to 26.
[pic]
[ABO][STU*] "Picture a world where mothers have easy access to childcare they can afford. Where children can count on a good education no matter what school district they live in. Where people have healthcare whether or not they have a job. Where safe birth control is available to everyone who needs it. In this world, abortion isn't illegal. It's unheard of. Isn't that the best choice of all?"
— Full text of a newspaper advertisement entitled "Nobody Wants to Have an Abortion," run by CFFC in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The National Catholic Reporter, The New Republic, Congressional Quarterly and Harper's in late 1992. Denise Shannon, CFFC Communications Director. "Ad Lib." Conscience, Autumn 1992, page 40 [NOTE: In this article, Shannon pats herself on the back, saying "With this ad, here was a pro-choice group willing to say about abortion: It ought to be legal, but we don't like it any more than our opponents do." So there we have it: CFFC is a group that fanatically pushes something it hates all over the world. Perhaps we should invite CFFC to join pro-lifers in picketing an abortion mill. We wonder what they would say?]
[pic]
[ABO*] "Last year I became pregnant. I was forty-four; Lauro was fifty-six. Not for a minute did we consider having the child, but we were sad, and perhaps not so good to each other. maybe because in saying no to the birth of a child we were admitting that we had come to the end of youth, or we were admitting the end of possibility for a certain way of life, casting our lot with others like ourselves, saying that life was difficult, perhaps too difficult, and there were things we could or would no longer do. ...
"We were closer, almost as if we'd had the child. I set the date for the abortion. Everyone connected with it called it "the procedure" and I was grateful for their false language ... He came with me to the clinic and he waited like a father for the news of birth ... When we came home I didn't cry. Lauro got me to bed, he brought me all the foods I like, he held me while I slept off the drug ...
"We watched funny movies on the video. We didn't talk about what had happened. It was another thing that happened, that we could go on from, like offense, forgiveness, reparation, resolution, error, loss. I try to think what it means, that it was life begun that ended, that we didn't suffer much or cause much suffering, that we went on, that we were right. ...
— Mary Gordon, Board member of CFFC and English professor at Barnard College. "Living at Home: An Excerpt from a Work in Progress." Conscience, Winter 1992/93, pages 2 and 3 [NOTE: Carefully read the above paragraphs again, and notice how every syllable fairly drips with selfishness and self-centeredness. As usual for pro-abortionists, "feeling sad" validates their murderous acts].
[pic]
[REL][STU] "It is a truism worth noting that many Catholics have felt that the church's detailed interference into such intimate matters as love and sex is an attempt to dominate lay people, controlling their behavior and keeping those who remain in the church in a perpetual condition of guilt and dependence on the church for absolution."
— Maggie Hume. "Contraception in Catholic Doctrine: The Evolution of an Earthly Code." Conscience, Winter 1992/93, pages 5 to 21.
[pic]
[REL][STU*] "... some feminists allege that Jesus' role as a surrogate for human sinners legitimates child abuse and other forms of victimization [NOTE: Say what?] ...
"... she cleverly calls Christianity "compost ... it has decayed and died, becoming a mix of animate and inanimate, stinking rot and released nutrients. Humus. Fertilizer." While the image may strike some readers as flip, trivializing, I consider it a brilliant insight, one that carries the notion of "from generation to generation" in an ecological metaphor."
— Mary E. Hunt (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors and co-director of the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER). "Spiritual Compost" [review of Paula M. Cooey, William R. Eakin and Jay B. McDaniel [editors]. After Patriarchy: Feminist Transformations of the World Religions [Orbis Books, 1992]. Conscience, Winter 1992/93, page 42.
[pic]
[ABO*][STU*] "Choice, after all, is God-given, since God gave choice to Adam and Eve. God even allowed Adam to make a choice directly opposed to God's personal instructions to Adam, and the result was a matter resolved solely between Adam, Eve, and their God ... I also on occasion have spoken to antiabortionists who are shocked at the thought that they themselves are opposing a gift of choice that comes directly from God. I have seen shock, too, in antiabortionists at the idea that they may be endangering their immortal souls by interfering with God's gift of choice and even, perhaps, by following false prophets."
— "Choice is God-Given." Letter by Eleanor M. Schetlin of Sea Cliff, New York, to Conscience, Winter 1992/93, page 45 [NOTE: The pro-lifers are “shocked,” of course, by the stupidity of such claims. No mention, of course, of the terrible consequences of the choices of Adam and Eve. To illustrate just how illogical and inconsistent this statement is, try asking a pro-abortionist if they would oppose a pro-lifer burning down an unoccupied abortion mill in the middle of the night, while honoring God's "gift of choice"].
[pic]
[REL] "These predictions of the demise of religion in modern times have proved premature ... But this fact in itself is not proof of either the truth of religion or its contribution to human psychological health or wellbeing; it may simply be a tribute to the lasting power of alienation and its pathological need for illusory projections. ..."
— Rosemary Radford Reuther, former Board member of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC). "The Future of Religion: Changes Are Indicated Throughout the World." The Human Quest, September-October 1992, page 6.
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1993
[FAM][HOM] "Imagine sex among friends as the norm. Imagine valuing genital interaction in terms of whether and how it fosters friendship and pleasure. ... Pleasure is our birthright of which we have been robbed in religious patriarchy. ... I picture friends, not families, basking in the pleasure we deserve because our bodies are holy."
— Mary E. Hunt (Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER) and former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC) Board of Directors), at the 1993 Women's Re-Imaging Conference in Minneapolis, quoted in Human Life International Reports, January 1995, page 6, and in Dale O'Leary. The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality [Lafayette, Louisiana: Vital Issues Press], 1997, page 79.
[pic]
[REL*] "The heart of my understanding of inspiration and religious authority [is] God did not just speak once upon a time to a privileged group of males in one part of the world, making us ever after dependent on the codification of their experience. ... Feminist readings of the Bible can discern a norm within Biblical faith by which the Biblical texts themselves can be criticized. To the extent to which Biblical texts reflect this normative principle, they are regarded as authoritative. On this basis many aspects of the Bible are to be frankly set aside and rejected. ...
"When speaking of the understanding of the divine of the ancient Near East, I speak of Gods and Goddesses — rejecting the traditional Western usage that left them lowercase to signal that these were false deities and not the true (Judeo-Christian) God. ... Christ, as redemptive person and Word of God, is not to be encapsulated 'once-for-all' in the historical Jesus. ... Jesus' crucifixion is seen as the consequence of ... confrontation with falsified religion at the right hand of oppressive political power. ... God opts for the poor to overthrow unjust relationships — The nonpoor and the privileged can join the Church only by joining God in this preferential option for the poor, by identifying themselves with the cause of the oppressed. ...
"The term God ... is understood to be a male generic form … when discussing fuller divinity to which this theology points, I use the term God/ess ... This term is unpronounceable ... and signal[s] redemptive experience for women as well as men. ... In effect, [at death] our existence ceases as individuated ego/organism and dissolves back into the cosmic matrix of matter/energy, from which new centers of the individuation arise. It is this matrix, rather than our individuated centers of being, that is "everlasting"."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). Sexism and God-Talk. Beacon Press, 1993.
[pic]
[ABO] "As recently as 1974, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a definitive paper on abortion. While it condemned all abortions as immoral, it admitted that Church teaching is neither definitive nor unchanging on this subject."
— Frances Kissling. "Opposition to Legal Abortion: Challenges and Questions." Planned Parenthood Challenges, 1993/1, pages 3 to 5.
[pic]
[HIS][ABO][VIC] "The Catholic church has a serious problem with women and with sexuality. Denigration of sexuality and of women is deeply embedded in Christian, especially Catholic, spirituality and practice, and it has affected profoundly not simply the church as a religious organization, but also the cultures the church has shaped.
"I believe that the inability to see through to a reasonable ethical position on the legality of abortion (and its limits) in both Catholic teaching and American society has more to do with this tradition of hostility to women and women's moral agency in matters of sexuality and reproduction than with "life" and the valuing or nonvaluing of fetal life. At the root of the issue is the devaluing of women's lives, women's persons. ... Women are denied the attributes of speech, of self-articulation, of autonomous personhood. ... Patriarchal domination over women's person, rather than being recognized as a sin against women, is proclaimed as God's will and as woman's deserved punishment for the sin of attempted self-determination. ...
"Catholicism continues to teach a view of sexual ethics that has openly lost its credibility and is disregarded by most Catholics.
"Gestation is by its nature a development process. One cannot deal with process by absolutist thinking. Gestation is the gradual development of the organic systems that can support the human processes of breathing, feeling, and thinking. The soul or self is the interiority of this organic system, and it is Platonic to regard the soul or self as fully present before the organic system to support it exists or is sufficiently developed.
"The so-called "consistent life ethic" proposed by bishops such as Cardinal Joseph Bernardin did not find favor with the vast majority of the antiabortion movement, who supported high military spending and capital punishment and opposed gun control and welfare spending. Their proclaimed concern for life shows little carry over to life after birth. These political affinities indicate that the motivation of the antiabortion movement is primarily about patriarchal control over women and youth and not about concern for life in the broader sense. ... Most of the antiabortion camp has little concern for life after birth.
"This rhetoric conceals the fact that no woman elects to have an abortion as her first choice. ... It is not too much to say that the Roman Catholic Church, by promoting female subordination and dependency and opposing contraception, is one of the major factors in the high abortion rate globally, especially in Africa and Latin America (as well as other areas where institutional Catholicism is highly influential.)
Abortion is neither an unambiguous good or evil, nor morally neutral. It is always a tragic decision between two unchosen and undesirable options. Anyone who is serious about reducing abortions will start by asking about the conditions that promote this a bad situation. This must begin by making abortion legal and safe. But we should not end with this. We must move on to promote research on safe and effective contraception, comprehensive instruction on the use of such contraception, adequate child support for woman who want to bear a child support for women who want to bear a child but cannot support themselves and their children, and finally, a culture that affirms the woman as moral agent in the decisions that affect her life. Any church and society refusing to support these policies is in effect, promoting abortion. ... ten million infants die every year before their first birthday mainly because of malnourishment and lack of sanitation and potable water."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether. "Women, Sexuality, Ecology and the Church." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, pages 6 to 11.
[pic]
[HIS][ABO] "Even on the overheated issue of abortion there is no one "Catholic" position today. Any efforts to present the Catholic position on abortion is fallacious and theologically ungrounded.
"The Catholic doctrine of probabilism provided the theological basis for Catholic pluralism on abortion. This doctrine, while virtually unknown to most Catholics, blesses diversity of opinion in morally debated areas. ...
"Probabilism is based on the insight that a doubtful moral obligation may not be imposed as though it were certain. Ubi dubium, ibi libertas — "where there is doubt, there is freedom" — is probabilism's cardinal principle. ... It gives Catholics the right to dissent from hierarchical church teaching in a moral matter if they can achieve "solid probability." ...
"Intrinsic probability is attained by the individual in a do-it-yourself manner; it is accomplished when an individual person perceives the inapplicability of a particular teaching, even without help from theologian or other authority figures. Extrinsic probability involves reliance on authority figures, which in the past usually meant finding five or six reputable moral theologian who held the liberal view. ...
"Probabilism, in effect, has enfranchised the possibility of reasonable doubt, with frivolous doubt holding no credibility. ...
"There is a wholesome realism in this position. It says that one's reasons for private dissent from hierarchical church teaching have to be cogent and forceful, but they need not be so conclusive that they would convince anyone else. ... The operating paternalistic judgement has been that the laity does not have the perspicacity to arrive at probable opinions themselves. "Intrinsic probability" has been neglected, though it remains as an approved possibility for any Catholic.
"Attention instead has turned most often to "extrinsic probability." Thus, if you found five or six theologians, known for their "prudence and learning," who held the liberal dissenting view, you could follow them in good conscience even if the other ten thousand theologians — including the pope — disagreed.
— Daniel C. Maguire. "Where There's Doubt, There's Freedom." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, page 15 [emphasis in the original] [NOTE: See Argument #2 in the text for a complete discussion of probabilism and how it does not apply to abortion].
[pic]
[ABO] "We understand this kind of analysis [of the Vatican's response to CFFC's 1984 New York Times pro-abortion advertisement] to be an essential part of the critical work necessary for the "feministization" of any patriarchal institution. By feministization we mean the process by which values of inclusivity and mutuality, justice and equality are made manifest in previously patriarchal, that is, hierarchical, gender-class-race-stratified organizations. ... As church officials see it, raising questions about abortion constitutes dissent. ... A characteristic of a patriarchal organization like the Roman Catholic Church is that is oppresses men as well as women. ... This case shows that patriarchy oppresses men by subtly and surely influencing them to internalize its expectations. Hence most men — and signers of the New York Times ad were no exception — find it impossible to engage in the transformation of patriarchy from within. ... Common strategies would have shown that the bonding of women from various communities can help to change a patriarchal church. ... Women-Church, rejecting the divisiveness of patriarchal Catholicism's hierarchies, makes no distinctions between secular and religious, lay and clergy. ...
1. Conflict of interest and struggles for ideological and personal survival will emerge as we try to transform patriarchal religions. ...
2. It seems clear to us that the days of canonical religious communities, or the analogous women's auxiliaries bound to patriarchal organizations on these organizations' terms, is over. ... But such groups simply cannot be a part of a patriarchal structure if women are to commit ourselves fully to a "discipleship of equals." ... It seems that even ordination gives some women a kind of position that is contingent on patriarchal approval.
— Mary E. Hunt and Frances Kissling, President of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC). "The New York Times Ad." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, pages 16 to 23.
[pic]
"Third, Catholic politicians can remind their bishops that in a liberal democracy, not even consensus is controlling, because prudent policy making always look to the consequences of laws enacted. ... Thus even if a popular consensus develops in favor of restrictive abortion law, a public officeholder is still obliged to judge whether the proposed policy will make sound law. ..."
— Mary C. Segers. "Catholics and Pluralistic Society." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, page 24.
[pic]
[HIS][ABO] "As women and as members of the Catholic Church, we cannot remain silent, nor shut our eyes and our hearts to the two million women who have clandestine abortions each year in Mexico [NOTE: The article says that Mexico has a population of 80 million. This means that CFFC is alleging that Mexico has an abortion rate more than four times higher than in the United States. Naturally, CFFC provides no documentation for this number]. ... Along with this moral punishment, there is the high risk that these women may lose their lives: 150,000 to 200,000 women die each year worldwide as a result of illegal abortions [NOTE: Once again, CFFC is merely parroting the number given by other pro-abortion organizations. Chapter 7, of The Facts of Life on Human Life International's Pro-Life Library DVD, entitled "Maternal Deaths Due to Abortion," proves that the number of women who die worldwide of illegal abortion is less than 3,000]. ... We consider it necessary to depenalize abortion so that women with their partners, may decide, freely and responsibly, without the pressures of punishment, weighing abortion as a last resort, an option that is remote but possible, not a privileged one, neither the only option nor an obligatory one [NOTE: Here CFFC says abortion should be a "last resort," after quoting wildly inflated figures proving that it is anything but a last resort]. ... Human dignity therefore requires a man [or woman] to act according to his [or her] conscience and free will, that is, moved and drawn by internal, personal conviction and not by blind inner impulse or mere external coercion. (Gaudium et Spes, ¶17) [NOTE: This is an appropriate quotation, but not for the reason CFFC would like: Gaudium et Spes [¶17] begins by saying "Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil"].
— The Christian Women's Collective. "On Legalizing Abortion: An Open Letter." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, pages 26 and 27 [italics in the original].
[pic]
[VIC][ABO][HIS] "Daily in Bogota, Caracas, La Paz, and Santiago, hundreds of women receive emergency treatment in maternity hospitals, and other hospitals where they arrive in critical condition after having tried to induce abortions themselves or visited untrained back-street abortionists. ... In Colombia, 60 percent of maternal deaths result from clandestine abortions, and every fourth pregnancy is terminated by abortion. Cases of women with infections and hemorrhage from incomplete abortions and women with all the symptoms of acute peritonitis are abundant in the hospitals, frequently requiring hysterectomies. ... Maternity hospitals are overflowing with women requiring emergency attention, causing congestion in all the services available. Incomplete abortions, badly cared for outside of hospitals, take up a large part of the health budget [NOTE: As always in such apocalyptic propaganda, CFFC gives absolutely no documentation for any of these ridiculous claims. “Hundreds of women” every day. Suuuure].
— Ana Maria Portugal and Amparo Claro. "Virgin and Martyr." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, pages 28 to 32.
[pic]
[STU] "We have seen an enormous conservative tide in our society, and we are seeing the destruction of the civil rights movement. When we have a society that no longer can acknowledge the rights of racial minorities, how can we expect people to acknowledge the rights of women, rights which are indeed even more fragile than those of racial and ethnic minorities in our society?"
— Frances Kissling. "The Challenge of Prochoice Politics." Conscience, Spring/ Summer 1993, pages 39 and 40.
[pic]
[ADO][REL] "I have always believed that Christ hates hypocrisy far more than sin. ...
Just six months into the devastating aftermath of adoption, I knew I could never choose adoption again. I chose to have an abortion at eight weeks. It was to be one of the most spiritual experiences of my life. ... I asked God to sit before me to my left, the spirit of this child to sit to the right. Before these two, I poured out my pain and my grief. I acknowledged my mistake is having had sex with someone who did not care about me nor I about him. ... I told the child spirit I could not go through this right now, and told her my sorrow about it. ... I asked both of them for forgiveness. And a miraculous thing occurred: I knew in that moment I was forgiven. I experienced the unconditional love and mercy of my Creator in a way I never had before. The peace of that experience carried me through my [abortion] appointment and ever since. It is a peace I have never known with the adoptive experience.
The church grieves the aborted unborn and abandons the silently weeping women in its midst. Innocence is held in greater esteem than life. The experiences of miscarriage, abortion and adoption are ignored. And the decisions and feelings of women are condemned. ... You spoke of your work with Project Rachel and asked if I had heard of it. I have. I wonder why they minister only to women who have traumatic loss experiences around abortion. ... Is the ministry truly for healing, or is healing secondary to the political and social agenda of the church?"
— Mary Jean Wolch. "An Open Letter from a Catholic Birth Mother." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, pages 42 to 45, and reprinted in Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 25 to 28.
[pic]
[ABO]
Clifford Grobstein: "Abortion terminates an otherwise existent human life. This is, however initiated, the process [which] results in the death of an entity which other wise would remain alive if undisturbed. ... Other cases in which this is true include murder, capital punishment, shooting a wartime enemy, amputation of limb, removal of a tumor, and discarding of human cells cultured in a laboratory. In each case, existent human life is terminated by deliberate action. ..."
Lisa Cahill: "But it [a zygote] is a living member of the species whose value cannot simply be reduced to the issue of its mother's choice, nor even of her own legitimate interests and needs. It deserves consideration and even protection in its own right. ... At the same time, I do believe that even at conception the fetus has very considerable value, simply because of its human identity and immense potentiality. ... Sidney [Callahan] has recently challenged us "developmentalists" to explain why we think growth over time makes a difference in the moral status of the fetus. ... My basic reason is an appeal to human experience, a generalization from a widely shared (I think) valuation of the unborn along a spectrum. ... To me, the difficult point is not really whether the value of life develops ... but how to assign an amount or degree of value, whether at the beginning or at a later point. ..."
Sidney Callahan: "The value of the fetus is greater than that of the stages which preceded it and less than the value of certain stages still to come."
Frances Kissling: "I value the fetus because it is human, that is, of our species, living, and such represents all our hopes for the future of humankind. I also value it for its potentiality — all it is in the process of becoming and all it will ultimately have the capacity to do. ... I feel that the value of the fetus, until the third trimester, never outweighs the value of women's well being or the social importance of acknowledging women's capacity to weigh all the values in making the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy. ... I believe that as the fetus comes closer to fulfilling its potential to become a person, more serious reasons are required to morally justify terminating its life. I do not believe that my beliefs in this realm are factually more compelling than [others'] and thus I am unwilling to see any one of our beliefs enacted into law."
— "Defining Personhood: A Dialogue." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, pages 47 to 49 [NOTE: Notice all of the phony hand-wringing over the "great" value of the fetus, but it is all a blind and a diversion designed to make the pro-abortionists look sympathetic and a little less inhumane — there is never going to be a case where the value of the preborn child becomes equal to that of the mother in their eyes, so what is the point of all this debate and dialogue? Even if CFFC assigns the preborn child a value equal to 99.9% that of the mother, it can still be killed for convenience].
[pic]
[REL][HOM][ABO][MAS] "In 1974 Patricia Fogarty Mcquillan, a founder and first president of CFFC, was crowned "pope" on the steps of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City to mark the first anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision."
[Angela Bonavoglia, former CFFC Board member]: "God is in me. Spirituality is in me. I don't have to look out of myself to these priests for the answers. I could find a way to be Catholic and to believe in myself and to believe that sexuality is not a bad thing. It gave me permission. ... I don't want to give up my church. I want to fight for it."
[Mary E. Hunt, former CFFC Board member]: "I testify tonight as a lesbian feminist who is a Catholic theologian, a woman who prepared fully with the Jesuits for priesthood. ... To be a lesbian feminist is to love all women. ... My experience of coming out ten years ago was very exciting and positive for me, although the institutional church never congratulated me on my insight. ... We had never been told about this foolproof means of natural birth control! [lesbianism] ... Having learned by the early '70s that much of what the institutional, hierarchical church teaches about women is morally bankrupt, I cannot say that I ever gave the church's position much credence. To the contrary, because the church's positions on birth control, abortion, and sterilization, not mention sexual relations outside of marriage, and masturbation, were so far off the mark, my discovery of the church's prohibition of lesbian sexuality only enhanced my sense that it was probably important for women to affirm the lesbian in all of us."
[Daniel Maguire, former CFFC Board member]: "Theology basically is the quest to discover whether reality ultimately makes sense. In its vigor, it challenges all the assumptions contained in the tenured answers of a culture. As such, it is the resident heretic in the universe of discourse. Done well, it does not lead to peace."
[J. Giles Milhaven, honorary CFFC Board member]: "Fifteen years ago I was a pro-choice because I judged the new fetus to be a little thing. Today I am much more pro-choice than I was then, because I judge the new fetus to be a big thing, important, precious. Not the biggest thing in the world, not the most important, not the most precious. Far from it: The life of the fetus can often be outweighed by other realities of human life. But the life of the fetus is a big enough, important enough, precious enough thing for pregnant women I have listened to that I am more convinced than ever that no one else should restrict their decision on what to do with it" [NOTE: Sooooo — the more important the fetus is, the more women should be allowed to kill it? Such is the muddled nonsense that passes for “theology” among the dissenters].
— "The Examined Life." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, pages 50 to 52.
[pic]
[ABO] "In its approach to the issue, the organization [CFFC] relied on the Declaration on Religious Freedom, the Second Vatican Council's endorsement of the separation of church and state, pluralism, and primacy of conscience. ... The objections church officials raise to legal abortion are not defensible in terms of church teaching related to fetal life. It became apparent that what we were dealing with was sexism and outmoded attitudes toward sexuality. ... Pat [McMahon] got a whopping $75,000 from the Sunnen Foundation to fund CFFC's first publications, the "Abortion in Good Faith" series."
— Frances Kissling. "CFFC Notebook: A Mouse That Roars Turns 20." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, pages 53 to 55.
[pic]
[ABO] "Medicaid paid when I had my child — why won't it help now, when it's not a good time for a new baby?" ... Restoring Medicaid funding for abortion is a high priority for CFFC this year. To help us advocate restored funding, CFFC needs to hear from and about women who have been hurt by the Hyde amendment."
— Ad by the CFFC "Funding Campaign." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, page 60.
[pic]
[ABO] "Besides the variety of beliefs and opinions in the Catholic Church on the subject of abortion, Catholicism also teaches that the conscience of a person is the final guide to be followed when deciding to act. The Catholic belief is that you commit a sin if you go against your conscience even if you are doing what is objectively right. You are not guilty of sin if you follow your conscience, even if most people in the church would consider you action wrong. ... We are not born with something called conscience. Conscience is something that has to be formed. Conscience is our progressively refined ability to think about situations in which we are involved and evaluate their moral goodness or badness for us. To make this evaluation we bring to bear on the situation the reasoning process of our mind, the feelings of our heart, the standards of moral behavior we have learned from society, and where appropriate, religious teachings."
— Extract from the CFFC brochure entitled "Abortion: A Guide to Making Ethical Choices." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1993, page 61.
[pic]
"For one thing, it [a New Yorker cartoon] says "overpopulation" is why the Vatican should embrace birth control. Wrong. The best case for contraception is individual, not collective — the ability of individuals to make good decisions about sexuality and parenting, and their right to make bad ones."
— Maggie Hume. "Editor's Note." Conscience, Autumn 1993, inside front cover [NOTE: The obvious problem with this argument is that people do not have the "right" to make bad decisions, especially if those decisions are deadly to body or soul].
[pic]
[HIS] "By some estimates there are 3 million abortions each year in Brazil, with a population of 152 million compared to 1.5 million abortions in the United States, with a population of 258 million."
— "Sharon L, Camp Responds." Conscience, Autumn 1993, pages 10 and 11 [NOTE: This is an example of the old pro-abortion nonsense that alleges that abortions will be more common if they are illegal. The above statement says that the abortion rate in Brazil is nearly twice that of the United States].
[pic]
[ABO][HIS][ILL] "Gender, a frame of reference used more and more in the social sciences, was first employed by feminist activists in the early 1970s in an effort to address theoretical issues raised by social inequalities based on sex, issues that had not been explained by theories of class and social stratification. ... I understand gender as the social construction that defines and gives meaning to sexuality and human reproduction. A first definition might be: the totality of arrangements whereby a society transforms biological sexuality in which human needs are both satisfied and transformed. ... Gender is a system of power over certain capacities of the human body: sexuality and reproduction.
"... the [societal] controls can always be transgressed. Women can claim the power of their bodies, disobey the norms, feign obedience, act up, and resist domination. ... the criminalization and clandestine nature of abortion prevent women from exercising in full their right to determine freely the number and spacing of their pregnancies. ... Clandestine abortions of every sort are practiced, killing an appalling number of those women with the least resources.
M. Teresita DeBarbieri. "Gender and Population Policy: A Reflection on the Importance of Understanding Gender Issues." Conscience, Autumn 1993 [italics in the original].
[pic]
[ABO] "More than thirty organizations, from the National Coalition of American Nuns to Population Action International, signed an open letter initiated by CFFC to protest the nomination of anti-choice Boston mayor Ray Flynn as ambassador to the Vatican."
— "CFFC Notebook: In Brief." Conscience, Autumn 1993, page 48.
[pic]
[ABO] "Poland is home to a new Federation for Women and Planned Parenthood, whose creation and funding were facilitated by CFFC and the International Planned Parenthood Federation."
— "CFFC Notebook: In Brief." Conscience, Autumn 1993, page 49.
[pic]
[ABO] "Their phones still warm from the Medicaid funding campaign, [CFFC] activists in five key states called their Senators to urge the confirmation of Joycelyn Elders as Surgeon General and counter opponents who accuse Elders of Catholic bashing."
— "CFFC Notebook: In Brief." Conscience, Autumn 1993.
[pic]
[COE][ABO] "Daniel Maguire, professor of moral theology at Marquette University, Milwaukee, warned against the "naïvete" of treating the Vatican as the voice of all Catholics. "Catholicism is considerably richer than any segment of it, including the Vatican," Maguire said. The "dominant views of Catholic theology," in fact, are more liberal than the Vatican on contraception and abortion. ... Catholic teaching stands on a tripod, of which the hierarchy is only one leg; lay people and theologians, though often squelched, also contribute to Catholic theology. ... He [Maguire] cited population growth, environmental devastation, and death of one million women annually from reproductive causes — "a Holocaust every six years." ... "These problems will not go away by throwing condoms at them, but they will also not go away without condoms," Maguire said. "Artificial contraception and abortion ... are necessary options, and their moral respectability must be forthrightly maintained and vigorously defended. ... Coercive motherhood may be a greater villain than coercive birth restraint."
— "Meetings: Fruitful Discussion." Conscience, Autumn 1993, pages 51 and 53 [NOTE: What Maguire is saying here is that a pro-life law is worse than the Chinese forced-abortion program!].
[pic]
[MAS][ADU][HOM] ""Why is it that sexual pleasure needs to be justified by something beyond itself? ... It doesn't. ... Good sex — sex which is as pleasurable as possible on as many levels as possible — operates as a channel of grace."
"I was startled when I heard these comments from a Roman Catholic theologian [Christine E. Gudorf] a while back. ... the endorsement was extended to homosexual activity as well as heterosexual, and — while a commitment such as marriage may well add to sexual pleasures — masturbation and sex between unmarried people also were included. "A marriage license does not endow sex with new power. Sex itself has a sacramental power. I propose that sexual pleasure is good for its own sake."
Theologians like this one — no, she's not at all alone — aren't throwing out the idea of standards or ethics in sexuality. Quite the opposite: by combating gratuitous shame, challenging narrow assumptions, and promoting an honest, mature appreciation of sexuality, they encourage good sexual ethics."
— Maggie Hume. "Editor's Note: The Joy of ..." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, inside front cover.
[pic]
[MAS][HOM*] "Silencing women distorts language about sexuality. Think, for instance, how often you hear the word "sex" used as though only intercourse were real sex. Think how hard it is to describe any sexual encounter that does not involve intercourse. "Mutual masturbation" is what I mostly hear people saying. While this has a creative side, doing the best people can with this deformed language, still this phrase drives me wild with irritation. On top of fierce homophobia, our inadequate language is one reason many people find it so hard to understand same-sex relationships. "What do they do together?" is the constant question. It indicates that most people believe sex is putting the penis into the vagina. ... Hattie Gossett quotes an older black woman saying "outercourse" to talk about the delights of sex with a man without intercourse. ... If we relish sex, if we get raunchy, our language may make others think we are sluts. ... If we cherish a partner of our own sex, we may get not only shame and shunning, but violence. These dangers are all fundamentally wrong. ... Fluid language also has ethical and political overtones. Its value is not confined to sexuality. Fluidity reminds us that we should be able to change the shape of things or institutions or behaviors when the need arises."
— Mary Pellauer. "Ethics that Celebrate Women's Sexuality." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 3 to 11 [italics in the original].
[pic]
[REL][HOM*] "One of the problems for people like me who were born into the Catholic Church — especially an Irish Catholic Church — during the 1930's and 1940's was that we were raised in total denial of all things sexual. Everything in this realm was evil, surrounded like Hitler's stalags, by deadly fences and land mines. Mortal sins everywhere. ... Daily, I was being confirmed in my belief that I should heed first and always the voice of my inner peace, regardless of what my official religious teachers might seek to foist upon me. ... In July 1992 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement that presented anew a centuries-old and outmoded formula of human nature that owed more to the Stoic philosophers then to Jesus: Rome decided that people whose sexual orientation was towards others of their own sex should admit that our very nature as sexual beings is essentially disordered; and that, as a result, we have special propensities towards sin and evil. ... Being homosexual was just a fact, part of the core that made me me. ... My existence as a homosexual person had a meaning in God's purposes. If I was to be true to Him as my creator — I was to be true to Jesus as my brother and my Lord — if I was to be true to myself — if I was to accept my solidarity with my brothers who fifty years ago were murdered across Europe because another distorted ideology had claimed they did not constitute human perfection — then I had a duty to accept and affirm my sexuality as part of my humanity. ... Contrary to predictions of some geriatric clerics locked away in Vatican palaces, these realizations did not make me madly promiscuous. But then, fearful of their own selves, unwilling to believe really that the God we all claim to serve is a God enfleshed, they do not want to believe or even hear that."
— John Maguire. "Why Hide It Behind a Fig Leaf?: Creativity, Sexuality, Faith and Religion." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 12 to 15 [italics in the original].
[pic]
[STU][PED] "While practices such as genital mutilation of female children and adolescents, which affects an estimated 85 to 114 million females around the world, involve obscene denials of bodyright, western cultures deny bodyright in ways only slightly more subtle. Parents, teachers, health care professionals, neighbors, and friends routinely fail to respect children's right to make choices about what happens to their bodies. Decisions about what they will eat and wear, who will touch and care for them, the very schedules on which their bodies operate, are set by others. Given what we know about the damage inflicted on self by denial of bodyright in sexual abuse, how can we ignore the less dramatic but still detrimental effects of systematic and virtually universal denial of bodyright to children?
"Our society's refusal to acknowledge children's bodyright has even distorted our efforts to protect children from sexual abuse. Much too much of the attempt to teach children to refuse sexual abuse focuses on separating sexual and nonsexual touch under the guise of bad touch and good touch. Sexual touch is not bad touch. Bad touch is any touch that is unwanted [NOTE: The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) says exactly the same thing, as it attempts to legalize and legitimize the sexual abuse of children].
"Much too often, rather than take the time and effort to explain to a child why, for example, the child needs an immunization she does not want, we restrain her and give the immunization. When we do this we teach children that individuals have no bodyright, that those who are bigger and more powerful control the bodies of those who are smaller and weaker.
— Christine E. Gudorf. "Embodying Morality: Bodyright is the Foundation for Moral Agency." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 16 to 21 [italics in the original].
[pic]
"The sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests threatens like nothing in modern memory to undermine the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. ... Jason Berry argues that the segregation of the Catholic priesthood contributes to the larger problem. While nothing in the research to date suggests that celibacy directly causes pedophilia or ephebophilia [NOTE: This is sexual attraction to young adults], it has not been ruled out as an indirect and contribution factor in abuse. ... A lifestyle of sexual repression and sex-segregation unwittingly provides a haven for pedophiles/ephebophiles. ... At a minimum, this kind of insight powerfully argues for a reexamination of our church's continued policy of an exclusively male celibate priesthood, if we hope to foster a psychologically healthy and moral ordained ministry."
— Susan L. Secker. "The Pedophilia Crisis: A Challenge to Catholic Conscience." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 22 to 25.
[pic]
[REL] "Psychologists describe dysfunctional families in which everyone grumbles about the noises and smells in the house, but no one will admit that there is an elephant in the living room. Reactions thus far to the new encyclical Veritatis Splendor brings this to mind. Almost all comments to date have missed the gigantic presence of the elephant.
"Many others light on the references to the pelvic issues that have so consumed this and previous pontificates and remains a preoccupation here [NOTE: Who has a "preoccupation" with the "pelvic issues?" Take a look at the documents of the Church and the homilies of Pope John Paul II, and you will see that perhaps a maximum of five percent is taken up with addressing the so-called "pelvic issues." As for CFFC, well, it talks about little else. CFFC is by any definition obsessed with these issues].
"The immodest title of this encyclical had already set the tone. ... This arrogant nonsense was a leftover from the very incomplete First Vatican Council. This council carved out a little zone of divine cognitive assistance reserved for the pope and those members of the hierarchy who agreed with him. This type of thinking is not unusual in religious history. Cult leaders and Ayatollahs into our day claim special pipelines to the mind of God. It is a claim that is both arrogant and sacrilegious. ... John Paul II spells out what this charism is that he claims for himself. It is a unique "light and power capable of answering even the most controversial and complex questions" giving him privileged capacities for "discernment." This embarrassing oracularism is the elephant in the living room.
"The hallowed Catholic tradition of probabilism taught that in respectable debated issues, where good people for good reason disagree conscience is free. ... The problem with the encyclical is that it is not Catholic enough. It bypasses the subtleties and achievements of the Catholic past.
"This influential person who can draw overflow crowds in the four corners of the earth, who has the announced intention of influencing national and international policy, deserves strict scrutiny and candid criticism. ... Making infallible statements through the medium of fallible language is a naïve dream.
"Hear the details of this actual case, dating from 1969. A young woman in a large eastern city in the United States has so many medical problems that she had been listed in critical condition several times during the pregnancy, but managed to give birth and survive. Her doctor recommended surgical sterilization and said he would not stay on as her physician if she did not have this done, since he did not think she could survive another pregnancy. A priest who subscribed to the papal teaching on birth control told her and her husband that they had only two alternatives: total sexual abstinence or the rhythm method. They chose rhythm. She got pregnant, and she died [NOTE: There is about a 99 percent probability that this pitiful case is completely fabricated, as so many other such stories are]. The pope would say that this "martyrdom" bears splendid witness ... to the holiness of God's law." He is wrong. This woman was a martyr to ignorance. Ethical errors are not just unfortunate. They are often lethal. In sum, Veritatis Splendor is a dangerous document. It accents the pelvic issues within ethics to the neglect of the social teachings of Christianity and Judaism.
"The pope wants theologians and those in related disciplines to get a mandate from the local bishop to teach. For those teaching in Catholic colleges, the pressure of new ordinances already being developed is likely to be especially pernicious. This would crush theology and put an end to academic freedom.
"In a word, Veritatis Splendor is the sad legacy of a failed papacy. ... Instead, as in this encyclical, he has squandered his moral authority on issues on which he has no privileged expertise. ... The encyclical is an angry document.
"Theologians have served the church well. They are not infallible, and they surely do not treat one another as such. Collision and criticism among many minds competing freely together is the mark of a healthy theologate. But the pope does not believe that. Like Saul, he is furious and hurling his spears. It is sad, and unnecessary.
— Daniel C. Maguire. "The Splendor of Control: A Commentary on Veritatis Splendor and the Elephant in the Living Room." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 26 to 29.
[pic]
[VIC] "Twenty-five years later I feel betrayed by the church. If, as the majority of the [Papal birth control] commission believed, birth control is not intrinsically evil and if most Catholics practice birth control, how can the official church uphold Humanae Vitae? ... I long for a church that is honest in its teachings, admits its errors, and faces the effects of past rigidity with openness. ... But I am saddened and untrusting of the church's search for the truth. I only hope that within the lifetime of my children and grandchildren the church will admit its error. It took centuries for Galileo. May it be only decades for the birth control commission."
— Patty Crowley. "Galileo All Over Again." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 30 and 31. This article is part of the commentary "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae."
[pic]
[REL] "The promulgation of Humanae Vitae was perhaps one of the greatest moral disasters of the Roman Catholic Church. Its importance lay in forcing many to decide to repudiate the church's mistaken views of both sexual morality and teaching authority. ... The anticontraceptive teaching has its roots not in pronatalism, but in a negative view of sexuality as sinful, even within marriage, and allowable only for procreation.
"Reaffirming the teaching against the emerging sensus fidelium (the consensus of the faithful, traditionally a source of church teaching) not only failed to sustain church credibility — it had exactly the opposite effect. ... The rejection of the [Papal birth control] commission's consensus revealed the interconnection of authoritarianism with a pathological need to control the sexuality of women and lay people generally. ...
"Today the maintenance of the anti-contraceptive teaching is both an intellectual embarrassment and a cruel imposition on millions of women and men whose access to contraception is impeded by church power. No moral theologian of standing seeks to justify the teaching anymore, so it stands on brute institutional power alone, lacking any moral credibility. ...
"The pope rejected this opportunity because of his inability to admit that church teaching could previously have erred. He thereby unmasked the extent to which the church's self-concept of privileged authority has become not only mistaken but idolatrous."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether. "Watershed for Faithful Catholics." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 31 and 32. This article is part of the commentary "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae."
[pic]
[BIG*][REL]
5. Just as all forms of artificial birth control go against the natural purpose of conjugal relations — namely procreation — so the use of all form of man-made anti-biotics interferes with the God-given design of bacteria and viruses and how He intends them to interact with the human body.
6. Further, in light of this knowledge of the proper moral order between bacteria-and-viruses and the human body, the church calls man back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, and teaches that each and every bacteria-body interaction must remain open to the transmission of infection. ... The faithful are admonished to remember that inside the Holy Father's head, he hears not only his own voice but also the voice of God (vox Dei). ...
9. Respect for God's order by reason teaches us that it is immoral to impede development of a natural process. That is why we have so exhaustively spoken out against artificial birth control and now anti-biotics. ...
11. We cannot wait to get to the developing countries and stop them from using anti-biotics.
13. Syphilis. God created syphilis to infect sexually immoral people, and cause them suffering and eventual death. In no way should a man-made anti-biotic interfere with this God-given process. ... It is especially sinful to use anti-biotics to block the natural path of syphilis as intended by God."
— Christopher Durang. "The Lost Encyclical against Penicillin: Written after reading Humanae Vitae, with a nod to Swift's "Modest Proposal." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, page 33. This article is part of the commentary "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae" [NOTE: The "credits" at the bottom of this satire say "Christopher Durang, a playwright, won the Tony Award for Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You." This is a virulently anti-Catholic play which mocks the most basic beliefs of Catholics].
[pic]
"The letter's [Humanae Vitae's] normative discourse, abstract and judicial, moves in its own sphere, which has nothing to do with lived Christianity in an ever-changing, pluralistic world."
— Ernesto Villalobos Najera. "The Encyclical Renewed." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, page 34. This article is part of the commentary "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae."
[pic]
[ADU] "And the larger tragedy is that there is so much positive theology in Humanae Vitae that is lost: a positive vision of Christian marriage and the affirmation that sexuality is a genuine way of expressing love. The focus on a narrow biological interpretation of individual acts of intercourse within marriage as the test of sexual orthodoxy effectively destroyed the church's credibility in the area of marriage and sexuality, to say nothing of the impact on the credibility of the church as a whole."
— Thomas A. Shannon. "Finding Our Voices." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 35 and 36. This article is part of the commentary "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae."
[pic]
"Humanae Vitae is a good illustration of Catholic sexual teaching's proclivity to take a good idea and sabotage it with a narrow and negative expression."
— Lisa Sowle Cahill. "Basic Values Obscured." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 36 and 37. This article is part of the commentary "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae."
[pic]
[VIC] "Besides violating the best of the Catholic natural low tradition, Humanae Vitae with its anti-sexual and functional notions of women, exhibits the worst in Catholic teaching. ... By privileging motherhood, Humanae Vitae denies the reproductive freedom of all women and marginalizes non-mothers. ... Our struggle must include transforming the racist, male-dominant capitalist order ... That such teaching is reaffirmed by the pope seems incredible. ... Anger wracks us because of the injustice and the suffering engendered by the multiple abuses this teaching supports. Sadness fills us because the leadership in this church is faithful neither to the Gospel nor to the best in our own tradition."
— Mary E. Hobgood. "Betrayal of Catholic Tradition." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 37 and 38. This article is part of the commentary "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae."
[pic]
[REL][HIS] "Jesus has little to say about sexuality, so it is impossible to cite Gospel text to support efforts to direct human sexual behavior" [NOTE: This is a perfect example of how CFFC writers deceive themselves and deliberately attempt to deceive others. Just some of the Biblical (and Gospel) admonitions against certain types of sexual behavior are as follows: Homosexual activity: See Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; and 2 Kings 23:7. Divorce: See Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Luke 16:18; and 1 Corinthians 7:10-15. Fornication: See 2 Chronicles 21:11; Isaiah 23:17; Ezekiel 16:26,29; Matthew 5:32, 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20,29, 21:25; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1, 6:13,18, 7:2, 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 1:7; and Revelation 2:14,20-21, 9:21, 14:8, 17:2,4, 18:3,9, and 19:2. Adultery: See Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:20, 19:20, 20:10-12; Deuteronomy 5:18, 22:13-29, 27:20, 27:23; Proverbs 6:26, 6:29, 6:32; Matthew 5:27,28,32, 15:19, 19:9,18; Mark 7:21, 10:11-12,19; Luke 16:18, 18:20; John 8:4-11, Romans 7:3, 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:5; and Hebrews 13:4] ...
"From the start, there have been inconsistencies in church views of abortion and the use of contraceptives. One striking example is the career of Peter of Spain, the thirteenth-century medical writer of immensely popular book called Thesaurus Pauperum (Treasure of the Poor). He offered an extensive listing of herbal recipes for pre- and post-coital oral contraception. Not only was Peter not censured by his church — he even became pope, as John XXI, in 1276.
"Humanae Vitae is more about Pope Paul VI and the values of the clerical elite in which he lived than it is about divinely inspired, unchangeable truth. His views of "the natural moral law" were filtered through a theologically glossed misogyny. ... This misogyny, which has informed so many aspects of church life, is a primary subtext of the condemnations of birth control.
"To my mind, the church would do well to follow Christ's example of compassion, respect for women, and silence on questions of human sexuality and reproduction. ... What is appalling about Humanae Vitae, and Pope John Paul II's new and equally pernicious encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, is that both authors should have been able to see the immorality of enforced child birth. ... Someday the church will recognize the realities of human nature and human needs. And then Humanae Vitae will take its place with other embarrassing teachings in the annals of Vatican, curiosities for generations to come."
— Pamela J. Maraldo, former President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). "Misogyny that Will Pass." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, page 38. This article is part of the commentary "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae."
[pic]
[STU] "Humanae Vitae belongs not to the infallible but to the ordinary magisterium. A future pope may state doctrine contrary to that proposed by Paul VI. ...
"While we may consider certain behavior morally wrong, somebody in his or her conscience may see no error or wrongdoing in it and thus commits no moral error in engaging in that behavior (Gaudium et Spes ¶26) [NOTE: In fact, this encyclical says nothing at all about this topic, even in paragraph 26]. That is to say, act can be considered morally wrong only in an individual's conscience. And because only God can judge conscience, nobody can declare a specific human behavior "intrinsically wrong" [NOTE: Really? How about rape? Murder? Child molestation? Or — dare we say it — killing an abortionist?]
"Theologians have been practically unanimous: in the end, it is up to couples to search their consciences and decide, before God, whether they should use artificial contraceptive methods or not. If they do this, they commit no subjective moral error.
— Alberto Munera, S.J. "Catalyst for Moral Thinking." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, page 38. This article is part of the commentary "Tarnished Silver Anniversary: Reflections on Humanae Vitae."
[pic]
"The church's resistance to the development of a realistic and positive approach toward sexuality has created enormous problems for the institution. ... Another is its blindness to the fact that one of the best ways to reduce the incidence of abortion is through the use of contraceptives."
— Frances Kissling. "Sex and Justice: On July 25, What's a Homilist to Say?" Conscience, Winter 1993/1994, pages 40 to 41.
[pic]
[STU*] "We have never received financing Planned Parenthood, nor from any corporate source, including contraceptive companies. We did receive several small grant totaling about $20,000 from the Playboy Foundation in the early 1980s. At that time, we viewed it as reparation for the magazine's sexism."
— Frances Kissling, quoted in "CFFC Notebook." Conscience, Winter 1993/1994 pages 50 to 52 [NOTE: We might ask CFFC: Did you stop taking money from Playboy Magazine because it suddenly stopped being "sexist?" We don't think so!].
[pic]
[FOR][VIC] "Imagine sex among friends as the norm, young people learning how to make friends rather than to date. Imagine valuing genital interaction in terms of whether and how it fosters friendship and pleasure. ... Pleasure is our birth-right of which we have been robbed in religious patriarchy. It is time to claim it anew with our friends. ... Responsible relational sexuality is a human right. I picture friends, not families, basking in the pleasures we deserve because our bodies are holy and our sexuality is part of creation's available riches."
— Mary E. Hunt (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors and co-director of the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER)). Quote from her talk at the "Re-Imagining Conference" held November 4-7, 1993, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Described in The Re-Imagining Conference: A Report. American Family Association, April, 1994.
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1994
[FAM][BIG][HIS] ""However, the family they [the "radical right"] project for us is fascist, sexist, and racist. So too is their state." Since Maguire wrote those words, the Catholic right has emerged publicly in support of this agenda."
— Frances Kissling and Denise Shannon. "Who's Right?" Conscience, Spring 1994, page 3.
[pic]
[HYP] "Yet, as organizations, the Knights [of Columbus] and — to a lesser but growing degree — the USCC/NCCB recently have provided increasing resources and support to right wing causes which many of their individual adherents would never favor."
— Steve Askin. "Overview: The Catholic Right." Conscience, Spring 1994, page 6 [NOTE: Of course, CFFC ignores the fact that it supports 'causes' that many of the Church's "individual adherents would never favor" — such as partial-birth abortion and abortion funding — but this is OK for them, of course!]
[pic]
[HYP] "However, even the bishops compared the violence of Dr. Gunn's murder with the "violence of abortion," continuing to use the very comparison that provides unbalanced individuals with justification for their violent acts."
— Steve Askin. "Overview: The Catholic Right." Conscience, Spring 1994, page 11 [NOTE: The pro-abortionists only want pro-lifers to apologize for "anti-choice violence" — they would not even allow pro-lifers to mention the violence of millions of preborn babies killed every year, or the hundreds of women killed by “safe” abortion, or the hundreds of women murdered by their husbands or boyfriends because they refused to have abortions. This is how desperate they are to cover up their killing].
[pic]
[REL*]
"Lucifer, each note sounds like
your sweet name, lyrical, holy.
It bursts over heaven
while you break your long
back over the world.
Brother, first of us,
you never heard songs
like these. They shine
in heaven's edges.
For you, all
the angels are dancing."
— Thomas Marron. "Songs for the Angels. Three: Gabriel Considers His Horn." Conscience, Spring 1994, page 20.
[pic]
[ABO][HIS] "Church teaching on sexual and reproductive issues is not infallible. Moreover, the church has no teaching on when the fetus becomes a person."
"Abortion can be a moral choice. Women can be trusted to make decisions that support the well-being of their children, families, and society, and that enhance their own integrity and health."
"A Catholic who believes abortion is immoral in all or most circumstances can still support its legality."
"Many Catholic theologians have supported the principle that both heterosexual and homosexual domestic partnerships based on justice and commitment, rather than the traditional marital contract, are morally valid."
"Church law affirms both the right and the responsibility of a Catholic to follow his or her conscience, even when it conflicts with church teaching."
— Steve Askin. "Challenging the Right." Conscience, Spring 1994, pages 65 and 66.
[pic]
[ABO] "... We believe the fetus in the early stages of gestation has the moral status of a potential person, although with an increasing presumption on the side of the right to be born and cared for as it approaches viability, at the end of the second trimester."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether. "Reflections on the Word "Free" in Free Choice." Conscience, Summer 1994, pages 2 and 3 [NOTE: This is a nice-sounding deception that CFFC often uses. While trying to sound just and sympathetic to the unborn child, CFFC can never produce an example of an abortion it would not approve of. As always, even if they say that the unborn child has 99% of the value of the woman's life just before it is born, this is the same as saying it has no value, because she will always be allowed to abort it. CFFC, in fact, has lobbied fiercely for the partial-birth abortion in the third trimester. So Ruether's statement, of course, is just a diversion, and is utterly meaningless prattle].
[pic]
[ABO] "I do think that we should not be taking an unequivocal stand on something so complicated [abortion]. To say that, if abortion is one of the covered services, we cannot participate, is premature, I believe, very short-sighted, because there are a number of values that are in conflict. One of the current intolerable evils in this country is that we have somewhere between thirty-seven and forty million people with zero health care, and another thirty million with inadequate health care. If that is not the overriding evil, I don't know what is. To look at everything through the lens of abortion, as if that is the only issue, I find to be a distortion of what the Gospel is about and of the scale of human needs."
— Sister Diana Bader, vice president of Seattle's Sisters of Providence Health System, quoted in "Catholic Health Care: A Changing Field." America, September 18, 1993, page 15, and in "The Bishops and Abortion." Conscience, Summer 1994, page 7 [NOTE: See how sly this pro-abortionist is! She does not want to admit that she is for abortion, so she tries to divert attention away from it, as all pro-aborts do, to another "evil," such as inadequate health care. Note that she does not say abortion is "evil," because she does not believe it is. She also winds up by inferring that being against abortion is unbiblical].
[pic]
[ABO][HIS] "First, abortion is health care ... Anyone who doubts abortion is health care should look at the places where it is illegal, and an estimated two hundred thousand women die each year of unsafe clandestine abortions."
— Gregory G. Lebel. "A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery: Abortion and Health Care Reform." Conscience, Summer 1994, pages 5 to 7 and 10 to 12 [NOTE: The writer repeats the same tired old pro-abortion lie that there are 200,000 deaths due to illegal abortions each year around the world. For a proof that this figure is grossly inflated, see Chapter 7 of The Facts of Life, "Maternal Deaths Due to Abortion."].
[pic]
[ABO][BIG] "Specifically, having grown up and long outgrown the Catholic church, I still have a deep concern for the matters of meaning and value which that institution claims to be concerned about, heinous efforts to outlaw reproductive freedom notwithstanding ... In a hostile environment overrun with the platitudes of antichoice religious fanatics, religion itself, understandably, develops a bad name ... the toxic atmosphere created by antichoice activists at [abortion] clinics means that patients now, more than ever, need competent, caring people to accompany them through the decision making and medical procedures necessary to deal with unwanted pregnancies ... While hospitals have chaplains, few if any clinics have regular spiritual advisors as part of their staffs. This needs to be rethought and remedied."
— Mary E. Hunt (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors and co-director of the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER)). "Secular Spirituality: Asking Questions about Abortion." Conscience, Summer 1994, pages 31 to 33.
[pic]
[ABO][HYP] "... And countless women have illegal abortions [in Brazil] each year — estimates range from one million to five million — with maternal mortality running as high as 10 percent. This sort of reality is what moved Ivone Gebara, a theologian and nun, to go public last autumn in favor of legalizing abortion in Brazil.
""I feel that the problem of legalization of abortion is linked to the problem of the power of patriarchy," Gebara told a gathering in Washington recently, while on a break from a semester of teaching at Union Theological Seminary in New York City ... "In the Roman Catholic Church, we don't allow birth control, we don't allow condoms, we don't allow anything" [NOTE: Surprise to all you millions of NFP users around the world!] "It is impossible to have reproductive health if you don't allow these means ... People say I don't understand about birth control because you are not married, but I am a woman and I am human" [NOTE: What hypocrisy! CFFC tells priests they can't voice an opinion on this subject because they aren't married] ... If I haven't experienced it in my own body, I have experienced it by my solidarity with women. I don't have to be pregnant to understand a woman who is pregnant. I don't have to be beaten to understand what violence against women means. All human problems interest me, but some people say nuns need to be silent on these questions" [NOTE: More hypocrisy! It is CFFC that says that priests and men in general are not allowed to speak on these topics].
"The problem is not only the legalization of abortion, but a question of power. If I am saying no to patriarchal power, yes to women's experience, members of the hierarchy are afraid. They can't love me" [NOTE: Oh, please!!]
— Maggie Hume. "Defending Lives: Brazilian Theologian Ivone Gebara." Conscience, Summer 1994, pages 36 and 37 [NOTE: The pro-abortionists in Brazil are the worst in the world when it comes to lies and exaggeration. The above quote infers that as many as half a million women die annually of unsafe abortions in Brazil! This writer is probably parroting the numbers given by BENFAM, the Brazilian affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) figures have showed that only 55,066 Brazilian women between the ages of 14 and 50 died of all causes in 1980. The IBGE figures were confirmed by World Health Organization (WHO) statistics showing that 41,685 Brazilian women between the ages of 15 and 41 died in 1986 and, of these, 241 died of complications due to both legal and illegal abortions (November 13, 1991. Reuters news service releases of various titles to newspapers all over the world. Also see the December 30, 1991 letter of Dr. Geraldo Hideu Osanai, President, Associacao Pro-Vida de Brasilia to Andrew M. Nibley and Thomas D. Thompson of the Reuters News Agency in New York City). This means that the Brazilian pro-aborts are exaggerating the true numbers by as much as (500,000/241) = 207,500 percent!]
[pic]
[ABO][STU*] "According to statistics published by various health organizations, it is estimated that in Brazil there are millions of illegal abortions annually, with maternal mortality at 10 percent ... Decriminalizing abortion could be considered an approach that perpetuates institutionalized violence, a kind of violent response to a violent situation. But such a thesis would not apply only if the thousands of abortions and women's deaths did not in fact already exist [NOTE: This is so profoundly stupid a statement that it is almost mind-boggling. We would never apply such twisted 'logic' to any other situation. For example, try replacing the word "abortion" with "lynching" and see how idiotic it sounds] ... My position with regard to decriminalized and legalized abortion, as a citizen, a Christian, and a member of a religious community, is one of denouncing the evil, and the hypocrisy that envelop us. It is testimony for life; it is in defense of life."
— "Statement of Ivone Gebara." Conscience, Summer 1994, page 37 [NOTE: This pro-abortionist is saying that there are at least 100,000 deaths annually in Brazil due to illegal abortions. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) figures have showed that only 55,066 Brazilian women between the ages of 14 and 50 died of all causes in 1980. The IBGE figures were confirmed by World Health Organization (WHO) statistics showing that 41,685 Brazilian women between the ages of 15 and 41 died in 1986 and, of these, 241 died of complications due to both legal and illegal abortions (November 13, 1991. Reuters news service releases of various titles to newspapers all over the world. Also see the December 30, 1991 letter of Dr. Geraldo Hideu Osanai, President, Associacao Pro-Vida de Brasilia to Andrew M. Nibley and Thomas D. Thompson of the Reuters News Agency in New York City). This means that Gebara is exaggerating the true numbers by a minimum of (100,000/241) = 41,500 percent!]
[pic]
[SBC] "Hi! I am in kindergarten. I like to learn new things. I love learning to play, and I like to play tricks. ... Don't get nervous when we talk about sexuality. ... You know what else? Don't make me ashamed when we talk about sex. It seems very normal and I'm curious about it."
— Extracts from a letter written by an adult with help from kindergartners in Mexico. Susan Pick and Martha Givaudan. "Hola, Maestro!: Letters to Elementary School Teachers in Mexico." Conscience, Autumn 1994, pages 11 to 13.
[pic]
[EUG][FAM][COE] "There is no inherent human right to be biological parents. ... To say, then, that human beings have a right to have children is not to slay that infertile humans have a right to reproductive technologies — contrary to some of the rhetoric of supporters of these technologies. ... there is, for different reasons, no absolute right to parent the children we procreate — despite recent court cases. Parenthood is a process of relationship. No human being has a right to a relationship with any other person. Humans need relationship; but this need does not confer a right to any particular relationship because truly human relationship must be mutual. ... The good of children also is at stake in decisions about sterilizing the mentally retarded. As the mother of a brain-damaged seventeen-year-old with and IQ of forty-five, who will never read, write, drive, tell time, count money, or remember to wash himself without reminders, but who is intensely interested in women and sex, I cannot agree that sterilization of the retarded, at the guardian's discretion, is a denial of basis rights. I imagine I would feel even more strongly if my child were female. ... a society which refuses sterilization of the incompetent only encourages parents of the incompetent to abandon them as they mature."
— Christine E. Gudorf. "Dissecting Parenthood: Infertility, In Vitro, and Other Lessons in Why and How We Parent." Conscience, Autumn 1994, pages 15 to 22.
[pic]
[ABO] "Struggling to find a truly pro-faith, pro-choice candidate? Pro-Faith, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice: A Religious, Pro-Choice Voters' Guide lists the question that must be asked of each political candidate — whether for local school board or national Congress. Distribute it in churches, candidate forums, to local media, wherever people assemble.
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
— RCRC advertisement in Conscience, Autumn 1994, page 22.
[pic]
[REL][ABO][HIS] "The Catholic Church made it perfectly clear that if I became pregnant, and the pregnancy brought a choice between my life and the fetus', there was no question but that my life would be sacrificed. I grew up afraid of my body, in terror of what a pregnancy could do to me, prepared for war. ... Which makes me wonder: why is it so hard to have women among us who don't want to be mothers? The Catholic Church has long provided one answer: If maternal self-sacrifice is the ultimate feminine virtue, then I am a walking sacrilege. I have dared to value my life for what it is."
— Angela Bonavoglia (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Women and . . .?" Conscience, Autumn 1994, pages 24 and 25.
[pic]
[REL][ABO] "As a feminist critic of the Vatican, I have at times harbored secret doubts that I am too hard on the leaders of my church, too hackneyed in my charges that hatred of women and fear of sexuality are the roots of Vatican positions on birth control and abortion. Could it not be true, as these male leaders now frequently claim, that they are genuinely motivated by respect for life and a desire to protect both fetuses and women?
Recent events have silenced my misgivings: misogyny is alive and will at the Vatican, and there is little respect for women's very lives. ...
I respect her [Gianna Beretta Molla's] choice; I would equally respect a woman who chose to live. I have a nagging suspicion, however, that in beatifying Gianna Beretta Molla, the pope is instructing us in the difference between a good mother and a bad one: a good mother will give her life for an unborn child; a bad mother might think that preserving her life would better serve her family and community. Only a bad woman might think she had something to offer and deserved to survive even if she couldn't bear a child ... But the second beatification is unambiguously disturbing. Elisabetta Canori Mora, a Roman who died in 1825, remained in a marriage in which her husband physically and emotionally abused her and finally abandoned her to care alone for their children. ... For staying in a lousy and destructive marriage, she is on the road to becoming a saint. Now there's a good role model for Catholic teenage girls. ... these two beatifications later the same month reinforced the message that the Vatican does not value women's safety in childbearing and family life.
There are countless bricks in this ancient edifice of misogyny. ... This lack of respect for women and the palpable aversion to sexuality are timeless. Read the words of St. Paul: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived by the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved by bearing children. ... St. Paul was wrong on all counts, especially the last. In this church, women will not even be saved by being the good mothers the pope wants them to be."
— Frances Kissling. "Holy Role Models: The Vatican's Beatifications Send a Message to Girls." Conscience, Autumn 1994, pages 41 and 42.
[pic]
[STU][VIC] "I know American is not a good place to be a child. I was one myself, and I hated it. It was without dignity, without respect. I was jerked around, dumped on, lined up in size place, annoyed with nonsense, and generally made miserable on a regular basis. ... [NOTE: Try living in a hundred other nations of the world, where you are property as a child, where you are forced to work in the field without schooling, where you are pressed into service as a child soldier, where you have a 50 percent chance of dying before you are five …].
Actually, every time you put the words pain, suffer, and children in the same sentence, the word innocent pops up, with its attendant assumption that somebody must be guilty. We speak highly of children in America, as innocent, pure, precious. But as a society we probably take better care of our shoes, and we certainly take better care of our cars. If we simply acknowledge that straight out, acknowledge and recognize and own up that our society, along with many other societies, does not like or value or appreciate or welcome children, a lot or our questions shift. ... So if we start out by recognizing that American society basically hates children, and is not too fond of women either, then the question is not what evil is done to children and their mothers, but which people have the resources to buy out of the evil that comes one's way inevitably with motherhood. ... "
— Barbara Katz Rothman. "Book Reviews: If They're Innocent, Who's Guilty?" Conscience, Autumn 1994, pages 43 and 44.
[pic]
[VIC*] "The priest went on to tell me theological education in the pontifical faculties in Rome was in a terrible state. Teachers lived in terror of being spied upon, and none of the newer Catholic thought could be taught. "We are not even allowed to have people like Schillebeeckx on our bibliographies," he confided. Informants of the Holy Office were everywhere. He told all this to me in a low whisper, as if he half expected that the spies had bugged my office [NOTE: Ve know you haff relatives who live here, liebchen …].
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Thoughts on Being Cancelled in Rome." Conscience, Autumn 1994, page 52.
[pic]
[HOM][STU*] "Of course my neighbors have noticed that my partner and I are both women ... every house should have as much love as Mary and Diann's does ... 'love' and 'lesbian' go together like 'love' and 'justice' and 'hearts' and 'flowers'."
— Mary E. Hunt (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors and co-director of the Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER)). She is referring here to Diann Neu, co-director of WATER. "Attending to Choices about Personal Life and Community Living." National Catholic Reporter, September 2, 1994.
[pic]
AN OPEN LETTER
Dear President Clinton,
"As Catholics committed to women's equality in both church and society, we write to tell you that, contrary to recent assertions by some Catholics (New York Times ad, Aug. 29), the hierarchical leadership of the Roman Catholic Church — from the Vatican to the US bishops — has often limited women's opportunities to participate fully and equally in church life and has advocated similar limits in civil society.
"As you formulate US policy for the UN's International Conference on Population and Development, we urge you to consider carefully the effect that Vatican proposals would have on women worldwide, Catholic and non-Catholic. And we call your attention to the fact that the Conference document actually puts forward values the Vatican has advocated for years: The responsibilities of wealthy nations as well as developing nations, a rejection of coercion in reproductive health care, a commitment to alleviating poverty. In this context, Vatican opposition to — indeed distortion of — the document is disappointing.
"In the unprecedented level of criticism of the document by church officials and conservative lay Catholics, we see the heavy hand of sexism. Our experience as Catholic women and men allows us to see through the rhetoric. When church officials claim to advocate women's equality, their language is so tortured with modifiers as to render it useless. John Paul II recently called for "every legitimate initiative which promotes the genuine emancipation of women." But what is legitimate? What is genuine? Only those "initiatives" that are in keeping with the church's thinking and actions regarding women — which historically and recently have been negative.
"Today's rhetoric is heir to the ugly sentiment expressed by the 12th century Benedictine abbot Odo of Cluny: "To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure." And to the bald misogyny of St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the two most influential Catholic thinkers: "As regards individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten."
"The current pope has vehemently rejected the possibility that women might be ordained to the priesthood, declaring recently that his opinion is definitive and that all discussion is to cease.
"It is this pope who a few months ago beatified a 19th century woman, Elisabetta Canori Mora, because she remained with an abusive husband rather that violate the sacrament of marriage by leaving him.
"It is this pope who has defined for us "the truth about woman as bride. The bridegroom is the one who loves. The bride is loved: it is she who receives love in order to love in return."
"It is this papacy which has forbidden a married man with AIDS from using condoms to prevent transmission of the virus to his wife.
"It is this papacy that forbids hysterectomy even for a woman whose uterus is so damaged by prior deliveries that another pregnancy would threaten her life.
"Such actions are not limited to the pope or the Vatican. The Polish bishops in the post-communist era supported cutbacks in day care, suggesting that women leave the workforce to ease unemployment, and proposed a new model for education that would put girls on a "mommie" track and give boys an academic curriculum.
"With a few notable exceptions that prove the rule, women are invisible among policymakers in the church. Where are the women papal ambassadors, finance directors, heads of Vatican agencies? It is perhaps no accident that the Vatican has found a friend in some Islamic religious leaders, for, like Catholicism, Islam has at times been distorted to marginalize women.
"We are proud that in your administration women are not invisible. We appreciated that the foundations of your administration's positions for the ICPD [the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development] are principles and values that include the empowerment of women, respect for their capacity to make moral decisions, and recognition of the wisdom they bring to the policy process. We applaud the Department of State team working on this conference, especially Undersecretary Tim Wirth and Population Coordinator Faith Mitchell. We urge you to disregard both the personal attacks on your representatives and intemperate and distorted characterizations of US policy and the ICPD Programme of Action."
• Sheila Daley, Call to Action
• Sr. Donna Quinn, OP, Chicago Catholic Women
• Marianne Duddy, Dignity U.S.A.
• Christine Coughlan, Women Church Convergence, Inc.
• Frances Kissling, Catholics for a Free Choice
• Gloria Jean Hammel, Conference of Catholic Lesbians
• William Leahy, Federation of Christian Ministries
• Ruth Fitzpatrick, Women's Ordination Conference
• Sr. Maureen Fiedler, SL, Catholics Speak Out
• Anthony T. Padovano, CORPUS: National Assn for a Married Priesthood
• Sr. Margaret Traxler, SSND, National Coalition of American Nuns
Catholics for a Free Choice
1436 U. Street, N.W., Suite 301
Washington, DC 20009-3997
Tel: (202) 986-6093
Fax: (202) 332-7995"
— "An Open Letter to President Clinton." New York Times, September 2, 1994, page A16 [NOTE: It is interesting that CFFC and its fellow dissenters, who spend so much of their time and energy condemning and judging the Catholic Church, could not find any more recent "misogynists" that St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) or St. Odo, the second Abbot of Cluny (878-942), both of whom lived more than seven centuries ago (note that CFFC's 'expert theologians' cannot even pinpoint the century St. Odo lived in). In any case, we must remember that both of these Saints, and many more, were under the influence of the defective and now obsolete biology of Aristotle (whom St. Thomas calls "the Philosopher"). Aristotle wrongly thought that ensoulment occurred 40 days after conception for man and 80 days after conception for the woman. CFFC also uses the opinion of St. Thomas to attempt to cast doubt on the Church's solid teachings against abortion throughout the centuries, while ignoring the latter. We must remember that these Saints did not hate women; they simply relied on mistaken biology. It is no surprise, given the immense influence of Aristotle on Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages, that some of his errors would creep into St. Thomas' mind, with no bad intention on his part. CFFC conveniently omits that St. Thomas corrects this view by saying that woman is not defective in the general sense of human nature as created by God [see the Summa Theologica (First Part, "Treatise on Man," Questions 75 through 102)]. CFFC is being hypocritical because it does not criticize St. Thomas when it quotes from him regarding dealyed ensoulment, but here they do because it fits its pro-abortion agenda].
[pic]
[ADU][HOM]
"Dear Pope John Paul II,
"As faithful Catholics who share with you a responsibility for the life of our church, we speak to you directly because we are deeply distressed by the Vatican's continuing opposition to contraception. This is seen in your recent approach to the United Nations' International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) which your representatives will attend in September 1994 with Permanent Observer status. We are especially concerned because the Vatican has had a history of powerful influence in discussions of population policy.
"We can affirm some of your challenge to the nations. With you, we believe that population policy is "only one part of an overall development strategy" which must be "built on justice and equality, enabling people to live in dignity, harmony and peace." We applaud your advocacy of non-coercive policies affecting decisions about family size and the spacing of births and the imperative that women and men be active agents of their own development. We join you in challenging affluent nations to recognize that a just distribution of resources which lifts the poor from misery is the most powerful moderator of population growth.
"But the Second Vatican Council calls us to understand our Catholic values in light of the signs of our times. Canon Law urges us to speak to you on matters where we have direct competence. We challenge you, therefore, to listen as we speak our consciences.
"Respect for human dignity demands that we recognize the beauty and goodness of sexual intimacy in committed relationships whether or not they are open to offspring. Couples have found that various forms of contraception enhance their mutual sanctification and caring in sexual love. Vatican opposition devalues this love.
"Our tradition respects the "sense of the faithful." Yet your assertion that artificial contraception is "intrinsically evil" is rejected by the vast majority of faithful, practicing Catholics. Surveys in many countries consistently show that most Catholics believe that decisions of conscience about contraception rightfully belong with those who must bear and rear children. Moreover, Catholics act on their belief and use contraception. The legitimacy of teaching requires that it be embraced by the faithful. Your teaching has no such legitimacy. It is a marginalized minority view in our church, defended largely by a male celibate hierarchy.
"The gospel calls us to leave future generations a fruitful and flourishing planet, not a ravaged inheritance. The number of people born into our human family is straining the earth's limited resources, a growing crisis which calls us not only to redistribute those resources, but to promote women's advancement and to make effective family planning methods available worldwide. In spite of this crisis, Vatican policy opposes one of the most effective means of voluntary family planning: contraception. This policy - which has no basis in the gospel - also fosters unwanted pregnancies, increases the number of abortions, deepens the misery of women and children worldwide and deters responsible action to prevent the spread of AIDS.
"Experience testifies that women need education, empowerment and a sense of equality to control their fertility. The advancement of women - clearly a call of the gospel and the Second Vatican Council - is a powerful moderator of population growth. Yet your statements and policies often deter, rather than promote, the advancement of women. Opposition to contraception denies the moral adulthood of women in making reproductive decisions. We share your concern for responsible parenting, but your statements consistently over-emphasize women's role as mothers, downgrade the equal role of men in nurturing children and devalue women's contributions to society at large. Finally, Vatican policy refuses women equal access to the full range of ministries and decision-making roles in our church. The needs of our world cry out for our church to cease being a sign of contradiction and instead become a role model, implementing equality for women and men and respecting the moral adulthood of women.
"Because of the human pain caused by Vatican opposition to contraception, because such opposition severely worsens our global crisis of population and resources and because the majority of good Catholics ― after long and prayerful reflection ― have rejected it, we say to you simply: on the issue of contraception, you are wrong [NOTE: “After long and prayerful reflection?” We think not! We live in a culture of convenience, and so-called “catholics” who use contraception rarely pray about anything].
"We wish to reconcile this contradiction in our church which has so corroded the authority of our leaders and damaged so many hearts and lives. Consequently, we challenge you to join us in:
• Welcoming a serious new dialogue on these issues in the life of our church, and
• Calling upon world leaders and officials of the United Nations to embrace as a worldwide goal the provision of voluntary contraceptive family planning services to every woman and man who wants them by the end of this decade [NOTE: In other words, no “dialogue,” just give in to our demands].
— Complete text of the full-page "An Open Letter to Pope John Paul II on the Question of Contraception," published on page A11 of the September 6, 1994 edition of The New York Times. The ad lists the sponsoring and co-sponsoring organizations as Catholics Speak Out, Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (ARCC); Call to Action (CTA); Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC); Coalition of Concerned Canadian Catholics (CCCC); Conference for Catholic Lesbians (CCL); CORPUS: The National Association for a Married Priesthood; Dignity/USA; the Eighth of May Movement [Netherlands]; the Federation of Christian Ministries (FCM); the Fellowship of Southern Illinois Laity (FOSIL); New Ways Ministry; Promises; Renewal Coordinating Community; and the Women's Ordination Conference (WOC) [emphasis in the original].
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1995
"As a woman who used to be associated with Catholics for a Free Choice, I was disappointed to read the United Nations has recognized CFFC as an official nongovernmental organization, for the fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing (NCR, March 31). I think the Vatican was right on this one but not because CFFC claims to be a pro-choice group.
"I believe CFFC does not deserve accreditation because it has actually become an anti-woman organization. Various personal experiences with CFFC have led me to believe that its agenda is no longer simply to defend the legality of a woman's abortion choice against efforts to recriminalize that choice. Instead, I now see CFFC's agenda as the promotion of abortion, the defense of every abortion decision as a good, moral choice, and the related agenda of persuading society to cast off any moral constraints about sexual behavior. I don't think this is a Catholic or pro-woman agenda whether you are liberal or conservative, pro-life or pro-choice.
"Moreover, CFFC had only a handful of dues-paying members when I was associated with it, although it had a large mailing list. It got its funding from private foundations. Thus, the recognition of CFFC by the United Nations actually has the effect of giving an NGO seat to a lobbying group for private foundations under the pretext that CFFC represents the voice of thousands of Catholic women.
"I also agree with the Vatican that CFFC's claim to the name "catholic" is very questionable. Even if most of its dues-paying members were baptized Catholic, that does not necessarily make them "Catholic" today. Only an outdated, legalistic, zap theology, which CFFC adherents reject in every other respect, would call people Catholic simply because they were baptized.
"A person does not have to agree with every position of the Vatican or even the pope to be a loyal Catholic. However, the positions of the pope and the Vatican at least deserve a hearing from Catholics, and dissent should be respectful. CFFC's sexual agenda seems to have deafened it to any good news coming from the Vatican. Moreover, CFFC's "in your face" style of dissent has hurt Catholic women by making the Vatican think that all feminists are like the radical feminists at CFFC, and that Catholicism and feminism are therefore incompatible.
"Additionally, I think that the label "Catholic" is proper only for a person who participates in the sacramental life of the church. Thus, regular attendance at Mass (except for the elderly and invalids) seems to be the minimum sign of membership in the church. When I was involved with CFFC, I was never aware that any of its leaders attended Mass. Furthermore, various conversations and experiences convinced me they did not. I myself did not. Today I see this failure as proof that I was not actually a Catholic for a Free Choice."
— Marjorie Reilly Maguire, former Board member of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC). Complete text of the letter to the editor of the National Catholic Reporter entitled "Not Catholic," and published in its April 21, 1995 edition, page 18.
[pic]
[HOM][FAM][REL][VIC] "As women from the Roman Catholic tradition, we have a special expertise in analyzing and critiquing the language in which the Vatican presents — sometimes cloaks — it ideas and aims. We have read with concern and consternation the "Report of the Holy See in Preparation for the Fourth World Conference on Women" (undated). We see in this Report an aspect of religious fundamentalism that misuses tradition and anthropology to limit women's roles and functions — indeed, rights.
"The Vatican constructs a vision of women and men in which men are normative persons and women are primarily understood in terms of their reproductive and mothering capacities. The most serious implications of this outmoded anthropology are apparent in the terms, definitions, and proposals that are built on its inaccurate premises. For example, the laudable ideal of women's dignity is circumscribed by the assumption that women's dignity is somehow based in reproductive capacity. No such assumption is made, ever, with regard to men whose dignity is presumed simply to be conferred by their humanity. ... there is simply no justification for such outdated notions unless the intent is to discriminate.
It is the Vatican's view of women's specificity that has led to prohibitions on women's reproductive choices and sexual expression, and to the banning of women as priests and bishops. It is this kind of thinking — that some are more fully human than others — that underlies the hierarchical structures of the Catholic Church, structures that exclude and demean women. ...
"The Vatican's repetition of this notion of family, particularly with regard to motherhood in the context of heterosexual marriage, stands out as a rejection of other emerging forms of family. Indeed, we know many kinds of families that are equally loving and supportive — to name just a few: women in communities; lesbian and gay couples, with or without children; extended families of several generations of women, mostly, who nurture children. ... This is no time to enshrine the so-called traditional, nuclear family. It is time to encourage committed, responsible people to form committed bonds however they do so. ... the uncertainty or vulnerability that many women experience is neither biological nor essential. In fact, it is created by a patriarchal society in which men are taught that women are "special" — read, inferior — and that men, as normative human beings, can treat women as they will. ... Indeed, if the Vatican had its way, the "gift of life" it exalts would be coerced through forced continuation of pregnancies that are unsupported and unsupportable."
— Women-Church Convergence. "Equal is as Equal Does: From the Women-Church Convergence, a Catholic Feminist Commentary on the Report of the Holy See in Preparation for the Fourth World Conference on Women." Conscience, Spring/ Summer 1995, pages 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9.
[pic]
[BIG*][REL*][HOM][FAM] "If your delegation represents the Vatican state, an antiquated and decorative monarchy in Italy, you are entitled to your quaint worldview on motherhood and women's complementarity, which you expressed at the European preparatory meeting and in your "country report" for the conference. No one will care! After all, at a time when the Vatican state has become an outdated, picturesque tourist spot you are at liberty to hold on to fuzzy romanticism, be it that associated with the Swiss Guard or that undergirding the philosophy of the "eternal woman."
The fantasy of the heavenly, eternal feminine fits such a state of affairs. It still warms the lonely hearts and empty days of a celibate bureaucracy that is slowly dying out. I have no problems with that, as long as it remains what it is: a romantic dream. Any good psychiatrist could help you more that I am able to do by uncovering the roots of your fear and of your desire for motherly protection.
However, if you dare to speak for Catholic women worldwide, your legitimacy must be challenged. ... Catholic Christian women see their life and dignity as centered in G*d, rather than in heterosexist marriage and motherhood. ...
In short, during the past decades women have struggled valiantly to secure civil rights and protections from the death-dealing powers of violence perpetrated by heterosexist, patriarchal family structures. ... It is more than ironic that in the name of Jesus Christ, who rejected all loyalty to patriarchal family, Vatican representatives should confess allegiance to such family values and proclaim the patriarchal institution of the heterosexist family as "the community of love" which guarantees the rights of women. ..."
— Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. "Memorandum to the Vatican Delegation to the Fourth World Conference on Women." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1995, page 5.
[pic]
[ABO][BIG][REL] "Would you trust a chef who never eats food? Or a car mechanic who never drives a car? Or a swimming coach who's never been in the water? It's an old liberal complaint, of course — sexual morality being dictated by a celibate, male clergy. But old complaint or not, that sure is a loony place to look to for wisdom and guidance on sexuality. ... I don't have an interest in any way in anything the Vatican is likely to say. ... When I was fourteen, I witnessed a very dramatic example of the sad and illogical tyranny of the Vatican view of sexuality and how it has affected all of us, especially women. ... Alanon teaches that you can't control another person's behavior. The pope might consider attending Alanon. Is it available in the Vatican State, I wonder? ... For centuries the church has allowed killing in so-called just wars, but allowing an impediment to pregnancy during intercourse? Heavens, no! Christ would not want it. Christ would accept killing — sure, bomb Hiroshima, Christ would say. ... But I do feel anger at the church's incredible pig-headedness. ..."
— Christopher Durang. "Natural Law and Disorder." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1995, pages 7 and 8.
[pic]
[REL] "Religion therefore has a serious responsibility to contribute to greater justice for women. Religion must participate in the purge of patriarchal restrictions from social and religious practice and ideology. It must do so even when, as is often the case, the purge requires the reworking of central religious myths and doctrines and the reinterpretation of revealed truth."
— Christine E. Gudorf. "Sexism Enshrined." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1995, pages 11 to 17.
[pic]
[ABO] "When an unemployed hairdresser named John C. Salvi III allegedly murdered two receptionists at family planning clinics in Brookline, Massachusetts, most of his fellow crusaders against abortion said they were shocked. ... All the talk about we-don't-do-that-sort-of-thing-we're-only-nonviolent-protesters-devoted-to-the-humanity-of-the-fetus was very nice. It was also garbage, designed to cover up two inconvenient facts about the antiabortion movement in the United States: (1) significant elements of it have always advocated punishment — for anyone even remotely connected with abortion, and (2) its actions give the lie to its belief in its most fundamental tenet: that human life from the moment of conception, is sacrosanct [NOTE: When “pro-choicer” Harlan Drake murdered pro-life activist Jim Pouillon in 2010, not one word of condemnation was issued by any “pro-choice” group in the United States or elsewhere]. ...
"All of which would be horrible enough even if the antiabortionists believed what they say — that the fetus, the embryo, even the newly-fertilized zygote are equal in moral stature to the born human being. But the fact is, they don't. ...
Thus, the case of Bernard Nathanson demonstrates that deep down, the antiabortion activists do not accord the unborn the same status as the born, and are simply using abortion as an excuse to wage war with their perceived enemies, the humanists" [NOTE: In other words, the author thinks that pro-lifers, by not demanding the execution of Nathanson, are being inconsistent. Don't you just love these guys?]
— Andrew Merton. "Violent Words, Telling Deeds." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1995, pages 18 and 19.
[pic]
[ABO] "Recent popes have invested substantial ecclesial authority on getting across the message that sex without openness to procreation is immoral. To no one's surprise, Pope John Paul II's long-awaited encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, strongly reiterates that point. What comes as more of a shock is the vehemence with which the pope in the encyclical condemns a wide range of infertility treatments. ... Catholic couples and others will of course ignore these prohibitions with even greater ease than they have ignored the prohibitions on abortion and contraception. ... For Catholic women, the encyclical makes it clearer than ever that whether we seek to prevent a pregnancy or birth or create one, the decision is not ours. According to this document, when reproductive and sexual matters are in question, it is not the men and women most affected who should make the decision; it is the church."
— Frances Kissling. "What's Love Got to Do With It?" Conscience, Spring/ Summer 1995, pages 27 and 28.
[pic]
[ABO][COE] "While religious, women do not support the imposition of religious doctrine in health care decisions. As noted, religious convictions are personal. People believe they are held by individuals, not institutions. American women believe that doctors have a right to refuse to perform medical procedures that would go against their personal moral beliefs. ... But American women do not believe that religious institutions should determine medical practices. ... In sum, American women have a basic belief that religious convictions are private and personal. They do not believe that religious doctrine should override individuals' personal convictions through limitations imposed on health care delivery. ... As a consequence, they are not predisposed to support Catholic Church efforts to restrict health care services on the basis of religious teachings. ... Only 25 percent say that if a Catholic health organization merges with a local HMO, it should be allowed to prohibit abortions to its new patients. ... Most women did not agree that their health care should be dictated by the religiously based teachings of a Catholic health care plan in which they might find themselves enrolled or a Catholic hospital in which they may become a patient. ... Religious convictions are personal. American women believe religious limitations on health care are the right of individuals, not institutions. Doctors have a right to refuse to perform medical procedures that would go against their personal moral beliefs, but religious leaders do not have a right to dictate medical practice. ... The Catholic Church will find that most women do not believe it has the right to restrict access to reproductive services."
— Ethel Klein. "Whose Health — Catholic Hospitals'? Or Women's?" Conscience, Spring/Summer 1995, pages 29 to 36.
[pic]
[REL][STU] "... but the pope has not gone far enough in applying it [NOTE: The principle that only men can be Catholic priests]. If we are to take the Lord's way of acting as a perennial norm, we must be more selective than we have been. It is not enough to restrict the priesthood to men. The Lord's way of acting in this matter did not stop at a male monopoly on the priesthood. There was for example, the Jewish monopoly. The Lord only chose Jews for his apostles. ... Those priests now in ministry must produce evidence of their Jewish descent. ... The lord also chose married men as his apostles — certainly in the case of Peter, and probably (given the culture) in that of the others as well. ... this pope, if he is to take the Lord's way of acting as a perennial norm must, instantly go and find a wife in order to conform to Peter's example. This, of course, assumes that the pope has not already had to resign because of his lack of Jewish parentage. Perhaps by stretching the case a little (even perennial norms must have a little "give"), he could qualify by first converting to Judaism and then reconverting to Christianity. ...
The apostles spoke Aramaic and a little Greek. Stretching things again, the pope can perhaps give priests a dispensation from speaking Aramaic, but they must certainly get back to speaking Greek. ...
What a sigh of relief we can imagine from the small number of male, married, Jewish, Greek-speaking priests when they are told that at least, in imitation of the way the Lord acted, they need not write anything. If only the pope had adopted that perennial norm before penning his words on women's ordination" [NOTE TO THE OBTUSE: This is a laughably inept attempt at irony, meant to make the Catholic Church look hypocritical].
— Garry Wills. "Women Priests? The Gospel Truth." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1995, page 45.
[pic]
[HYP] "Nunes located the church's resistance to women's rights in its rejection of democracy and individual autonomy. ... While the shootings [of abortionists] are "primarily individual," Kissling told Christian Century, "when you have a twenty-year history of a significant number of antiabortion leaders saying that there is no moral or spiritual distinction between a fetus and living person, there is an effect on the psyche of the country. That kind of logic ... gives [deranged people] grounding for their random acts of rage. ... If religious leaders sincerely want to deter the terrorists, they must disavow one premise ... that there is no significant difference between the human life of the unborn and human life of the born human being."
— "In Brief." Conscience, Spring/Summer 1995, page 57 [NOTE: Observe how Kissling deliberately and consciously attempts to make pro-lifers give up their central belief in the nature of the preborn child by trying to lay a guilt trip on all of us].
[pic]
[STU] "This is a man [John Cardinal O'Connor] who longs for the imperial papacy — a papacy where you had the power to burn people at the stake. When it comes to matters of internal church discipline, he is the toughest, and the meanest."
— Frances Kissling, quoted in E. Bumiller. "As Pope's Important Ally, Cardinal Shines High in Hierarchy." New York Times, October 8, 1995, page 41.
[pic]
[REL][VIC] "In this unrelentingly patriarchal institution, a tightly circumscribed role for women is essential. What is at stake is power. ... The easing of sharp delineations of roles for men and women in secular society threatens the church's ability to preserve a sexist structure within its own walls.”
— "The Campaign for a Conservative Platform: A Chronology of Vatican and Allied Efforts." Conscience, Autumn 1995, pages 11 to 16.
[pic]
[VIC] "Modern sexual apartheid consists in the oppression of individuals and their exclusion from equal enjoyment of human rights, on the ground that they are women. Sexual apartheid can be more subtle than racial apartheid because the forms of oppression are woven into the fabric of society."
— Rebecca J. Cook. "The Elimination of Sexual Apartheid: Prospects for the Fourth World Conference on Women." Conscience, Autumn 1995, pages 31 to 33.
[pic]
[COE*] "The Platform for Action produced in Beijing reflects at least five significant victories for women in the areas of sexuality and reproduction. ... It is without a "conscience clause," language allowing health care institutions, on the basis of religious objections, to refuse to provide or refer for certain services. In the United States, for example, Catholic hospitals typically bar the use of their facilities for the provision of contraceptives and condoms, sterilization, most forms of assisted reproduction, the "morning-after" pill following rape, and abortion. In Beijing, a proposed institutional conscience clause was stricken from the final document.
—
Maggie Hume. "Pilgrim's Progress." Conscience, Winter 1995/1996, inside front cover [emphasis in the original] [NOTE: This quote is proof that, despite its protestations to the contrary, CFFC does not give a damn about the conscience rights of anyone other than themselves].
[pic]
[STU][VIC*][SEX*] "Down the centuries and today, men shaping and carrying on world traditions, such as Christianity, deny women's right to free reproduction on the same grounds on which they deny women's right to free choice in countless other areas. Women, they premise, are in fact humanly inferior to men. ... I believe that this equality and these rights of women still are consistently, sweepingly, viciously, atrociously violated by men in all cultures I know of, especially the one I live in. ... [NOTE: Obviously, Milhaven is utterly ignorant of Islamic regimes, where women cannot even drive or attend school without their husband’s permission].
"If I had needed further evidence, my experience here would have settled for me now superior women are to men in that they can give birth to new human beings. I am not surprised at how persistently male church leaders have put down normal human birth, for example, by the doctrine of the "virgin birth" or by "churching" rituals after birth or by stressing the great "birth" of baptism, usually preformed by priests. ...
— John Giles Milhaven (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "In What Are Women Equal to Men?: Finding Words for What We Know by Intuition." Conscience, Winter 1995/1996, pages 2 to 6.
[pic]
[REL*][HOM][VIC] "It is sometimes difficult for us, as women and as justice-loving people, to challenge the conservatism that is among us, for that conservatism often expresses itself in ways that are intolerant, violent, silencing, and provocative. ... But when the Vatican in its present form talks about conservatism, what it wants to conserve is patriarchy, and this we cannot permit. ... in addition to patriarchy, what the church wishes to conserve is secrecy. Injustice and intolerance operate best in the dark. ... Why does conservatism, or patriarchy, or religious fundamentalism seek to control women's lives, to have power over women? ...
"How many people know that the Roman Catholic Church has no position on when the fetus becomes a person? But misinformation on this point, on the part of the Vatican, leads to absolutism in terms of women's lives. ... How many of us know the lies the Vatican has put forward about this conference? The pope's spokesperson, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, states that the document does not contain the word "mother" even ten times, that the document is negative on the family. ...
"Our research and our scholarship need to be impeccably accurate. ... I often think that our biggest mistake is to put forward the vision of an omnipotent or perfect God. Indeed, if we understood the frailty of God, perhaps we would be more respectful of the frailty of human beings. ...
"The homophobia we see in the world, the hatred of lesbians, is rooted in the same hatred that reviles women who choose to have abortions or use contraception.”
— Frances Kissling. "Responding to Religious Conservatism: Plenary Speech to the Nongovernmental Forum, Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, 1995." Conscience, Winter 1995/1996, pages 7 to 9.
[pic]
[HYP] "Since that time I have grown increasingly aware of how common is this argument that non-Western traditional "cultures" are in some way immutable and sacrosanct and should not be changed to accord with notions of human rights that are advocated primarily in modern Western societies. Significantly, this argument is used primarily against women's rights as human rights. ... The affirmation of women's rights that transcend the patriarchal elements in local cultures is possible only through some concept of human rights as being universally normative in a way that both transcend and corrects local cultures" [NOTE: And the norm that will be used, of course, is the Western norm, that will, in a paternalistic way (or should we instead say 'maternalistic'?), that will "transcend" and "correct" these apparently misguided cultures].
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Woman and Culture: The Case for Universal Rights." Conscience, Winter 1995/1996, pages 13 to 15.
[pic]
[HIS] "Alternatively, dogma can come through the "ordinary and universal magisterium," that is what is espoused and taught by all bishops, or theologians, or perhaps believers. ... McBrien adds that traditional criteria of infallibility include reception by the church at large" [NOTE: Not surprisingly, this assertion is completely false, made up out of thin air, with no documentation whatsoever. But this is how CFFC works: It presents some silly theory as established fact by some allegedly authoritative “theologian,” and hopes people are stupid or gullible enough to go along with it].
— "News: Hierarchy Tries to Clamp Down." Conscience, Winter 1995/1996, page 33.
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1996
[ABO][VIC] "I am one of those people who believes you cannot separate safety from legality, because we are not simply talking about medically safe, we are talking about safe for a woman as a whole person. And as long as you can be punished, criminalized, marginalized for having an abortion procedure or performing an abortion procedure, however safe it may be in the medical context, it's not safe. ... The sense of pride and the sense of righteousness and the sense of courage and appropriateness of working to see that abortion is safe and legal, of acknowledging that abortion — the decision to have an abortion — is not only a moral decision but is a morally correct decision that women make at various times in their lives. ... this is a question we are dealing with, the relationship between the state and religion. And in a period of time that we move in now in which conservative values are so much in the ascendancy, when fundamentalism — whether it is in evangelical Protestantism, in orthodox Judaism, in Islam, in the Hindu faith — is on the rise. And every fundamentalist, conservative, religious regime has as one of its core tenets the control of peoples — particularly women, but the control of sexuality and the control of reproduction. And we certainly see this in the work of the Christian Coalition. In the United States we certainly see this when we listen to Pat Buchanan or when we see, as last night, we had several bishops marching outside the White House. I don't know if any of you have seen the news coverage of the several bishops who were marching to encourage President Clinton not to veto the partial birth abortion bill. ... we are indeed engaged in work that I would consider to be holy, healthy, and critical for the survival of a people who are tolerant and loving and compassionate with each other. ..."
— Frances Kissling, at the 20th Annual Meeting of the National Abortion Federation (NAF) convention, theme: "20 Years of Courage," March 31 - April 2, 1996, in San Francisco, closing plenary session entitled "Continuing the Commitment: A Panel Discussion."
[pic]
[FAM][HOM] "In fact, the anti-gay political agenda of the Religious Right threatens everyone who is not a conservative Christian white male. For the core of the Religious Right's agenda is to reestablish a white, heterosexual-patriarchal, Christian theocracy — to reassert a hegemony that is threatened by the increasing power of women, racial minorities, and gays and lesbians. ...
Heterosexism, then, is the institutionalization and enforcement of compulsory heterosexuality, involving the social control of women, the punishment of some people on the basis of sexual orientation, and the domination of some members of society over others. ... The social order that the Religious Right wants to enforce and maintain is a racist, patriarchal system in which white, Christian males dominant and rule nation and family. ... To succeed, special right rhetoric must portray homosexuals as affluent, privileged white men. ... [NOTE: This is actually true. Homosexuals do not contribute to churches, do not have children, and typically enjoy high salaries].
Demographers predict a white minority in a racially pluralistic society in the next century. Many white men have developed a siege mentality, and they need every man available to hold the fort. For them, the gay rights movement is a surprise attack from within, a treasonous defection. This is the underlying reason, I believe, for the obsession of the Religious Right with gay white males. ... White gay men, then, threaten not just universal male dominance, but specifically white male dominance of US society. ... But by refusing the scripted role of white men, by refusing to control women and produce and socialize white children, gay white men sabotage the system. ...
Founded upon dominance and subordination, supported by an ethic of authoritarianism and obedience, the heterosexual-patriarchal family wounds all its members. Progressive Christians need to offer an alternative vision of family, society, sexual relations, and ethics.
[Footnote 30 says] "Theologian Daniel Maguire made the same observation of the Religious Right during the early Reagan years: "The family for them is the workshop of the state ... [and the] state is the family writ large. However, the family they project for us is fascist, sexist, and racist. So too is their state."
— Janet L. Parker. "Religious, "Right," and Heterosexist." Conscience, Spring 1996, pages 3 to 14.
[pic]
[HYP*] "We pledge to resist the political strategy of using Catholics as a front for a right wing agenda."
— Conclusion of the "Statement Opposing the Christian Coalition and Its "Catholic Alliance"." Conscience, Spring 1996, page 15 [NOTE: Of course, 'Catholics' for a Free Choice sees no problem with using Catholics as a front for their left-wing agenda].
[pic]
[HIS] "... and we said that if Catholics study the bishop's statement seriously, and do not agree that they have committed an excommunicable sin, then by church law they are not excommunicated. It is shocking that a bishop in the contemporary church would choose to exclude Catholics from participating in the life of the church in such a cavalier and Kafkaesque manner," CFFC president Frances Kissling said. ... "Even within the minimal 'due process' provisions of canon law," Kissling said, "such disregard of people's rights shows a profound lack of respect for the dignity of these Catholics. ... Theologian and CFFC board member Daniel Maguire told the Lincoln Journal Star that "excommunication is an obsolete theological concept. The good news is that even if he tried to excommunicate [member of the groups], his attempt would be invalid."
— "CFFC Notebook: Bully with a Pulpit." Conscience, Spring 1996, pages 32 and 33 [NOTE: This is a great example of CFFC members simply declaring something to be so and hoping that others will believe their nonsense].
[pic]
[ABO] "Among Catholics, 39% say a woman should be able to get an abortion if she decides she wants one, no matter what the reason. Another 43% say abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, such as when a woman's health is endangered or when a pregnancy results from rape. Only 15% of Catholics agree with the bishops' position that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances."
— "Fact Sheet: The Catholic Vote and Abortion." Conscience, Summer 1996, page 9. This is a summary of the Time/CNN nationwide poll conducted by Yankelovich Partners, on September 27-28, 1995 [NOTE: CFFC, of course, does not mention that the above results would have 58% of all Catholics banning more than 99% of all abortions].
[pic]
[ABO*] "Pope John XXIII has made the critical distinction in his encyclical Pacem in Terris that while error had no rights, the erroneous conscience of the nonbeliever must be respected. ...
"Unfortunately, the pope [John Paul II] caricatures democracy as aa majoritarian tyranny, thereby indicating that he simply does not understand liberal democracy with its emphasis upon individual and minority rights as well as majority rule. Moreover, the pope fails to see that the real challenge in many democratic societies is their religious pluralism. Advanced, complex democracies must take into account such diversity and may have to pass laws permitting abortion in deference to the diverse religious and conscientious judgments of the citizenry.
"They [Catholic lawmakers] must demonstrate to the bishops that a politician who supports legalized abortion despite personal moral opposition is embracing a perfectly respectable, morally defensible policy position. ... in a liberal democracy, not even consensus is controlling, because prudent policy making always looks to the consequences of laws enacted. A public officeholder has a moral duty to estimate, as best she can, the consequences of reinstating restrictive abortion laws. Policy makers must calculate the efficacy of restrictive laws (whether citizens will comply with them), the enforceability of such laws (whether police will enforce them selectively, uniformly, or not at all), and the effects of such laws (whether, on balance, the negative effects of reinstating restrictive laws will outweigh the positive benefits) [NOTE: You can bet that, if abortion is criminalized once again, CFFC will be in the forefront of breaking the law and trying to render it "unenforceable"]. ...
"Thus, even if a popular consensus develops in favor of restrictive abortion laws, a public officeholder is still obliged to judge whether the proposed policy will make sound law. The 1990 veto of a highly restrictive antiabortion statute by Idaho's Governor Cecil Andrus (whose personal beliefs are antiabortion) pointedly illustrates this political duty of lawmakers
"Humility and prudence require that bishops respect the competency of lay Catholic lawmakers [NOTE: CFFC writers lecturing the bishops on humility and prudence is like a prostitute giving lessons in chastity. Just laughable]. The principled position of prochoice Catholic lawmakers reflects a commitment to exercise prudence in making sound public policy. ... The church can learn from Catholic officeholders the need to exercise prudence and caution in attempting to shape abortion policy."
— Mary C. Segers. "American Catholicism in a Pluralistic Society: The Search for a Public Voice." Conscience, Summer 1996, pages 13 to 18 [NOTE: All of these arguments could just as well be used to make abortion completely illegal — but, remember, CFFC only wants such logic to go one way, towards keeping abortion legal].
[pic]
[HIS][ABO*] "Monolithic rigidity on moral matters is not the Catholic way. Even on the overheated issue of abortion, there is no "Catholic" position today. Any effort to present the "one and only" Catholic position on abortion is fallacious and theologically ungrounded. The theological basis for Catholic pluralism on abortion is provided by the Catholic doctrine of probabilism. This doctrine, while virtually unknown to most Catholics, blesses diversity of opinion in morally debated areas. ... Probabilism is based on the insight that a doubtful moral obligation may not be imposed as though it were certain. Ubi dubuum, ibi libertas — "where there is doubt, there is freedom" — is probabilism's cardinal principle. Probabilism means that moral decision making is ultimately in one's own hands; probability arises from insight, one's own or that of reliable experts, and does not depend on permission of authorities. ...
"In intrinsic probability, where one can decide for one's self against the reigning consensus, it is stipulated that one's reasons have to be "cogent, but not necessarily conclusive." There is a wholesome realism in this position. It says that one's reasons for private dissent from hierarchical church teaching have to be cogent and forceful, but they need not be so conclusive that they would convince anyone else. ...
"Not even Pope John Paul II, in his recent encyclical Evangelium Vitae, dares to suggest that his rigorous minority view on the subject is "infallible." The nineteenth-century concept of "infallibility," an assumed ability to make infallible statements through the medium of fallible language, has been laid to rest by mainstream Catholic theology today [NOTE: The "mainstream," of course, is CFFC and a small gaggle of dissenting groups. The Holy Father and his bishops still uphold this teaching]. While the pope was clearly tempted to proclaim his view infallible, he did not cross that line. By thus admitting that he might be wrong, he implicitly acknowledged the applicability of probabilism to the abortion question [NOTE: What a statement! If anyone says that he is not infallible, he is admitting that he might be wrong! In other words, CFFC, since it does not claim to be infallible, is admitting that everything it says might be wrong!] ... "Intrinsic probability" has been neglected, though it remains as an approved possibility for any Catholic. Attention instead has turned most often to "extrinsic probability." Thus, if you found five or six theologians, known for their "prudence and learning," who held the liberal dissenting view, you could follow them in good conscience even if the other ten thousand theologians — including the pope — disagreed. ...
"A final important lesson of probabilism is this: no moral debate — and that includes abortion — is beyond the scope of a probabilistic solution. To quote Father Davis once again: "It is the merit of Probabilism that there are no exceptions whatever to its application; once given a really probable reason for the lawfulness of an action in a particular case, though contrary reasons may be stronger, there are no occasions on which I may not act in accordance with good probable reason that I have found" [NOTE: Really? Let us show how badly Maguire misunderstands by asking: Would he still agree if we were talking about child sexual molestation — or the bombing of an abortion clinic?]
"... one now can find the experts among Protestant Christians. This considerably expands the use of probabilism on the abortion issue, as most mainstream Protestant views accept abortion as a moral option. This sea change in Catholic teaching has been little noted. It amounted to a surrender of the "one true church" concept in Catholicism. ...
"Abortion is never lacking in tragedy and would be better prevented by contraceptive care, but it is not always immoral [NOTE: "Not always?" Try asking a CFFC member if any abortion is "immoral." They will refuse to answer]. ... Could a person who holds the most rigorous position on abortion in our society — i.e., that it is always immoral — support a policy that permits some abortion? As a Catholic ethicist I answer that question "Yes."... Thus, a legislator who personally finds abortion always immoral may support the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion for these two reasons: (1) because the decision does not require anyone to have an abortion; it is a permissive, not a coercive, decision; and (2) because the abortion debate among Catholics, as well as among other Americans, is not settled [NOTE: Yet CFFC could not name one other issue by which such reasoning would apply].
— Daniel C. Maguire (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Catholic Options in the Abortion Debate: Probabilism in a Pluralistic Society." Conscience, Summer 1996, pages 19 to 23.
[pic]
[HYP] "Only a tiny fraction of U.S. Catholics — less than 200,000 out of a diverse community of more than 50 million — have deliberately and consciously aligned themselves with Catholic organizations on the 'religious right'" [NOTE: As always, Kissling has things backwards. The dissenting groups are the ones that are supported by a tiny gaggle of fellow dissenters; the big Catholic and Catholic-led conservative groups and ministries like American Life League, Eternal Word Television Network, and hundreds of others are supported by literally millions of Catholics].
— Frances Kissling, quoted in John M. Swomley, former President of the 'Religious' Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). "Roman Catholic Rightists: Organizations Press for Anti-Liberal Causes." The Human Quest [a humanist magazine], July-August 1996, pages 11 and 12.
[pic]
[ABO][HIS] "Most people believe that the Catholic Church's position on abortion has remained unchanged for two thousand years. Not true. Church teaching on abortion has varied over the course of its history. ... The "right-to-life" argument is a relatively recent development in church teachings, and the debate continues today. ... Further, contrary to popular belief, the prohibition of abortion has never been declared an infallible teaching. This fact leaves much more room for discussion on abortion than is usually thought. In any case Catholic theology tells individuals to follow their own consciences on moral matters, even when one's conscience is in conflict with church teachings.
St. Thomas Aquinas agreed, saying abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was "ensouled," and ensoulment, he was sure, occurred well after conception. ... In the encyclical Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life"), Pope John Paul II carried forward both the recognition that we do not know when the fetus becomes a person. ...
— "Abortion and Catholic Thought: The Little-Known History." Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 2 to 5.
[pic]
[ABO] "When contemporary United States congressmen set up committees to ask, When does human life begin?" they are not asking a scientific question but seeking support for a religious belief. They are no more likely to find and embryologist who is able to answer that question than an astronomer who might train his telescope on a specified constellation and locate a physical counterpart of heaven."
— Malcolm Potts, former Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). "Where is the Soul?" Conscience, Autumn 1996, page 4.
[pic]
[ABO*][STU]
"Your Holiness;
"... Like the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, violence against medical workers who perform abortions implicates the violent language in which some religious leaders condemn them. You speak of abortion as "murder," "crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize," "the deliberate killing of an innocent human being," etc. Continuous exhortations in such terms inevitably incite unbalanced and impressionable minds. Spurred on by religious leaders, among whom you are the foremost, these people direct their hatred and violence against people like me who not only provide abortion services to women but also believe abortion to be a woman's right. ... It is estimated by the World Health Organization that 200,000 women die each year as a result of such [illegal] abortions. ... I appeal to you to stop using "murder," "the killing" of the "innocent," and similar inflammatory terms, which incite indignation, anger, hate, and violence. Please refrain from comparing abortion to the Holocaust. As a survivor of the Holocaust, I personally find such a comparison gratuitous, insulting, and obscene. Many people, in particular Jews, share my feelings about this.
"How can you compare the willful, deliberate genocide of the Jews by the German state, directed by a hate-filled psychopath, to individual decisions by women to choose abortion when they find themselves unable to assume the obligations and duties of motherhood, decisions which many people consider ethical, moral, and responsible? How can you compare pre-cerebral embryos and fetuses to real live people as if they had the same value?"
"Should you be able to moderate your views and teachings on abortion, or at least to moderate your condemnation and exhortations to the faithful to follow your position, it could possibly save lives. ... Recently you offered a belated acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the striving of women for emancipation. I see this as a hopeful sign that maybe you could still change some of your attitudes regarding the teachings of the church on birth control and abortion ..."
— Canadian abortionist Henry Morgentaler's "open letter" to Pope John Paul II. "Violent Words, Violent Deeds." Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 7 to 9.
[pic]
[HYP][ABO] "Abortion stands alone along our spectrum of moral issues. In the birth control controversy, anyone who maintained that she would never use artificial contraception, and would never encourage anyone else to do so, would be welcomed with open arms as the most loyal of Catholics. But in the abortion controversy, persons such as Geraldine Ferraro — or myself — who made such disclaimers are counted as pro-abortion if they do not also support legislation to make abortion illegal. Among some in the Catholic community such persons are often labeled "not really Catholic."
A politician should not acquiesce to the wishes of the majority when they contradict his or her conscience, as Mario Cuomo has attested in thrice vetoing capital punishment laws desired by the majority in New York State. At the same time, when fundamental moral values are in conflict, as they are in the abortion instance, and strong popular support for the conclusion reached by the legislator's conscience is absent, a strong case can be made for Catholic legislators' refusing to impose their conclusions of conscience on others [NOTE: What CFFC is essentially saying here is when a large majority of people have a conservative viewpoint that contradicts the view of the politician, he must not contradict his own conscience by voting as the people want. However, if people want a ban on certain abortion procedures (like the D&X, or partial-birth abortion), then the legislator must not "impose his conscience"].
"Freedom cannot be refused whole classes of persons on ground that some of them might, or even probably would, use that freedom to commit grievous sin [NOTE: Yet this is precisely what CFFC is saying about pro-lifers — that we must not exercise our freedom of assembly to picket abortion mills and that we must not use our freedom of speech to speak what they call "inflammatory rhetoric," because these activities might lead to the grievous sin of killing abortionists].
"When the church admitted that (1) procreation is not the only or the single primary purpose of the marriage act, but shares that role with nurture of the marital relationship, and (2) that natural methods of contraception were morally acceptable, it effectively severed the equation of intercourse with procreation.
"I have seen some of the thousands and thousands of children shuffled from institution to foster home and back again, and I have seen how few people ever consider adoption. What would happen to those unwanted children? Many of them would inevitable end up dead from the violence of abuse, or more probably from the violence of neglect. The nightly news would hold antiabortion forces responsible for the fate of these children.
"An examination of the morality of the act of abortion requires first that we do not immediately place abortion in the category known as intrinsically evil acts. It makes no pedagogical sense on the contemporary theological scene to assert that abortion is intrinsically evil because it thwarts God's will. ... Killing is not intrinsically evil; murder is. Abortion as an act that kills must meet the same criteria that other kinds of killing do.
"... forty thousand children die every day of hunger and hunger related causes [NOTE: According to the World Bank, a total of about 1,650 people die of hunger and hunger-related causes each day. So CFFC is exaggerating by a factor of at least 2,400 percent, even if we assume that all of the people who die of hunger are children. See Chapter 18 of The Facts of Life on Human Life International's Pro-Life Library DVD entitled "The International Population Control Movement," for statistics and documentation on hunger-related deaths worldwide].
[Footnote 11]: "Christianity began with the mixture of religion and politics — that was what got Jesus crucified, and many of the apostles and disciples as well" [NOTE: Gee! And all this time we deluded Catholics thought it was because He proclaimed Himself to be the Son of God!]
— Christine E. Gudorf. "To Make a Seamless Garment, Use a Single Piece of Cloth." Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 10 to 21.
[pic]
[ABO*][VIC] "I can trace the immediate stimulus for my going to a [abortion] clinic to the woman who visited with me in our home several days before her abortion at this same clinic. ... After her abortion, she told us she thought she had made the right decision, but she paid a price in tears and soul trauma. I remember her piercing words about the rosary-saying pickets: "They were taking a precious symbol of my faith and turning it into a weapon against me" [NOTE: This is another deception by CFFC ― trying to give the image that women who are killing their unborn children are fervent, Rosary-praying Catholics].
"I knew that my visits would not give me a woman's understanding of the abortion decision, but I hoped they might empty me a bit of my inculcated masculine insensibility [NOTE: Here we have a good example of a 'feminist man' — groveling before the women].
"The clinic door still had traces of red paint from a recent attack. The door was buzzed open only after I was identified. I realized that these people live and work in fear of "pro-life" violence. ... A sign inside the front door said, "Please Help Our Guard. We May Need Witnesses if the Pickets Get out of Control. You Can Help by Observing and Letting Him/Her Know if You See Trouble."
"I asked Yeo about the "right-to-lifer's" claim that most women who have abortions are rich [NOTE: What pro-lifer has ever made this claim? As always, there is no footnote and no documentation for such an absurd claim]. ... I asked about the charge that doing abortions makes doctors rich. She assured me that, given the clinic's budget, all the doctors who work there would make more back in their offices. ...
"It became ironically clear to me that these women working in the abortion clinic prevent more abortions than the zealous picketers demonstrating outside. ...
"It struck me forcefully how aloof and misogynist it is not to see that the adoption path is supererogatory [more than is needed or required]. Here is one more instance of male moralists' prescribing the heroic for women as if it were simply normal and mandatory. ...
"I was shown the suction tube used and was surprised to find it only about twice the width of a straw. This was early empirical information for me as to what it is that is aborted at this stage.
"One staff member said it would seem that 90 percent of the men have "scorn for condoms." Making "love" does not describe those sexual invasions. For there hostile inseminators, nothing should interfere with their pleasure. A few women concede that they were "testing the relationship." ...
"The picketers were a scary lot. Because of them, a guard had to be on duty to escort the patients from their cars. Before the clinic leased the adjacent parking lot — making it their private property — some picketers would go up to the cars of the women, screaming and shaking the cars. The guard told me he was once knocked down by a picketer. Without the guard, some of them would surround an unescorted woman and force her to see and hear their message of condemnation. ... Their language was filled with allusions to the Nazi Holocaust. Clearly, they imagined themselves at the ovens of Auschwitz, standing in noble protest as innocent persons are led to their deaths. There could hardly be any higher drama in their lives. They seemed not to know that the Nazis were antiabortion too — for Aryans [NOTE: Similarly, pro-abortionists are antiabortion too — for those perfect babies they "want." For the "unwanted," the handicapped, those of the wrong sex or gender, and all the rest — well, they can be eliminated, just like the Nazis eliminated the "unwanted" Jews. For many more parallels between yesterday's Nazis and today's pro-abortionists, see Chapter 5 of The Facts of Life on Human Life International's Pro-Life Library DVD entitled "The Holocaust Analogy to Abortion"]. They also miss the anti-Semitism and insult in this use of Holocaust imagery. The six million Jews two million to three million Poles, Gypsies, and homosexuals killed were actual, not potential, persons. Comparing their human dignity to that of pre-personal embryos is no tribute to the Holocaust dead. Jews and other survivors of victims are not flattered. Sexism was also in bold relief among the picketers. Their references to "these women" coming here to "kill their babies" dripped with hatred. It struck me that, for all their avowed commitment to life, these were the successors of the witch-hunters. ...
MEETING THE EMBRYOS
"On my third visit to the clinic, I made bold to ask to see the products of some abortions. ... I held the cup in my hands and saw a small amount of unidentifiable fleshy matter in the bottom of the cup. The quantity was so little that I could have hidden it if I had taken it into my hand and made a fist. ...
REACHING CONCLUSIONS
[SLO]
"1. My four visits to the clinic made me more eager to maintain the legality of abortions for women who judge they need them. ... It also made me eager to work to reduce the need for abortion by fighting the causes of unwanted pregnancies: the sexism enforced by the institutions of church, synagogue, mosque, and state that diminish a woman's sense of autonomy; the poverty induced by skewed budgets; our antisexual bias that leads to eruptive sex; and the other macro causes of these macro tragedies. ... More often than we male theologians have dreamed, abortion is the best a woman can do in a world of diversified extremities. ...
"3. I came away from the clinic with a new longing for a moratorium on self-righteous and sanctimonious utterances from Catholic bishops on the subject of abortion. ... A position such as O'Connor's has two evil yields: It insults the Catholic intellectual tradition by making it look simplistic, and it makes the bishops the allies of a right wing that has been using its newfound love of embryos as an ideological shield for a mean-spirited social agenda.
"4. Saint Antoninus, the revered fifteenth-century Dominican bishop of Florence, presented common Catholic teaching when he defended early abortions to save a woman's life — a broad exception in the medical context of his day. Today's Catholic hierarchy might well begin their deliberations with a prayer to St. Antoninus, this pro-choice bishop, canonized a saint in 1523. He is a saintly representative of a pro-choice Catholic view. ... I am troubled by the bishops' insistence on presenting their rigid view as the only legitimate or even most typical Catholic view. The bishops are squandering their moral authority on issues where they have no privileged expertise. ... If anyone can find a statue or picture of St. Antoninus, I'll contribute it to the CFFC office."
— Daniel C. Maguire. "Reflections of a Catholic Theologian on Visiting an Abortion Clinic." Conscience, Autumn 1996. A modified version of this laughable and inept piece of propaganda first appeared as "A Catholic Theologian at an Abortion Clinic." Ms. Magazine, December 1984, pages 129 to 132.
[pic]
[ABO*] "Catholic theologian and philosopher Daniel Callahan published Abortion Law, Choice and Morality in 1970. Callahan wrote that a good law on abortion "Should seek to accomplish a variety of ends. It should seek to give women optimal freedom. It should seek to express the serious concern of society about abortion. It should try to provide maximum freedom for everyone concern with abortion decisions: the women who must make the decisions, the doctors who must perform the abortions, and the society which has a stake in the number, kind, and quality of legal abortions" (p. 489) [NOTE: See what a "good abortion law" is to abortionists? Total freedom to abort whenever and for whatever reason you want].
"For Callahan, abortion "is not the destruction of a human person — for at no stage of its development does the conceptus fulfill the definition of a person, which implies a developed capacity for reasoning, willing, desiring, and relating to others — but it is the destruction of an important and valuable form of human life" (pp. 497-498).
— Lisa M. Hisel. "Abortion: A Reader's Guide." Conscience, Autumn 1996, page 35.
[pic]
[ABO*] "My mother's love and courage, like all women's, were no mere biologically induced responses but the expressions of her moral commitment to us. In the absence of such tenderness and care, born not of instinct but of moral freedom, it would have been better for me, or for anyone else, not to have born.”
— Beverly Wildung Harrison. "What if "I" Had Been Aborted?" Conscience, Autumn, page 38.
[pic]
[HYP] "We are convinced that only open, honest, and respectful dialogue will bring the Catholic community to some resolution of this problem ... We hope that the discussion can be carried forward in a manner that is respectful of the consciences and persons of all its participants" [NOTE: This is good for a laugh. As you can see from reading other quotes in this document, CFFC writers routinely call those who oppose them every filthy name they can think of. Additionally, this quote compilation also shows that CFFC has demanded that Catholic hospitals do abortions and sterilizations and distribute contraceptives. CFFC in no way respects pro-lifers or our consciences ― only its own].
— Thomas A. Shannon and Patricia Beattie Jung [editors]. Abortion and Catholicism: The American Debate (1988), page 6. Excerpted in Lisa M. Hisel. "Abortion: A Reader's Guide." Conscience, Autumn 1996, page 40.
[pic]
[SLO] "Because we cherish dignity, we insist on freedom and we place the right of conscience at its center, so that a government that denies that right is totalitarian no matter how free it leaves us in choices that matter less. ... Whatever view we take about abortion and euthanasia, we want the right to decide for ourselves and we should therefore be ready to insist that any honorable constitution, any genuine constitution of principle, will guarantee that right for everyone."
— Ronald Dworkin. Life's Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom (1993). Excerpted in Lisa M. Hisel. "Abortion: A Reader's Guide." Conscience, Autumn 1996, pages 40 and 41.
[pic]
[ABO] "In a letter to the editor in the Washington Times, CFFC president Frances Kissling criticized the bishops' postcard campaign against President Clinton's veto of the bill to ban a late-term abortion method [NOTE: This was the partial-birth abortion, or PBA]. "By exhorting Catholics attending church services on Sunday to sign postcard asking Congress to override President Clinton's veto during an election year, the bishops once again are using the Mass in a highly politicized and inappropriate way," Kissling wrote.
— "CFFC Notebook: Reproductive Health." Conscience, Autumn 1996, page 43.
[pic]
[VIC] "This is the essence of imperialism — using power and authority rather that persuasion, to force compliance with one's views. So now we ask, who's the cultural imperialist?"
— Maggie Hume. "Editor's Note: Who's the Cultural Imperialist?" Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, inside front cover [NOTE: Hume is trying to debunk the Vatican's statement that the United Nations is engaging in "cultural imperialism" by dumping tons of contraceptives on developing nations. She does a lousy job, displaying no facts or studies, just indignation. But this is standard operating procedure (SOP) for CFFC: Diversion, diversion, diversion].
[pic]
[VIC][STU] "In a marked contrast to the Catholic Church immediately following the Second Vatican Council ... our current era is characterized by a leadership intent on controlling its people and regulating behavior in matters relating to sexuality, reproduction, and gender. ... What motivates the church to invest such prodigious energy and so much of its moral authority in sexuality and reproduction? ... Traditional Catholic teachings on contraception, reproduction, and women are intertwined with attitudes towards women and sexuality that are deeply rooted in a tradition of patriarchy, misogyny, and asceticism. ... these debates involve the church's more fundamental struggle to maintain power that is based on dominance of male over female, celibate over sexual, clerical over lay, and traditional over modern. ...
"A new low in these efforts was the Vatican's decision in November to withdraw its symbolic support for UNICEF. ... UNICEF is the latest target of the Vatican's obsession with enforcing its absolutist line on family planning. Once again, the church leadership has chosen to squander its moral and political capital on these issues. ... Many Catholics wonder what positive strides might have been made has the Vatican and the hierarchy not squandered the church's moral authority on obsession with sexuality and reproduction, but focused instead on calling us to task for our failures to address the world's grinding injustice and poverty."
— Kathy Toner. "Is Anyone Listening: On Sexual and Reproductive Ethics, the Gap between Hierarchy and Laity is Global." Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, pages 3 to 5.
[pic]
[VIC][HIS] "Why is he so hard-hearted," she was wondering, "so dogmatic, so lacking in kindness? He could at least say 'I really feel the suffering of these people; but the best way is the moral way.'" She told friends after the discussion, "He's not at all the benevolent person his image makes him out to be. ... I got quite carried away. I was really trying to find a way to get to him, at least to strike a responsive chord, not necessarily to change his views. But his attitude was so harsh" ... Sadik walked out into St. Peter's Square feeling disappointed by the lack of compassion in the man. "He doesn't like women," she commented later. "I expected a little more sympathy for suffering and death"."
— Carl Bernstein and Marco Politi. "The Angry Pope: John Paul II Meets the Head of the UN Population Fund." Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, pages 14 to 17.
[pic]
[VIC][REL] "The postmodern sensibility tends to be so sharply analytical as to be almost incompatible with faith, although living a fragmented faith is one characteristic of postmodernity. ... Many activists of my generation of the Christian left favor this postmodernity, while young people are of a more New Age sensibility, where the future is assured, the Age of Aquarius is coming, the important thing is to feel good. It is like a chart from which I can take different aspects and form my own religiosity. I take a little oriental mysticism, a little Franciscan religiosity, an Ignatian discipline, and I put together my own religious mood. This is real poison to the Catholic Church ... The New Age and the postmodern sensibility are penetrating the church like a gas, and the Church — still encased in its weighty, anachronistic armor — is being suffocated by it. ...
"The hierarchy is on the defensive, and it wants to impose and restabilize culture — using judgment, fear, and punishment of any different thinking."
— Bernardo Barranco. "Navigating a New World: Mexico's New Laws, New Bishops, and New Culture Are Defining a New Church." Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, pages 21 to 24 and 37.
[pic]
[HIS*] "Catholic acceptance of the principle of the separation of church and state is very recent. It was only some thirty years ago, at the Second Vatican Council, that it was definitively accepted in the "Declaration on Religious Liberty." ... [NOTE: The "Declaration" nowhere mentions anything about the separation of Church and state. Instead, it outlines the duties of the state as far as noninterference with the church and family is concerned].
"I would be remiss if I did not point out that many Catholic theologians have been critical of the un-nuanced way in which church leaders have misrepresented the history of the church's position on abortion. Few casual observers would not believe that it is the position of the Roman Catholic church, definitively and dogmatically, that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception; that to have an abortion is to commit murder and can never be permitted even to save the life of the woman. Yet, in a 1974 document, the "Declaration on Procured Abortion," the Vatican stated that it does not know when the fetus becomes a person.
"... growing right-wing orthodoxy within Roman Catholicism which basically says conscience is not applicable unless it agrees with the position taken by the hierarchy. That view disrespects the capacity of individuals to exercise conscience. It says that people who use their consciences are basically behaving as if they were in a cafeteria instead of behaving in the way in which God intended. Liberal Catholics respond that God intended us to use the intellect She gave us and to respect our capacity to make good moral decisions. ... To think that the leadership of my church is unable to acknowledge and trust that women will make good decisions about family planning, sterilization, and abortion speaks to the centrality of patriarchy in Roman Catholicism. A patriarchy that no only seeks to control women, but that also seeks to cut off all debate and dialogue on these questions."
— Frances Kissling. "The Vatican and Politics of Reproductive Health: A Speech to a Study Group of the British Parliament." Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, pages 25 to 29.
[pic]
[STU][VIC] "For the Vatican to use its symbolic donor role to intimidate and force an independent charity to follow Roman Catholic policies on family planning services, including contraception and abortion, falls far short of a Christian approach to charity," said CFFC president Frances Kissling. "It will be an acute embarrassment to Catholics worldwide. The strong arm tactics of Vatican officials cannot go unchallenged." ... Perhaps it is time that the Vatican though a little more carefully about real family values before dashing off press releases that take cheap shots at UNICEF and, ultimately, cheap shots at children."
— "CFFC Notebook." Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, page 34.
[pic]
[BIG][ABO] "The Vatican also recommends that Catholics reconsider their support for UNICEF. It's a new low in Vatican behavior. ... the Vatican is prepared to hold every good thing hostage to its dirty little war against family planning and abortion. ... It's time we sent a clear signal to the church hierarchy that we are sick and tired of this single-minded obsession with abortion and family planning. We want to get on with the church's mission to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, and shelter the homeless. Especially the children."
— Frances Kissling. "The Vatican's Cheap Shot at UNICEF." Conscience, Winter 1996/1997, pages 36 and 37.
[pic]
[VIC][REL] "The voice of the officers of the Catholic Church on reproductive matters speaks to me of a materialistic God ... whose greatest joy comes from playing cruel reproductive tricks on women and watching them squirm."
— Marjorie Maguire, former 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC) member, quoted in Phyllis Zagano. "The Limits of Choice." National Catholic Register, October 12, 1986.
[pic]
[ABO] "For example, the just war theory accepts the taking of human life if one's own life or that of another is directly threatened. A just abortion theory would therefore permit a woman whose life was in danger to have an abortion — an act now prohibited by church law. Just war theory has also accepted that war can be warranted to protect a nation's integrity, particularly if the violation of a nation would result in the erosion of values judged to be equal to or greater than life itself. This could include territorial violation that would result in loss of liberty or traditional freedoms such as religion and speech. Could not a just abortion theory admit that threats to a woman's physical and emotional health are a violation of bodily integrity comparable to national integrity? Could not a woman's capacity to care for existing children and children to come, her ability to function as a fully contributing member of our society and her sense of self identity and purpose be seen as values proportional to the potential value of fetal life?"
— Frances Kissling. “If War is "Just," So is Abortion." We Are Church: Reflections on Core Values and Concerns. Parish Renewal Consulting Services (PRCS), 1996, pages 35 to 37.
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1997
[REL*][VIC*] "Redemption then becomes transformed gender relations that overcome male domination, rather than a call to women to submit to this domination as their means of salvation. ... Male domination, or patriarchy, is thus a manifestation of sin. ... Those who would silence women in the church are the "seed of Satan" and continue in the fallen state, not having received the inner light of the redemptive Spirit. ... [NOTE: Get this? Pro-lifers and those who would oppose women's ordination are "sinful," "unredeemed," and the "seed of Satan!"]
"Redemption is realized, not primarily in an otherworldly escape from the body and the finite world, but by creating and encouraging personal and social relations of justice and peace between all humans here and now. This is the true message of Christ and the Gospels. The churches have betrayed Christ by preaching a theology of female silence and subordination. ... Feminism sees patriarchy as a multi-layered system domination, centered in men's control of women, but including class, race and generational hierarchies, clericalism, war, and the domination of mature. ...
"Redemption requires overcoming all forms of patriarchy. Feminist theologians, such as Brazilian Ivone Gebara, stress that overcoming patriarchy means dismantling an entire cosmovision based on a split universe in which God is located in a spiritual realm outside of creation and ruling over it. Redemption is seen as sending God down from this higher spiritual realm to a lower, material world lacking spiritual life. ... [NOTE: Redemption is incompatible with the feminist vision of "patriarchy," says Ruether. This basically says that all pro-lifers are going to Hell. Now, who's being judgmental here?]
"Feminist theologians reject the classical notion that the human soul is radically fallen, alienated from God, and unable to reconcile itself with God, in need of an outside mediator. Instead, the human self is defined through its primary identity as image of God. ... Jesus's role becomes quite different in feminist theology. ... No one person can become the collective human whose actions accomplish a salvation which is then passively applied to everyone else. Jesus's story can be a model for what we need to do for ourselves and with one another. ... Feminist Christianity is the true gospel of Jesus. ... [NOTE: This is the most bizarre concept imaginable].
"Modern Jesus scholarship has radically stripped the Jesus story of its dogmatic accretions, revealing a Jesus whose life continues to strike a responsive chord for feminist liberation theology — namely, a man (not lord, but brother) who dissented from religious and social systems of domination that marginalized the poor and despised, most notably women. He incurred the wrath of religious and political authorities for these subversive teachings and practices, and they sought to silence him by publicly torturing him to death. ... The Jesus story continues to be a model for Christian feminists because it exemplifies the redemptive paradigm of feminist liberation: Dissent against oppressive religious and political structures, taking the side of the oppressed, particularly women. ... If we claim the Jesus story because it echoes our own story, why not just discard it and tell our own story? ... [NOTE: It looks as if this is just what they have done].
"Yet the fact that Jesus was male is a major problem for claiming the Jesus story as the root story for feminist theology. ... One imitates Christ by living in a like manner, not by displaying male genitalia. ... [NOTE: Nobody can deny this. This statement is another call for women's ordination].
"Some theologians, like Delores Williams, have answered this question by decisively rejecting that victimized suffering is redemptive. What is redemptive is extricating ourselves from unjust suffering and changing the conditions that cause it. It is not Jesus's suffering and death that are redemptive, but rather his life of protest against injustice and solidarity in defense of life. ... [NOTE: This statement is in flat contradiction to Christian teaching and theory]. This dismantling of the patterns of patriarchal Christianity, reconstructing a radically different understanding of the key touchstones of Christian theology (God, humanity male and female, sin and fall, Christ and redemption) raises the question of how feminist theology relates to scripture and tradition. ... [NOTE: This says it all. Ruether says that Christianity itself must be torn down and reconstructed in the feminist image].
"What happens to Christian feminist theology when Christian symbols are one resource among others, along with Shamanism and Buddhism. ... Multi-religious solidarity and syncretism are not only allowable, they are required [NOTE: The Catholic Church has always taught that syncretism, the agglomeration of various authentic and false religous beliefs, is a heresy].
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Created Second, Sinned First: Women, Redemption, and the Challenge of Christian Feminist Theology." Conscience, Spring 1997, pages 3 to 6.
[pic]
[ABO][STU] "The religious wing of the antiabortion movement fails to communicate a sacred regard for creation by limiting its arguments to human life alone. When prolife politics excludes trees, oceans, animals, or victims of AIDS, warfare, and capital punishment, religious language may amount to nothing more than slogans that play well in the media [NOTE: This is a classic statement of the "seamless garment" that tries to dilute pro-life efforts by saying that you can't really be pro-life unless you do a hundred other things that the pro-aborts believe in. It is the sheerest (and most seamless) nonsense]. ... support for abortion in cases of rape and incest exemplifies the secular manipulation of religious sentiment. If the morality of the antichoice platform is based on protecting the fetus, then it is illogical — and irreverent — to suggest that any fetus qualifies for the death sentence. ...
"... since men cannot deny to women their power to give life, they will try — as they have done historically — to deny to women the power to take it. ... Prochoice/antiabortion indicates an acceptance of how painful and problematic abortion so often is for everyone involved — parents, families, doctors, and counselors. ... Abortion was the precarious safety net waiting to catch the fallout from experimental forays into what we willfully called "sexual liberation." It was our ally, ignorantly touted as a form of birth control and valued as an extension of forbidden pleasures. Abortion was no necessary evil. Many of us were for abortion. ... while dharma discourses abound on how to show compassion for cows and carrots or fleas and lice, in Buddhist cultures abortion is not openly addressed. ...
"What counts," explains [vipassana teacher Sylvia] Boorstein, "is procarefulness. Procontraception. Proattention. Prothoughtfulness. Prothoughtfulness with regard to sex is an expression of a sexuality that is nonexploitative, not compulsive. There is a way to have a compassionate abortion that involves the recognition that is not the right time for this plant to flourish." ... Buddhist teachers also speak of the capacity of those who have passed from this sphere of existence to choose their next set of parents, and therefore participate in addressing their own karmic needs. Presumably this includes choosing wombs that carry to term and those that do not. ... Zen gardens do not tolerate weeds. Do weeds have a right to live? Or unwanted fetuses? ... Humans have no more inherent right to live than they have the right to decide that garden weeds or livestock are born to die. This belief in the "right" to life reflects the Western impulse to control and shape reality, to project into life values that embrace human, as well as individual, supremacy. ..."
— Helen Tworkov. "Antiabortion/Prochoice: Taking Both Sides: The Heated Abortion Debates of the 1992 Elections Prompted a Buddhist to Explore Her Faith's Views of "The Great Matter of Life and Death"." Conscience, Spring 1997, pages 8 to 13.
[pic]
[STU][REL] "You can't be pro-religious without being prochoice, because the whole Bible speaks about choice and speaks about free moral agency [NOTE: Perhaps he is looking at a different "Bible"].
"He [Veazey] ]asserts that "raising up a woman's right to choose" must be balanced by a recognition of the sacredness of life [NOTE: It is never balanced. For all pro-aborts, especially the so-called 'religious' ones, the woman's right to choose always outweighs and trumps the sacredness of preborn human life].
— Adele M. Stan. "A Healing Kind of Thing: The Reverend Carlton W. Veazey Talks About His Work with the Black Religious Community on Sexuality and Reproductive Health." Conscience, Spring 1997], pages 19 to 21 [NOTE: Not surprisingly, Veazey is the director of the pro-abortion front group 'Religious' Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)].
[pic]
[HYP] "My second criticism points to the paternalism inherent in one group of women presuming that they are well suited to decide for all women what is best for them [NOTE: Wouldn’t this be “maternalism?”] The ethical principle "respect for persons" dictates that the individual woman should be given the potion of deciding which potential negative consequences of a [birth control] method are more of less acceptable to her" [NOTE: Then why does CFFC oppose "informed consent" for abortion?]
— Book Review: For Their Own Good?" Conscience, Spring 1997, pages 26 to 28.
[pic]
[STU] "Many Catholics, especially those concerned with social justice, see the hierarchy's attempts to remove contraceptive choice from the poor as a form of religious, if not cultural, imperialism. Can the institutional church in the United States honestly battle to deny contraceptive choice to the poor and powerless in foreign lands when they have long since lost this war on the home front?"
— "CFFC Notebook: Humanae Vitae's Hangover." Conscience, Spring 1997, page 30.
[pic]
[REL][ABO] "When women recognize that their moral agency is a God-given birthright, not something that can be occasionally doled out to them by a patriarchy, the 'abortion question' can finally be settled. It will be settled not by celibate men, who have no business worrying about what goes on in our bedrooms, nor will it be settled by outside forces who need to impose their own values on others" [NOTE: Since when does abortion happen in bedrooms?]
— "CFFC Notebook: Reproductive Health." Conscience, Spring 1997, page 31.
[pic]
[ABO] "No, but I am more willing to consider having formalities put in place that show a social consideration and value for the increased importance of fetal life — which still doesn't reach the importance of the mother's life [NOTE: Such bloviations are pure hot air on Kissling’s part. What possible good is it to put “formalities” in place if they have no effect, and if the woman can still have a late-term abortion for any reason at all? The only purpose of this kind of nonsense is to make the pro-abortionists look caring and thoughtful, nothing more]. ... A very large study was published on this [the reasons women have abortions] by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in 1988, and a lot of people in the movement gave it grief for having done this study because the reasons women gave for having abortions weren't serious enough."
— Frances Kissling, quoted in "Late-Term Abortion: Speaking Frankly." Ms. Magazine, May/June 1997, pages 67 to 71.
[pic]
[FAM][ABO][REL] "We want to [keep] open the possibility of being a Catholic and keeping our faith, but at the same time living a liberating sexual experience, more autonomous, open to the right to choose. We are questioning and criticizing the patriarchal, hierarchical structure of the church, which is totally outdated and keeps women as slaves of their husbands and children" [NOTE: This silly statement, of course, betrays an utter and complete ignorance of what the Church actually teaches].
— Spokesperson for 'Catholics' for a Free Choice, quoted in "Bishops Repudiate Choice Group." National Catholic Reporter, July 18, 1997, pages 7 and 8.
[pic]
[ABO][HIS] "We are committed to reducing the need for abortion. Access to contraception is one of the best, least coercive ways toward that goal. We are appalled that at least 75,000 women — almost all of them in the developing world — die every year from illegal and unsafe abortion. Furthermore, a half-million women die of pregnancy-related causes each year, often because pregnancies come too often, too close together, or too early or too late in life. We know that many of these deaths would have been avoided had contraceptives been available. ... While we know that public opinion does not and should not drive doctrine, we agree with Bishop Kenneth Untener, who said "the beliefs in the heads and hearts of our people must count for something"" [NOTE: So they believe that “public opinion does not and should not drive doctrine,” do they? Why, then, are they constantly quoting public opinion polls in attempts to bolster their positions?]
— "Statement of Purpose and Values: Catholics for Contraception." Conscience, Summer 1997, pages 7 and 8.
[pic]
[REL] "The R.C.'s [Roman Catholics] are certainly taking their stand against this subject & me." Their attacks against 'the Sanger woman' are libels, but no time have me [sic] to bother about libels. Dearest I fear with you.... but it may serve to awaken the Protestant element, in time to save the country later on."
— Margaret Sanger's letter to Juliet Rublee, quoted in Ellen Chesler. "Shocking Moral Sense: Margaret Sanger, the Birth Control Movement, and the Catholic Church." Conscience, Summer 1997, pages 11, 12, 13 and 15.
[pic]
[ADU][SBC][STU] "For the past decade, the Religious Right has carried on an intensive campaign to terrorize young people into chastity by persuading them that there's no "safer sex." ... "When will you be ready for sex?" the most extreme abstinence education lesson plans ask rhetorically. "When you're ready to die." In its effect on sexual education curricula — that is, on school administrators — this campaign has been extraordinarily successful. It's difficult to teach much of anything beyond abstinence in public high schools today" [NOTE: They must be kidding! How many times have we heard about filthy Planned Parenthood-style comprehensive sex education corrupting the minds and souls of our children?]
"My study began, in large part, out of a determination that girls have the chance to be heard — to hear each other — above the fundamentalist din largely stirred up, as I saw it, by conservatives in the Catholic church. ...
"Still others are convinced that marriage is the only proper way to deal with love and desire. If they have had or want to have sex they have to get married. Age is irrelevant. If having a baby will persuade their parents to let them marry, they'll try it, because marriage will turn them back into good girls, pleasing to God and their church. ...
"Many immigrant groups share the conservative views on sexuality that decrease the likelihood of using protection and contraception. In addition, the Religious Right has widely promoted such views. In fact, the taboos and terrors that lead to unprotected teenage sex are often the primary curriculum in what now passes for sexual education in public high schools.
"Teenagers who believe that sex is bad, that good girls never have it, that it's bad to plan for it, that they don't have the right, or the capacity, to be both safe and sexual, don't use contraception. Abstinence-only sex education programs often contribute to these negative views of sexuality and they do nothing to teach teenagers to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancies of sexually transmitted infections if they do become sexually active. Fortunately, the majority of teens seem to understand that adults have it all wrong and are doing, as they often put it, "what you have to do."
"If the Religious Right can import the dogma of abstinence into public schools, religious feminists who reach out to teenagers in their own communities can surely bring their own sense of sexual entitlement — and responsibility — to the girls who need it most, the daughters of their own churches."
— Sharon Thompson. "Doing What You Have to Do: Young Women Tell Why They Do — and Do Not — Use Contraceptives." Conscience, Summer 1997, pages 27 to 30.
[pic]
[ABO] "Studies are also investigating the possibility of mifepristone as a "once a week pill" and a once-a-month menses inducer [NOTE: This confirms what pro-lifers have been saying for years: That pro-abortionists are conducting research to find the family planning community's "unholy grail:" The ultimate in convenience and death, a handy once-a-month abortion pill].
"Nothing jeopardizes corporate profits like controversy over a contraceptive, which, in turn, can discourage the development of new contraceptives. The antichoice lobby in the UK, while small and insignificant compared with anti-choice forces in the US, is able to use this equation to its advantage.
"The antichoice agenda influences public debate on sex education, contraceptive services (especially for young people), and especially contraceptive development, in addition to the debate on abortion. In the UK, spokespersons emphasizing the damage caused to women by contraceptives are invariably associated with the antichoice movement [NOTE: Notice that they don't acknowledge the actual damage done by the hormonal abortifacients — they just try to divert attention away from it by trying to discredit the source]. ...
"Speaking at a meeting of the Contraceptive Alliance, an umbrella group of agencies concerned with family planning issues, Professor Denis Lincoln of the Medical Research Council's Centre for Human Reproductive Biology in Edinburgh, Scotland, warned that an antichoice agenda can shape the future of contraceptive research. He argued that in spite of successful research, there was little hope for the development of methods of fertility regulation which blur the boundaries between contraception and abortion. No company, he warned, would want to attract the inevitable opposition from the antichoice movement.
"Antichoice pressure and the fear of boycotts have haunted Hoecht's and its subsidiaries' research, production, and distribution of the abortion pill, mifepristone, whose launch in France in 1998 was met with anti-choice demonstrations ... The company perceived the problems with mifepristone as greater than its possibilities and were manifestly relieved to be rid of it ... The revenue derived from the product in 1996 was just $3.4 million, which suggests that, even without a boycott, the atmosphere of controversy surrounding the product made it more trouble than it was worth. To increase the sales and thereby make the product more profitable, the company would have had to actively promote its use — a move which would have created more controversy.
"As the antichoice movement stigmatizes any method of regulating fertility which has the potential to act after fertilization as an abortifacient, any company investigating post-coital methods which inhibit implantation or induce menstruation will need to assess whether it is open to pressures similar to those placed on Hoechst Marion Roussel [NOTE: Pro-lifers take note! The bottom line of this article is that pro-lifers can save lives — by impacting the bottom line of the companies developing and selling abortifacients and abortion pills].
— Ann Furedi. "Litigation, Agitation, and the Bottom Line: The Forces that Discourage the Development of New Contraceptive Option." Conscience, Summer 1997, pages 31 to 37.
[pic]
[REL][SEX*][STU] "Shelly herself finally reached down and drew the child wholly out from her body and held it high for herself and the rest of us to see! If I had needed further evidence my experience here would have settled for me how superior women are to men in that they can give birth to new human beings. I am not surprised at how persistently male church leaders have put down normal human birth, for example, by the doctrine of the 'virgin birth' or by 'churching' rituals after birth or by stressing the great 'birth' of baptism, usually performed by priests."
— Giles Milhaven, former member of the CFFC Board of Directors. "... and a Time to Uproot." Conscience, Summer 1997, page 45.
[pic]
"A marriage license does not endow sex with new power. Good sex ... operates as a channel of grace."
— Christine E. Gudorf, quoted in "... and a Time to Uproot." Conscience, Summer 1997, page 45.
[pic]
[BIG*] "Dear God, forgive the pope, because he does not know what he is doing. ... While laughing at someone can be cruel, sometimes people in power do need to be ridiculed."
— Hasse B. Gaenger and Mary Pellauer, quoted in "... and a Time to Uproot." Conscience, Summer 1997, page 45.
[pic]
[REL*] "Feminist Christianity is the true gospel of Jesus."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors), quoted in "... and a Time to Uproot." Conscience, Summer 1997, page 45.
[pic]
[ABO][HOM] "State restrictions on abortions have made access to abortion virtually impossible in several states. ... "Traditional family values" are grounded in a patriarchal family model that limits a woman's roles to wife and mother. There is no place for reproductive rights in this vision. ... Who will stand for compassion, care, and conscience, rather than censure, control and coercion? Religious progressives committed to gender equality must try to persuade others to stand for gender equality, reproductive freedom and gay and lesbian rights."
— Pamela K. Brubaker. "Standing Up for Ourselves: Progressive People of Faith Can Counter the Religious Right." Conscience, Autumn 1997, pages 8 to 11.
[pic]
[STU][SEX] "Christianity went one better: women (and men) transmitted sin, original sin, to every newborn baby. Only priests have the power to remove this "stain" from the little one's soul. ... [former CFFC Board member Giles Milhaven] said that] "It is no wonder that we men are afraid of women and that we try to keep them down, for what I just witnessed this day [the birth of a baby] is a stupendous feat of power and strength. We men are afraid of such power and strength. We fear and deny women's superiority."
— Annie Lally Milhaven. "The Inferior Mix: The Real Reasons Why the Catholic Church Does Not Ordain Women." Conscience, Autumn 1997, pages 12 to 14.
[pic]
[HYP] "Epithets, on the other hand, lack specific semantic connections, existing only to arouse emotions by circumventing intellectual comprehension."
— Robin Tolmach Lakoff. "Radical Cheek: The Evolution of a Revolutionary Word." Conscience, Autumn 1997, pages 21 to 24.
[pic]
[REL*][ABO] "January 1974 — Catholics for a Free Choice held a mock investiture on the steps of St Patrick's Cathedral in New York City, proclaiming CFFC founder Patricia Fogarty McQuillan, "Her Holiness Pope Patricia the First." McQuillan then issued a mock encyclical condemning "1,900 years of blasphemous sexist oppression by the Catholic Church." She said that Jesus was a feminist and that nowhere in his teachings is abortion proscribed. She then proclaimed the day "Freedom of Choice Day for Catholic Women"" [NOTE: Oh, isn’t this precious? The girls are playing dress-up! I wish I had a camera right now!]
— Lisa M. Hisel. "Catholicism and Abortion Since Roe v. Wade: Highlights of 25 Years of US Catholic Participation in the Abortion Debate." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, pages 5 to 12.
[pic]
[REL][ABO] "We believe the bishop's miter should be the symbol of justice and mercy, not a rigid rejection of human sexuality. It's time for the Catholic bishops to acknowledge that every couple can, in good conscience, arrive at their own safe, effective and moral choices on family planning and contraception. ... The bishops endorse policy that has resulted in thousands of unintended pregnancies, dangerous abortions, and maternal deaths in our hemisphere alone."
[pic]
— `Catholics' for a Free Choice newspaper ad entitled "Worn Correctly, it Can Prevent Unintended Pregnancy, AIDS, and Abortion." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, page 13.
[pic]
[SEX*] "After Roe v. Wade in 1973, I attempted to understand how women considering an abortion felt. It was clear to me, that men shouldn't speak or advise on this subject. They have no direct life experiences to draw on, I reasoned ..."
— Marie Baldwin. "Ardently Prochoice." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, pages 15 and 16.
[pic]
[BIG][ABO] "I thought that [Roe v. Wade] decision would once and for all incontrovertibly legitimate a woman's right to choose whether or not to bring a fetus to term and that all the irrational outcry against abortion would disappear. Little did I dream that the madness of fundamentalist fury would swell into the intemperate, irrational, murderous outcry that has now surrounded so necessary a human option. I did not know that a radical religious and political and political ultra-conservatism, now known as the radical right, would so intimidate our local, state, and federal legislators as to reduce them to fearful reactors rather than principled defenders of the Constitution. ... At risk is not just reproductive freedom, but freedom itself, the very soul of this nation" [NOTE: None of this matters, of course, if the right to life is denied].
— Rabbi Balfour Brickner. "Matters Sexual." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, pages 18 and 19.
[pic]
[ABO] "In a frenzy of hypocrisy, the opponents of family planning seek to deny safe abortion and the means to prevent it. Each year while semantics and ideological wars are waged, women continue to die from unsafe abortions and are denied access to contraception and quality sexual and reproductive health services."
— Ingar Brueggemann, Secretary General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). "The International Impact of Roe v. Wade." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, page 19.
[pic]
[ABO][VIC] "Institutions — the state, the church, or a corporation — are usually governed by a small group of men, whose primary demand from underlings is obedience, deference to their supreme authority.
"To place abortion in its historical context illuminates its underlying meaning to patriarchal thinkers. ... Patriarchal thinkers and institutions condemn abortion because it involves a woman using her own judgment and treating her body as if it were her own, and not the property of her husband. For a woman to assert the right to use her own reason, and her possession of her own body is, in this thinking, treason. It denies the supremacy of the male, which is the first principle of patriarchy.
"Since some men are willing to take and use women's bodies and sexual capacities by force, to rape them within marriage or outside it, and since many women are unable to fight off such male assaults, women must have the power and right to undo what men do, the right, not just to birth control, but to abortion."
— Marilyn French. "On Abortion." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, page 21.
[pic]
[ABO*][VIC*] "In the United States Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, women's right to safe, legal abortion was affirmed. No more heart-wrenching fear about unwanted pregnancies. No more deliberate bone-breaking falls, or cocktails. No more frantic phone calls and furtive meetings. No more putting one's life in the hands of strangers, praying that they would be kind, clean, competent; that the pain would be bearable; that you would survive the ordeal. No more bent hangers and catheters. No more soul-shattering fear or unspeakable pain. No more maimed or dead women. ...
"While the "extremists" use terrorism and confrontational tactics to keep abortion providers in a state of siege, the men and women in suits engage in a war of words, misinformation, political and judicial harassment, all while claiming the moral high ground.
"In a soundbite how does one counter the smug hypocrisy of a movement that call itself "pro-life" while waving photographs of dead fetuses in front of a camera? No matter how many times or ways we move to enlarge the discussion to address that movement's callous disregard of the needs of women and children ... Try as we may, there is no "nice" way around this confrontation. Death is part of the abortion equation. ...
"Only by embracing a radical feminist position on abortion can we hope to free our movement from being held hostage to the issues and agenda set by the fetal rights groups. This is how we retake charge of the public debate. We need to advocate for the expansion of the right to abortion, the removal or all restrictions to access to abortion — eliminating parental or judicial permissions for underage girls and cutoff point based on fetal viability, rescinding the Hyde Amendment and other laws limiting federal funding of the service both here and abroad. We need to adamantly state that the only criteria for the service should be a woman's word. ... And we need to be willing to declare that, yea, abortion causes the death of the fetus and as such should never be undertaken lightly. ..." [NOTE: Never be undertaken lightly? Come on! Every single reformed abortionist has talked endlessly about how careless many women are when it comes to using birth control, and how many of them see abortion as nothing more than a bothersome nuisance. Notice also the demand here for abortion right up until the moment of birth. And these are the people who paint pro-lifers as “extremists!”].
— Marcia Gillespie, Editor-in-Chief of Ms. Magazine. "Gotta Be Bolder." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, pages 22 to 25.
[pic]
[ABO*][COE*] "While artificial contraception has improved in many ways since Roe v. Wade, in both safety and convenience, it is still not, and probably will never be, completely effective. As we come to understand the larger and larger role that contraception must play in this overpopulated, over cultivated, over polluted world of ours, in which whole species disappear every day, the role of abortion as the necessary back-up to contraception becomes important not only to women as individuals, not only to a society in which women's welfare affects society, but to the life prospects of the entire biosphere. ... Moves toward coercive abortion should be resisted, though human population growth and consumption rates do not seem to be slowing quickly and uniformly enough to rule out future need for coerced contraception or sterilization" [NOTE: So there you have it ― This is why CFFC has not condemned China’s forced abortion program. They consider it necessary if the population does not slow “quickly and uniformly enough”].
— Christine E. Gudorf. "Earth's Inhabitants." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, page 25.
[pic]
[ILL*][ABO] "The day the Roe v. Wade decision was announced we, the members of Jane, the Chicago Women's Liberation Abortion Service, were working, as usual, performing illegal abortions. That night we gathered for an impromptu celebration.
"Within two years, women in the group, none of us medical professionals, learned the skills necessary to perform the abortions ourselves. ... Roe, by placing abortion firmly in the hands of physicians, abandoned women to insensitive and disempowering medical treatment.
"Roe, though a victory, was far from what we hoped for. We wanted a revolution and what we got was reform. We wanted repeal, no laws on abortion. Earlier in the struggle radicals passed out their ideal legislation — a blank sheet of paper" [NOTE: Pro-abortionists still fight against any clinic regulations, even those designed to safeguard the health of women. So many women are butchered by actual doctors, and we can only imagine the carnage that would be wrought by untrained women doing the procedures. Remember, these are the people who claim that they care about women’s health so very much!].
— Laura Kaplan. "Jane's Perspective." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, pages 27 and 28.
[pic]
[ABO] "As a Catholic, I feel a particular responsibility to make abortion safe, legal, and accessible, because I think my church's teaching on contraception both greatly exacerbates Catholic women's conflict over abortion and increases the need for this health service. ... I agree with President Clinton that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare — and I might add, accessible. Unfortunately, it is decidedly not rare. I pray that, through the use of effective contraception — and not through lack of accessibility — it some day will be."
— Kathleen Rose Kennedy. "My Prochoice Journey." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, page 28.
[pic]
[ABO*][REL][STU*] "Probabilism taught that "where there is doubt, there is freedom." Serious doubts based on a few "tested theologians" or on your own insights rendered you morally free to choose for yourself on debated moral issues. The system provided and was meant to provide a bypass around a church hierarchy that history had shown to be as fallible as anyone else. The development of this system in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was a triumph for the rights of personal conscience. Like Roe v. Wade, it allowed for situations where good persons could disagree on serious moral matters. In Roe's words, it freed persons from "unwanted intrusion" into the sanctuary of informed personal conscience. ...
"So when the Supreme Court of the United States decided that abortion is a complicated issue on which good people can disagree and that in such cases persons should be left free to follow their sincere and well thought out choices, it was just a little bit of old time Catholic wisdom to me. It struck me, in fact, as more Catholic than Vatican's newfound absolutism on the subject."
"What? Roe v. Wade more Catholic than the pope?
"Yes. Obviously" [NOTE: And, just as obviously, somebody got hold of some really good mushrooms here].
— Daniel C. Maguire (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "Catholic Wisdom." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, page 29.
[pic]
[ABO] "Yes, Roe v. Wade still exists in our country, but by a very thin thread. But what is most disturbing is that access to legal abortion is virtually non-existent for poor women, young women, and rural women."
— Wilma Monanez. "En La Lucha." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, page 30.
[pic]
[HYP*][ABO] "I feel compassion, as most people do, for the unborn child and for the helpless woman. Both deserve our tears [NOTE: This is a great example of pro-abortion "crocodile tears." There is never quite enough compassion for the unborn child to spare its life. This is nothing more than public relations swill designed to make the writer look compassionate]. ... The issue is too private, too personal, too much tied up with faith and personal freedom for the government to regulate abortion totally by law. Indeed, such laws are unenforceable. There would be a national trauma every time a woman was arrested and put in jail for having has an abortion. ... The essence of the moral decision rests on the fact that we cannot be sure that the fetus is a person until birth or viability. ... The American Catholic conviction seems to be this: it is very important to value life in the womb from the earliest stages, but one must do so conditionally. Abortion, therefore, is always tragic, but not always immoral. ... Jesus asked for love even in the uneasy situations where love is not expected. Is it too much to hope that the church which came from him might reflect his compassion and sensitivity?"
— Anthony Padovano. "Reflective Compassion." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, pages 32 and 33.
[pic]
[ABO*] "After twenty-five years, legal abortion continues to be a lightning rod for every kind of right-wing paranoia. ... Twenty-five years after Roe the persistence and the highly symbolic nature of antiabortion politics call for a strong feminist moral offensive. Such an offensive must reframe the abortion issue in terms of women's civil and human rights to work, to get an education, to express their sexuality regardless of age, marital status, or sexual orientation, and to be full citizens and persons. ... We need to remind ourselves that twenty-five years ago women's groups envisioned legalized abortion as only one small part of a much broader agenda for women's full liberation. They had it right."
— Rosalind Petchesky and Carole Joffe. "Wayward Women." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, pages 33 and 34.
[pic]
[STU*] "The most uplifting vision of religious liberty I can envisage for the twenty-fifth anniversary of Roe v. Wade would be a person who sincerely believes abortion is murder driving a woman with a different belief to an abortion clinic" [NOTE: To show how brazenly stupid this statement is, how about this: Would Potts find it "uplifting" to have a member of a pro-abortion group drive a clinic arsonist to the local abortion mill at 3 AM?]
— Malcolm Potts, President, Family Health International [FHI]. "Religious Liberty." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, page 35.
[pic]
[HIS*][VIC][ABO] "Again and again, my grandmother was called to treat women who had given themselves abortions, usually with a knitting needle, a shoe hook, or a household acid, like Lysol. ... The antiabortion movement is not about when life begins and it is certainly not about family values. ... During the catastrophic century-long period during which both abortion and birth control were illegal, millions of women died and countless families were destroyed. In the 1930s, despite the criminalization of abortion, it is estimated that women had over one million abortions annually. An estimated 3 percent of these women died — that's 30,000 in one year [NOTE: Wow! Alexander is even more muddle-headed than his famous grandmother. 30,000 is a number even greater that the "5,000 to 10,000" that Dr. Bernard Nathanson admitted was a blatant lie]. Then in spring 1997 the AMA again abandoned women by offering their support for a harmful ban on some abortions in exchange for political favors [NOTE: Sanger is turning facts on their head again. The AMA found partial-birth abortion to be harmful to the health of women — yet Sanger says that banning it would be "harmful"].
— Alexander Sanger, President of Planned Parenthood of New York City. "Into the Next Millennium." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, pages 36 to 37.
[pic]
"If we are, in truth, seeking to dismantle the structures that breed inequality and injustice in our world, then we certainly cannot stop short at paternalistic laws or motions of statehood. The Supreme Court should not be allowed to ignore the women it finds expendable. The state should not be allowed to replace the dying patriarchy."
— Rebecca Walker. "Dismantling Patriarchy." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, page 39.
[pic]
"I would venture a guess that a good many Good Enough Catholics would not have grave difficulty accepting the use of a "morning after" contraceptive like RU486, which stops the development of what is then a small gathering of cells [NOTE: This is a great example of pro-abortion dishonesty. Everyone knows that RU-486 is a true abortifacient, ending preborn life as late as eight weeks. Yet Wilkes refers to it as a "contraceptive"]. ... A person can, with the highest of moral standards, see this as a life-and-death, black-and-white, question; or, with equally high moral standards, see a continuum colored by vastly varying circumstances."
— Paul Wilkes. "The Education of One Catholic." Conscience, Winter 1997/1998, page 40.
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1998
[POP][STU][EUG] "We need to seek out the most compassionate way of weeding out people. It is not 'pro-life' to allow unrestrained fertility. ... A good gardener weeds and thins his seedlings to allow the proper amount of room for the plants to grow properly .... Our current pro-life movement is actually killing people through disease and poverty .... [I recommend a] spirituality of recycling, a spirituality that includes ourselves in the renewal of earth and self. We need to compost ourselves. ... We need to return to the population level of 1930."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). Quoted in Michael S. Rose. "Feminist Theologian Urges Religious to Find a Way to 'Weed Out People'." The Wanderer, June 11, 1998, page 1. The last sentence is from her presentation at a 1998 Call to Action conference, quoted in Ann Sheridan. "CTA Conference Presents the Reality of Unreality." The Wanderer, November 12, 1998, page 1. Also quoted in "War on the Faith: How Catholics for a Free Choice Seeks to Undermine the Catholic Church" [New York City: Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute], White Paper Number One, 2002, page 13.
[pic]
[REL*] "Redemption is about liberating women and all victimized people from violence and from injustice. ... Redemption does not mean sending down the divine from some higher spiritual world where God is located, into a bodily world we find is alien to God, but rather perhaps it means the welling up of authentic life in a true creation transforming us from death-dealing to life-giving relations. It is to say 'Flesh became Word,' not 'Word became Flesh.' God is not the power of dominating control from outside but the ground of life-giving relations and their ongoing renewal. ... [What is] the role of suffering and the cross in redemption? What kind of suffering is redemptive? Is the passive suffering of victims redemptive? Doesn’t the mandate that women and other victims such as slaves, impoverished people, that they should accept suffering in order to be 'Christ-like,' simply prolong and justify violence rather than overcoming it? Some theologians, such as womanist Delores Williams, have answered this question by decisive rejection of the idea that the cross, or Christ`s suffering, is redemptive. It is not Jesus’ suffering and death but His life as a praxis of protest against injustice in solidarity in His life, it is this praxis that is redemptive. ... Although the figure of Jesus remains resiliently central to Christian feminist theology, many Christian feminists would also reject Christological exclusivism. The Jesus who takes the side of the poor, who celebrates the life of the marginalized, is key to the feminist paradigm of redemptive process, but this does not exclude, but rather embraces parallel paradigms in women’s experience and in other cultures and religious traditions."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). Quoted in C. Powell Sykes. "Rosemary Radford Ruether gives 1998 Sprunt Lectures; Says 'Flesh became Word not Word became Flesh'." The Presbyterian Layman, March/April 1998.
[pic]
[ABO] "Abortion is never a single issue. It is a complex tapestry of all the things we believe about race, class, gender, and justice. It is also about sexuality, relationships, and love."
— Frances Kissling, quoted in "The Future of Roe v. Wade: Political." Ms. Magazine, January/February 1998, page 77 [NOTE: Notice how complicated Kissling tries to make the issue. She tries to transform it into a "tapestry" so complex that nobody can oppose abortion without considering everything it may impinge upon. Since any action against abortion may have an adverse effect on any one of two dozen other issues, Kissling expects pro-lifers to be frozen into inaction with uncertainty. During a debate, you can simply use word substitution to demonstrate this statement's illogic: "Bombing an abortion clinic is never a single issue ..."].
[pic]
"The trajectory of Marian dogmas from 431 to 1950 has been to get Mary out of her body and to separate her from women's lives and experience. In a church obsessed with sexuality and historically hostile to both women and sexual expression — seeing the latter as largely evil and the former as responsible for almost all sexual transgression with the exception of male homosexuality — Mary's body, sexuality, and childbearing have been matters, not to be embraced, but explained away. The Catholic Church has not only explained away Mary's sexuality, it attempts to explain away, punish, and control the sexuality of all Catholic women and men."
— Frances Kissling. "Editor's Note: What's Sex Got to Do With It?" Conscience, Spring 1998, inside front cover.
[pic]
[REL][STU][VIC] "There is a malignant cancer in the Catholic school environment which eats away at the heart of these Gospel values: namely, the patriarchal and sexist structure of the Catholic Church. ... The Catholic Church continues to legitimize male dominance through internal sexist structures. Church teachings that women cannot be priests and cannot represent God justify subservient roles for women in the church and in society. Pope John Paul II has taught that female inferiority within the structures of the church is a matter of divine revelation. ...
"I know from long experience of adolescent relationships in the coed classroom that many a Catholic male thinks that he stands in the place of God for his girlfriend and can dictate to her what she wears, who she talks to, and what she does when they are apart. If she does not comply, he has every right to "teach her a lesson" about who is in control. He also has the right to decide when she is "ready" for sex. ...
"Catholic schools must teach young women — girls — what their true destiny in life is: to place their sexuality at the service of men, to regard motherhood as their ultimately desirable goal. ... "Look at them — they don't mind. The love it! None of them (he emphasized the word) is saying anything." "They love it" actually means "I have the power to decide what's good for them and what they should and shouldn't like. I have the right to define and control their lives. I am God for them and I will play God for them with impunity because the Church tells me that God is definitively male, so I am made in the image of God and girls are not." "They love it" can also mean "They had better like it or else. I won't go out on a date with them" all the way to "they had better like it or else I'll batter it into them." ... I knew that he had expressed in one sentence the core belief that perpetuates the sexual — and sexist — oppression of young women in Catholic schools and in the Catholic Church. In the mind of the Catholic adolescent male, theological constructs of the nature of God, the person of Jesus, and the place of women in the church fuse into a license for male dominance. ... male authority figures in the Catholic Church, from pope to parish priest, teach her that her role in the church and in society is to act as an ancillary to the destiny of men. ...
— Joanna Manning. "Learning to Love Patriarchy: What Religion Classes in Catholic Schools Teach Boys and Girls About the Role of Women, Sexuality and the Relationship Between the Sexes." Conscience, Spring 1998, pages 3 to 5.
[pic]
[ABO][ADU][HIS][HOM] "Abstinence-only programs must also teach that "abstinence from sexual activity is only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and other associated health problems." On the face of it, it is hard to argue with this statement. ... However, by framing abstinence as the "only certain way," young people may be given the impression that contraception and condoms are not effective ways to prevent pregnancies and STDs. SIECUS [the Sexuality Information and Educational Council of the United States] has labeled many of these abstinence-only programs as fear-based education. ... Not only do abstinence-only programs spread incorrect information about the current — and historical — state of sexual activity in America, they are required to teach that "sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." No sound public health data supports this statement [NOTE: Really? In reality, all public health data supports this statement. To illustrate this, if everyone abstained before marriage and was faithful after, there would be no venereal diseases and 90 percent of all abortions would cease]. ...
"It is time to call for ethical sexual relationships, that regardless of the age, martial status, or sexual orientation of the participants, are consensual non-exploitive, honest, mutually pleasurable, and protected against sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancies. ... "Just so no" efforts are unlikely to be effective and, in the long run, may compromise the ability to become a sexually healthy adult" [NOTE: "Sexually healthy" in the pro-abortion mind translates into "promiscuous" in real life].
— Debra W. Haffner. "Just Say No?: Abstinence-Only Sexuality Education Programs Try to Scare Young People Chaste, But Let's Get Real." Conscience, Spring 1998, pages 7 to 10.
[pic]
[ADU*][MAS*] "But I suspect there are numerous considerations on this question [Christian premarital celibacy] in this day, for this time, to ask what wisdom the Holy Spirit and the sacred texts offer for a new ethic concerning sexuality. ... It's time to recognize that more is known today about the body than was known in Paul's age [NOTE: This is true, of course, but St. Paul was not talking about the body, he was talking about the soul. You can see here a clever attempt at distraction and diversion]. It's time to encourage honest, responsibility, and love in all relationships — married or single. ... Apostle Paul suggests that celibacy is a gift of the spirit. I can believe that, but what about those who do not have this gift? ... Will God condemn all who have not gotten married and who have had intimate sexual relations with others before marriage or without consideration of marriage? If so, a good many living and dead are going straight to hell. Another question concerns masturbation. What does the church today have to say to children, young adults, and the elderly who engage in auto-eroticism? Are you celibate if you masturbate? Can you not even touch your own body without fear of reprisal from our God?
"How do we begin to construct a new sexual ethic in the church? ... The patriarchal church leadership continues to treat women as secondary to men, continues to treat women as objects suited for providing comfort and general servitude to men.
"... having sexual relations is a spiritual decision between the individual(s) and God. I believe it's time for the church to abolish the use of shame and guilt when teaching children and adults about sexual pleasure. I believe it's time for the church to add the word "pleasure" to its vocabulary. The word should be spoken at least fourteen times in the daily life of the church. ... Let us reach for an ethic that speaks to the needs of the day."
— Mariah Britton. "Sex and the Single Christian: Changing Times Require a New Sexual Ethic Based on Mutual Respect and Responsibility." Conscience, Spring 1998, pages 11 to 14.
[pic]
"Is Mary empowering for women as the most significant female religious figure in the Christian tradition, or does she contribute to women's oppression by limiting women's roles and behavior in highly prescribed ways? ... Because of her perpetual virginity, Mary has become the standard bearer for conservative and static notions of gender relations, reproductive rights, and, of course, sexuality. ... By celebrating Mary's lack of sexuality, the church denigrates the sexual. ...
"When women enter celibate religious orders, they are seen as entering into a marriage with Christ. In this manner, virginity is not liberatory, but instead implies submission to a relationship with a man, in one form or another. ... Mary's sexuality is largely a church construction. Any belief that human beings construct, we can deconstruct and rebuild. This reconstruction is taking place all the time in the lives of women who look to Mary for spiritual strength. Preeminent feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether has been a pioneer in there efforts to reconstruct Mary in terms today's Catholic women can identify with. As early as 1969, in an article for the journal Continuum, Ruether employed historical critical methods to argue for a more symbolic understanding of Mary's virginity: "The methods of history, used in an unbiased manner, would almost certainly conclude that Jesus had normal siblings" [NOTE: This proves that CFFC's argument that the Church's teaching against abortion is not infallible is just a diversion: CFFC does not even believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is an infallible teaching]. ... ever hopeful, Ruether wishes to interpret Mary's sexuality as ambiguous and therefore somewhat uncontrollable. ..."
— Maurice Hamington. "Like a Virgin ... The Sexual Paradox of Mary." Conscience, Spring 1998, pages 15 to 19.
[pic]
[ADU][HOM][REL] "It was easy to give contemporary meaning to poverty (simplicity in solidarity with the poor) and obedience (heeding the call of the Spirit in community and the cries of the oppressed).
"... those who fear sex, heterosexual or homosexual, sometimes take refuge in celibacy. Healing in such cases means recognizing that sexuality of whatever orientation is good and blessed, and perhaps revisiting the choice of celibacy. ... [NOTE: Now they are saying that celibacy is a kind of disease, and must be “healed!” This harks back to the days of Alan Guttmacher, who once said that “The only sexual perversion is virginity.” News flash, people: It ain’t the celibate who are dying of dozens of different sexually transmitted diseases]. Celibacy is not necessarily the model of Jesus. New research by Catholic theologian Anthony Padovano suggests that Jesus may have been married. ... Jesus certainly celebrated sexuality in its full expression when he performed his first miracle at a wedding feast. ...
"Still, celibacy is often unhealthy when it is imposed as a requirement for priesthood, or even religious life. A free choice of celibacy or relationship would enrich both. Reclaiming the tradition of married clergy would certainly reinvigorate the priesthood. ... Medieval women sometimes chose conventual life for greater freedom, because patriarchal control over convents was more distant than the immediate control by men in marriage" [NOTE: Really? Naturally, Fiedler does not provide any documentation for this absurd claim].
— Maureen Fiedler, SL. "Passionate Celibacy." Conscience, Spring 1998, pages 20 to 22.
[pic]
[ABO] "The [Clinton] administration remains committed to keeping abortions safe, legal, and accessible — and to making them more rare" [NOTE: As we all know, the Clinton administration did everything it could to make abortions easier to get and more numerous, and absolutely nothing to make them "more rare"].
— From Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, in a letter to Frances Kissling. Conscience, Spring 1998, page 37.
[pic]
[ABO*] "I know that I no longer feel comfortable in any local Catholic Church because of the prolife presence — white crosses, pictures of fetuses, the prolife homilies, etc. I want to be a good Catholic, but I refuse to attend services with the heavy prolife stance hovering over every word. Can't a good Catholic also be prochoice?" [NOTE: So now the Catholic Church has to conceal its beliefs just so it doesn’t offend the delicate sensibilities of pro-abortionists. What next?”]
— Letter from Lisa Regan. Conscience, Spring 1998, page 37.
[pic]
"Fear of sexuality and the marginalization of women is deeply embedded in both Catholic spirituality and polity. Both have a long history that goes back to early Christianity. ... it falls to the recent decades after the Second Vatican Council to try to deal simultaneously with this whole heritage of the imposition of celibacy upon the clergy, the negation of sexuality and the fear of women.
"The rejection of the ordination of women is also based on an obsolete anthropology which regarded women as lacking in full human nature and as being in a state of subjugation both in the order of nature, and as a result of women's presumed greater guilt for sin.
"But the "pro-life" stance of the Catholic hierarchy conceals the fact that they have never come to terms with the question of contraception. ... Thus, in practice, the Church actually promotes the high abortion rate that it claims to abhor. What lies underneath all of this is a fundamental inability to affirm women as moral agents of their own reproductive life. Women are viewed as sexual temptations to be avoided on the one hand, or bodies owned and used as sources of relief from concupiscence and vehicles of male fertility on the other.
"What kind of liturgical community would make weekly worship a feast of the soul, rather than a barely tolerable duty? ... When it is evident that the existing institutional Church has put insurmountable obstacles in the way of even beginning to ask, much less answer, these questions, then we should invent new vehicles of spiritual community and ministry, although the first line of exploration should be how to make use of existing ones. I believe that we are empowered by the Holy Spirit, as the People of God, to create for ourselves the expressions of worshiping community and ministry that we need and this power cannot be alienated from us by any ecclesiastical hierarchy. ... We forget that no matter how great our living-room liturgy may be, it is only going to last a few years. The parish will go on and will continue to be the main vehicle for gathering and socializing the Catholic people throughout the world and down through the generations. Unless we manage to insert what we are doing in more autonomous settings back into these main institutional vehicles of ministry and community, breathing new life and activity into them through sharing the fruits of our work, it will have no lasting historical impact.
"We can do this by creating new vehicles of ministry, community and communication, and then "attaching" to the edges of the existing historical church, so they become new vehicles within and for the whole Catholic community. American Catholicism has been particularly adept at doing this. ... One has only to think of the Catholic Worker Movement, the Catholic colleges, increasingly today under lay boards, the independent Catholic press, the network of Peace and Justice centers, the networks of Catholic women, both religious and lay, such as the National Association of Religious Women and Chicago Catholic Women, Catholic advocacy groups of various kinds, such as Dignity, Catholics for a Free Choice and the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, not to mention the Chicago Call to Action. ... If one has a liberation or feminist theology lecture series, one should try to hold it in a Catholic college or parish. If you are producing a new newspaper, you should try to distribute it in parishes. If you have a study group that is open to new members, one should advertise it in the parish bulletin.
"I believe, above all, we should divert our financial giving to the Church to our new vehicles of ministry and community and let as little as possible get into the hands of those who want to stifle our vision, whether that be bishops or the Vatican. Only by drying up their financial resources as much as possible will we be able to force them finally to come to terms with a more participatory church, a more participatory church which we are already creating at the base."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether. "Crises and Challenges of Catholicism Today." Talk given at the Call to Action Wisconsin meeting, May 1998. Downloaded from on July 12, 2001 (no longer available).
[pic]
[HIS] "This legitimizing myth of apostolic succession needs to be reexamined. It is historically false that Jesus founded or intended to found such a historical church with a hierarchical government based on the model of the Roman empire. As we have seen, the apostolic church was a voluntaristic community with charismatic forms of ministry and little sense of a need to form a historical institution, since they expected the end of the world very soon. The institutional church of episcopal hierarchy is not the successor of this apostolic church, but it arose by suppressing this apostolic church. ...
"Thus what is to be rejected is not institutionalization as such, but the myth of institution; namely, that a particular institution has been founded by Christ, and it and it alone can transmit grace through its material forms simply by performing ritual acts. The Christian churches, in all their historical expressions, need to accept their historical relativity. There is no original right church structure founded by Christ which alone transmits grace. Christ did not found a group of apostles to be bishops of dioceses (the term diocese itself is a fourth century term for a province of the Roman empire). Much less did Christ found the papacy, itself modeled after the Roman emperor and his bureaucracy in Rome. ...
The local parishes available to us are alienating, and even offensive. For some this is due to the sexist language and male priesthood which rejects in principle the possibility of women's full and equal membership in the church. This is reinforced by a style of preaching and doing liturgy that exudes the dominance of clergy over laity. Going to church becomes an enraging, not a nurturing experience. There are also issues of celibacy or married priesthood, divorce and remarriage and birth control that are all hanging fire in our church. All these issues are seen as unchangeable in the dominant view of the magisterium, even though these teachings have lost credibility for the majority of Catholics. Moreover, since these teachings and structures are claimed to be fixed, eternal and unchangeable, there seems little reason to believe that sticking around can lead to change. The church becomes a dysfunctional institution, which not only has developed a style that repels spirit-filled community, but has idolized that style as divinely given and inerrant. Thus the church makes itself irreformable, immune to the Holy Spirit as transformer. ... [NOTE: It seems, rather, that the dissenters are totally obstinate and incapable of change or being transformed].
"The question for autonomous communities seeking to be church for spiritually hungry and thirsty people is how much of the traditional church functions does one attempt to duplicate? ... Do we do this as a lay community without an ordained priest? In my view a community of Christians is empowered to do this, for what makes Christ present is the coming together in faith, not a special power available only to the ordained. ...
— Rosemary Radford Ruether. "Church as Community." Talk given at the Wisconsin Call to Action meeting in May, 1998. Downloaded from on July 12, 2001.
[pic]
"What does the papal letter Ad Tuendam Fidem ("To Defend the Faith") mean for church reform and renewal? ...
"Catholicism is not something one can discard like a piece of clothing. Practiced in accordance with Gospel principles, Catholicism is healthy, life-giving, and brings joy to the heart. Perverted by the wish to hold believers in subjection, it corrupts, destroys, and brings the Body of Christ into disrepute. ... Catholics must stand in solidarity against injustice. ...
"Among these internal features of the Catholic Church are the Vatican constructs that treat adult believers like children, and cause division and alienation among the People of God. ... Maybe we are too individualistic, but we need leadership towards an awareness and acceptance of communal responsibility, not totalitarian diatribe. ...
"Fundamentalism, of which Ad Tuendam Fidem is an example, is born out of fear of threat to collective identity. It is a manifestation of the inability to cope with change, modernity and interdependence. Although the militancy of fundamentalism may bring about displays of confident triumphalism, it is a tragic world of disillusioned human beings who respond to the challenges of life by becoming closed in on themselves, demanding that all others subscribe to their views and their ways. ... Those who commit themselves to reform and renewal in society or in the church must differentiate between the evil acts brought about by fundamentalism, and those, created in the image of God, who perpetrate them. ... We must hold our hand out in friendship even when our faces are slapped. We have to listen and seek to understand even when our ears are assailed with venomous words.
— Valerie J. Stroud, United Kingdom liaison for the dissenting group International Movement We Are Church. "Where We Go From Here: What Ad Tuendam Fidem — "To Defend the Faith" — Means for Progressive Catholics." Conscience, Autumn 1998, pages 2 and 3.
[pic]
"What the Vatican is defending is not faith, but rather the church's own elaborate rules of thought and corresponding code of behavior articulated and constructed by celibate men through the centuries, a system of thought and action that confuses questioning with a lack of faith and dissent with disbelief. ...
"But where in all this is God guiding Her/His people? ... Reducing faith to a collection of more or less petrified sentences in a code jealously guarded from change is an act of desperation, an act of fear that the social and spiritual structure of the church no longer corresponds to the needs and the lived reality of many Catholic communities, and that the only way to obtain assent is to demand it. ... Dissent is by no means the will to destroy, but, on the contrary, It is the desire to evolve, to renew, to preserve the essence. It is the only way to preserve life from generation to generation."
— Elfriede Harth, spokesperson for the dissenting group International Movement We Are Church (IMWAC) and a member of the steering committee for Women's Ordination Worldwide. "Is Faith to Be Defended?" Conscience, Autumn 1998, page 4.
[pic]
"By placing the teaching on women's ordination among "definitively held teaching on faith and morals by the ordinary magisterium, to be held by all the faithful as infallible teaching," the Vatican has effectively dismissed the sensus fidelium (voice of the people)."
— Andrea M. Johnson, national coordinator for the dissenting group Women's Ordination Conference (WOC). "Stifling the Spirit." Conscience, Autumn 1998, pages 5 and 6 [NOTE: This is another example of CFFC writers dismissing an infallible teaching by the Catholic Church. This is further evidence that CFFC's argument that "abortion is OK because it is not prohibited infallibly" is just a blind].
[pic]
"Humanae Vitae becomes the point at which many Catholics begin to decide to go their own way on issues of reproductive morality and yet remain Catholic in their minds and hearts. Greeley also writes that one of the most important results of the encyclical turned out to be that "the laity and the junior clergy did not listen and the Vatican's credibility as a teacher of sexual ethics was badly weakened."
— Megan Hartman. "Humanae Vitae: Thirty Years of Discord and Dissent." Conscience, Autumn 1998, pages 8 to 16.
[pic]
[HOM][VIC] "Homosexuality, conservative leaders are eager to tell anyone who will listen, is explicitly forbidden by Scripture. ... The right's political agenda for gays — no legal protection for their civil rights; enforced criminalization of private, consensual, sexual behavior; prohibiting them from adopting children — is buried under ersatz compassion for unhappy homosexuals.
"Finally, my most cynical self observes that it all comes down to money. Homophobia is the best fundraiser the right wing has ever had. ... We must use Scripture and other sacred works to promote healing, real compassion for each other, and respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every human being."
— Meg A. Riley of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). "A Kinder, Gentler Homophobia?: The Right's War on Gays Continues." Conscience, Autumn 1998, pages 28 and 29.
[pic]
[ABO] "More and more Americans are realizing that the affiliation of Catholic health care institutions with non-Catholic facilities means that a growing number of American women are not assured access to the reproductive health care services they need."
— "CFFC Notebook: Let There Be Light." Conscience, Autumn 1998, pages 30 and 31.
[pic]
[HIS] "If one looks at the history, the way in which the church has treated women, written about women, and really disrespected and feared women, one comes to understand that that is what the opposition to abortion is about. ... Once you understand that the problem here is hatred of women, you begin to understand as an organization that the way in which you overcome or change the church's position on abortion, is to work on some of the root issues around misogyny and patriarchy.
"The church has always been against abortion — although it was not 'absolutized' before 1869 [NOTE: This allegation is completely false, as described in CFFC Argument #11 in the text of the book]. In 1869, the church said having an abortion, any time in pregnancy for any reason can result in the automatic excommunication of the people involved. That was what was new in 1869. ... If you look at the church of today, we don't see a teaching that says the fetus is a person. Which is shocking. Most people think that the church believes that fetuses are people. But there is no such teaching. ...
"The citizens of the Vatican are comprised of 1000 men. There are no women citizens, no children citizens — why are we listening to these people? ...
"I don't think the next pope will 'allow' women to be priests; but he will allow married men to become priests. There's no question in my mind. It must happen. It can happen. There is NO theological barrier. After all, most of the apostles were married. And for the first thousand years, the church had married priests and married bishops. So it can happen — and it will be absolutely essential that the next pope do this. Well, the next step is birth control. You can't have married priests, with wives, having sex, having children, and not using birth control. ... [NOTE: So now we know exactly why CFFC is agitating for marries priests ― to pave the way for contraception].
"I do think that is will be much longer in coming; perhaps forty or fifty years. First we need the married guys; then we need to get the sex stuff taken care of — then maybe there will be women priests. I hope that by the time the church is ready to ordain women priests, that we would have overturned the priesthood — that we would have a more egalitarian church. A church in which we were not talking about who is the priest, not talking about a permanent, elitist priesthood — but a more democratic model of church leadership [NOTE: So there you have it ― the ultimate goal of CFFC is the complete destruction of the priesthood. This, in turn, will mean the destruction of the Church, for how can you have a church without a priesthood?].
— Frances Kissling, quoted in Kim McCarten. "Catholics for Free Choice: An Interview with Frances Kissling." Merge (a Chicago-based feminist Internet magazine). Downloaded from on June 10, 2002 (no longer available).
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 1999
[FAM][STU][HOM*] "The question of when and under what circumstances sex is permitted is key — and for almost all of Christianity the sacralization of marriage is the problem, for sex is only redeemed in marriage. ... I cannot doubt that mortification for religious reasons at times stirred sexual feelings in those who practiced it, as their writings use the language of sexuality to describe their experiences, just as people today experience sexual pleasure in S/M [NOTE: S&M is shorthand for sado-masochism, where people torture each other for pleasure]. ...
In our own time, much "sexual" and "blasphemous" art is related to the church's condemnation of homosexuality, contraception and abortion. The work of Serrano, McNally, Durang and even Frank McCourt in "Angela's Ashes" reflects the pain Catholicism caused these artists. The extent to which blasphemy today is seen by the right only in relation to sexual images and themes is a reflection of the extent to which the hierarchy of the church has reduced moral teachings to issues of sexuality and reproduction, ignoring justice and relationship. ... The only marriage that is permissible is that in which procreation is possible, even if remote and unlikely. That rules out homosexual marriages and therefore homosexual sex (This is the official view, not mine). ... Why are so many Catholics, indeed so many Christians, so silent in the face of continued harmful sexual teachings? Why has no one articulated a truly open and honest alternative vision of a sexual ethic that serves people? ... My mother was divorced and remarried so early on I separated church teachings which considered my mother an adulteress from reality — I knew my mother was not going to hell for having sex with her second husband. ... My sexual life has been shaped far more by my sexual desires, needs and partners than by religion. It has a spiritual dimension, but not a religious one. I really think God cares very little about the sexual rules, about who is sleeping with whom, other than to wish that we treat each other well and with respect."
— Quotes by Frances Kissling, in "Divine Ecstasy: Sin, Asceticism and Sexuality in the Catholic Tradition." Nerve's interview of cultural critic Camille Paglia, ex-priests Robert Francouer and Thomas Moore, religion professor Elaine Pagels, and Frances Kissling. March 30, 1999. Downloaded from Dispatches/voicebox/religion on May 17, 2001 (no longer available).
[pic]
[ABO][VIC] "Protesting or praying outside women's health centers by cardinals and other church leaders, no matter how non-violent it appears, offends and hurts women."
— Frances Kissling, quoted in Cathleen Falsani. "Abortion Foes Gather to Pray: Cardinal Bernardin Leads Mass at Chicago Clinic." Daily Southtown, June 27, 1999, pages 1 and 10 [NOTE: Falsani, the so-called "religion writer" for the newspaper, couldn't even get the name of the Cardinal right — it was Francis Cardinal George who led the procession, not Cardinal Bernardin, who had died nearly two years earlier].
[pic]
[ABO] "The best thing that ever happened to us was when the Vatican opposed abortion for Kosovo rape victims. Support came rushing in" [NOTE: Talk about heartless! Kissling seems to be clapping her hands in glee over the extreme suffering of these poor women].
— Frances Kissling, quoted in The New York Times, July 2, 1999.
[pic]
[ABO][HYP] "It is important that the Vatican, which claims love for its believers, should acknowledge the right of women to make choices about their lives. We want to move forward. If people have chosen conservatism and want to continue to romanticize the past while benefiting from contemporary scientific and technological gains, we respect their choices. The least we ask of them is that they reciprocate and respect our choices. ... It is cultural imperialism for the Holy See to hold back UN proceedings and consensus by opposing the rights of women to choose what is in their sexual and reproductive health interests, as recognized by several UN agreements, programs of action, and conventions [NOTE: But, of course, it is not “cultural imperialism” to violate the cultures, customs and beliefs of other cultures by forcing abortion, sterilization and contraception on them through population control]. While all women's anatomy and physiology are the same, all women do not belong to the same religion. It is therefore ethnically unjust and religious imperialism to seek to impose one religion on all women of the world."
— Bene E. Madunagu. "Moving Forward." Conscience, Summer 1999.
[pic]
[REL] "In light of this, we consider it entirely unacceptable that UN negotiations and decisions are influenced by exclusive and dogmatic ideologies and moralities permanently imposed on other members by a unique and privileged observer. ... As we know, the Vatican does not represent or express the diversity of opinions and ideas within the larger Christian community. It does not even reflect the multiple voices of the Catholic community [NOTE: Nor does 'Catholics' for a Free Choice reflect the "multiple voices of the Catholic Community, but this certainly does not stop it from its activism on all fronts]. ... Remember the portrayal of women as evil powers, so evil they were burned as witches, images the West has inherited from Catholic discourse and practice of the Dark Ages. ... As we all know, the Vatican is governed by men who have chosen celibacy and who are quite distanced from the concrete and daily experiences of ordinary people, most particularly women, who have not abandoned sexuality, who may or may not have children, who are in search of well being. The Vatican should be very humble and cautious when it is tempted to impose its views on matters outside its experience, knowledge, and awareness" [NOTE: CFFC lecturing the Vatican on being “humble and cautious" is like a prostitute lecturing virgins on chastity. CFFC is always strident and insulting when talking about the priesthood, an area that is certainly "outside its experience," a fact it is always bemoaning].
— Amparo Claro. "For These Reasons." Conscience, Summer 1999.
[pic]
[REL] "And with Vatican leadership, the Roman Catholic church is among the harshest and most punishing of religions when it comes to understanding and respecting women's rights and needs. ... Let us not mince words, denying emergency contraception to women who have been raped is as coercive as the practice of forced abortion reported in China which church leaders criticize so vehemently."
— Frances Kissling. "A Callous and Coercive Policy: Once Again the Vatican Tries to Deny Emergency Contraception to Women Who Have Been Raped in War." Conscience, Summer 1999.
[pic]
[HIS] "We know for a fact that at least 70,000 women per year die from illegal or clandestine abortions [NOTE: This is a gigantic exaggeration. Kissling's "fact" is never backed up by any footnotes. The true number of women who die worldwide because of the effects of illegal abortions is closer to 2,000. Calculations are in Chapter 7 of The Facts of Life on Human Life International's Pro-Life Library DVD entitled "Maternal Deaths Due to Abortion"].
[HYP] "We think women should be given accurate and detailed information about the likely risks and benefits of all [abortion] options [NOTE: Then why do CFFC and other pro-abortion groups fight all "informed consent" laws?]
"The child whom you see as precious and irreplaceable is that way because you have made it so [NOTE: A bald statement of CFFC's lack of faith. We do not make a child precious, God gives a child an intrinsic worth, not given to it by others].
"We each become a person through a process — a process that includes having parents, teachers, schools, friends, and lovers who all contribute to the person we are today [NOTE: This is a statement that, the more experience we have, the more of a person we are].
"Parents have the right to decide the level of disability that is acceptable to them [when considering whether or not to abort a handicapped baby].
"Even in Catholic theology, the word murder is not used in connection to abortion" [NOTE: Really? Abortion is specifically referred to as "murder" in the encyclical Casti Connubii ("On Chastity in Marriage") [¶64]; the "Declaration on Procured Abortion" [¶6 and 7]; the 1995 Charter for Health Care Workers of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance; the 1997 "Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life" of the Pontifical Council for the Family [¶52]; the July 1, 1991 document "The New Campaign Against Life," by the Bishops of Chiapas, Mexico [¶1 and 6]; the October 4, 1998 letter "The Inalienable Right to Life and Partial-Birth Abortion," by Eusebius J. Beltran, Archbishop of Oklahoma City; and, most significantly, abortion is specifically referred to as "murder" in an encyclical widely criticized (and therefore presumably read) by CFFC writers — Evangelium Vitae. ¶58 says "The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder ..."]. Additionally, many of the early Church Fathers specifically taught that abortion was murder — including Tertullian [Apologeticus, cap. 9, n. 8; Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, 221 vols., Parisii, 1858-1864]; Hippolytus [Refutatio Omnium Haeresium, edit. Wendland (also known as Philosophoumena), lib. IX, cap. 12, n. 25]; and St. John Chrysostom [Commentariis in Epistolam ad Romanos, Homilia XXIV, n. 4; MPG, LX, 626].
"The church says that it is not able to define when a fetus becomes a person. ... Even if you are convinced that abortion takes a life of a person you have a responsibility to respect the views of other religions. ... To be excommunicated automatically, one has to believe in her heart of hearts that she has sinned. If she has examined her conscience and believes that she has done the right thing in her case, she has not sinned and so is not excommunicated."
— Frances Kissling. "Abortion: Taking on the Hard Questions." Conscience, Autumn 1999, pages 2 to 12.
[pic]
[ABO][EUG] "Our feminism is affronted when we are faced with a couple who decide to end a previously wanted pregnancy because they have discovered that the child would be the wrong gender: a girl. To condone the choice of abortion seems to devalue the lives of girls and lend passive support to a system of cultural values that oppresses women. Yet to deny this woman the right to make her own choice — because we disapprove of the reason for her abortion request — is to mirror the actions of paternalistic doctors who have similarly refused to comply with abortion requests because, in their eyes, women did not have good enough reasons [NOTE: Get this? To oppose the killing of preborn girls is "paternalistic!"].
"Support for abortion on grounds of fetal abnormality seems difficult when advocates of the rights of the disabled claim that what they see as quality control decisions about "the unborn" mirror our attitude about "the born." Increasingly, an argument is made that there is an eugenic intent behind antenatal screening. We feel uneasy when faced with a pregnant woman who says I want a child ― but not this one because it is affected by Down syndrome or spina bifida or would be deaf or blind. Yet to deny this woman's choice is to condemn her to carry to term and give birth to a child that she may dread and wish dead. ...
"The central issue, however, is not whether the embryo is deserving of respect, but how much respect and value we accord to a life (that does not even know it is alive) relative to the respect and value we have for the life of a woman who carries it."
"In no civilized society is a woman coerced into accepting clinical procedures necessary to maintain the life of her child once it has been born. We might think it immoral for a woman to refuse to give blood or bone narrow to save her child's life, but there is no law that compels her to do so. The notion of such coercive legislation flies against such principles as the need for voluntary consent to medical treatment."
— Ann Furedi. "Hard Choices: How We Can — and Should — Explore Ethical Concerns about Abortion While Remaining Committed to Women's Needs." Conscience, Autumn 1999, pages 14 and 15.
[pic]
[STU] "What the Vatican adopts as new ecclesial movements are in fact secretive and manipulative cult-like sects. ... I also have looked with fascination at the contemporaneous and heavy-handed fundamentalist Muslim world (e.g., the Taliban) which is proceeding down a track roughly parallel to that of this Catholic Church. ... [NOTE: When was the last time you heard of a Catholic suicide bomber blowing people up? This is a great example of the kind of overblown rhetoric that has no basis in fact and is, in fact, just plain stupid]. Urquhart believes Neocatechumenate is and will remain the most controversial of the new movements. But he would like to see all of them — with their 30 million members — disbanded. ... The sinister characteristics of these groups include the charismatic and fanatic cult of personality; a hidden, but rigid hierarchy; secret initiation ceremonies and teachings revealed in stages after brainwashing and ego destroying techniques, causing much depression and mental breakdown on "an alarming scale;" a vast and well financed recruitment operation; moral and spiritual intimidation; and "boundless ambitions for influence (now largely realized in church and society.""
— Thomas J. Kerwin. "Book Review: "The Holy Spirit's Operatives"." Conscience, Autumn 1999, pages 31 and 32.
[pic]
[ABO][HYP] "What we would be very opposed to is the decision-making process being under any influence from groups with vested interests in what choice the woman makes. ... It didn't seem that she had gone to an impartial, proper counseling service to help her decide what to do and that she had been directed pretty quickly to the church to help her through this. We were worried that she hadn't been given the opportunity to make her own choice. ... Our concern is that she wasn't given free choice. ... We were really quite shocked by the situation. It showed a kind of double standard on the part of the Catholic church. The overriding thing was they gave the girl help without really thinking at all about her best interests. ... Their [the bishop's] religious principles had allowed them to totally override their common sense. ... if the church or any other body is going to be selective and specifically target people-seek to entice them with funding or money to go ahead with a pregnancy that they otherwise wouldn't have — then that raises a huge number of other questions that have to do with ethics and morality. That would leave me with considerable doubts that that is the right way for any institution to proceed. ... the funding looks to be part of a political agenda rather than a genuine effort to support all women through pregnancy, and that's very questionable. ... It's manipulative and I don't think it achieves anything in the long run. So outside the context of proper and sustained support, a genuine commitment to the well being of children, particularly born children and their parents, then this begins to look very shady. ... If it only applies to women with crisis pregnancies, if it only applies during a pregnancy, and it only applies to women with whom it is thought that there would otherwise be a risk — as they would put it — of a termination of pregnancy, then it becomes a political strategy. ... I think it's unsound, unethical, and dangerous. ... From what we've been able to ascertain, all the bishops in the US who have said "if you want to have your baby, come to us and we will take care of you," that kind of care has generally constituted helping the women or girls to navigate the government's social services system. The government provides the support and the church itself provides very little money. So there's a certain suspicion of how much the church is really making available. ... If the girl and her family decided on an abortion, they have as much call on the moral support of the church as does the family that decides to continue a pregnancy. In that sense, maybe we should be talking about moral support from the church, not just financial support. I think to the extent that I'm suspicious of the motivation of the church in this situation, it's because it doesn't give its moral support to women's choices, so I'm less generous in my evaluation of their financial support."
— Various pro-abortionists, interviewed by Lisa M. Hisel and Patricia Miller. "Bribery or Benevolence: Prochoice Leaders Examine the Generosity of a Scottish Cardinal." Conscience, Winter 1999/2000] [NOTE: This article discusses the efforts of Cardinal Thomas Winning of the Scottish Catholic Church to help a pregnant twelve-year-old girl through her pregnancy and beyond. Why are the above quotes significant? Because 'Catholics' for a Free Choice has been complaining for years that "the bishops only care about the fetus and not born children." Yet when a bishop stands up and offers concrete help, CFFC is still not satisfied! This proves that, no matter what the Church does, CFFC will hate and revile it].
[pic]
[HYP][REL] "Holding women and children hostage to the church's repudiated positions on reproductive matters is an epic failure of compassion. ... implementation of the law shouldn't be subject to controversy nor the interference of opinions of any kind, no matter how honorable they might be. By establishing a debate instead of a sentence, what prevails is personal and moral opinion, which in addition to inserting a strong portion of hypocrisy and active imagination, distorts the very character of a process that should be far from publicity and strictly linked to the implementation of the law."
— Frances Kissling. "The Catholic Church's Achilles' Heel." Conscience, Winter 1999/2000 [NOTE: Kissling is saying that civil law, once decided, must not be debated. Yet she also says, over and over, that church law, once decided, may be endlessly debated. Naturally, if civil law contradicts CFFC's belief system, it, too, must be challenged. This is the same old tired pro-abortion double standard at work].
[pic]
[ABO]
Letter of Principles
We are an autonomous movement of catholic persons, committed to social justice and to change cultural and religious standards, ruling in our societies. We promote women's rights, especially those who refer to sexuality and to human reproduction. We strive for equality in gender relations and for women's citizenship in society and within the churches as well. We are in a process of community construction, working in a democratic and participative manner.
We affirm:
― Women's right to autonomy and control over their own body and the pleasurable personal experience of her sexuality without distinction (class, race/ethnic background, creed, age and sexual choice).
― The moral capacity that men and women have to make serious and responsible choices over their lives and particularly on what refers to sexuality and human reproduction.
― The theological thinking that recognizes the moral value of decisions made by women that relate to reproduction, discharging them from blame, even when they decide to abort.
― Respect for diversity, difference and plurality as necessary for the fulfillment of liberty and justice.
We propose:
― To create spaces of ethical and religious reflection in an ecumenical perspective, developing public dialogues, in societies and in the churches, in themes related to sexuality, human reproduction and religion.
― To deepen the debate related to voluntary interruption of pregnancy, widening the discussion in its ethical, medical and legal aspects.
― To influence society so that it recognizes the rights that women have to liberal and voluntary maternity with the purpose to reduce abortion frequency and mothers' mortality.
― To strive for non-penalization and legalization of abortion.
― To sensibilize and get the civil society involved, in particular those groups that work in sexual and reproductive Health Services, Education, Human Rights, Media and Legislators, over the need of change in current cultural canons in our society.
To demand of the State:
― The fulfillment of commitments made by governments on the World Conferences organized by United Nations in Cairo (1994) and Beijing (1995).
― The implementation of sexual education programs and health services from the perspective of sexual and reproductive rights.
― The implementation of laws, public policies, and of available and qualified health services, that guarantee to all women, especially the poorest women, effective enjoyment of their sexual and reproductive health.
― Caxambu, Brasil, 10-15 December 1996.
— Carta de Principios. Conciencia Latinoamericana, November 1999, Editorial, Informe Especial, page 1. Catolicas por el Derecho a Decidir [Special Report by Catholics for a Free Choice. "Letter of Principles"]. Translated into English by Esther M. Sousa, Vida Humana Internacional, Miami.
[pic]
[REL*] "Sometimes what I say to myself is that those of us who are Roman Catholic feminists, who work to change this institution, are actually providing it with the safety valve to continue to be an oppressive, patriarchal, evil institution. As for the people who come and tell me, "I'm so glad you're doing this, because you make it possible for me to be a Catholic," I say to myself, "Maybe I shouldn't be making it possible for anyone." Because this institution is fatally flawed, and I might have more success in the Episcopalian church, where it's not quite so bad, but there are so few Episcopalians, it's not worth it."
— Frances Kissling, at a March 1999 round table discussion at the United Nations sponsored by CFFC. Quoted in Kathryn Jean Lopez. "Aborting the Church: Frances Kissling and Catholics for a Free Choice." Crisis Magazine, April 2002, pages 20 to 26.
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 2000
[REL] "As the Beatitudes put it, "Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth." Not much humility emanates from the Holy See bureaucrats, however. ... [NOTE: Good heavens, talk about the kettle calling the pot black! There are never any humble statements in CFFC’s publications, just lofty pronouncements of their warped “theology”]. We cannot help but wonder when the US bishops will repudiate the statement of the [Republican Party's Catholic] task force and point out that God, to the extent that she takes sides in political campaigns, is on the side of the poor, the marginalized and the oppressed."
— Frances Kissling and Jon O'Brien. "Is God A Republican?" Conscience, Spring 2000.
[pic]
[ABO][REL] "Women also strongly believe that Catholic religious tenets should not be allowed to influence the kinds of health services that are available from hospitals and insurers. ... the survey found that women strongly oppose legislation giving hospitals, HMOs or pharmacists the right to refuse to perform or supply medical services because of religious beliefs. ... Whether or not an institution is affiliated with the Roman Catholic church, the great majority of women want their hospitals to offer medically indicated abortions, birth control pills, fertility treatments, sterilization procedures and morning-after pills for rape victims. Nearly six in ten want their hospitals to provide morning-after pills to prevent unplanned pregnancies in cases other than rape. ... Three of four say a hospital owner's religious objections to the provision of certain reproductive health services should not be permitted to overrule a doctor's decision about treatment for a patient, and 71% of Catholic women say the doctor's decision should be final. ... Eighty-five percent say that a doctor who works in a Catholic hospital that receives government funds should be permitted to provide any legal, medically sound service he or she thinks is needed. ... Lois Uttley of MergerWatch remarked, "I think the message hear is really very clear: American women do not want religious doctrines overruling sound medical decisions. American women want to get their medical advice from doctors, not from bishops"."
— Patricia Miller. "Religion, Reproductive Health and Access to Services." Conscience, Summer 2000, pages 2 to 8 [NOTE: CFFC relies very heavily on the "freedom of conscience" to justify abortion. Even the name of its newsletter is Conscience. Yet it seems to have no qualms whatever forcing others to violate their consciences].
[pic]
[HYP] "Health care is not like every other business. This is not your corner candy store or K-Mart. Health care is a public trust, and as such, it is regulated by the government in ways that other businesses are not."
— Frances Kissling, quoted in Patricia Miller. "Religion, Reproductive Health and Access to Services." Conscience, Summer 2000, pages 2 to 8 [NOTE: Then why do pro-abortion groups fight the licensing of abortion mills?]
[pic]
[COE] "CFFC's survey found strong opposition to conscience exemptions, for institutions, like hospitals, or for pharmacists, whom many may perceive as implementers of medical decisions, rather than as medical decision-makers."
— "Respecting Conscience." Conscience, Summer 2000, page 9 [NOTE: Strange how an article entitled “Respecting Conscience” should advocate violating the consciences of pro-life people! CFFC always quotes polls and surveys to back up its positions, saying that the majority should rule. But CFFC still supported the partial-birth abortion, even though 80% or more of Americans thought it should be banned].
[pic]
[VIC] "Until the Holy See begins to realize that whenever it objects, delays and compromises women's issues that it is a collaborator in the oppression of women worldwide, it has little or no significant addition in the struggle for gender justice. In fact, it is a significant oppressor of women."
— Musa Dube, quoted in Tegan A. Culler. "Beijing+5: Women's Rights Advocates Stand Firm against Backsliding on Platform for Action." Conscience, Summer 2000, pages 10 to 13.
[pic]
[ABO*] "We firmly believe that women are moral agents and as a matter of law should be allowed to make the decision whether or not to have an abortion with minimal state intervention. If this is how one defines "abortion on demand," then one would conclude we are for abortion on demand. ...
1. There is no firm position within the Catholic church on when the fetus becomes a person. This can be confirmed by reading The History of Abortion in the Catholic Church: The Untold Story, a CFFC publication [NOTE: This is kind of like saying that slavery is justified, just read this Ku Klux Klan publication for proof] ... the "Declaration on Procured Abortion," published by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1974) and tons of other books, articles, etc. ... Women, however, are clearly persons with the right to be treated as moral decision-makers.
2. The principle of probabilism in Roman Catholicism holds that where the church cannot speak definitively on a matter of fact (in this case, on the personhood of the fetus), the consciences of individual Catholics must be primary and respected.
3. The absolute prohibition on abortion by the church is not infallible. Therefore we defend the right of Catholics to take positions on the morality and the legality of abortion that differ from that of the church. The latest proof that the position is not infallible is the fact that early drafts of the encyclical Evangelium Vitae did say it was an infallible position, while the final version excluded this claim. ...
We have never opposed laws that limit abortion after viability, so long as abortion is available to save a woman's life and health [NOTE: This means nothing, of course, since all abortions can be justified under the “mother’s health” exception, and these sly and sneaky pro-abortionists know this].
We also recognize that most of the world's religions have positions that respect the right of women to make this decision and believe that laws against abortion will violate their religious values and beliefs. ...
We do think abortion is to be avoided by engaging in responsible sexuality, including the use of contraception. However, once pregnant, the moral decision needs to be based on circumstances and moral beliefs — not prohibited or condemned because one was "irresponsible." ...
Once one accepts that there can be exceptions [to abortion], the question really becomes who will decide which exceptions are legitimate?"
— Frances Kissling. "Abortion: Articulating a Moral View." Conscience, Summer 2000, pages 21, 22 and 27 [emphasis in original].
[pic]
[ABO][REL] "... today papal sin is one of "playing with the truth" and of centuries wherein "truth was subordinated to ecclesiastical tactics." ... As Wills continues, "Popes deceive — as if distorting the truth in the present were not a worse thing than in the creation mistaking it in the past." ... In the end, Pope John Paul II's We Remember became an offense to Jews and many Catholics chiefly because he and the Vatican were unable to acknowledge the truth. But for papal and Vatican maneuvering, Wills notes that little surpasses the complicities on birth control, an issue that arose during Vatican II. ...
"The encyclical Humanae Vitae, banning all forms of modern contraception, followed in 1968. "It was the equivalent, for sheer wreckage achieved, of the nineteenth century's most disastrous papal document, Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors with its accompanying encyclical, Quanta Cura, of 1864," Wills says. ... [NOTE: The reason Wills is so unhappy with the “wreckage achieved” and the “disaster” caused, was because it was all done to dissenting groups].
"He takes on the teaching on abortion by challenging the church's assertion that life and ensoulment occur at conception, though he concedes that abortion is never ideal and should be avoided by using contraception — "the one effective anti-abortion measure the church will not allow"."
— Annie Lally Milhaven. "Book Review: Bad Faith" [a review of Garry Wills' book Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit]. Conscience, Autumn 2000, pages 28 and 29.
[pic]
[HIS] "American Catholics, since the Kennedy administration, have become fully integrated into American society. They are generally treated respectfully by the dominant culture and media as a mainstream component part of American religious diversity, despite occasional exploitation of stereotypes of nuns [NOTE: Really? Just read one of the Catholic League's Annual Reports on Anti-Catholicism to see how out of touch with reality Ruether really is. The League's Web site is at ]. ... In short, the charge of "anti-Catholicism" is being used as a scare tactic by the Catholic right in the service of repression of progressive Catholic views. ... Bigotry, whether racial or religious, is a stereotyping of an entire other religious or racial group as essentially evil and demonic by nature [NOTE: By this definition, CFFC is certainly "bigoted," when one reads the stereotypes and labels they apply to their opposition]. ... In the Catholic right's book, Jesus and Jeremiah would be "anti-Catholic" if the kind of criticism that they made at the religious leaders of their time had been directed against Catholic leaders."
— Rosemary Radford Ruether (former member of the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Board of Directors). "The Mantra of "Anti-Catholicism:" What is Bigotry?" Conscience, Autumn 2000.
[pic]
[VIC] "I think it's time for people to start screaming because this [restrictions on what can be discussed and provided regarding contraception] is affecting professional ethics. ... It is ridiculous ― they are not even allowed to talk about birth control. The clinic does not dispense it even when medically necessary. The medical center will not even fill a prescription. Also, there is nowhere on the main campus or medical center to buy condoms. ... sex on campus is something that is not even considered a possibility by those setting up the programs. ... The university believes that abstinence is key. They don't seem to understand that the world does not work that way. Our health center provides no support for students. ... You should be able to get pills and condoms on campus at the health center. It would be an important part of taking care of the students' health and well-being. ... Outside of HIV testing and pregnancy tests, there seems to be no support services or sensitivity to female health issues. ... It needs to be improved before something bad happens. ... If we didn't have a Planned Parenthood nearby, I wouldn't have known where to go. ... I know many women who have had unwanted pregnancies. I know over 10 women who have had abortions out of desperation. ... A friend of mine needed emergency contraception. Since no services were available nearby, she had to go all the way to Planned Parenthood in Santa Monica. This not only put extra strain on her emotionally, but also put her in greater health danger as it took a much longer time before she was able to access their services. ... I wanted to get on the pill but couldn't afford Planned Parenthood. So I went to my school's gynecologist and I couldn't get the pill there."
— Various students griping about the lack of "reproductive health care services" on Catholic university campuses. Oh, boo hoo hoo. They had to travel all the way to Planned Parenthood for their jams, jellies and pills. Patricia Miller and Celina Chelala. "Student Bodies." Conscience, Winter 2000/2001 [NOTE: "Reproductive health care services" means abortion, abortifacient drugs like the "emergency contraceptive," oral contraceptive, Depo-Provera and Norplant, and condoms, all condemned by Catholic teaching. These whining students, for their own convenience, want to force a Catholic college to violate its own conscience].
[pic]
[REL] "Doctors are no longer gods. Now we have bishops who are gods."
— Frances Kissling, on the December 10, 2000 edition of the CBS newsmagazine "60 Minutes," dealing with the mergers of Catholic hospitals with secular healthcare institutions. Described in Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. 2000 Report on Anti-Catholicism, available on-line at the Catholic League's Web site at .
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 2001
[STU] "Within the church, one of the most shocking examples of the Vatican's inability to send a clear and unambiguous message that violence against women will not be tolerated was the 1994 beatification of a woman who was considered saintly because in the face of repeated violence abuse by her husband, she chose to stay in the marriage rather than violate the sacrament of marriage by leaving. The Vatican doesn't get it."
— Frances Kissling. "The Vatican Doesn't Get It: Violence against Women is Unacceptable — Anywhere, Anytime, Against Any Woman and Every Woman." Conscience, Spring 2001, page 2.
[pic]
[ABO] "It's about time we stopped indulging the various bishops, rabbis and other reactionaries and Luddites in the myth that they occupy the moral high ground in this [fetal experimentation] debate. And it's about time scientists stopped their sheepish apologies and made a robust defense of their actions. ... "I was striving to advance human knowledge" should be regarded as a stout ethical defense, not an apology. ... Presumably the self-appointed moral guardians feel a greater rush of self-righteous self-pride for trying to save our souls — but I know to whom I accord moral worth. When faced with the argument that science is moving too quickly and there are not enough safeguards, we are progressing too slowly and it is immoral — unethical — to allow conservatism to fetter the developments that could benefit us all. ...
"Those who truly have no morals are those who would turn their backs on the human suffering caused by disease and illness and hide behind principles that do not allow them to exercise humanity in making their ethical choices. ... It would be far preferable if, in these debates, scientists would adopt the compelling certainty of medical ethicist Professor John Harris, who dismisses out of hand the concern that once you step onto a slippery slope you inevitably slide to the bottom. He reminds us that, as every skier knows, slippery slopes are not to be avoided but to be skillfully negotiated. The proof of true moral worth is the ability, and the willingness, to attempt that negotiation."
— Ann Furedi, Director of Communications for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS). "Retaking the Moral High Ground." Conscience, Spring 2001, pages 7 and 8.
[pic]
[ABO] "The phrase "abortion as a method of family planning" is anti-abortion jargon designed to denigrate a woman's decision to have an abortion in any circumstance other than an immediate threat to her life or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. ...
"The dilemma is clear: Either cooperate with the unethical aspect of the gag rule or lose much-needed funds that may save women's lives and health through the provision of family planning services. Among the unethical aspects of the gag rule are the requirement the requirement that sub-grantees violate medical ethics by not informing patients of all medical potions regarding unintended pregnancies and a violation of the human right to free speech and participation in political life by "gagging" all mention of abortion and its consequences in public debate. ... In a statement IPAS called the global gag rule "a cruel and extremist policy ... [that] stands in opposition to principles embraced by the international community." ... [NOTE: Now it is “cruel and extremist” to not force pro-life taxpayers to fund abortions. See how effortlessly the pro-abortion and population control people turn reality on its head].
"Clearly, the gag rule infringes on nations' rights to expand and strengthen their democratic processes — and in fact, it would not be legal in the US under the First Amendment. ... "Linking the ... global gag rule and Roe was a decisive anti-choice political act that signals the president's determination to systematically dismantle reproductive rights in the United States and overseas," said Janet Benshoof ... "The gag on democratic speech not only turns American values on their head, but paves the way to overturning Roe in this country," she added. ...
"Unfortunately, the Helms Amendment has prohibited the use of US funds to finance abortions overseas since 1973. ... Almost immediately after Bush's announcement [re-establishing the "gag rule"], Poul Nielson, European commissioner for Development, Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid, announced that the European Union would find money to fill what he termed "the decency gap" in international services. ...
"Catholics For a Free Choice [wrote a letter saying] "That United States international family planning assistance would be conditioned on an NGO's agreement to violate medical ethics by denying women access to the full range of information about reproductive health services, including safe abortion, as well as require that they absent themselves from the public debate regarding national or international policy on abortion, is an astonishing and unconscionable disregard for the most basic principles of democracy and respect for national sovereignty. ... We are also embarrassed that the rights enshrined in the United States constitution need to be defended by those outside the country when our own government refuses to honor them outside its borders."
— Tegan A. Culler. "Liberty and Justice for Some?" Conscience, Spring 2001, pages 22 to 26.
[pic]
[ABO][HOM*] "Political attention in Europe was focused on the city of Nice, France, in December 2000, when European leaders met to approve the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. ... The European Charter of Fundamental Rights is not legally binding, although some hope that is will serve as the embryonic constitution for a future European confederation. ... those representing churches, human rights groups, trade unions, women's rights groups, gay rights groups and environmental protection groups took part in hearings in April of 2000 ...
"Nonetheless, the church's record on human rights has been inconsistent at best, and at worst, marked by long periods of coercion, force, and silence in the face of human rights violations. ... Despite its emphasis on human rights, the Catholic hierarchy increasingly displays a willingness to discriminate against people at the most fundamental levels. From reducing women to a status that is "complementary" to men rather than fully equal, to denying homosexuals the right to claim both their sexuality and family patterns based on a full expression of their humanity, the hierarchy must "carve out" various aspects of the international human rights consensus that do not fit its worldview.
"The Commission of Episcopates of the European Union (COMECE) submitted a fully developed charter of its own. ... The bishops' charter emphasized exclusionary "rights" such as the "right to be born of a man and a woman" and called for a protected status for "traditional" marriage versus same-sex couples or domestic partners.
"Pierre Moscovici, the French Minister for European Affairs ... said "The French Government will not agree to sign the text of the charter of Fundamentals Rights of the European Union if its preamble makes a reference to Europe's religious heritage. The introduction of the word 'religious' raises problems of a philosophical, political and constitutional nature of France."
"The bishops' reactions are representative of an alarming trend in the church's participation in public debates of any sort. Despite its frequent public proclamations on human rights and dignity, the Catholic Church's narrow worldview increasingly requires it to discriminate against certain groups. ... The hierarchy expands an enormous amount of energy justifying its duplicity.
"... does this indicate that the bishops believe those in nontraditional families — the divorced, the unmarried, gays and lesbians, single-parent households — are somehow less worthy than married heterosexual couples with children? ... For years, in an attempt to cover its discrimination against homosexuals, the church has insisted that it is "homosexual acts" — not gays and lesbians themselves — which the church condemns as immoral and "intrinsically disordered."
"Another recent trend where the church's need to discriminate to uphold its own teachings is clear is the proliferation of so-called "conscience causes" that have peppered US health policy in the last years. ... Martin Pendergast, chair of the UK-based Christians for Human Rights, concurs. "The occasional shrieking from the Vatican, L'Osservatore Romano, and individual Italian bishops really doesn't count for much in the wider European political context"."
— David J. Nolan. "Willingness to Discriminate: The Catholic Church and the European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights." Conscience, Spring 2001, pages 27 to 30.
[pic]
[ABO][ADU][HOM][MAS][REL*] "George W. Bush's creation of a federal office to coordinate public financing of euphemistically labeled "faith-based" social services is a bold assault on the separation of church and state. ... As a Jew and a Democrat, Lieberman was able to say things no Christian Republican could get away with. While the ACLU and a few other usual suspects voiced objections, the overall response from liberals was distinctly muted. ... No doubt the dearth of protest had something to do with reluctance to hurt the Gore campaign ...
"The flameout of the ultraright's crazed jihad against Bill Clinton left chastened conservatives gearing up for a presidential campaign in which abortion would be relegated to a footnote and the Republicans' most loyal supporters would be the Christian who? ...
"... "pro-church" sentiment cuts across the political spectrum. This is bad news. I believe that a democratic polity requires a secular state: one that does not fund or otherwise sponsor religious institutions and activities; that does not display religious symbols — that does, in short, guarantee freedom from as well as freedom of religion. Furthermore, a genuinely democratic society requires a secular ethos: one that does not equate morality with religion, stigmatize atheists, defer to religious interests. ... Politicians have a right to brandish their faith and attack my secular outlook as hollow. That they have such a right, however, does not mean exercising it is a good idea. ...
"... many religious progressives, including some whose community organizations would be eligible to receive public funds, oppose the erosion of secularism in general and measures like "charitable choice" in particular. ...
"Both these artists [Andres Sorrano, who dunked a crucifix in a vat of urine, and Chris Ofili, who splattered elephant dung on a depiction of the Virgin Mary] have chosen to engage with their own religious tradition, through images that to my secular eye are designed not to insult believers but to question the disgust with the body and materiality embedded in orthodox Christianity and endemic to our culture. In Piss Christ, the radiant, sensuous liquid that surrounds the cross is not identifiable as urine unless you read the title. It seems clear — especially in the context of other Serrano works involving equally gorgeous, abstracted images of blood and semen — that the artist is invoking the idea of piss as desecration to challenge it with another possibility: That bodily fluids are holy. Similarly, Ofili's sweet-faced Madonna, with its dung (which is not "smeared") and little pornographic cherubs, is an earthy rather than ethereal figure. ...
"... the belief that proscriptions on sex outside marriage, homosexuality, masturbation, birth control and abortion are repressive (and, I would add, sexist) is not a prejudice — it represents a basic disagreement with the Church about the conditions of human well being. ...
"... what pro-church militants are demanding is exemption from challenge to, or even criticism of, their claim to a privileged role in shaping social values. With no sense of contradiction, they presume the right, even obligation, to attack secularists' worldview while feeling entitled to unquestioned "respect," which is to say suffocating reverence, for their own beliefs. ...
"Conservative sexual morality and antifeminism, on the other hand, are rooted in premodern, patriarchal religious ideology, while the logic of secular morality supports gender equality and a view of sexual fulfillment as a human right. Unlike parochial-school vouchers, charitable choice and George W.'s new federal office, the right's sexual-political agenda, however religiously motivated, does not violate the establishment clause; religious morality and religion itself are not the same thing. But it does undermine the spirit of secular democracy.
— Ellen Willis. "Freedom From Religion: What's at Stake in Faith-Based Politics." Conscience, Spring 2001, pages 31 to 36.
[pic]
[ABO][HIS*] "In October of 1977, Rosie Jimenez, a 27-year old Mexican-American woman, became the first known casualty of the Hyde amendment, the law that limits federal abortion funding to instances of rape, incest or a threat to the life of a woman. The story in particularly personal to CFFC because Frances Kissling worked with Ellen Frankfort to investigate Jimenez's death ... Jimenez, denied access to a safe, legal abortion because of Medicaid funding restrictions, fell victim to botched abortion by an illegal abortionist. At that time, Frances wrote that "the women of America must let the leaders of this country know that we will not tolerate the death of a single woman from a butchered abortion caused by a lack of funding. For each of us the life of one woman is significant." ...
"Currently, only 16 states fund medically necessary abortions for low-income women. ... Several studies have shown that these restrictions have considerable impact on women's reproductive decisions and that poor women are often forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. One study estimated that 20% of low-income women in two states were forced to carry pregnancies to term that they would have otherwise aborted. ... Poor women are particularly impacted by the denial of reproductive health services at Catholic hospitals. ... CFFC recently contributed to an important lawsuit that is working to uphold equal access to contraceptive services. ... CFFC also argued that Catholic theology does not prohibit the provision of these services, as the teaching prohibiting contraception is not infallible, and Catholics are free to dissent. ... CFFC was also on the offensive in a recent attempt by the Catholic church to exempt church-related organizations from a New York state bill requiring contraceptive coverage in employee health plans. ... CFFC is part of the Campaign for Access and Reproductive Equity (C.A.R.E.), a new grass-roots education program working to increase awareness of federal and state prohibitions against abortion funding and their impact on the reproductive health of low-income women, women of color and young women.
"In our view, reproductive rights that apply only to women of certain means are not rights, but privileges — and the Catholic social justice tradition demands that we act."
— Patricia Miller. "CFFC Notebook: Access to Reproductive Health Care Should Never Be a Privilege." Conscience, Spring 2001, pages 49 and 50 [NOTE: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) investigated the death of Rosie Jiminez and found that her 1977 abortion was her third in the past five years. She had slept around with literally dozens of men as her fiancee languished in jail, and even tried to conceal and deny her final abortion when dying in a hospital bed. The CDC report concluded that she actually possessed the money she needed to obtain a legal abortion, but had slipped across the border to Mexico for the sole purpose of preserving her confidentiality. She had done the same thing in 1975, even when Federal abortion payments were still available. This shows that pro-abortionists are perfectly willing to conveniently omit such vital details in order to advance their cause. This is a perfect example of “lying by omission”].
[pic]
[ABO] "Unfortunately, the unremitting struggle for their reproductive autonomy is a part of women's social reality. Beyond it being an essential human right, reproductive choice is pivotal for women college students and basic reproductive services are critical to our well being. When only 43% of the total Catholic universities surveyed provide Pap smears, and only 39% provide annual gynecological exams, these institutions are refusing to see college-age women in the context of their lives, and are directly interfering with their health. I commend you for your critical and necessary analysis of the ways in which Catholic universities have encouraged the marginalization of women on their campuses, and have disallowed women to make reproductive choices according to their own consciences."
— Tanya Kaarina O'Rourke, Choice USA Intern. Letter entitled "Student Health: Part of the Unremitting Struggle." Conscience, Spring 2001, page 52.
[pic]
[REL][STU*][VIC] "I am a mother now, of a child who I refuse to have baptized. And I have kept her as far away from the Catholic Church as possible in order to nurture her as an equal member of the human race. ... In time, other reasons have added themselves to my disdain of the Catholic Church as an organization. ... While I still cannot bring myself to consider returning to the "fold" given the many crimes perpetrated by the Catholic Church against women, Indians, children and many others, you gave me hope that there are still good people who call themselves Catholics."
— Letter entitled "A Source of Joy and Pain," by someone who calls herself "Meya'wigobiwik (She Who Stands Strong)" [NOTE: Or, more accurately, “She who has gone bonkers with hatred and silliness”]. Conscience, Spring 2001, pages 52 and 53.
[pic]
[HOM] "They're saying 'We disagree that homosexual sex is evil or sinful; we believe it is not. As people who are GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered] and sexually active, we have the right to be Catholic as much as anyone else in the full sense of the term, including receiving the Eucharist.' That's really what's at stake."
— Lesbian Mary Hunt, a board member of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC), commenting on the Rainbow Sash Movement, whose members wear rainbow sashes and challenge bishops and priests not to give them Communion. Quoted in "Movement Works to Change Catholic Church." The Washington Blade [a homosexual newspaper], September 7, 2001, and in "From the Mail." The Wanderer, December 6, 2001, page 13.
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 2002
[STU] "The Vatican and the world's bishops bear significant responsibility for the death of thousands of people who have died from AIDS. For individuals who follow the Vatican policy and Catholic health care providers who are forced to deny condoms, the bishops' ban is a disaster. We can no longer stand by and allow the ban to go unchallenged."
— Frances Kissling, in a CFFC press release on the "condoms 4 life" campaign. Quoted in Kathryn Jean Lopez. "Aborting the Church: Frances Kissling and Catholics for a Free Choice." Crisis Magazine, April 2002, pages 20 to 26.
[pic]
[ABO] "The globalization of the anti-abortion debate is often seen as the export of the peculiar American brand of religious intolerance that underpins much of the anti-choice discussion in the US. And it is clearly true that anti-choice groups in Europe, Africa and South America draw financial and organizational support from the anti-abortion conglomerates based in the US."
— Ann Furedi. "Is Abortion Debatable?" Conscience, Spring 2002, pages 2 to 4.
[pic]
[ABO][STU*] "The Netherlands has pioneered progressive sexual and reproductive health policies and as a result has an extremely low abortion rate and one of the highest rates of contraceptive use in the world [NOTE: It can boast a "very low" abortion rate because menstrual extraction, or ME, is widely used, and does not count in the abortion figures] ... Just as Noah's Ark was a refuge from destruction, it was also a means of protection for the diversity of life, so too the Aurora protects women's right to choose and hails the creation of new ways to defend women's sexual and reproductive rights."
— "Making Waves: Will Women on Waves Advance Reproductive Rights in the 21st Century?" Conscience, Spring 2002, pages 5 to 4.
[pic]
[ABO][VIC] "Irish bishops lobbied hard in favor of a referendum that would close the small window through which a desperate Irish woman might crawl for a legal abortion. Mexican bishops spoke out against a Supreme Court decision that will make it possible for a significant number of women in Mexico to get a legal abortion. In both countries bishops worry little about women's lives or suffering ... The problem of access to legal abortion is not however a laughing matter. It is not one of those "Catholic" things, unless one understands the extent to which Catholic things have caused Irish and Mexican women throughout history nothing but pain and suffering ... But the church still squanders its moral authority on the crusade to keep abortion illegal.
"Unlike Ireland, we are beginning to understand that a right to life of fetuses must be balanced with the full rights of women — not just to life, but to meaningful life. On January 29, 2002, our Supreme Court ruled that a Mexico City law, which legalized abortion for serious genetic malformations, and in cases of rape, did not violate the constitutional right to life. ..."
— Maria Consuelo Mejia. "Ireland and Mexico — Are We Facing Up to the Reality of Women's Lives?" Conscience, Spring 2002, pages 11 and 12.
[pic]
[ABO][HIS*] "St. Brigid would vote "no" to the amendment in the abortion referendum. Brigit, goddess of fertility and Christian patron of Ireland, was willing to help women in a crisis pregnancy. According to the first record of her life, Brigit made the fetus in the womb of a nun "disappear." She was a feminist avant-la-lettre ... According to legend, she was accidentally consecrated a bishop, when she want to receive the veil of a nun."
— Judith Maas. "St. Brigit Would Vote "No" If Faced With This Referendum." Conscience, Spring 2002, pages 13 and 14 [NOTE: And if you believe this nonsense, there is a lovely little bridge in Dublin we would like to sell you].
[pic]
[VIC] "Many in the NGO community complained that it was, in fact, representatives of the conservative religious camp who first "crossed the line" with their tactics at the Beijing preparatory meeting in March. The leader of a women's rights group told us how at the March meeting one of her young workers was the victim of physical intimidation by a conservative religious group. "During Beijing Plus Five ... the monks and the friars ... surrounded one of my staff people outside an elevator and prayed over her. I mean, this is not legitimate use of political pressure ... I think a religious NGO has even more obligation to reflect ethical principles in how they work"."
— "The Conservative and Progressive Divide at Beijing Plus Five." Conscience, Spring 2002, pages 15 to 17 and 42.
[pic]
[ABO][HYP*] "... Scalia continued to develop his argument that the church had historically supported the death penalty by citing Catholic thinkers such as Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Sir Thomas More. He recalled that More had taken part in numerous executions before becoming a canonized saint. Yet Scalia's retrospective argument for the death penalty is highly problematic. His claim rests on the assumption that what was acceptable in the past must continue to be acceptable. Following this kind of logic, progress and reform are impossible, and the church should still tolerate witch hunts and holy wars" [NOTE: Yet CFFC does exactly the same thing when supporting abortion — it says that "abortion was only outlawed by the Church in 1869" as support for its argument that abortion should be legalized today].
"When Scalia finally turned to the current church authority's position on capital punishment, he dismissed the matter by citing the fact that Pope John Paul's condemnation of the death penalty issued in the Evangelium Vitae was not ex cathedra and therefore not official dogma of the Catholic church. While Scalia talked about the technical aspects of the pope's statement on the death penalty, he failed to address the moral and spiritual issues at the heart of the matter" [NOTE: Once again, CFFC does exactly the same thing in its support of abortion — it says over and over again that abortion is allowable since there has never been an ex cathedra pronouncement against it].
"Scalia must be reminded that turning to the past and molding religious tenets to fit personal ideologies are dangerous courses for all faiths and societies" [NOTE: It is utterly amazing that CFFC does not recognize this overpowering tendency in its own pitiful attempts to justify everything from fetal stem cell harvesting to third-trimester abortions].
— Anne L. Thompson. "Scalia: Stuck in the Past." Conscience, Spring 2002, pages 18 and 19 [NOTE: Thompson says that Scalia should not appeal to Augustine and Aquinas, because "His claim rests on the assumption that what was acceptable in the past must continue to be acceptable." Yet in the very same issue of Conscience, Daniel Dombrowski says "Saints Augustine and Aquinas — two of the most important thinkers in the Catholic church — did not see the fetus in the early stages of pregnancy as a human person" [page 26, "A Brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion"]. How hypocritical can you get?]
[pic]
[ABO][HOM] "According to UNAIDS, some 18.8 million people have died from AIDS since the epidemic began ... This culture of death is, at least in part, the responsibility of the US Congress, which yearly responds to the Catholic bishops' campaign against US funding of overseas family planning services, including contraception ... Since the bishops are primarily concerned about Vatican restrictions against contraception and abortion, their political agenda against the use of condoms condemns millions of people around the world ...
"... suicide is the leading cause of death among gay and lesbian youth. Estimates indicate that they are five times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. The stigma caused by sectarian religious condemnation of homosexuality cannot be measured, but about 30 percent of the more than 5.000 annual suicides committed by gay and lesbian youth are those trying to deal with issues of sexual orientation ... The Vatican must share in these problems not only because of its hard condemnation of homosexuality, but because it banned a nun and priest engaged in pastoral work with homosexuals from such work and silenced any comments or protest from them.
"If the United States had declared yellow fever to be illegal and then ignored the mosquitos that were causing it, the US would have made the same mistake as the Catholic bishops neglecting the cause and concentrating on the result [NOTE: How stupid does Swomley think we are? The cause of AIDS is primarily homosexual sex, which the Vatican has condemned many times as "intrinsically disordered." How much AIDS would there be in the world if everyone were chaste before marriage and monogamous and faithful after? Oh, but we forgot: In Swomley's strange and bizarre view, such a path is "unrealistic"] ... In short, the anti-abortion emphasis concentrates on the result instead of the cause and does not face the total problems of the culture of death to which it actually contributes" [NOTE: Isn't it interesting how CFFC and all of the other pro-abortionists never take any responsibility for the effects of the "free sex" they promote, but instead blame all of the problems of the world on everyone else? This is a fundamental characteristic of liberal and dissenter thinking].
— John M. Swomley. "The Culture of Death." Conscience, Spring 2002, pages 20 to 21 [NOTE: See how Swomley tries to misrepresent theology and morality as mere 'politics' in the first paragraph. Of course, CFFC, preaching its 'gospel' of unlimited fornication and free sex, takes no responsibility for the carnage caused by AIDS].
[pic]
[HYP*] "A Catholic school in Philadelphia has offered extra academic credit to students for protesting outside a clinic that provides abortions. As many as 50 students from the Archbishop Wood High School were granted higher grades for their class on morality. Prochoice groups have protested the move, arguing that it is a form of bribery."
— "Catholic School Gives Academic Credits to Anti-Abortion Protestors." Conscience, Spring 2002], page 30 [NOTE: Well, gee, we can't have our young people actually apply their faith and put their beliefs into action, now, can we? After all, according to CFFC, you must keep your beliefs to yourself (if you are pro-life) and can do anything you please (if you are pro-abortion). We wonder if CFFC would protest so bitterly and so loudly if a secular school offered extra credit for working at a local Planned Parenthood office? It sure didn’t when school kids were paid a buck per signature to pick up support for one of its stupid failed petitions].
[pic]
[REL][STU] "This policy [against condoms] is literally killing people by the thousands every day. The church's statements have only made me more angry, filled, as they are, with half-truths and dogma."
— Letter from Gary Rose of New York City to Conscience, Spring 2002, page 43 [NOTE: And, of course, people like this believe that sodomy, fornication, prostitution and all the rest don't contribute to the problem in the least].
[pic]
[HYP] "Progressive groups should be strategic in addressing the new threat the religious right poses under the Bush administration, which has given the religious right free reign [sic] at recent UN meetings, especially at preparatory meetings for the UN Special Session on Children. Most Americans, even conservative Americans, would be appalled to hear that the US delegation to these meetings advocated extremist viewpoints, opposing the concept of children's rights and trying to insert a reference to home schooling in the Outcome Document ... Non-governmental organizations and UN agencies will benefit from forming strong partnerships with progressive and moderate religious organizations and strengthening grassroots education efforts in the US to dispel rumors propagated by the Christian right."
— Jennifer Butler of the Presbyterian United Nations Office, New York City. Letter entitled "Religion at the United Nations." Conscience, Spring 2002, pages 43 and 44 [NOTE: The liberal's view of "children's rights" includes the "rights" to contraception, fornication and abortion. It is "extreme," in Butler's view, to oppose abortions for twelve-year-old girls. And home schooling! We can't have that! Remember that all pro-abortionists sincerely believe that the UN conferences are their own private domain, and become very angry and frustrated when anyone disagrees with them. Note what Butler says: "Non-governmental organizations and UN agencies will benefit from forming strong partnerships with progressive and moderate religious organizations," implying that conservative and orthodox religious groups are useless].
[pic]
[HYP][REL] "The Holy See's seat at the United Nations not only adversely influences Catholic nations, but also works to forge unholy alliances with conservatives of other religions, seriously undermining the fundamental human rights guaranteed to woman. This effort to keep religion out of the realm of the secular is vital."
— Vahida Nainar, Executive Director of the Women's Caucus for Gender Justice, New York City. Letter entitled "Women, Religion and Fundamentalism." Conscience, Spring 2002, page 44 [NOTE: Of course, it is perfectly fine by Nainar and other such 'thinkers' if pro-abortion religions make their presence known at the UN. On the same page as her letter, there is another by Jennifer Butler of the Presbyterian United Nations Office denouncing conservative participation at the UN. So why does Nainar not object to a Presbyterian presence at the UN? Because they agree with her. It is as simple as that].
[pic]
[STU*] "By endowing priests with an aura of discipline and trust, celibacy fosters pedophilia and facilitates coverups ... The church hierarchy's real enemy is celibacy. For their own good, it is time to break the celibacy racket."
— Garry Wills. "The Scourge of Celibacy." The Boston Globe, March 24, 2002. Also quoted in Conscience, Spring 2002, page 45 [NOTE: It has now been decisively proven that homosexuality is at the root of the sex abuse crisis, but CFFC blithely ignores all the evidence and continues to blame celibacy for the problem].
[pic]
[ABO][REL*][STU] "Since no bishop or pope — and I am reasonably sure that these authorities know who I am and what I believe — has chosen either to pronounce me excommunicated or declare that I have automatically excommunicated myself, I am confident that I remain in good standing with the Church.
"People already do what they feel is right, so in a sense there would be little change in behavior. We are Catholics, and we use contraception, we have abortions, we get AIDS and we need help. The Church is not listening, and it's not even a case of benign neglect. This is a case where we need a Church that speaks out to prevent these tragedies, and currently the Church contributes to them.
"Sometimes what I say to myself is that those of us who are Roman Catholic feminists, who work to change this institution, are actually providing it with the safety valve to continue to be an oppressive, patriarchal, evil institution. As for the people who come and tell me, "I'm so glad you're doing this because you make is possible for me to be a Catholic," I say to myself, "Maybe I shouldn't be making it possible for anyone." Because this institution is fatally flawed, and I might have more success in the Episcopalian church, where it's not quite so bad, but there are so few Episcopalians, it's not worth it.
"I do think that it [women's ordination] will be much longer in coming, perhaps forty or fifty years. First we need the married guys; then we need to get the sex stuff taken care of — then maybe there will be women priests. I hope that by the time the church is ready to ordain women priests, that we would have overturned the priesthood — that we would have a more egalitarian church. A church in which we are not talking about who is the priest, not talking about a permanent, elitist priesthood — but a more democratic model of church leadership."
— Frances Kissling, quoted in an interview by the sex magazine Nerve and in Kathryn Jean Lopez. "Aborting the Church: Frances Kissling & Catholics for a Free Choice." Crisis Magazine, April 2002, pages 20 to 26.
[pic]
[ABO*] "I don't like to say it because we're supposed to keep people scared [about the possibility that Roe v. Wade could be reversed], but the country has reached an accommodation: Abortion is going to be regulated, and it's going to be legal."
— Frances Kissling, quoted in Joan Biskupic. "Abortion Could Be a 'Phony War:' Fight Mostly About Limits Rather Than Outright Ban." USA Today, June 4, 2002, page 3A [NOTE: Kissling lets slip here that she and her organization have to keep their obedient followers “scared.” This is the only way liberal anti-life groups can keep their followers motivated — by keeping them in a constant state of stress. This is called creating a “crisis constituency”].
[pic]
[REL*] "Walt Disney World in Florida is a place where the harsh realities of life can be suspended for a few short hour or days of good, clean, family fun. Within the boundaries of Mickey's Magic Kingdom there are no poor people, no environmental problems, no dissent.
"Visitors suspend their critical intellects at the drawbridge of Cinderella's castle, to enter the fantasy of the walled universe of Disney's empire where all the faces are happy, all the uniforms clean and the trees as well as the smiles are often plastic. ...
"In July, the Vatican's magic kingdom will roll into Toronto, Canada [for World Youth Day 2002]. Ontario's premier, Toronto's mayor, and city council are all caught up in the fantasy.
"What vision of the church will be on display? One that we can admire, committed to social justice and a preferential option for the poor and downtrodden? Or another one, eager to eke every penny it can out of the city, retaining its vast wealth for itself? ... So Catholics and non-Catholics alike are expected to suspend critical thought and not rain on the pope's parade. "Of course, youth and the media will cheer wildly for the pope even if they don't hear or follow what he's actually saying. But when the costumes are packed away, and the props removed, the foundations of the pope's magic kingdom will be as shaky as ever."
— Former nun Joanna Manning. "The Church We Want?" Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 5 and 6.
[pic]
[VIC] "We grew up in a sexist church that excludes women from ordination. Catholic theology teaches that priestly ordination is for men only. When the pope re-affirmed the Roman Catholic church's stand on priestly ordination of men only, this was made a doctrine of faith. Theologians and other religious may not speak about this matter. I believe this kind of attempt of control by the Vatican is an abuse of power. It is dehumanizing, demoralizing, and a form of spiritual abuse. It is an assault on the sanctity of a person's conscience, and the removal of the right to freedom of thought and speech. ... Many Catholics are coming to see that this kind of theological argument based on "biology" is nonsense. Moreover, people are beginning to realize the spiritual violence being done to men and women's consciences by the institutional Catholic church.”
— Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Corrigan Maguire. "A New Pentecost." In "An Enlightened Church: Letters to Young Catholics." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 7 to 21.
[pic]
[HOM][STU*] "I am a married lesbian Catholic priest. Within weeks, my partner and I will be welcoming a child into our family, so I'll soon add "mother" to the list of seemingly contradictory identities I bear. I often wonder how I was able to arrive at this point, after a childhood in a church that offered me only three possible futures: wife and mother, nun or unmarried caregiver [NOTE: You have to feel rather sorry for these poor girls, still play-acting at their age. Just because a person calls himself a member of the Los Angeles Lakers does not mean it is true, but that is exactly what Duddy is doing here, play-acting an adult role with the mind of an uneducated and undisciplined child]. ...
"I was asked to preach and then to co-preside at mass alongside ordained presiders and subsequently led Holy Week services. Members of Dignity — even some who declared doubt over whether women should even be ordained — called me a "priest." No bishop ever ordained me, but I believe that my community's calling me forward to ministry is a more valid reflection of my priesthood than what any bishop could ever confer, and speaks to the possibilities of a healthier model of church than what most of us currently know.
"Four years ago, my partner and I decided we were ready to formalize our commitment to each other. Catholic sacramental theology is very meaningful to both of us, and we struggled with how we could and should honor our relationship in a public way. Ultimately, we decided to invite our families, friends, faith community and co-workers to witness us as we joined in the Sacrament of Marriage, and we used that language in the invitations. We firmly believe that we did indeed celebrate a sacrament as we stood before the altar in our church, surrounded by 250 people, and made vows of love and faithfulness to one another [NOTE: Just because you wish it to be so does not make it so. The girls continue to live in a fantasy world. They are “girls” because they function at the mental and psychological level of five-year olds].
"What I have realized over time is that in each of these experiences, as church officials declare over and over that I do not conform, I force the church to make room for me just by remaining within it. My conscious, deliberate presence redefines the reality of Catholicism" [NOTE: How’s that working out for ya, girls? Don’t see much reality being redefined from this standpoint].
— Marianne Duddy, Executive Director of Dignity, a group of unrepentant 'Catholic' homosexuals. "Breaking the Mold." In "An Enlightened Church: Letters to Young Catholics." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 7 to 21.
[pic]
[VIC] "It is within this context that we constantly reflect. It is precisely within this context that we remained on a collision course with the Vatican after signing "A Diversity of Opinions Regarding Abortion Exists among Committed Catholics: A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion" which appeared in The New York Times in 1984. ...
"Thinking dialogue might be possible, we labored (albeit briefly) under the illusion that the hierarchy believed in the search for truth. It did not. Instilling fear, demanding conformity, ignoring and trivializing women's experiences, coercing statements and repressing dissent were what mattered to church officials.
"This institutional evil done in the name of God made us appreciate the words of John McNeil, a priest psychotherapist, "If you must choose between the church teachings being wrong or God being a sadist, by all means, choose that the church teachings are wrong."
"In today's world, fanaticism is rampant and dangerous. Religious fanatics who call upon God's name to exclude respect for those who believe differently; who trample diversity, freedom of conscience and religion, must be confronted, for they will go to any length (even murder) to bring conformity to their single belief system."
— Disgraced pro-abortion former nuns Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey. "Seek the Truth." In "An Enlightened Church: Letters to Young Catholics." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 7 to 21.
[pic]
[VIC*] "What it means to me to be a Catholic woman today is to be constantly unsure and angry. For years now, as I walk in the doors of a Catholic church, whether in Miami or Cincinnati, London or now Yogya-karta, Indonesia, I wonder whether I will be assaulted or excluded by sexist language, or whether the sermon will harangue women for being selfish in seeking equality with men, control over their own bodies, or the audacity to think that they might make decisions for themselves ... My problem now is that I do not know what to tell my granddaughter. She is almost five and beginning to ask questions. She has already asked me why I am not a priest, and grandpa is not a priest, and declared her own interest in being one. What do I tell her? And when she gets old enough to understand the readings, what do I tell her when some of the more sexist ones come up? Or when some misogynist priest begins a homiletic diatribe about women, or feminists, or gays?...”
— Christine E. Gudorf. "What do I Tell My Granddaughter?" In "An Enlightened Church: Letters to Young Catholics." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 7 to 21.
[pic]
"By this time I have discovered oriental spirituality, which I took to as a fish to its home stream. I do Zen and Yoga and the combination of political action and contemplation has made me understand more deeply what it is to be a Christian and in fact what St. Benedict really meant by Ora et Labora."
— Sister Mary John Mananzan, OSB, president of St. Scholastica's College in Manila, the Philippines. "What It Means to Be a Catholic Today." In "An Enlightened Church: Letters to Young Catholics." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 7 to 21 [NOTE: We rather doubt that St. Benedict was into Eastern spirituality].
[pic]
[REL][VIC] "So I guess I've been just about every kind of Catholic there is — religious, lay, married, divorced. Except of course a priest. Now I name myself a post-denominational Christian with Catholic roots. I can no longer pray at a Catholic mass because the misogyny of the language and the liturgy, which has been reinforced by the recent pope, is too offensive.
"I grieve the dumbing down of faith and the closing of the Catholic mind that has taken place under John Paul II. I continue to take a public role of confrontation with the Catholic church because I hold the Catholic hierarchy directly responsible for the suffering of countless numbers of women. The Vatican's more recent opposition to any kind of AIDS prevention other than complete abstinence is the direct cause of the deaths of thousands [NOTE: This is the kind of idiocy CFFC feeds to its unthinking followers. How many people who follow the “Abstinence before marriage, faithfulness after” plan have AIDS? The answer: None. But CFFC goes its own blind and deadly way, in spite of all common sense and scientific evidence to the contrary]. But as Vatican II stated, God works outside the walls of churches ... We will have less to lose when the patriarchal church collapses under the weight of its own corruption."
— Former nun Joanna Manning. "Finding a Spiritual Home." In "An Enlightened Church: Letters to Young Catholics." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 7 to 21.
[pic]
[STU][VIC] "I went to confession but a few times after that, and then only in sacrilegious mode: to test the intellectual conclusion that you could get absolution for anything from a holy man, if you correctly chose the man and the sin to tell him ... I would go into a church when it was empty maybe, seeking spiritual consolation, but I would never again bow the knee to a priest, in any circumstances whatsoever. I could not, would not, as a self-respecting human being, bow the knee to, or accept the authority of, a man, any man, who said that no woman could perform the functions of a priest — that this was a job for men only; that no woman could apply. To accept that, as a woman, is to accept second-class citizenship The female is being asked, as a matter and article of Roman Catholic faith and doctrine, to enslave herself until eternity to Holy Mankind.
"I sat on the pope's wooden throne in Assisi once (just step over the velvet rope which surrounds it on the altar) and proclaimed the use of artificial contraceptives to be a moral imperative where there was no deliberate intention to make a baby. It felt really good to that; totally sensible to say that in the name of God."
— Nell McCafferty. "No Women May Apply." In "An Enlightened Church: Letters to Young Catholics." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 7 to 21.
[pic]
[REL] "The patriarchal church we have today invisibly entwines us with words and traditions whereby it is almost impossible to recognize ourselves ... To reach the truth will be a long task involving the careful deconstruction of official theology, currently developed and dictated from positions of power held by a masculine minority, as if they had access to a spiritual experience and teaching of faith."
— Madela Sainz Meschwitz. "A Matter of Freedom and Identity." In "An Enlightened Church: Letters to Young Catholics." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 7 to 21.
[pic]
"I have been prochoice for as long as I can remember. I think that contraceptives are a liberating, life-affirming gift from God, that divorce is sometimes the most intelligent, humane decision a terminally troubled couple can make, and that mandatory celibacy should not be anyone's lot in life, especially priests. Oh yes, I also believe that if Jesus came to walk among us again, one of the first things he would do is ordain any woman who heard the call. I am a conservative, orthodox Catholic's nightmare" [NOTE: More likely a conservative, Orthodox Catholic’s object of pity and amusement].
— "Stephanie Salter. "How I Understand the Love of Jesus." In "An Enlightened Church: Letters to Young Catholics." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 7 to 21.
[pic]
[BIG*][REL*] The time of the church as an agenda-setter is gone. The hierarchy, with its focus on abortion and sexuality — things they know nothing about — they aren't in touch. To survive, the message of the church has to be positive. They have to start listening to people and paying attention to normal life. Otherwise, there will be other religions .... It's hard to go to church. As a young person, you don't want to be in an old people's home. And that's what the church today is. Older fat priests led by a big Catholic dictator [NOTE: This is a good example of a person who probably considers himself a tolerant, nonjudgmental liberal].
— Tobias Raschke of Germany's We Are Church Movement, quoted in Ruth Riddick. "Setting Tomorrow's Agenda." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 22 to 25.
[pic]
"As a Lutheran pastor, I find it in complete contradiction to the gospel to pursue a policy which is killing people. Making any kind of law and order out of the gospel is perverting it and a very illuminating example of that is the Vatican's policy on condoms. Christ's only concern was compassion and love, and I believe he would be horrified about the position of a church that says it is acting in his name today.
"Providing information on condom use and the provision of condoms is a crucial part of an open-minded sexuality education that is based on young people's real needs. Banning condom use means being blind to the potential life endangering consequences of unprotected sex. Basically, it denies young people's right to a healthy and free life."
"I think it is appalling that the bishops abandon their faithful and expose them to the risk of dying from AIDS."
— Ulla Sanbaek (Denmark), Ann van Lancker (Belgium), and Lissy Groener (Germany), quoted in Elfriede Harth. "Letter from Brussels." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 26 and 27.
[pic]
"When priests preach against using contraception, they are committing a serious mistake which is costing human lives. We do not ask the church to promote contraception, but merely to stop banning its use" [NOTE: These world government types just love the principle of the separation of Church and state — as long as the state can tell the Church what to do].
— Peter Piot, director of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), which includes as member organizations the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (UNDCP), the United Nations International Labor Organization (UNILO), UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations World Bank, quoted in Elfriede Harth. "Letter from Brussels." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 26 and 27.
[pic]
[ADU][FAM][HOM][INC][SBC] "I'm persuaded that Christianity may serve as a resource for promoting justice for children and youth, but only insofar as those inside this religious tradition correct certain deficiencies in outlook and practice [NOTE: Here we go — advice from a representative of a dying Protestant sect. This should be good!].
"Moreover, children and adolescents should be seen as whole persons with moral rights to bodily, mental, and spiritual integrity. Their wholeness includes their humanity as sexual beings. By sexuality, I mean more than genital sex. Sexuality refers to the multiple ways in which humans express the desire for physical, emotional, and spiritual embrace of others. As sexual beings, children and then adolescents experience the initial stages of a lifelong process of exploring gender and sexual identities, their own and others', as well as showing an increasing interest in and capacity for, intimate communication and communion with another.
"Children, as well as adults, have a fundamental right to experience sexual justice in their lives: an honoring of sexuality as basic to their humanness; a deep respect for sexual diversity, including differences in sexual identity and orientation; and protection from sexual violence and exploitation.
"Christian should publicly confess our own need for rethinking sexual ethics. When it comes to sex, Christians have often been at our very worst: rigid, judgmental, and punitive. For too long we promulgated negative attitudes about the body, sexual difference, and above all, women. Patriarchal religious traditions have reinforced fear, shame, and guilt about sexuality. Moreover, we've been reluctant to question outmoded assumptions about gender, the purposes of sexuality, and models of family.
"An ethical framework is needed that is justice-based and can respond to postmodern conditions, as well as reflect the core values of Christian tradition. It is simply not true, if it ever was, that everyone is heterosexual, or that marriage is the only place in which people can live sexually responsible lives, and that sex is exclusively, or even primarily, for the purpose of making babies. The fact of the matter is that some persons, including youth, are heterosexual, others are gay, lesbian, and bisexual, and still others are transgendered and transsexual. Some are even asexual. All the while, each person deserves to love and loved gracefully, compassionately.
"Sexually active single persons, both older and younger, may also exemplify moral integrity and spiritual maturity ... The primary moral norm is no longer marriage, heterosexuality, or procreative possibility, but rather justice and love in all intimate connections. This ethic raises, rather than lowers, moral standards.
"First, we must provide access to comprehensive sexuality education that is developmentally appropriate and lifelong. Second, sexuality education must address the pleasures, as well as the dangers, associated with sex and sexuality ... To be empowered as self-directing moral agents, younger people require knowledge, values, and skills to avoid coercive sex, sexually transmitted disease, and unintended pregnancy. At the same time, youth require information about the joys of bodily touch and the goodness of sharing pleasure.
"Third, we need to encourage greater honesty within our faith communities and in society at large about the failure of abstinence-only sexuality education programs ... abstinence-only programs have no long-term positive impact on young people's behavior. In fact, they often place youth at risk of acting out irresponsibly. Effective educational approaches, in contrast, provide youth with age-appropriate information about contraception, as well as abstinence ... education about abstinence and the use of contraception are not in conflict but rather compatible, and that making condoms available does not increase sexual behavior."
— Presbyterian minister Marvin M. Ellison. "Advocating Sexual Justice for Children." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 28 to 30.
[pic]
[ABO][REL] "Those of us who believe in the doctrine of freedom of choice are under attack ... We understand the world as being one in which adults and children cannot be manipulated, cannot be controlled, and cannot be assaulted by the Judeo-Christian tradition which says everybody has to act or believe in a particular kind of way. That is a very narrow understanding of the Judeo-Christian ethic ... The story about the Garden of Eden makes us feel guilty about our bodies and about sexual relationships ... What happens to those two people in the Garden of Eden is the greatest sin of all: They ate from a tree of knowledge. How bad is it to eat from the tree of knowledge and to be free? Is it not the doctrine of free will to walk out of the Garden of Eden into a world that is complicated, a world in which we are not beseeched to crawl on our bellies, to sweat to earn our living, to be in pain when one gives birth (when millions of women know that one does not have to be in pain to give birth)? Isn't knowledge the wisdom to discern what it is to be free? Who wants to remain in Eden enslaved?
"Wouldn't it be interesting to challenge the notion that the first commandment of the five books of Moses is one that says in Hebrew "be fruitful and multiply?" ... We might question an ancient commandment that desecrates in its fulfillment the sanctity of life.
"I am a rabbi from a congregation in Los Angeles. In San Bernardino, not too far from Los Angeles, they recently voted to stop the distribution of contraception, including emergency contraception, in county health clinics. They denied this to both adolescents and adults. Thousands of teenagers come to San Bernardino pregnant each year with nearly 50 percent of these pregnancies due to rape by a family member" [NOTE: This is the one of the most extreme exaggerations any pro-abortionist has ever dared put in print. Nearly half of all pregnant girls raped by family members? Come on! We were born at night, but we weren't born last night!]
— Rabbi Steven Jacobs. "Overcoming Division, Prioritizing Children." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 31 to 33.
[pic]
[REL*] "Wise in the world's ways and friendly with the Mammon of Iniquity, the Institution knows that if it can control sexuality, it can maintain its mastery over human beings ... The unforgivable sin, the sin against the Holy Spirit, may well be to make people feel guilty about what is healthy in them — guilty, as charged, of being human ... They mask what is sexually unhealthy in themselves, denying it while indulging and gratifying it in the actions they carry out complacently in the name of the Church."
— Eugene Kennedy. The Unhealed Wound: The Church and Human Sexuality [St. Martin's Press, 2002], pages 10 and 39. This book is favorably reviewed by Sister Bridget Mary Meehan in "Systemic Failure." Conscience, Summer 2002, pages 40 to 42.
[pic]
[HYP*] "The irony underlying Scalia's comments is this: In suggesting that judges who have a religiously-based opposition to the death penalty should resign, Scalia is implying that religion and politics should not mix. But he is twisting and convoluting his religion based on political belief. In my view, that is the most dangerous type of judge there is."
— Steven W. Hawkins, Executive Director, National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Letter to Conscience, Summer 2002, page 43 [NOTE: This statement is so astoundingly hypocritical because CFFC says that judges who oppose abortion should be removed; yet they criticize Justice Scalia for saying the same thing about judges who oppose the death penalty!]
[pic]
[ABO] "This kind of action by individual parish priests does not help reconcile Catholics with the Church. If this priest wants to deny sacraments to Catholics who have anything to do with family planning, then his parish church is going to be empty. ... There are probably more people who have a higher opinion of Planned Parenthood these days than have a high opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, particularly given the enormous sex scandals. It seems one can continue to be a priest and marry and officiate at weddings if one is an abuser of children, but one cannot be a Catholic woman and provide men and women with contraception and be treated by this Church with respect. ... These are matters of conscience. Catholics have a right to make a conscientious decision to participate in Planned Parenthood, in family planning activities even if they feel they are correct in the provision of abortion services, and be Catholics in good standing."
— Frances Kissling, quoted in "Church Cancels Wedding Over Bride's Politics: Medicine Hat Woman Works for Planned Parenthood." News, August 28, 2002, and in Julia Necheff. "Church Out of Step and Driving Members Away: Catholic Pro-Choice Advocate." Downloaded from the Web site of The Recorder & Times [Brockville, Ontario, Canada], on August 29, 2002 [NOTE: Kissling is referring to the situation caused by Celina Ling, the coordinator of volunteers for the Medicine Hat chapter of Planned Parenthood. Father David Meadows of St. Patrick's Church in Medicine Hat, Alberta, canceled her wedding when he learned that she worked for Planned Parenthood. Ling whined that "I was baptized, I went to Catholic school ... I feel just because I disagree with them that they're taking that out on my wedding. I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice"].
[pic]
QUOTES FROM 2003
[REL*][HOM] "Early reports regarding the contents of the Lexicon On Ambiguous and Colloquial Terms About Family Life and Ethical Questions give new and disturbing meaning to what has become a Vatican crusade against reason and science in the modern world. This document is a throwback to the days when church leaders disregarded scientific advances and ignored the human suffering caused by abstract and absolute application of so-called principles and values in the face of human tragedy and need.
"Church leaders claim to foster a culture of life, yet the Lexicon contributes to a culture of death when it condemns the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of AIDS. This document resorts to long-rejected pseudo-psychology in characterizing homosexuality as an 'unresolved psychological conflict' and claims that nations that approve of gay marriages are filled with people with 'profoundly disordered minds.'
"Authors of the Lexicon should consult any standard dictionary for definitions of abuse, cruelty, obsession and hatred, which are the major characteristics displayed by those who promulgate this Lexicon."
— Frances Kissling, in a April 1, 2003 CFFC press release entitled "Catholics for a Free Choice Says Vatican Document Defies History and Science" [NOTE: Kissling was obviously irritated by the fact that the Lexicon contained a ten-page article by your author exposing her organization as the bigoted, extreme pro-abortion, anti-Catholic gaggle of dissenters that it really is. Of course, Kissling failed to mention this fact, and did not dispute any of the facts presented about CFFC in the Lexicon].
[pic]
UNDATED QUOTES
[HYP*][BIG*] Frances Kissling and other CFFC leaders, while pleading for tolerance, have variously referred to the Pope and the bishops as "absolutist," "angry," "anti-woman," "arrogant," "blind," "bullies," "callous," "coercive," "confused," "cruel," "dangerous," "dogmatic," "dumb," "embarrassing," "fanatical," "hard-hearted," "harsh," "hypocritical," "illogical," "imperialistic," "irresponsible," "liars;" "loony," "mean," "misogynist," "nasty," "narrow-minded," "obsessive," "obstructive," "pathological," "pernicious," "pig-headed," "prattlers," "rigid," "ruthless," "sanctimonious," "self-righteous," "simplistic," "slippery," "terrible," "totalitarian," "tyrannical," "unjust," "unkind," "vehement," "virulent," and "vituperative," and even "betrayers of Christ" and "the seed of Satan," among many other labels.
— "Mean" [Frances Kissling on John Cardinal O'Connor. Quoted in E. Bumiller. "As Pope's Important Ally, Cardinal Shines High in Hierarchy." New York Times, October 8, 1995, page 41]; "terrible" [Frances Kissling's talk during the National Abortion Federation (NAF) 16th Annual Meeting, theme: "Abortion: Moral Choice and Medical Imperative," April 12-15, 1992, in San Diego, California, closing session: "Cooperation and Competition"]. The following are all from Conscience Magazine: "Absolutist" [Winter 1996/1997, page 5]; "angry," "dogmatic," "harsh" and "unkind" [Winter 1996/1997, pages 14 and 17]; "angry," "dogmatic," "hard-hearted," "harsh" and "unkind" [Winter 1996/1997, pages 14 to 17]; "arrogant" [Winter 1993/1994, page 27]; "betrayers of Christ" and "the seed of Satan" [Spring 1997, page 4]; "blind" and "hard-hearted" [September-December 1987, page 8]; "bullies" [Spring 1996, page 32]; "callous" and "coercive" [Summer 1999]; "confused" and "narrow-minded" [January/February 1996, page 9]; "cruel," "ruthless," "vehement," "anti-woman," "slippery, a clerical Barbie Doll" [referring to Bernard Cardinal Law], and "rigid" [September-December 1987, pages 40 and 41]; "dangerous" and "nasty" [Summer 2000, pages 10 to 13]; "dumb" and "hypocritical" [September-December 1987, pages 29 to 37]; "embarrassing," "misogynist" and "pernicious" [Winter 1993/1994, page 38]; "fanatical" [September-December 1987, pages 22 and 23]; "harsh" [Winter 1996/1997, page 24]; "illogical," "loony," "pig-headed" and "tyrannical" [Spring/Summer 1995, pages 7 and 8]; "imperialistic" [Winter 1996/1997, inside front cover]; "irresponsible" [September-December 1987, page 27]; "liars" [Winter 1995/1996, page 8]; "mean" [Spring 1996, page 32]; "obsessive" [Winter 1996/1997, page 5]; "obstructive" [Winter 1995/1996, page 12]; "pathological" [Winter 1993/1994, page 32]; "prattlers" [September/October 1989, page 3]; "self-righteous" and "sanctimonious" [Autumn 1996, pages 29 to 34]; "simplistic" [Spring/Summer 1993, page 9]; "totalitarian" [Autumn 1998, page 3]; "unjust" [Spring/Summer 1993, page 18]; "vehement" [Spring/Summer 1995, page 27]; "virulent" [Spring/Summer 1993, page 16, and Winter 1999/2000]; and "vituperative" [July/August 1989, page 8, and January/February 1996, page 5].
[pic]
[NOTE: In a single pamphlet, 'Catholics' for a free Choice makes more than fifty deliberate misstatements of Catholic teaching. These are deliberately chosen in order to cause the most confusion possible. Some of these are listed below].
[ABO*] "We believe that women should not be the victims of random fertility" [NOTE: This sounds as if pregnancy bears no relation whatever to sexual activity, that God, laughing maniacally, zaps every twentieth woman with pregnancy]. ... "The Catholic hierarchy is trapped in an outdated authoritarianism which denies full equality to women and regards sex as evil" [NOTE: Who regards sex as evil? Obviously, those who do everything they can to suppress natural fertility!] ... "The church never formulated an infallible, or consistent, teaching against abortion ... Though the church preaches aggressively against birth control and abortion, there is no infallible dogma to substantiate its position" [NOTE: The purpose of an infallible statement is not to "substantiate." See the Canon of St. Vincent of Lorenz]. ... "The law in a pluralistic society should not be written to enforce the teachings of one church against the moral principles of other churches and individuals" [NOTE: Well, this is what has happened in much of the West. The Unitarian principle is in force]. ... "The Catholic Church opposes every reliable method of birth control" [NOTE: What about natural family planning [NFP] at 98 percent, according to Contraceptive Technology?] ... "Before 1869, the Catholic Church held that the early fetus did not have a soul, and therefore was not fully human. Consequently, it could be permissible to abort in early pregnancy" [NOTE: It was never permissible. It was punishable at all stages]. ... "Catholics are disturbed by the excursions of the Catholic hierarchy into anti-abortion politics, which constitute a threat to the separation of church and state" [NOTE: Not surprisingly, the only 'Catholics' who are 'disturbed' by such 'excursions' are the pro-abortion ones. Naturally, these same people support the government when it tries to interfere with the Church, such as when it tries to force Catholic hospitals to do abortions. This kind of interference is, of course, not a "violation of the separation of Church and state," according to the pro-abortionists]. ... "According to Vatican II, "Declaration on Religious Liberty:" "The Christian faithful have the civil right of freedom from interference in leading their lives according to their conscience." ... "Catholic women have abortions; Catholic doctors perform abortions; Catholic communicants work as counselors in abortion and family planning clinics; Catholics are actively engaged in the pro-choice movement" [NOTE: So what? Catholic men rape and kill women. Does this mean we should support the legalization of rape and murder?]
— Undated 'Catholics' for a Free Choice pamphlet entitled "Did You Know that Most Catholics Believe in Reproductive Freedom?"
[pic]
[HIS][ABO][REL] "If you carefully examine your conscience and then decide that an abortion is the most moral act you can do at this time, you're not committing a sin. Therefore, you're not excommunicated. Nor need you tell it in confession since, in your case, abortion is not a sin."
— Undated 'Catholics' for a Free Choice brochure entitled "You Are Not Alone."
[pic]
[REL*][BIG*] "The financial demands made on Catholics are atrocious. Churches are extremely wealthy institutions. I see what Churches have because I work in a bank. I work hard for what I have, and I need what I have for myself. I can't afford to support a priest. Let the priest support me once in a while. The Pope sits over there and makes all the rules and shakes his head, "Yes, no, yes, no." He's got all those jewels. Who does he think he is? Did he ever sit down and talk to a woman who got into a jam? I'd like to say to him, "If I had this child, would you take care of it? Pull a few of those rocks off that habit and take care of it for me? Give up your jewels ...'"
— `Catholics' for a Free Choice. Booklet entitled "My Conscience Speaks: Catholic Women Discuss Their Abortions" [NOTE: This is one of CFFC's "Abortion in Good Faith" series of anti-Catholic tracts that bear titles like "I Support You But I Can't Sign My Name," "We Are the Mainstream," and, amusingly, "Morality Reborn." Quoted in William McGurn. "Catholics & 'Free Choice.'" National Catholic Register, February 14, 1982, pages 2 and 6].
[pic]
Excerpts from the
`Catholics' for a Free Choice Abortion "Mass"
1) Play soothing background music.
2) "Light a candle, absorb its power, and pray."
3) Imagine yourself in ten years (a) with a child and (b) without a child. Talk about your feelings with an assistant.
4) Sing a song entitled "i found god in myself."
5) Decide to have an abortion [NOTE: It is significant that CFFC doesn't have a 'liturgy' for women who decide to keep their babies. This, after all, is the essence of 'pro-choice' — there is really only one choice, and that is to abort].
6) The 'celebrant' and assistant(s) pray as follows: "Praised be you, Mother and Father God, that you have given your people the power of choice. We are saddened that the life circumstances of (aborting woman's name) are such that she has had to choose to terminate her pregnancy. We affirm her and support her in her decision."
7) The 'celebrants' may then express their 'sorrow' by "sprinkling flower petals, or sharing dried flowers" [NOTE: Perhaps a small vial of genuine crocodile tears, obtained at the nearest Wicca outlet, would be more appropriate?]
8) Do something "nice" for yourself.
— Undated CFFC pamphlet entitled "You Are Not Alone."
[pic]
"In considering the Vatican State, I recommend to you a publication by the CIA, the World Fact Book, which lists various facts about all of the countries of the world. The Vatican State is one of the shorter entries in the book, because next to almost all entries it says 'none:' 'Exports: None;' 'Major Products: None;' 'Resources: None.' Some of us have been wondering whether or not Euro-Disney had as many qualifications for permanent observer status as the Vatican State."
— Frances Kissling, in a BBC Television interview. Quote downloaded from the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Web site at on July 23, 2001 (no longer available).
[pic]
"It's an authoritarian book by an authoritarian pope."
— Frances Kissling, referring to Pope John Paul II's bestselling book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, in a CNN interview. Quote downloaded from the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Web site at on July 23, 2001 (no longer available).
[pic]
Falwell: "I'm very sorry that you as a Catholic have repudiated the teaching of your own church, which is in my opinion, biblical teaching. And I really think you do the church a disservice by going under the heading "Catholics For a Free Choice." You may be an individual for a free choice but you are not a Catholic for a free choice. Because frankly the Roman Catholic church stands totally and entirely against what you're proposing tonight."
Kissling: "Yeah, except the fact of the matter, Rev. Falwell, is I think I probably know a lot more about Catholic teachings than you do, number one. And secondly, the Catholic church is not a club. Membership is not based simply upon the following of certain set rules and regulations. The Catholic church is a church of the people. [My faith] is a contract and a covenant that I have with God personally. And, quite frankly, it is not up to you to say whether I am a Catholic or not."
— Exchange between Reverend Jerry Falwell and Frances Kissling during a C-SPAN interview. Quote downloaded from the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Web site at on July 23, 2001 (no longer available).
[pic]
"The church continues to maintain an outdated, outmoded view of sexuality — one that is totally fixated on genital sexuality and procreation in a monogamous, lifelong union. It is a message that has been rejected by the Catholic people."
— Frances Kissling, during a "Larry King Live" interview. Quote downloaded from the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Web site at media/francis.htm on July 23, 2001 (no longer available).
[pic]
[BIG][REL][HIS] "Catholics have the obligation — and I think Pope John XXIII was the first one to say this — that we all have the obligation to interpret the gospels in light of the times. Anyone who thinks that the gospels were so explicit that they do not call for a strong element of interpretation is really not on this planet."
— Frances Kissling, during a CNN interview. Quote downloaded from the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Web site at francis.htm on July 23, 2001 (no longer available).
[pic]
[BIG] "Cardinal O'Connor's action is not the action of a church man. It's not the action of a loving and concerned pastor. It's the action of a bully."
— Frances Kissling, President of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice, during a CBS "Evening News" interview. Quote downloaded from the 'Catholics' for a Free Choice Web site at on July 23, 2001 (no longer available). [NOTE: The action Kissling is referring to was a totally peaceful prayer vigil outside an abortion mill, led by John Cardinal O'Connor].
[pic]
[pic][pic][pic]
-----------------------
Brian Clowes, Ph.D.
Human Life International
4 Family Life Lane
Front Royal, Virginia 22630 USA
Telephone: (540) 622-5241
E-mail address: bclowes@
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.