LifeNet

March for Life part 4: A young Jesuit priest's homily

"Joy and sadness." and "Solidarity."  Beautiful.

 

March for Life Part 3; stranded students - build a snow altar and go to Mass

Stuck on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, students from Nebraska and Iowa who'd traveled to DC for the March for life - whole story at the the link.

At about 9:30 p.m. Friday, the buses lurched to a stop at mile marker 133, and the group had to become comfortable for awhile -- because there they stayed for the next 23 hours. More buses with others from across the country were stuck with them, including a group from Nebraska.

An accident had stopped traffic up the road, Behm said, and in the hours it took to clear up, the snow rendered the buses immobile.

Thankfully, the buses has toilets -- until those filled up, Behm said.

About half a mile down the road, a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation station was equipped with bathrooms and food. The students were able to make use of them -- by walking there and back -- as the hours wore on.

As Saturday morning came, Behm said members of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis approached his group about performing Mass.

“It wasn’t even my idea, but I’m the one blowing up on Twitter and Facebook now,” Behm said with a laugh.

Equipped with his travel Mass kit, an altar of snow was built as hundreds congregated outside in the cold.

“I just happened to be there, the wrong place at the right time,” Behm said.

 

2016 March for Life, Part 2 America Media 3 minute video

Nice little job by the Jesuit America media publication group, with mostly interviews with young students.

This would be an excellent short video to introduce the abortion issue (or suggest travel to a pro-life event) to a middle school or high school group!

Friday's March for Life, Part 1

This is part 1 because we will have at least two more parts over the next two days, including the Created Equal representation, and a short video from America Media - publishers of the Jesuit America magazine. 

Our bus was cancelled, so several of us drove down. The weather was really not a  problem; started snowing after one o'clock & didn't affect the drive back.

The numbers were MUCH lower - probably 20-25,000, a quarter of the #'s for the last few years. Whereas it usually takes two hours for the whole March to pass a given point, Friday it took less than half an hour.  The much-hyped coming blizzard. We spoke with people from Florida - large contingent - Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, South Dakota, with Missouri and Illinois much in evidence. 

Media coverage -. Nothing on the CNN youtube channel  and a two minute video on the FOX youtube channel. Here is the Washington Post coverage which was decent, as they usually are.  The NY Times website had a tiny article in which they said "hundreds" marched (UPDATE: Rooftop video is here. So much for the NY Times "hundreds marched"). Hahahahaha. What they should have said was "hundreds from Miami marched" since there were several hundred from high schools in Miami, who'd come up.

11 pictures + one on steps of Supreme Court. You can see how the weather changed over a period of about 2 hours.

The Rally

The March up Constitution Ave. to the Supreme Court -

Two double strollers, and a third one out of view. 

There were a couple of dozen pro-abortion counter-protesters. The man's t shirt says "Abortion on Demand & Without Apology".

On the steps of the Supreme Court, women from Silent No More, speaking - very emotional, as always

Wanted to get this right out - more to follow.

 

Looks Great: Speaker's list for Friday DC March for Life

And it is on! Current forecast says less than one inch of snow in Washington during the March.

List of speakers includes one of our favorites, Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina. And Matt Birk the Baltimore Raven player who didn't bother going to the White House for the standard Super Bowl winner visit to Obama. Hit the link to read about he and his family involvement in the pro-life movement. They live in Greenwich, CT.

March for Life - 2016

Carly Fiorina, Pro-Life Businesswoman
Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)
Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ)
State Senator Katrina Jackson (D-LA)
Matt Birk; former Baltimore Ravens player and Super Bowl Champion
Sue Ellen Browder; Author, Subverted
Jim Daly; President, Focus on the Family
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B. Anthony List
Dr. Marguerite Duane, MD; Cofounder and Executive Director, FACTS
Jewels Green; Silent No More campaign
Nathan Grime; Student, Concordia Lutheran High School
His Eminence Metropolitan Evangelos, Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops
Dr. Russell Moore, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission

Planned Parenthood endorses Hillary Clinton in Democratic Primary

Of course no surprise. No separation of state and religion when it comes to the religion of abortion.

 

From Belgium: "Archbishop forces showdown over ... euthanasia"

Below is the link to the website; we are posting the enitire text since they do allow it under a Creative Commons license.

See the end of the article for information on the author, Paul Russell.

Archbishop forces showdown over Belgian euthanasia law

Over recent weeks the issue of conscientious objection, or the “conscience clause” in the Belgian euthanasia law has been brought into the spotlight by the assertion by the new Catholic Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels, Jozef De Kesel, that he has the right to refuse Catholic hospitals and aged care facilities to co-operate with euthanasia.

Euthanasia advocates both in academia and in the medical profession have bristled at the suggestion that institutions could say “Non” with many displaying a distinct and disturbing lack of understanding about the status of the 14 year old statute that allows doctors to kill their patients.

The Belgian law clearly provides a conscientious “out” for doctors and others assisting in a euthanasia but it is silent about institutions. Some suggest that the extension of a right of conscientious objection to institutions such as churches is implied while others suggest, dubiously to my thinking, that silence suggests otherwise.

The unexpected intransigence has brought to light a subtle, but important, distinction in the euthanasia law. In spite of the rhetoric, euthanasia is not legal in Belgium. The 2002 statute simply creates a defence in law for doctors who commit an act of euthanasia when they fulfil certain conditions. Fernand Keuleneer, a lawyer and alternate member of the Euthanasia Evaluation Commission for 10 years agrees, He told the media: "It is wrong to argue that the law requires Catholic hospitals to apply euthanasia. The law does not create a subjective, let alone fundamental right to euthanasia, but is limited to non-criminalization of doctors who perform euthanasia in legal terms.”

Initially all this seemed like like an academic exercise with no one expecting the new bishop to force a showdown. But a showdown was already in the making.

Belgian news outlets have reported that a Catholic nursing home has refused to allow a doctor onto its premises to perform euthanasia. According to reports, his 74-year-old female patient was terminally ill with metastatic cancer and was living in the St. Augustine residential care centre in Diest.

The process of requesting euthanasia began in 2011 and progressed for six months before St. Augustine’s management refused access, supposedly only days before the euthanasia was to take place. The various stories do not say whether or not the facility was formally aware of the process. However the family says that, after initially believing that the matter was simply a misunderstanding, they arranged for the woman to be transported to a private residence where the death took place. The family are claiming that the facility caused additional psychological and physical suffering for their mother.

The matter is listed to be heard in a civic court in Leuven in April – more than four years after the woman’s death and after the matter had already been postponed twice before -- why, we are not told.

I smell a rat.

This issue precedes the current controversy over the Archbishop’s refusal to allow euthanasia to take place in Catholic nursing homes. It does not take a cynic to ask why a matter that has twice been suspended over a death that took place over four years ago where the woman got what she wanted, is suddenly before the media and the courts?

If that were not enough for conspiracy theorists, the lawyer for the woman’s family, Sylvie Tack, has a longstanding professional relationship with Belgium’s euthanasia supremo, Dr Wim Distelmans, and his Life Ending Information Network (LEIF) as a lecturer, speaker and member of their peer review panel.

It may be that Archbishop De Kesel was aware of this pending case when he made his pre-Christmas declaration. If so, full marks to him! As we observed earlier, it seems likely now that the courts may well determine the interpretation of Article 14 of Belgium’s euthanasia law.

It does not seem likely that the complaint by the woman’s family is principally about her treatment or any recompense or restitution for “suffering or loss”. As their lawyer told De Morgen: "The new Act states that doctors and staff who are involved in the euthanasia, can have conscientious objection. But the health care institution itself should not interfere with it themselves."

Make no mistake: if ever there was going to be a test case, this is it. Rightly or wrongly, Belgian’s euthanasia supremos have always seen the Catholic Church and its influence as the last bulwark standing against them. I have heard them say as much personally. Perhaps, ironically, they also see Catholicism as the last voice of conscience – to which they clearly object.

Paul Russell is director of HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide, which is based in Australia. This article has been republished from his blog with permission.

Over recent weeks the issue of conscientious objection, or the “conscience clause” in the Belgian euthanasia law has been brought into the spotlight by the assertion by the new Catholic Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels, Jozef De Kesel, that he has the right to refuse Catholic hospitals and aged care facilities to co-operate with euthanasia.

Euthanasia advocates both in academia and in the medical profession have bristled at the suggestion that institutions could say “Non” with many displaying a distinct and disturbing lack of understanding about the status of the 14 year old statute that allows doctors to kill their patients.

The Belgian law clearly provides a conscientious “out” for doctors and others assisting in a euthanasia but it is silent about institutions. Some suggest that the extension of a right of conscientious objection to institutions such as churches is implied while others suggest, dubiously to my thinking, that silence suggests otherwise.

The unexpected intransigence has brought to light a subtle, but important, distinction in the euthanasia law. In spite of the rhetoric, euthanasia is not legal in Belgium. The 2002 statute simply creates a defence in law for doctors who commit an act of euthanasia when they fulfil certain conditions. Fernand Keuleneer, a lawyer and alternate member of the Euthanasia Evaluation Commission for 10 years agrees, He told the media: "It is wrong to argue that the law requires Catholic hospitals to apply euthanasia. The law does not create a subjective, let alone fundamental right to euthanasia, but is limited to non-criminalization of doctors who perform euthanasia in legal terms.”

Initially all this seemed like like an academic exercise with no one expecting the new bishop to force a showdown. But a showdown was already in the making.

Belgian news outlets have reported that a Catholic nursing home has refused to allow a doctor onto its premises to perform euthanasia. According to reports, his 74-year-old female patient was terminally ill with metastatic cancer and was living in the St. Augustine residential care centre in Diest.

The process of requesting euthanasia began in 2011 and progressed for six months before St. Augustine’s management refused access, supposedly only days before the euthanasia was to take place. The various stories do not say whether or not the facility was formally aware of the process. However the family says that, after initially believing that the matter was simply a misunderstanding, they arranged for the woman to be transported to a private residence where the death took place. The family are claiming that the facility caused additional psychological and physical suffering for their mother.

The matter is listed to be heard in a civic court in Leuven in April – more than four years after the woman’s death and after the matter had already been postponed twice before -- why, we are not told.

I smell a rat.

This issue precedes the current controversy over the Archbishop’s refusal to allow euthanasia to take place in Catholic nursing homes. It does not take a cynic to ask why a matter that has twice been suspended over a death that took place over four years ago where the woman got what she wanted, is suddenly before the media and the courts?

If that were not enough for conspiracy theorists, the lawyer for the woman’s family, Sylvie Tack, has a longstanding professional relationship with Belgium’s euthanasia supremo, Dr Wim Distelmans, and his Life Ending Information Network (LEIF) as a lecturer, speaker and member of their peer review panel.

It may be that Archbishop De Kesel was aware of this pending case when he made his pre-Christmas declaration. If so, full marks to him! As we observed earlier, it seems likely now that the courts may well determine the interpretation of Article 14 of Belgium’s euthanasia law.

It does not seem likely that the complaint by the woman’s family is principally about her treatment or any recompense or restitution for “suffering or loss”. As their lawyer told De Morgen: "The new Act states that doctors and staff who are involved in the euthanasia, can have conscientious objection. But the health care institution itself should not interfere with it themselves."

Make no mistake: if ever there was going to be a test case, this is it. Rightly or wrongly, Belgian’s euthanasia supremos have always seen the Catholic Church and its influence as the last bulwark standing against them. I have heard them say as much personally. Perhaps, ironically, they also see Catholicism as the last voice of conscience – to which they clearly object.

Paul Russell is director of HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide, which is based in Australia. This article has been republished from his blog with permission.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/careful/view/catholic-archbishop-forces-showdown-over-belgian-euthanasia-law/17390#sthash.4t0cgy2A.dpuf