Pro Life Caroling. The Pro-Life Action League has been hosting our “Empty Manger” pro-life Christmas caroling day for 13 years now, and this year’s caroling effort was the largest ever, with over 40 groups taking part from coast to coast!
Here in Illinois, the League hosted two caroling tours, one in Chicago, and the other in suburban DuPage county. At Planned Parenthood Aurora, the largest abortion clinic in the state, a baby was saved from abortion when their parents heard our carols and talked to sidewalk counselors as they entered the clinic!
The Chicago caroling tour began as it has every year since its inception in 2003: with the unfurling of a 10-foot banner saying, “All I want for Christmas is an end to abortion.” [Continue reading …]
Pro Life Caroling may not exist in your area. If so, consider visiting the Pro-Life Action League website to see what can be done in your local area. Pro Life Caroling is just the beginning….
Every year thousands of babies are aborted. Make a difference by getting involved. Link up with a local group. Consider participating in a national event. Always know that your time is not wasted when you spend it speaking for the voiceless.
We came across this Catholic Charities support service and thought we’d share it with you.We posted some of the content from their website below for your convenience. You can visit their website at http://www.foundationsoflife.org/ for more information.
Foundations of Life Pregnancy Centers of Catholic Charities offer support services to women who are facing unplanned pregnancy. We offer free, confidential and nonjudgmental support to women of all ages.
Dealing with an unplanned pregnancy can be difficult, but you don’t have to do it alone. At our center we can discuss your fears, concerns, options and questions with people who care about your needs. Your choices today will affect your tomorrows. You owe it to yourself and your baby to get the best information to protect your health and your future.
Our Pregnancy Centers provide the following:
Pregnancy Options – Accurate information on abortion, parenting and adoption
Project Rachel – Post abortion healing and reconciliation
Emergency food items
Pre-natal Childbirth Education
Infant Parenting Classes
Ministry on the Move
Our team will be here to listen to your concerns and are here to answer your questions about pregnancy, abortion and related issues. All our services are confidential and offered free of charge. Walk–ins are welcome. Set up an appointment through our contact page or email Foundations of Life
From the cradle to the grave, human life is precious and meaningful in all stages. Mary’s Way Worldwide Apostolate is firmly against abortion. We encourage mothers considering abortion to look into alternatives including adoption. Catholic adoption agencies are facing tough times now though. Joseph R. LaPlante wrote an interesting piece that was featured on the OSV website about the challenges facing Catholic adoption agencies now. It is worth reading and considering. Listen to this beautiful song we found on youtube and have a read below. We copied and pasted a portion of the article for your convenience. Read the full article here: https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/14666/Tough-times-for-Catholic-adoption-agencies.aspx
“Tough times for Catholic adoption agencies Unwilling to abandon doctrine and place children with same-sex couples, charities forced to adaptJoseph R. LaPlanteOSV Newsweekly
Tony and Anna Ashford talk about their newly adopted son, Christian, at their home in Chesterton, Ind., Sept. 23, 2009. The Ashfords adopted Christian through Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Gary. CNS photo/Tim Hunt, Northwest Indiana CatholicThe changing legal definition of marriage has roiled American culture from courthouse to altar, expanding civil rights for some but challenging the religious rights of others, particularly the Catholic Church and its myriad social service ministries.
Adoption services that have, for 100 years or more, provided children with good, safe and traditional homes with a male husband and female wife are facing a take-it-or-leave-it scenario in the new legal landscape: Accept the sweeping social change in the most elemental compact in the history of mankind — the nuclear family formed by the marriage of one man to one woman — and abandon 2,000 years of dogma by continuing to find children homes through adoption services, including same-sex couples; or close up shop.
The necessity of accepting one of two equally objectionable choices confronts dioceses and Catholic Charities in 17 states from Minnesota to New Mexico and Massachusetts to California.
The collision of constitutional rights poses irreconcilable demands. When religious organizations work for the common good — the welfare of children — and accept taxpayer money from state and local governments, the attached obligation is to treat all comers equally. For Catholic organizations to comply is to violate Church doctrine.
“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., told the New York Times when Illinois dioceses stopped adoption services rather than comply.
Adoptive Family Structure
Similarly, the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., ended an 80-year “legacy of high quality service to the vulnerable in our nation’s capital” when the city informed Catholic Charities in 2009 that “the agency could no longer serve as a provider of foster care and public adoption services as a result of the D.C. same-sex marriage law,” said Sheridan Watson, communications manager for the Office of Media and Public Relations at the archdiocese.
“This is because under the new law, in order to have a contract with D.C. to provide such services, providers were required to certify the marital status of adoptive and foster care families and to place children with same-sex married couples, which would violate the tenets of the Catholic Faith.”
The secular change in the definition of marriage and its civil consequences has not deterred the archdiocese in its mission to help the needy, Watson said.
“Catholic Charities … (has) been unwavering in its commitment to serve those in need and is the largest private social service provider in the Washington metropolitan area,” Watson said.
The Archdiocese of Boston got out of the adoption business in 2006 after the Vatican affirmed that Catholic adoption agencies could not arrange adoptions to same-sex couples in response to the news that the diocese had brokered adoptions to 13 gay couple in the previous two years. Adoption services by Catholic agencies and dioceses may have ended elsewhere in many of the 17 states that now recognize same-sex marriage, but the work of the Church continues even in some of those states.
The Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, which is located south of the Boston archdiocese, is home to more than 300,000 Catholics and has a total population of more than 800,000.
The diocese has soldiered on, with its Office of Catholic Social Services handling adoptions for the neighboring Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island, where same-sex marriage was adopted in 2013.
“It hasn’t come up for us,” said Phyllis Habib, adoption coordinator for the Fall River agency. “I think just by the name of our agency, same-sex couples do not approach us. We have couples who are not Catholic who apply for adoptions, and, as with any application, we conduct home studies and seek doctors’ certifications as is required by law in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island.”
The adoption business has shifted from Catholic agencies, which…” READ MORE HERE
We came across this great editorial by Deacon Keith Fournier called “The Inevitable Triumph of the Pro-Life Position” made available on Catholic Online. The editorial focuses on the pro-life movement in a positive light. We noticed that it also happens to feature the title of a classic hymn: The Cry of the Poor
We found this great youtube video of this hymn and made it available below. We also copied and pasted a portion of the editorial below for your convenience.
By Deacon Keith Fournier
5/3/2008 (7 years ago)
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
We must prepare ourselves for the real work of building a culture of life and civilization of love, a new society. The end of Roe is not the end of the struggle.
LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) – It has been thirty five years since that infamous U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade.
With the stroke of a judicial pen, unelected Justices consigned an entire class of persons, children in the first home of the whole human race (their mothers womb), to the status of property.
Like millions, I have prayed, marched and worked tirelessly to overturn this horrid decision and end the killing. As a human rights lawyer I went to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend pro-life protesters. I still try to join the thousands annually who travel to Washington, D.C. to pray and stand in solidarity with children in the womb and the second victims, their mothers.
The right to life is the fundamental human rights issue of our age because without it there are no other rights. It is also the great freedom movement of our day because without the freedom to be born, there are no other freedoms.
After all these years of pro-life activity I am still labeled by some who seek to protect the so called “right” to take the lives of innocent children in the womb as “religious right.” I tried to stop caring about labels a long time ago. After all, the old children’s jingo “sticks and stones…” does have some merit. Names should not hurt me.
However, they still do. I have never liked being called a “conservative.” I am also NOT a “liberal” because of what that term has now come to mean. Finally, I deplore the theft of the term “progressive” by those who want to call a return to paganism or libertinism “progress”.
I am simply a Catholic Christian.
I believe that what the Catholic Church teaches about the inviolability and sanctity of every human life, at every age and stage, is true. I try to inform all of my life, including my social, economic and political participation, by the teaching of the Catholic Church. Because of that teaching, I sometimes speak of myself as pro-life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-poor and pro-peace.
I am being a Catholic Christian when I insist upon an end to legalized abortion. I am ashamed of fellow Catholics, and other Christians, especially those in public life, who have failed to stay faithful to the truth about life, and in some instances, have become collaborators with the Culture of death.
We are called by our baptismal vocation to serve the common good. Legal Abortion does not serve the common good. As a part of our mission to building a truly just society where the polestar of all public policy is the recognition of the inherent dignity of every human person, at every age and stage, we simply have to end legal abortion in America and throughout the world.
We must not let up in our efforts to see Roe v. Wade vacated, overturned, or in any other feasible way eradicated from our jurisprudence. The decision is a heinous example of how bad science, worse history and nefarious judicial engineering disguised as “legal reasoning” can be used to unleash a horror on an entire class of persons.
I believe that we will see its reversal. We now need to plan beyond that reversal. Our work has always been about more than Roe; it is about building a culture of life and a civilization of love, a new society.
This new society we must build, in addition to protecting children, the elderly and the infirm against those who would kill them, must also promote and protect authentic marriage and the stable and healthy families that are built upon it. It must reach out in compassion to embrace all who have been wounded by the weakened state of the institution of marriage.
This new society, because it is genuinely concerned about justice, must proclaim the truth concerning human freedom and openly reject the relativist and libertine counterfeits that have sought to redefine the word and lead men and women into new forms of slavery.
It must hear the cry of the poor and promote public policy and legislation which is a response to our social obligations in solidarity. We are our brothers (and sisters) keeper. Such concern for the poor is not “left wing”, it is human and just.
It should promote a public policy which not only offers the poor compassion, but expands the embrace of economic participation by promoting true economic justice, insisting that the market first serve the person, the family and the common good.
Finally, this new society must work for authentic peace, rejecting militarism as a solution to international conflict. War is never the answer. It promotes the culture of death.
Concepts such as a “pre-emptive” war are inconsistent with the strict “Just War Analysis” which has served Western Civilization well in analyzing how principles of self defense work within Nations and in international conflicts. It must not be abandoned. To do so may lead us into the abyss of continual conflict.
These kinds of goals – and the initiatives that they should give birth to – are neither nether “right” nor “left”, liberal or conservative, or any permutation of those terms, they are human and they are just.
I see the momentum shifting against those who have defended the evil of protected procured abortion under the lie of a “right” to choose. They have presented themselves as somehow concerned about women for far too long. Women have been the second victims of this lie and they are rising up to expose it. In increasing numbers, women who have had abortions are joining the growing majority of those who oppose it.
The rhetoric of the legal abortion movement is tired, its lies have been revealed and the wind is out of its sails. Some choices are simply always and everywhere wrong, such as the taking of innocent human life. I have proposed that we re-enter the war of words and call those who continue the lie, the “Wrong Choice Movement”. Intentionally killing the innocent can never be a “right”, even if a Court tries to make it one by judicial fiat.
The pro-life position is not “conservative” or “liberal”, or even simply “religious” – at least in the sense of a position confined to religious people. It is a defensible human rights position that can be – and increasingly is – held by many types of diverse people.
A growing majority of Americans are coming to recognize that without the right to life and the freedom to be born there simply are no other rights. In fact, the very foundation of all rights is placed at risk when those without a voice become subject to death on demand under some promethean notion of freedom as the power of the strong over the weak.
Truth has an amazing power within it to bring about personal and societal change. I believe that it is doing just that on the issue of the humanity of the child in the womb. This truth is winning the hearts and minds of more and more Americans. That is because this truth is written on every human heart by the Natural Law that obligates us all to do justice and then binds us all together in its pursuit.
One does not have to have any religious faith to recognize the truth concerning the dignity of every human life. As a Christian, I believe and proclaim that this truth is also confirmed by Revelation. However, it is a fallacy for the opponents of the right to life to characterize the pro-life position as simply “religious”. To do so is sophistry. They simply want to muffle a truth claim in order to try to undermine it.
Science is clearly a pro-life ally as well. It always has been. But recent advances have unmasked the lies of the opponents of the right to life and their efforts to say otherwise. Sonograms are now showing us a film of our first neighbors in their first home, within their mother. Recent reports point to a cell phone which will enable a mother with child to send images of that child in her womb over the cell phone. How wonderful!
With the introduction of “baby’s first picture” we all watch these children smile, play, feel pain and grow. These images are becoming more and more prevalent, even showing up on television commercials. A sure sign, in a consumerist culture, that this technology is having an effect. Only a deceived person can see that child in the womb as anything other than just that, a child.
Doctors are now operating “in utero” to help these children at this stage of life. Psychologists are speaking of communication between parents and their child in the womb- and encouraging it. Music is being played to children in the womb.
All of these advances have “humanized” the child in the womb to an increasing number of people who once bought the lie of those who promoted abortion, the intentional killing of a child in the womb, as a “choice”. The efforts to paint the child as a “cluster of cells” or to use other dehumanizing phrases to hide the perfidy of abortion have failed.
Both science and technology confirm what our conscience told us all along, the child in the first home of the whole human race is our neighbor.
Headlines over the last ten years concerning the increase of crimes against pregnant women also move us forward to the triumph of life and turning of the tide of public opinion. Let me recount just a few.
We were all relieved, just before Christmas in 2004, when the child, brutally removed from the womb of Bobby Jo Stinnet of Missouri by her murderer, was found in good health. It was as though that baby was our own child- because every baby is.In a news account the following morning, the former owner of a grocery store in Skidmore, Missouri, the slain mothers’ home, expressed all of our sentiments when she affirmed: “The community will help raise this baby.”
We witnessed the horror of the killing of Laci and Conner Peterson and called it what it was, a double homicide. The glaring inconsistency between this truth and the current practice of legal abortion on demand became obvious to many.
Even the proponents of the approach to abortion unleashed by the horrid decision in Roe v Wade have begun to speak of rethinking their “strategy”, calling for a “new language” and speaking of a new concern for the “fetus”.
A growing majority of Americans are beginning to understand that the past approach of abortion on demand is not only wrong but exceedingly dangerous for the elderly, the infirmed, the poor and the marginalized.
This all supports my belief that we will see the end of federally protected abortion as it has emerged in the bloody wake of the decision of the Supreme Court through its horrid ruling in Roe and its progeny.
However, make no mistake; the end of Roe is NOT the end of the struggle
We must prepare ourselves for the real work of building a culture of life and civilization of love, a new society. The end of Roe is not the end of the struggle. The roots of the culture of death run deep in a society that has followed the siren song of selfish materialism, neo-paganism and nihilism.
We need to re-educate some within the pro-life community. Too many pro-life people have become so used to “opposing” abortion that they do not know how to propose the culture of life. The truth about the dignity of life is a positive position. We are on the side of the truth.
Lasting movements for societal change have not been built around negative language. Oh, of course they oppose what is wrong, but they also propose another way. Our task as a people committed to life is not simply about opposition but also about conversion. We need to present a new way, the way of life, to replace the culture of death.
Additionally, as important as changing the make up of the Supreme Court is, we will not succeed in our long term mission simply through using political efforts. People’s hearts and minds need to be changed. This mission is both a spiritual and a rhetorical task. We need to pray – and we need to be in the public square, persuading people of the truth concerning the dignity of every life by using all of what has been discussed in this article.
We need to engage and not outrage. Let me explain what I mean. Every morning I receive charged pro-life mailings from someone who sends them out to anyone who will receive them. I know how “bad” things are. I have already read most of what he sends me. Frankly, I have grown so tired of these mailings that this morning I almost added him to my blocked senders list.
Now think about that. I am pro-life. It makes me wonder what kind of effect this man is having beyond the choir that he is singing to!
We need to engage this age with a confidence borne of truth and not be afraid of the culture of death. To build a culture of life and a civilization of love requires a new language. For example, I have taken to regularly speaking of children in the womb as our first neighbors. After all, they reside in the first home of the whole human race, their mothers womb.
As I use this expression “first neighbors” in my pro-life work in the public square, people inevitably ask me the questions that always open the door to explaining the truth.
Truth is very convincing. When proclaimed, it defends itself.
We should speak of our work as working for human rights. The right to life is a basic human right. It is not simply a “civil” right, in the sense that it depends upon the civil government to confer it. Rather, it is an unalienable right in the words of the American founders.
It cannot be taken away by any government.
Christians need to remember that the American founders did not invent this concept of … READ MORE
No one wants to talk straight about abortion. People tip-toe around the obvious facts and avoid confrontation. We believe that all life is precious and that we have an obligation to give voice to the voiceless. We found a great PDF on Catholic Answers that has straight answers to lots of questions concerning the catholic view on abortion. You can read it online by visiting their site: http://www.catholic.com/sites/default/files/straight_talk_about_abortion.pdf
A portion of the text of the PDF has been copied and pasted below for your convenience.
God Questions? Catholic answers are out there. We found some great entries about the Catholic perspective on the pro-life movement at one of our favorite sites: Catholic Answers. If you have questions, read up at their site at: http://www.catholic.com/browse/Pro-Life/all/all/all
Here is one of our favorite video posts from Catholic Answers on questions related to the Pro-Life point of view. Watch it to learn more about whether or not abortions are ok in different circumstances. Check it out!
~Brought to you by Mary’s Way Worldwide Apostolate
The nation’s largest and most influential medical organizations, the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians, as well as many smaller physicians’ groups, are on record as opposing physician-assisted suicide. Yet, despite the strong and widespread opposition of the medical community, last year physicians in Oregon wrote prescriptions to help kill 38 of their patients kill themselves. The 38 deaths represent a disturbing reversal in the decline in physician-assisted suicides in Oregon seen in the prior year: from 27 in 2000 to 21 in 2001. One must ask how Oregon came to accept a practice so strongly opposed by organized medicine.
The answer is in large part due to clever media campaigns waged by advocates of physician-assisted suicide, and the willingness of these groups to distort medical facts and disseminate myths with the help of an uninformed or biased media. In today’s society, image and public perception are often more persuasive than facts and logic. Advocates of physician-assisted suicide try to obscure its real nature by avoiding references to euthanasia and homicide. Suicide is not advocated, except where it is cloaked as a medical procedure with the qualifier “physician-assisted.” Yet, the arguments supporting physician-assisted suicide apply equally to suicide without a physician’s assistance, as well as to euthanasia and homicide. Adding the term “physician-assisted” makes it no less suicide, and no less murder — although admittedly it sounds more benign.
The confusion engendered by the lack of clear and accurate media reporting is not the only reason, of course. Many today measure the value of life in strictly utilitarian terms. Seeing diminished value in lives that are no longer robust, they conclude that physician-assisted suicide is a rational choice.
The goal of this article is to provide information on physician-assisted suicide drawn from clinical and public policy experience. Arguments on both sides of the public debate are presented, and it will be shown that as a matter of morality, medicine and public policy, physician-assisted suicide is the wrong approach to end of life care. Current public policy efforts to improve the care given to terminally ill patients will also be examined.
What is physician-assisted suicide?
Physician-assisted suicide occurs when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and information to enable the patient to perform a life-ending act — for example the physician provides a potentially lethal medication and information about the lethal dose and how to administer it, aware that the patient may commit suicide. Most laws against physician-assisted suicide require evidence that the physician intervened to assist suicide. Under Maryland’s law for example, physicians who provide medication to relieve pain are not prosecuted even if the dosage could increase the risk of death — unless they acted with an intent to assist a suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is distinct from active euthanasia where the physician himself directly acts to cause death — but the intent of helping to cause that death is the same.
How do states other than Oregon treat physician-assisted suicide?
Oregon stands as an anomaly. Physician-assisted suicide is a crime in forty-five states, by statute in 39 states and by common law in the remaining six. Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming have no controlling law on physician-assisted suicide.
In addition to Oregon, four states — Michigan, Washington, California, and Maine — have put the issue of physician-assisted suicide to a referendum. In all but Oregon, the practice was rejected by voters. In the Spring of 2002, an effort to authorize the practice in Hawaii was defeated.
Arguments favoring physician-assisted suicide
The arguments for physician-assisted suicide are generally similar to those supporting euthanasia. Most commonly it is argued that death offers the only means of attaining comfort or dignity for patients in extreme duress, such as those suffering from a terminal, painful, debilitating illness. Advocates of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide buttress this argument with data showing that inadequate pain control is given to patients who are dying with painful conditions. The assistance of a physician is supposed to provide expertise to increase the likelihood of a successful suicide attempt and make the act “cleaner” — both literally and politically.
Arguments concerning loss of autonomy and impaired quality of life are also offered to justify physician-assisted suicide. Advocates of assisted suicide add that systemic changes to medical care, such as improved palliative care, won’t benefit the individual currently dying in discomfort. They argue from the premise that immediate death is preferable to suffering with pain or “lack of dignity” in the last days, weeks or months of life.
Another argument in favor of assisted suicide is the prevention of “botched” suicide. Most terminally ill patients who wish to commit suicide want it accomplished by medical means, nonviolently — suicide by self-administered drugs is not always easy to accomplish. Failed attempts can cause greater trauma for the patient and caregivers than the natural course of the disease itself. In such circumstances, patients may beg caregivers to complete their failed attempt to die. This scenario is meant to bolster the argument for physician-assisted suicide, on the theory that such assistance prevents a greater harm than it causes.
Reasons to oppose physician-assisted suicide
Catholic teaching condemns physician-assisted suicide because it, like murder, involves taking an innocent human life:
Suicide is always as morally objectionable as murder. The Church’s tradition has always rejected it as a gravely evil choice: To concur with the intention of another person to commit suicide and to help in carrying it out through so-called “assisted suicide” means to cooperate in, and at times to be the actual perpetrator of, an injustice which can never be excused, even if it is requested. In a remarkably relevant passage Saint Augustine writes that “it is never licit to kill another: even if he should wish it, indeed if he request it because, hanging between life and death, he begs for help in freeing the soul struggling against the bonds of the body and longing to be released; nor is it licit even when a sick person is no longer able to live (The Gospel of Life, no. 66).
Policy makers and the public are not always receptive to appeals to Catholic moral teaching. Fortunately, well-established principles of medicine and bioethics provide sound and abundant grounds for opposing physician-assisted suicide.
In fact, the chief argument — that assisted suicide is needed to avoid the excruciating pain and suffering that may accompany a terminal illness — is based on a fallacy. Advances in pain management now make it possible to control pain effectively in dying patients; only rarely is it necessary to induce sleep to relieve pain or distress in the final stage of dying. But it is true that many physicians don’t provide adequate… READ MORE
~brought to you by Mary’s Way Worldwide Apostolate
Mary’s Way Worldwide Apostolate encountered this fascinating article on a Catholic Nun who had some surprising things to say about the Pro-Life movement realities. Let’s keep her words in mind as we strive to prevent the murder of unborn children.
In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy of many in the ‘pro-life’ movement: “I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”This quote applies well to many Republican lawmakers who continue to introduce/pass restrictive misogynist laws against woman’s reproductive rights. At the same time, the GOP works to shut down women’s health clinics, with a special vengeance towards Planned Parenthood (#StandWithPP).You don’t hear of these Right Wing anti-choice extremists adopting children from unplanned pregnancies or putting funds into sex education. But you do see Republican lawmakers cut access to birth control, which prevents abortions. You do see the GOP’s 54 attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and their $24 Billion Government Shutdown both to destroy universal health reform which protects the needs of millions of American children. And you do see Republican lawmakers cut government programs like school lunches for children and block government financial aid to families who are homeless and/or in need. No, the goals of these so-called anti-choice/’pro-life’ hypocrites are not about fetuses or children once born, their agenda is about controlling women’s bodies and women’s futures. How great to hear Sister Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun, define the pro-life/anti-choice GOP double talk so well.
An outspoken advocate for women, Sister Joan Chittister is a lecturer and author of 50 books. Holding a Ph.D. from Penn State University, she is also a research associate in a division of Cambridge University. Other subjects of her writing include women in the church and society, human rights, peace and justice, religious life and spirituality. She has appeared in the media…. READ MORE