|
RESPECT LIFE PROGRAM Welcome! The Respect Life Ministry at St. Bonaventure is committed to conversion through prayer, education, and service. This web page, along with the Respect Life corner in the weekly St. Bonaventure parish bulletin, is designed to provide a forum for raising parish awareness on issues relating to the sanctity and dignity of human life, from conception through to death. These issues include abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, family life, elder care, birth control, suicide, abortion recovery, natural family planning, and aspects of social justice including the death penalty and social welfare. The ministry also plans to address Christian attitudes towards these issues. How we relate and witness to life issues -- as individuals, parish, and society -- are key to living and practicing our Catholic faith. We hope to provide opportunities for personal and spiritual growth in our parish through speakers, presentations, fundraising and service activities, prayer vigils and Adoration hours, etc. Please pray for this ministry! "The way of Christ ‘leads to life’; a contrary way ‘leads to destruction.’ The Gospel parable of the two ways (Mt 7: 13-14) remains ever present in the catechesis of the Church; it shows the importance of moral decisions for our salvation: ‘There are two ways, the one of life, the other of death; but between the two, there is great difference.’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1696) Prayer for Life O God, our Creator, all life is in your hands from conception until death. Help us to cherish our children and to reverence the awesome privilege of our share in creation. May all people live and die in dignity and love. Bless all those who defend the rights of the unborn, the handicapped and the aged. Enlighten and be merciful toward those who fail to love, and give them peace. Let freedom be tempered by responsibility, integrity, and morality. If you have any comments about this web page, or have a question you would like addressed, please email us at josephsullivan@verizon.net. If you would like to be actively involved in this ministry, or want more information on Respect Life resources, contact Joe Sullivan at (714) 842-9707. 2005 UPCOMING ACTIVITIES January 21, 2006 – After the 8:00 am Mass on Saturday we will pray from 9:30 - 11:00 am in reparation for abortion in front of Planned Parenthood in Westminster February 4 – Respect Life Bike-a-thon to raise money for the Life Center; please call Joe Sullivan at (714) 842-9707 if you would like to help!
In support of the national program, which is briefly described below, the Diocese of Orange has asked local parishes to focus on four major activities this year: The U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has set forth a national program designed to promote a consistent ethic of life, address the pervasive threats to human life, and empower US dioceses and parishes to successfully promote respect for human life. The USCCB program calls for the Church to "pursue this effort with renewed energy and commitment in four major areas. These areas are: Public Information and Education For more information on the national program, visit the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) website: www.usccb.org/prolife Also link to Basic Facts and Figures about Abortion, based on Second Look Project advertising – www.secondlookproject.org Link to National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, for info about or status of current U. S. legislation impacting life, and legislators’ records – www.nchla.org Celebrating the Gospel of Life "Because we have been sent into the world as a ‘people for life,’ our proclamation must also become a genuine celebration of the Gospel of life. . . . For this to happen, we need first of all to foster, in ourselves and in others, a contemplative outlook. Such an outlook arises from faith in the God of life, who has created every individual as a ‘wonder.’ It is the outlook of those who see life in its deeper meaning, who grasp its utter gratuitousness, its beauty and its invitation to freedom and responsibility." "It is the outlook of those who do not presume to take possession of reality but instead accept it as a gift, discovering in all things the reflection of the Creator and seeing in ever person his living image. . . . It is time for all of us to adopt this outlook, and with deep religious awe to rediscover the ability to revere and honor every person . . . Inspired by this contemplative outlook, the new people of the redeemed cannot but respond with songs of joy, praise and thanksgiving for the priceless gift of life, for the mystery of every individual’s call to share through Christ the life of grace and in an existence of unending communion with God our Creator and Father." (From "The Gospel of Life." The Theology of the Body, by Pope John Paul II) Link to Human Development Resource Council, Inc., which provides pro-life educational materials and programs aimed at young people – www.hdrc.org "I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made." (Ps 139:14) We pray for an end to abortion in this country–for doctors to stop performing abortions, for mothers to stop seeking them, and for fathers, grandparents and friends to stop encouraging them. But even a change in behavior is not the primary goal. What’s necessary is a radical change of mind, one that helps people see abortion as always the wrong solution no matter what problems arise in pregnancy. Yet even more is needed to build a culture of life. Ultimately, the goal [in creating a culture of life] involves a radical change of heart and a transformation of souls. It’s about the redemption of those involved in abortion, and about unselfish service to women, children and families. It aims to transform our society into one where people are radically, even heroically, generous to every human life, no matter the personal cost. It’s about creating a nation where there is no pro-life "movement." (From MOVING TOWARD A CULTURE OF LIFE, by: Cathleen A. Cleaver. Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, 2001, USCCB) - www.usccb.org/prolife "Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2274) SUPPORT TO PREGNANCY COUNSELING CENTERS Some local organizations which provide pro-life services and support to women in crisis pregnancies: Link to Mary’s Shelter in Santa Ana – www.teenshelter.org Link to Precious Life Shelter in Los Alamitos – www.preciouslifeshelter.com Link to Birth Choice Pregnancy Centers, Inc., an affiliate of Heartbeat International (which produces the Sexual Integrity program) – www.birthchoiceoc.org PROJECT RACHEL Hope and Healing After Abortion Since 1973, there have been more than 36 million abortions in the United States. While some women report relatively little trauma following abortion, for many, the experience is devastating, causing severe and long-lasting emotional, psychological and spiritual trauma. Evidence of post-abortion trauma is increasingly attested to by psychologists, counselors and those involved in post-abortion ministry. We now know, for example, that women hurt by abortion may have some . . . of the following symptoms: · Low self-esteem· Grief (mild to profound) · Depression (sometimes to the point of suicidal thoughts and attempts) · A sense of alienation from family and friends · Guilt and shame · Anger toward self, or the child's father, or others involved in the abortion decision · Abortion-related nightmares, flashbacks or even sounds of a baby crying · Alcohol and drug problems, to dull the sorrow · Desire for a 'replacement' baby · Anniversary reactions of grief or depression on the date of the abortion or the baby's expected due date · Problems bonding with her other children (being over-protective but emotionally distant) · Fear that God will punish her, or is punishing her Some, especially young girls, experience symptoms soon after the abortion. Counselors tell us, however, that it is more common for the symptoms to occur over the course of five to twelve years after the abortion before a woman seeks help. Abortion's aftermath is largely ignored by the general public. Groups organized to protect the availability of abortion claim that abortion is no different from any surgical procedure and that pro-life groups are fabricating the existence of post-abortion suffering. Consequently, many women think that their grief reactions are somehow abnormal and believe that there is nowhere to turn for help. Many women who have walked a path of grief and hopelessness after abortion, usually alone, eventually begin to understand that they have a deep spiritual wound. But sadly, they also are likely to believe that they have committed 'the unforgivable sin' and fear God's anger. Women who have had an abortion often have many questions, the answers to which are indispensable to beginning the healing journey. Can God ever forgive me? Can my child? Can I ever forgive myself? Will the Church let me stay when I confess this sin? Will this horrible pain ever go away? Is healing possible? The answer to all these questions is, of course, YES! It's normal to grieve a pregnancy loss, including the loss of a child by abortion. It can form a hole in one's heart, a hole so deep that sometimes it seems nothing can fill the emptiness. Some women, on their own or with professional help, are able to get beyond their grief, and find a measure of peace after abortion. But other women continue to feel isolated and alone in their sadness, regret, anger and self-recrimination. For over 16 years, women and men have been coming to Project Rachel, the post-abortion ministry of the Catholic Church, for help in healing their emotional and spiritual wounds. The priests and counselors in the Project Rachel network understand the pain and loss that follow abortion. They have led thousands of grieving women and men from despair to hope and peace. Project Rachel has trained priests and professional counselors who can help you to heal spiritually and emotionally, no matter what faith tradition is yours. If you are hurting because of abortion, we invite you to begin this journey. Call your local Project Rachel or similar ministry. (All text reprinted from the Project Rachel website; see address below) Resources: Diocese of Orange : Project Rachel Contact – Jackie Weir (800)722-4356From our Holy Father: Hope and Healing After Abortion I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord. With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone's right to life. (From the The Gospel of Life, John Paul II, March, 1995) More to come soon!
Some highlights:
Link to NFP elsewhere on St. Bonaventure website More to come soon! According to a press release issued November 10, 2004 by the California Catholic Conference (the bishops of California): CCC WILL OPPOSE THE PROPOSED 2005 "ASSISTED SUICIDE" BILL "Unfortunately, once again the California Legislature will be asked to consider a bill to legalize physicians assisting patients to commit suicide. In the past, the people of the state have voted against a ballot initiative legalizing "assisted suicide" and the Legislature has rejected bills that would do the same thing. It is evident that both the electorate and their elected representatives have chosen a more sophisticated and compassionate response to end-of-life issues. A dying person’s request for death is almost always a cry for help coming from his or her fear of helplessness and abandonment. And the medical community knows that such a request which is met with adequate palliation, treatment for depression and/or loving comfort care will in almost every case be rescinded. In addition, lived experience has demonstrated that if those who are dying are embraced by their families and their communities, they will not seek death, but will live their last days well. Legalizing "assisted suicide" in California is not good public policy because of the inevitable social injustices that will follow. The pressure to make the "choice" will increase with the burden of illness, age or diminished economic status. Predictably and pragmatically the disabled, the elderly and the poor will not be fully welcome to partake in community resources when they have the "other" option. The California Catholic Conference actively opposed the previous attempts to legalize "assisted suicide" in California and pledges to once again join with many other groups and individuals to lobby vigorously against any attempt to pass such a law. In addition, several years ago the California bishops, through the California Catholic Conference, launched a statewide educational effort, Embracing Our Dying, to address the moral, medical, legal and practical aspects of end-of-life issues. Most of the resources developed for this effort are available to the public on their website, www.embracingourdying.com. Notes on Suffering and Dying by Gerald D. Coleman, S.S. Excerpted from December 2004 Orange County Catholic At Mass in Lourdes on August 15, from his wheelchair, John Paul said, "I appeal urgently to all of you...to do everything in your power to ensure that life, each and every life, will be respected from conception to its natural death. Life is a sacred gift, and no one can presume to be its master." The pope's human fragility and ardent repetition for respect for all life provides a singular backdrop for understanding once again the Church's authentic teachings on suffering and dying. We have all known loved ones in the same or similar health condition as John Paul (or perhaps we find ourselves in this weakened moment in life), and we desire to do the very best to care for and nourish these people, or ourselves. What are some important moral "notes" to help guide us in these situations? * Suffering. For generations, in the context of faith, suffering has been understood by Christians as a sharing in the Cross of Jesus. St Paul tells is that we can boast only in the Cross of Christ (Gal 6:14) and John Paul wrote in "Salvifici Dolores" (1984) that every person is called "to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished... Christ has raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption." In the context of pain and dying, however, the Church teaches in the Declaration on "Euthanasia" (1980) and in "The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" (1971) that pain-killing medications can be used to alleviate one's pain and hopefully permit the patient to understand suffering not as a wasteland, but as a sharing in Christ's redemption. Finding life meaningless and empty does not so much depend on a person's level of pain, but rather on his/her spiritual vision (suffering). It is morally correct to help patients manage pain so that "they may die with dignity" and this holds true even if the medications "indirectly shorten the person's life..." Medicines that simply promise to prolong life, with no relief of pain, have come to the end of their intended purpose, and must be evaluated as such. * Right to Die. All persons have a right to die when the dying process has begun. When a physician indicates that a person is dying, this usually means that the person has about six months to live. This time can provide a "special moment" to place one's life in spiritual order, and for family and close friends to bid farewell. A so-called "vitalist" mentality claims that bodily life must be maintained at all costs, and this denies a person his/her right to enter into the fullness of God's Kingdom. Catholic theology strongly teaches that eternal life with God is more precious and important than earthly existence. It is permissible to allow a person to die, assuming that this dying process has commenced. Such an approach is far from "killing," but rather a magnanimous gesture allowing a person to enter into eternal life with God. We all have this right. * Proportionate and Disproportionate Means. In the 1980 "Declaration on Euthanasia," the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested that proportionate/disproportionate means to assist sick persons better describes what the Catholic tradition has meant by ordinary/extraordinary means. These latter concepts have become too closely tied to medical descriptions (for example, taking food and water by mouth is ordinary, whereas an experimental drug or surgery would be extraordinary). In this perspective, "means" were evaluated against their common or uncommon medical use. On the other hand, what the Church teaches is that every medical means must be evaluated in proportion to a specific patient. Consequently, what might be proportionate for one patient (artificial nutrition and hydration after major surgery) might be disproportionate for another patient (a person no longer able to assimilate artificial nutrition & hydration). The pope made this latter point in his important statement on "Persons in a Persistent Vegetative State." * Decision-Makers. The Church unequivocally teaches that a patient, in consultation with his or her physician, should make this decision. A helpful tool in weighing proportionate/disproportionate means is the benefit/burden scale: that is, will the medical means proposed for this patient bring greater benefit or burden? Dialysis, for example, is now considered "medically ordinary," whereas an older and frail patient may judge that dialysis is disproportionate in his/her case because its burdens far outweigh its benefits. It can happen that a patient is unable to make these decisions, and this is why it is important and beneficial to have a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care or an Advance Health Care Directive. These documents provide one's surrogate with a person's intentions regarding health care when dying, should the person be incapacitated. Living Wills are not useful because they carry no legal authority. A copy of the Catholic Advance Health Care Directive can be obtained by calling any Catholic Hospital. Some common misunderstandings: 1) Artificial Nutrition and Hydration. This means that a person cannot take food or water by mouth, even if assisted. 2) Quality of Life. Human life is not mere biological existence but rather embodied/biological personal existence that is evaluated as sacred. All human life is sacred and deserving of respect. However, when the condition of a patient is such that a proposed medical intervention cannot possibly help a person pursue personal and sacred goals, then the moral judgment can be made that medical intervention can only offer a burden, is harmful to the patient and not in his/her best interest, and the medical intervention has reached its limits. 3) Persons to Consult. Certainly a Catholic would want to bring a priest into the consultation, especially and importantly for the celebration of the Sacrament of the Sick, but one's physician, nurse and pastoral care teams are in the very best position to expertly and peacefully guide and help. 4) Dying Well. Dying persons face at least these five fears and we all need to be aware of them and be present to the dying person in appropriate and soothing ways: * I don't want to die in pain. CLONING AND STEM CELL RESEARCH Link to site of Do No Harm: The Coalition for Americans for Research Ethics, offering background and current reports on ethics issues surrounding stem cell research – www.stemcellresearch.org History has amply demonstrated the ghastly consequences when government arbitrarily defines what constitutes human life. I am not suggesting that those who want to use human embryonic tissue are of the same mind. However, the law is based on precedent, and once the United States allows the individual human embryo to be sacrificed for a perceived greater good, the greatest defense for the rights of individuals will have been eroded. – Anton Lewis Usala From the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, 2001. The Case Against Funding Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Anton Lewis Usala, M.D.: The question arises: Since human embryonic stem cells may provide the basis for some medical miracles, shouldn’t the federal government fund research utilizing "spare" embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics? Wouldn’t this be a better use for discarded embryos than destroying or freezing them as is currently done? . . . . . Catholic teaching strongly opposes any procedure that willfully terminates innocent human life, from the time of conception until natural death. Jesus Christ taught that each human being is important to God, and each is responsible for his or her own actions. Individuals will be judged not by the goodness of those around them, but by how well they personally have lived according to God’s Word. . . . . All societies are based on the rule of law, even unjust societies. . . . [T]he United States is a uniquely just society, because it is the first government in the history of mankind in which the rights of the individual supersede the perceived rights of the State. The individual is the most valued entity in society. This precept is found in the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. This is the crux of our argument in the secular world–and one which coincides with the teachings of Jesus Christ–that the individual human being is the most sacred and inviolable entity in our society, and can never be seen simply as an object or as raw material to be used for the public good, even so demonstrable a good as another’s health or life. . . . [T]he premise that because the need is great, the effort should be great and ALL possible avenues explored, is clearly not ethically valid. If an adult does not give consent to be an organ donor, states do not presume the right to use that person’s organs for transplantation, even if the person is dead. . . . In this case, the developing human entity, cannot give consent to be sacrificed–hence using precepts of natural law, the State should not subsidize and promote that sacrifice. Catholics . . . believe that each individual has rights and duties, including a duty to respect the existence of other individuals. Simply to claim that the research potential is promising [is not] sufficient to justify funding countless other approaches to curing disease . . . So one cannot reasonably demand funding for this research on the basis that it may have potential to one day mitigate disease, without taking into account the fact that it involves the destruction of living embryonic humans. The ethical arguments that support fetal or embryonic research assume that the fetus and embryo do not have rights equal to individuals further along in their development . . . In short, one must define the embryo as a human cell mass that does not have the same right to life as us, more differentiated cell masses. If that assumption were correct, would it then be unethical not to have embryo farms in order to save the further differentiated human beings who we value more? And which other groups of undeveloped, underdeveloped or no longer productive humans may we apply this premise to next? The most compelling secular argument against funding [embryonic stem cell research] lies in its conflict with the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights establishes a government whereby the rights of the individual supersede the perceived rights of the State. . . . [U]nless the people [retain] their ability to defend the specific individual rights articulated in the first ten amendments, just government [will] eventually devolve into one in which the majority could inflict injustice on less favored groups. . . . [B]y proposing federal support for human embryo research, the State will be deciding the best use of an individual for the State’s purposes, for the first time in American law. . . . Federally sponsored and approved research that endorses using human embryos for social good is a cataclysmic paradigm shift. . . . [that] will for the first time determine that human individuals can be used and destroyed in medical experimentation in the interests of the State. It is our duty as Americans to prevent the destruction of the Bill of Rights through trivializing the protection it affords all individuals, including embryos. It is our calling as Catholics to protect our smallest, most vulnerable treasures. As part of this calling, it is also our responsibility to find God’s Word in secular documents such as the United States Constitution–learn it, articulate it, and live it so as to conduct our lives consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. "Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of His gifts: ‘Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext fro evil; but live as servants of God.’ Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2238) In 2004, the California Catholic Bishops expressed their opposition to California’s Proposition 71 (The Embryo Cloning and Stem Cell Research Bond Act) based on some of the following considerations, support for which can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Sanctity of Life: It is unconscionable to fund the creation and destruction of human embryos in the name of speculative scientific research. According to the catechism, "it is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material." (2275) Social Justice: It is wrong and unjust to launch a costly new state bureaucracy when vital state programs for health, education, and police and fire services are being cut. The catechism states, "the equal dignity of human persons requires the effort to reduce excessive social and economic inequalities. It gives urgency to the elimination of sinful inequalities." (1947) Stewardship: It is wrong and irresponsible to specifically prohibit the Governor and Legislature from exercising oversight and control over how the $3 billion is spent. The catechism points out that, "the exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace. They should take care that the regulations and measures they adopt are not a source of temptation by setting personal interest against that of the community." (2236) The Common Good: It is immoral to deny funding for adult and cord blood stem cell research, even though all the medical breakthroughs have occurred in those areas. The catechism says, "authority is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the common good of society. To attain that it must employ morally acceptable means." (1921) "The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. ‘The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen.’ It is part of the Church’s mission ‘to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of time and circumstances." (2245-2246) On 11/30/2005, Most Reverend Stephen Blaire, Bishop of Stockton and President of the California Catholic Conference, released the following statement expressing strong support for an end to the death penalty in California and affirming the recent statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death: “The California Catholic Conference of Bishops strongly supports an end to the death penalty and affirms the statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, which was issued earlier this month. In light of the fact that California has scheduled three executions—one in December, one in January and one in February—we implore all Californians to ask themselves what good comes of state-sanctioned killing. We recognize the profound pain of those who have lost loved ones to violence and offer them our prayers and our consolation. However, nothing can undo what was done—even taking the life of the convicted killer. The infliction of the death penalty does not make for a more just society. As Catholic bishops, we teach and preach the Gospel vision of a “culture of life.” We believe that we are created in God’s image, which compels us to teach a consistent ethic of life and obligates us to preach that the use of the death penalty does not protect human life nor promote human dignity. We recognize that human beings can and do commit grievous crimes, but we reject the use of the death penalty—especially when we can protect society with an alternate penalty of life imprisonment. In addition, of particular concern to us is the fact that the application of the death penalty is deeply flawed—with those who are poor or from racial minorities most often its subjects. The three pending executions in California are illustrative of these facts. At this moment in time, we entreat Californians to ponder carefully whether the use of the death penalty makes our society safer. A moratorium is needed to evaluate whether the death penalty serves the common good and safeguards the dignity of human life. We are convinced that it does not.”
|