Lesbian Bishopess

As I've noted earlier, the Episcopal Church is setting themselves up for a schism. This time, it's right here in Chicago.

A lesbian Episcopal priest has made the top-five list of bishop-candidates for the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago. The list includes three women. No woman has ever been a finalist before.

"I believe that accepting this nomination is what God is asking of me," Rev. Tracey Lind said in a statement. The openly lesbian cleric is dean of Trinity Cathedral in Cleveland and author of Interrupted by God.

Bishop James Stanton of Dallas, a leader in the global effort against gay bishops, called Lind's nomination distressing.

"It's an action that says Chicago really doesn't care what the rest of the Anglican Communion says," he told the Sun-Times.

Yep, that's because the "Anglican Communion" isn't real. All that holds them together is stubbornness and not being Catholic. They started with the King wanting to divorce, and yet expect to maintain some sort of worldwide unity. There is no reason for them to be unified.

The worldwide Anglican Communion has been dealing with the possibility of schism since 2003, when the Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

"My life with my partner, Emily Ingalls [a cradle Episcopalian], is the gift that most sustains me," Lind's statement said. "Together, we tend our garden, travel, hike."

And, as I said before, bishop Robinson is going to get gay married soon. That's not going to help things. This is all just a case of trying to politicize Church in a way it should not be. Bishops should be chosen because they are the best person for the job, or something like that; fidelity to the creeds and administrative savvy, and all that. If you are just choosing a bishop to anger the rest of the world, this is something you should reflect on.

-JG

A (real) bishop for Women's ordination

A real Catholic Bishop in Australia said that the Vatican should look into changing it's practice of ordaining only celibate men. (Article)

Bishop Pat Power, an auxiliary of the Canberra, Australia diocese, has indicated his support for an end to mandatory clerical celibacy, and suggested a new discussion of the possibility of ordaining women.

In a public response to a campaign by Australian Catholic activists to end the celibacy discipline, Bishop Power said that while Vatican leaders are unwilling to reconsider the issue, among "ordinary Catholics" he has found both support and "a sense of urgency" about the need for change.

"Where there is the conviction that the Eucharist is at the heart of Catholic belief and practice, there must be questions asked about disciplinary laws in the Church which have the net effect of denying many Catholics regular access to the Eucharist," the Australian bishop wrote. He said that by limiting priestly ministry to celibate men the Church was in effect restricting access to the Eucharist "because of the scarcity of priests."

Bishop Power went on the praise Australian activists for raising the question of ordination for women. The bishop said that he recognized "the sensitivity to the question at the level of the Vatican," but called for "a more open and thorough examination of the issues around the ordination of women and the whole structure of the priesthood."

Does anyone honestly think this makes any sense? As the article goes on the point out, the issue is closed, Pope John Paul II said: "I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

In reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Papal Infallibility, it is easy to see that this is not a personal decree of the pope, but rather an ex cathedra decree. He clearly intended this to be universal.

In my vote, this is so scandalous, that this Bishop should be forced to recant and/or resign.

-JG

Ding Dong

A Roman Catholic priest is being fined 5,000 euros by municipal officials each time he rings his church bell for early morning Mass.

Municipal officials of Tilburg, 115 km south of Amsterdam, are responding to the complaints of residents about the bells ringing at 7:15 a.m. each day.

According to municipality spokesman Thomas Heesters, city officials urged Fr. Harm Schilder for months to stop ringing the early morning bell of the Holy Margarita Maria Church. But when the priest did not comply, the city warned that starting Aug. 16, he would be fined for every morning the bell sounds, reported The Associated Press.

Despite the threat, the bells rang out again Thursday and Friday.

''The council does not want to get involved in this - it's a house of prayer - but we have to take into account the feelings of local residents,'' Heesters was quoted as saying.

The first fine was to be delivered on Friday. If the priest refuses to pay, Heesters reportedly said, the municipality could send bailiffs to the church.

The Diocese of Den Bosch has asked the priest to stop the ringing the bell or take measures to make it quieter ''to prevent further escalation in the case.''

The parish website posted a statement, saying it is taking the complaint seriously and looking into whether it could install a smaller bell. “Legally, the parish has a right to ring the bell,” the statement said.

“People who are bothered by the bell should know that we pray for them in the Mass,” the message concluded.

The bells did not sound on Monday morning.

(Article)
If they think 7:15 is bad, they should be glad they don't ring the Angelus bells at 6, noon and 6.

Everything is better in Spain

Having a Spanish housemate, I am oft informed how much better some of the things are from Spain. Two news articles are telling of this fact, how much better abortion and the loss of faith is in Spain.

During the last ten years, abortions have almost doubled with an increase of 90.5 percent, making Spain the European country with the greatest increase in the number of abortions, followed by Belgium and Holland.

IFP president Eduardo Hertfelder said 97,000 abortions took place in 2006. “If this trend continues, in 2010 one out of every five pregnancies (125,000 annually) will end in abortion,” he said.

He noted that abortions in 200 were up six percent from 2005, and that the statistics indicate that at the very least, “266 children are not born each day in Spain because of abortion, resulting in one abortion taking place every 5.4 minutes.”

He called the government’s policies “obsolete and erroneous” and said it was “unheard-of that in these times the Ministry of Health does not want to make a distinction between abortions carried out for life or health of the mother and those carried out for psychological reasons, when these represent practically all (96.7%) abortions that take place. “To continue hiding the reality or hiding in empty policies is not, therefore, an effective solution,” Hertfelder stated.

That's something all the abortion people talk about all the time "health of the mother", and "rape or incest". What they don't say is how small a fraction that really makes up.

According to a survey conducted by the Investiga research firm, although 73.8 percent of Spaniards say they are Catholic, only 36 percent admit that they are practicing.

And the article goes on to say that more women than men practice. I wonder what the percentages would be if they more strictly defined "practicing".

Everything is better in Spain.

-JG

Wikipedia and the Vatican

The BBC recently accused the Vatican of tampering with Wikipedia articles, but this is something that Vatican officials deny. (Article)

The Vatican on Friday denied BBC reports that it tampered with the Wikipedia online encyclopedia entry for Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams.

Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican Press Office, said such an initiative on the part of the Vatican would be “absurd,” reported ANSA.

The BBC reported on Wednesday that the Wikipedia Scanner, which reveals the identity of organizations that edit the online encyclopedia, recorded that Vatican computers were used to change a Web page about Adams.

The edit removed links to newspaper stories, which alleged that Adams' fingerprints and handprints were found on a car used in a double murder in 1971.

Fr. Lombardi said there are many computers at the Vatican and it is possible that an individual may have accessed Wikipedia from a Vatican computer. But the idea that the edit was an initiative of the Holy See is “without any logic,” he said.

As if the Vatican had nothing better to do. I'm sure that this article tampering/editing list has thousands of listings, but the one from a computer located at the Vatican stuck out. I wonder if in a library or something in the Vatican, if there is wireless access and any computer that wanted could access the internet and be considered a Vatican IP.

Isn't that what Wikipedia is for, though? A place for whomever, wherever, to edit and change articles as they please? Isn't that the point of a Wiki? Why should anyone even care if the Vatican wanted to change facts, just like Steven Colbert.

Curing Procreation

An Archbishop from Manila said recently that there was no cure for having children. (Article)

According to Archbishop Oscar Cruz of Lingayen-Dagupan, head of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal, a priest who sired a child cannot be rehabilitated. "No matter how you assist this priest, that child remains and he has a natural obligation towards the child."

Well, there is one way I can think of. This might go against Catholic morality and one of the commandments, or something, but it would solve the problem. Something like that, yeah.

In Archbishop Cruz's view, bishops who "overlook" or "just forgive" misconduct by their clergy face problems. If one priest is "allowed to misbehave" and continue in the ministry, "there will be more," the prelate warned, expressing concern about tolerance sending a "wrong signal" to seminarians.

In the northern Philippine archdiocese he has led for 16 years, "about 17 priests have left because there's a woman, there's a child or there's a boyfriend," the prelate said Aug. 3 at the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) headquarters in Manila.

Those numbers don't seem too bad. He does have a good point, though. It's the slippery slope of priestly discipline. Although everyone knows what is right and wrong, if the wrong is accepted by silence, and not punished by authority, there could be a view of "Oh, I guess it's not that bad. I didn't kill a guy."

Archbishop Cruz, however, said he could "only guess" the total number of priests with children. In the Catholic Directory of the Philippines, the former CBCP president noted, most dioceses list inactive priests who have fathered children among priests "on leave," "with no assignment" and other categories.

This only demonstrates what a problem people see this as. So much so that we need to cover it up.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales of Manila, chairman of the Episcopal Commission on Clergy, has acknowledged most bishops are "not of the punitive school of thought."

At the Aug. 15 inauguration of John Mary Vianney-Galilee Development and Retreat Center southeast of Manila, he told UCA News: "Thank God the bishops of the Philippines did not advocate the 'one-strike-you're out' policy." Instead, the CBCP "accepted" the position that the church should give "fallen" priests "help" to "repair the man (and) help him repent."

The commission maintains a priest with one child can undergo "curative measures," the cardinal said. "Singular events" may spell a "weakness" that can be treated "pastorally," and which can be healed through "a program that encourages a person to be better rather than just punishing him," he elaborated.

However, he stressed, a priest with more than one child is helped to leave the ministry. Moreover, "the church is very strict about those who have abused, who repeatedly hurt or take advantage of people."

So, one is not enough. "Oh, so you just fathered one child out of wedlock, and therefore we can only confirm that you violated your priestly vows once, so I suppose we should give you a break, right." I would be interested to know what the ratio of number of priests who have more than one child to the number with at least one child. I would guess it is high enough to justify requiring any priests found to be fathers in the biological sense to be removed from active ministry, then laicized. (Note here, this priest is still a priest, and is able to exercise the priestly ministry, though would be barred from that.)

The pastor of my parish at the end of my high school years left the priesthood for this reason. Word was he was either an expecting father, or actually had a child. Supposedly he ended up getting married, though legally, not in the Church. This was quite a strange situation for our parish. The mass, under him, lost "the sense of the holy". He didn't even reverence the blessed sacrament after the consecration, like he should have.

I think that the Bishops need to be serious about sexual discipline in their priests. Sexual chastity and priestly celibacy is of the utmost importance. When this is neglected, you get the diocese of Los Angeles settling a bazillion sexual abuse cases and all but bankrupting.

-JG

Music "of the people"

National Catholic Register had an article in their most recent issue about liturgical music and Vatican II.

The first couple lines caught my attention

In the documents of the Second Vatican Council is a mandate for an encouragement of the popular in music — the “music of the people” at Mass.

This is an aspect of Vatican II that lovers of fine music hope will not always be understood as it has been by many parishes — for several reasons.

and I thought that this was going to be someone defending electric guitar and tambourine as valid liturgical instruments. But, rather than lay out why these reasons people don't like liturgical kumbuya just to debunk them, he lays out why they are well founded.

For one, it could not be foreseen at the time of the council how “music of the people” outside the church would evolve — that is, American pop music was just then beginning a conquest of the entire world. By the 1980s, it would inundate it, in all forms of media.
...
Today it is possible to hear a mild rock beat (such as might have been found in the Everly Brothers, for example) in almost every kind of music in the world — even in new church songs. Folk guitar players, too often, don’t know what to do but strum their guitars in mild rock rhythm.

Many new songs have the typical three- and four-chord harmonies of pop songs and melodies that do not reach the level of the mediocre when compared to disciplined music, the great hymns, Gregorian chant or classical melody.

From a technical-musical point of view, most pop music is unaccomplished as music. However, there can be no question that this is now “the music of the people.”

"Jesus, Jesus. Jesus in the morning, Jesus in the noontime. Jesus, Jesus. Jesus when the sun goes down." Not to mention the myriad of other musics that occur at Church. The homily at one of the Churches I attended on Sunday was about music and music styles. He reminded us that it is not just the lyrics we have to watch out for, but that even the most wholesome lyrics could be wrapped in insidious melodies which could lead us down the wrong path. The ancients knew that certain melodies raised our minds to heaven.

He goes on to discuss how we got to the state we are in.

One fact of my own experience serves as a telling sign of the weakness of the volunteer system in church music. As a published composer of symphonies, ballets and operas (and I am a pianist, violinist, and guitarist) — I have never once been spontaneously asked for advice by anyone — priests and lay musicians alike — in the whole of my life as a Catholic in America. I am invariably asked, quite casually, to sing in choirs and play at Mass — and to work under a volunteer little qualified for his or her position.

It is remarkable that no one has ever asked me to do something — not even in a single question — worthy of my expertise in music. I do not raise this point because of sour grapes — I am content in my work as a classical composer; I raise it as a first-hand example of the lack of interest in musical improvement in the volunteer system.

It is probably an example of what I call the "vocal minority syndrome" in which a few persons with their own ideas get into power, or at least complain a lot; they volunteer for roles and drive decision making. This happens and the average man in the pew isn't really considered. The average John or Mary in the Church isn't likely to be the one who likes to speak up about things, and also they are unlikely to enjoy too many liturgical innovations. And since the people in the pew don't complain, the people in power just keep doing the same. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

-JG

Should we pray to Allah?

In an alarming article, a Catholic Bishop from the Netherlands tells Christians that they should start calling God "Allah" in our prayers.

Bishop Martinus "Tiny" Muskens of Breda told the "Network" television show that "God doesn't really care how we address Him."

Hmm? This morning at Mass, I remember praying "Our Father who art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name...". If the name of God is truly hallowed, then it is probably important. God would not have revealed his name to us if it wasn't important.

Pointing out that "Allah" is a term already used by Christians who speak Arabic, Bishop Muskens said that humans are needlessly divided over such terminology. God, the bishop said, is above such "bickering."

The Dutch bishop admitted that his suggestion was not likely to gain widespread acceptance. But he predicted that within a century or two, Dutch Catholics would be addressing prayers to "Allah."

Think this is prophetic? I do. The way Muslims are moving into Europe, and the way that European governments are embracing Islam while pushing away Christianity makes me think there is a chance that within 200 years, there could be a totalitarian fundamentalist Islamic state within Europe. Persecutions of Catholics, forcing them to pray to a foreign God are not so out of the question as to be absurd.

I am not an exert in Islam. I know they have a number of things that are good, or at least acceptable. But I also understand that their theology is quite flawed, to the point of building up a God who is not the Christian God. For instance, I understand that the view of God is that he is not exactly personal, but instead controls all that is in the Universe. Essentially nothing happens without the hand of God acting and willing it. The Christian God is merciful, the Muslim God is the active force in the world. Not a molecule moves without Allah acting on it. This is a different God than the one who would become Man and empty Himself on the Cross.

Maybe this Bishop should join with the priestess of the Anglican community who decided she is both Christian and Muslim.

-JG

TV not "Gay" enough

A new report from the Gay and lesbian alliance against defamation (GLAAD) reports that prime time TV is not gay enough. That's right not gay enough. Seriously, why am I here, the jokes are plenty crude on their own, and they pretty much write themselves. I found the report here.

TV is not gay enough, but ABC is getting close. They rated the primetime lineups of the major networks from failing to excellent, and I'll summarize a bit of it.

• ABC got a rating of "good" with 15% of "gay inclusive TV" in their primetime lineup.
• CW rated "fair" with 12% gay TV
• NBC rated "fair" with 9%
• CBS rated "fair" with 7%
• FOX rated "failing" with 6%

This list makes me think some math thoughts. (My younger brother once, when doing homework, remarked that math was gay. Coincidence? I don't think so.) If you fail with 6% or less, and are fair with 7%, then this is the cutoff. If we assume a linear scale, then 7-12% would be considered fair, consistent with their stated data. This means 13-18% is considered "good" and 19% or higher is considered "excellent".

Where does the number 6% come from? I would guess it is derived from the fact that someone must fail, and it must be FOX. People really don't like FOX. Except, that is, for television viewers, especially the young people. Top rated networks are CBS and FOX, and, yet, they have the least gay programming.

But, really, who is counting how gay TV is? Why are we doing this? These are the questions that need asking, and answering. How gay is gay enough? How gay is too gay? Having watched some TV in my day, I can assert that some of TV is fairly gay.

Let's take their numbers and ratings seriously for a bit. TV that is gay enough is probably rated good, though they would probably like to see everyone rated excellent. Let's assume "good" starts at 13%. This is like an eighth, and saying primetime is 3 hours a day 7 days a week, means we expect 2-3 hours a week of gay TV, which would be a half hour sitcom every weekday or a gay show on every primetime lineup every other day.

But, they are justified, right? Gay people make up a significant demographic, right? If we consult wikipedia, that repository of all that is true, we find that people will cite between 1 and 10% gay population, but that a critical look at the studies puts a mean around 3-4%. This means in order to simply not fail, you should have twice the population percent representation, and to be good, that should be 3 or 4 times. Not everyone deserves this treatment, but I suppose the underrepresented, or historically (or currently) bashed groups deserve such treatment? It sounds reasonable, right?

Well if we take this for one of the groups who is still misrepresented in America, we see the fallacy of this argument. Catholics are still regularly bashed in the mainstream media and their representation is almost only as a priest abusing kids, or something like that. Catholics represent 24% of the population, and so, in order to not fail, half of all TV should be portraying Catholics accurately and as awesome. 75% of all TV would be "good" and if all TV was properly portraying Catholics, we might consider it, then as "excellent".

There is no reason why we should be counting out the hours and minutes that TV is specifically portraying gays in a specifically positive light. The amount they demand seems high. If TV networks like ABC want to show lots of gay shows, and their advertisers want to support them, fine. If networks like CBS and FOX want to not show much gay TV, and people want to watch that, also fine. The market seems to work just fine. Except for the Catholics. That's what you get for being a majority and a minority. (Catholics are by far the largest Christian sect, but still there are twice as many total Protestants.)

This was at one point the end of the post, but I decided to look a little more into this. A quote from their website is quite telling:

The airwaves quite literally belong to each and every one of us, and, as such, networks have an obligation to reflect the faces and stories of their viewers.

Oh, really? Is that how the airwaves work? This is part of the entitlement mentality. The homosexuals feel entitled to TV time. How much? However much they want, that's how much. If each group wanted proper representation that would essentially mean we need to count out each little statistic, and make sure each group gets represented. Also, therefore, if we are going to do that, we need to make sure no group gets overrepresented. This is where the logic leads. 70% white, whatever precent black, hispanic, asian, etc. 3-4% gay (definitely no more than 10%), 52% protestant, 24% catholic, only 2% mormon, no more than 1% jewish. Nobody is expecting, nor advocating this, but this is where the logic leads. What the various groups want, really is the white christian to be represented 0% and the rest of TV be divided up among the various minorities. Sigh...

In case you were wondering, I laughed every line I read and wrote.

-JG

On the Internet

For purely vain reasons, I searched for my blog on the internet. This was in an attempt to see if anyone else might have ever referenced me, linked to me, or anything like that. Nobody had, as expected, but I did find some interesting sites. Like this one:

We love the souls of the Roman Catholic people; but we abhor popery, Romish rituals, and the Roman church's many ungodly, unbiblical doctrines. As our Articles of Faith state, "We hold the pope to be antichrist spoken of in 1 John 2:18, the man of sin and son of perdition spoken of in 2 Thessalonians, chapter two. We believe the Roman Catholic Church to be none other than the woman who rides the beast spoken of in Revelation, chapter seventeen."

I'm glad to share the internet with these good fellows.

As an interesting side note, I like how they have a history of anti-Popery that dates back to 1646 (361 years, but who's counting). I bet we could come up with documents opposing their views, and espousing ours from about the year 500 (probably earlier). That's 1500 years, but again, who's counting?

Thanks for allowing me this indulgence, internet.

-JG

The lay pastor

It is rare for me to cite an article that was blogged about by another, which I read about there. It is even less often (never?) that I would write about someone else's blog post. Indeed, that is what I am doing today. I read about this post first on the Curt Jester. The original blog post found here. Also, forgive my abhorrent English above.

This commentary is great. It is a critique of the office of Parish Life Collaborator (or also Coordinator) (PLC). This is a lay person or a Nun, or an otherwise non-priest assigned to a parish with no priest to oversee parish work, and I suppose pastoral duties. This is a response to the lack of priestly vocations, but, as Fr. Powell points out, is also a hindrance to those vocations.

The biggest problem, he notes, is the fact that in these parishes, there is no visible example of the priesthood to aspire to.

We know young men need male leadership in order to be properly challenged to sacrifice secular enticements. Sister's appointment is one more example of the feminization of the Church and another nail in the coffin of priestly vocations.

This is a move (sideways and under the guise of an "emergent crisis") to undermine presbyteral authority in the parish by emptying the role of pastor of its orders. IOW, this is a move to make it possible to be appointed Pastor (even if not in name) w/o being an ordained priest. Priests will simply become traveling Sacrament Machines. The office of Priest Director will fade as demand for priests grows. Interesting side note: priests now are starting to look a whole like bishops in the Patristic period!

Wow, I've never thought of it that way, so much. Back home there is such a shortage of priests that they are merging parishes, and individual priests are holding down three or four churches. If these observations aren't bad enough, check out these predictions.

a). even with the availability of newly ordained priests, PLC's will continue to "pastor" their parishes with Fr. Newbie hanging around for "mentoring." He will be graduated to a staff position and made a "member of the team."

b). Within five years (but before the Fr. Newbies arrive) PLC's will demand the right to preach at Mass since Fr. Sacramental Minister isn't in residence and doesn't know the parish. How can he possibly preach to us when he doesn't know us?

c). Look for a new book of ceremonies to appear from The Liturgical Press, Liturgies for Pastoral Life Coordinators quite soon. It will be argued that since PLC's play a special role in the life of the parish, the church needs liturgies designed to celebrate their unique ministry. Translation: we need liturgical validation for the invention of the PLC so that the concept of the PLC is more easily tolerated over time. Liturgies bestow legitimacy and normalize innovation.

d). Parishes administered by female PLC's will produce far fewer priestly vocations than parishes run by priest-pastors. This NOT b/c women intentionally deter vocations or somehow jinx boys into believing that the priesthood is bad--how many priests today trace their vocations back to a religious sister? My point is that w/o active, visible, and regular priestly leadership in a parish, a boy or young man cannot "see" the priesthood in action.

Eeek. And yet, I think he's on to something. What he doesn't say, but I will, is that there are likely nefarious forces, waiting in the wings, ready to pounce on this, to change the Church, and remake it in their image. I speak of the "ordain women" (or womyn) types using this as a spring board to try underhandedly to remake the Church (or Chyrch, maybe). That said, many (likely most) of these PLC's will be good people, filling a perceived need at the request of their Bishops. I hope.

We are being asked to normalize the absence of the ordained ministry; or, at the very least, we are being asked to support purely functional solutions to an engineered crisis until we no longer see the absence of a priest as a problem. In other words, we are being slowly accustomed to the Protestantization of the Catholic Church in the U.S.

A process that started more than 40 years ago, when the spirit (poltergeist, really) of Vatican II got out of its box.

One thing I heard on the radio that was relevant to this was about the feminizing of our culture. In the post-war 60's new empowered woman stuff, out came a bunch of support for girls and women seeking careers. What happened, this lady asserted, was that boys were left behind, and forgotten. After all, what boy wants to go out and do real work (studying, etc.) when some girl can do his job. With all these support structures in place for girls going into technical careers and business, boys have been left by the wayside, and not pushed to their full potentials. I think this is related to the lack of vocations. Add in the fact that now women might be able to do the job of pastor, and it just might be a lost cause.

Pray for vocations hard enough and you might just get one.

-JG

Banning abortion is now criminal

Apparently, now it is "criminal" for a country or place to limit or ban abortion. At least that's what the UN says. (Article)

What surprises me the most is simply the fact that it would be essentially viewed as a crime against humanity to disallow abortion. When did this happen, and why wasn't I informed? This is a group who seeks to end all forms of discrimination against women, and they are deciding now that abortion (or lack thereof) constitutes discrimination. Why don't they ban the Church, after all, the Church is the mystical body of Christ, and Christ is God, and God created men and women differently, and so is discriminatory. This logic wouldn't surprise me.

It's really the complete lack of an understanding of proper argumentation and logic that surprises me.

When the Honduran delegation responded that government efforts were aimed at prevention of early and unwanted pregnancies, committee member Silvia Pimentel-- a faculty member at the Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo-- fired back that the government had been as comprehensive as possible on prevention and that "there are situations where prevention is not enough." She continued, "Women have their reasons to seek an abortion, which should be respected." Pimentel admitted that those reasons did not always include a threat to the mother's life, but that she could not understand the abortion ban in Honduras where "the interests of the fetus outweigh those of the mother."

Using this logic, there should be no criminal law whatsoever. The thief has his reason to steal things, which should be respected. The murderer has his reason to kill people, which should be respected. The genocider has his reasons to extinguish another race, which should be respected. Also, why should we consider or not the interests of anyone over anyone else? Why should we think of the interests of someone with two healthy kidneys over someone who has none? Does anyone think this woman would be willing to give up a kidney tomorrow, just because her interests cannot be taken above someone else's? Note also, this person is on the faculty of a Catholic school. Why doesn't this surprise me?

Driving home the committee’s stance during Hungary’s review, Silvia Pimentel criticized the content of Hungary's planning materials. The Brazilian expressed concern over brochures entitled "Life is a Miracle," saying that conservatives often construed such material as reason for not having an abortion.

So, even having a reason to not have an abortion is bad now?

Other CEDAW committee members pressed Belize, Brazil, Kenya, and Liechtenstein on their abortion laws, calling on them to institute legal reform to formally permit abortions.

And this is why nobody takes the UN seriously. This commission on human rights, or whatever they are, is unwilling to stick with actual human rights violations, and just has to start messing with another political agenda. Why not press China to stop forcing women to get abortions, rather than tell countries they should allow abortion on demand?

I'm just sayin'.
-JG