Brian Jenkins

In today's Journal de Montreal, you will find a story, on pages 14-15, entitled "Le bilan de sante du Grand Montreal" - An Inventory of Montreal's Health. The two-page spread outlines various statistics regarding well-being in Montreal, both pros and cons.

I wish to add a statistic that has escaped the editors of the daily. According to Stats Can, for every hundred births in the Quebec hub, there are 60 abortions.  That's right, out of 160 pregnancies, 60 of our defenseless brothers and sisters do not get to see the light of day.

A maternal healthcare non-profit misses out on federal funding whereas the International Planned Parenthood Federation - IPPF, get $6 Million over the next three years. More here.

(See our initial story about IPPF funding last week - Thursday.)

Hear Mr. James Hughes, president of Campaign Life Coalition, and others involved in the Canadian Pro-Life movement interviewed and learn about the history of the pro-life movement in Canada at Priests for Life Canada website.

I found the interview with Mr. Hughes quite informative. After treating about his early days in the pro-life movement, he spoke about his association with Quebec Life Coalition founder, Mr. Gilles Grondin, introduced me to a youth group operating at the UN - World Youth Alliance - started by a Canadian, gave a quick overview of the Canadian political scene that has led to the vacuum of legislation protecting the unborn child, and, lastly, dealt with euthanasia, in Canada and abroad.

These interviews are an hour or so long, without any commercials, safe for a pro-life song.

Enjoy.

Frequently I hear it falsely stated that aborting a child is preferable to having the child live in an abusive environment.

For example, yesterday, this justification made its appearance in two forms. First, as Charlotte and I were setting up at the 40 Days for Life vigil site, a young male in his mid-twenties, awaiting the traffic signal to change and be on his way, asked if either one of us had grown up in a good family. By good family, I understood him to mean one free of abuse. In syllogistic form, this reads:

• A quality of life unbecoming human beings is justification for abortion.
• An abusive home is a quality of life unbecoming human beings.
• Therefore, an abusive home is justification for abortion.

Second, yesterday’s Journal de Montreal ran a story on the increase in cases at the provincial youth protection agency – a.k.a., the DPJ. The article is entitled “Forte hausse des signalements” – “A Sharp Increase in Reporting” and is available here.

I perused the article carefully, looking for evidence which would justify abortion. Three case studies were noted; these are fodder that abortion advocates use in their logic.

This is warped logic for several reasons.

First, as ads for mutual funds advise, future performance is not guaranteed by past behaviour, or something like that. One simply does not know the future, other than God. So, to predict the fate of the unborn is folly.

Second, the first premise is not true. Quality of life is a highly subjective evaluation. A case in point concerns children with Down's syndrome of whom 95% are aborted. The motion picture “Trisomie 21 / Défi Pérou” is one of many instances that show the dignity and value Down's children.

Yes, abusive environments are highly undesirable but to consign a child a death sentence on account of his family is grossly misplaced justice.

Heavenly Father,

Our movement is God driven. Otherwise, we will fail. We know. We have tried to do it on our own and we have failed. We face a colossus. News reports show; the death toll due to abortion – whether surgical, chemical, abortifacients, pregnancy reductions, is huge. These reports reveal that the mountain simply gets bigger.

We pray that the scourge of abortion be lifted from our land,

• Since 1988, Canada has had no legislation regulating the procedure of abortion. Hence, anything and everything goes. At any stage of pregnancy, the child is unsafe – from conception through to delivery.

That those who promote it may be brought to a change of heart;

The shiny red SUV pulled up along the sidewalk. A well-dressed thirty-something man, dark trench coat, unbuttoned, two-piece suit underneath, steps out. Immediately, he spots a solitary figure standing some forty-five feet away. This figure hands clasped is holding a rosary. The driver's stance freezes and stiffens. He glares. The look persists. Fifteen yards separated the two. No words are spoken but the significance escapes neither. He re-enters his vehicle and does a 180, parking on the far side of the busy roadway, a block further away. Re-emerges, brief case in hand and makes his way inside the abortion facility.

That all who are tempted to abortion may be lovingly helped to protect the precious gift of life;

The two women approached the abortion facility unimpeded. One, the younger, a woman in her twenties, drags heavily on her cigarette. The other, an older woman, perhaps in her mid-thirties, walks closely next to the younger. In front of the facility, the younger one stops, again drawing deeply on her cigarette. Her partner's hand goes up, resting on her friend's shoulder. A moment later this same hand gently strokes shoulder and upper arm - consoling her. Another moment goes by. Finally the pair moves, walking up the steps leading into the facility. Again atop, the younger stops. Her cigarette unfinished, she inhales, again deeply. Her friend, always in close proximity, continues her reassuring stroking. The cigarette finished, they walk in.

And that all who have experienced an abortion may be comforted with the healing gift of love.

The young couple walk out. Both in their early to mid twenties. Her gait is unsteady; he provides much support as they walk down the five steps. At the bottom they pause. They continue their walk, she relying on him for support – both physical and emotional.

A dark car pulls up in front of the facility. The driver stays inside but the passenger emerges, springing out and up the steps, into the facility. Moments later two women and two men, the former passenger and another, walk out of the double doors. The younger of the two women is noticeably needy, body hunched and twisted. Her peers offer support, first down the stairs and then into the car. The others pile in and the car drives off.

We ask this through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen.

Lord, by your cross and resurrection, you have set us free. You are the Saviour of the World.

Heavenly Father,

We pray that the scourge of abortion be lifted from our land,

That those who promote it may be brought to a change of heart;

That all who are tempted to abortion may be lovingly helped to protect the precious gift of life;

And that all who have experienced an abortion may be comforted with the healing gift of love.

We ask this through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen.

Kudos to Ms. Isabelle Maréchal. In today’s Journal de Montréal, she critically raises doubts about an existing provincial government’s health care policy affecting our youth. Her article is entitled “L’épidémie inventée” – The Invented Epidemic, and may be read here.

The "invented" epidemic is cervical cancer and the policy, one begun three years ago, consists of the "voluntary" inoculating of our nine year-olds. against the possibility of contracting the HPV virus - the human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted disease, which may be a cause for this cancer.

First, Ms. Marechal points out that we do not have an epidemic. She acknowledges that there have been 80 deaths attributed to cervical cancer and, yes, 80 is 80 too many. Yet does this warrant the label epidemic.

Also, it seems that the label somehow justifies the mass inoculation. Fine for Merck laboratoires that charges $400 per student. This represents about $35 million per year out of the public coffers for a procedure which is not a sure thing. (I wonder whether anybody has heard of abstinancy education.)

Next, Ms. Marechal points to the strong arm technic of the parties involved to coerce parents in this "voluntary program". On the one hand, two physicians who have admitted being Merck's payroll have endorsed the plan.

On the other hand, the provicial government's promotional material reads: “Parents, think about? Do you wish for your daughter to to die from a terrible cancer?" How would you react?

Ms. Marechal points out how disingenuous these claims are. First girls having been inoculated with the very same vaccine have contracted HPV and second the government’s endorsement of the vaccine as a sure fire way to avoid the cancer is false.

Finally, the Journal writer notes that several countries have raised reds flags regarding the safety of the vaccine.

So, why is Mr. Charest and his peers endorsing this expediture? One wonders whether it is more than the construction industry that needs a perusal.

This video is a bit lengthy but well worth the time spent viewing.

Enjoy.

Will the Conservative government grant to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) come back to haunt them?

For those of you unfamiliar with recent proceedings, the CBC announced a week ago - September 22, that the Tories had awarded the provider of abortions $6 million over three years .

Reactions came swiftly from pro-life advocates. Lifesitenews reported on the story here. MyCanada initiated a "contact the PM" web page advocating for immediate action.  

This week the temperature rose a degree. Yesterday, a member of Mr. Harper's  own party, Mr. Brad Trost, the MP for Saskatoon–Humbolt - broke rank and criticised the decision. Several reports on the subject have come out earlier today, two of which from the national press. The Lifesitenews article may be found here , while The National Post article may be found here, and The Globe and Mail here. A CBC interview the Saskatchewan MP may be found here.

Could this be a turninng in PC popularity? More to follow.

p.s. The CBC is asking the following question: "By approving funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, has the government re-opened the abortion debate?" Click here to take part in the poll.

p.p.s. Two other agencies have taken issue with the funding of IPPF by the Canadian government - The UN watchdog Catholic Families & Human Rights Organization and the Catholic Civil Rights League.

Here in Montreal, we kicked off the fall 2011 "40 Days for Life" prayer vigil last night in Lahaie Park - Saint-Joseph Blvd., corner Saint-Laurent.

After welcoming remarks, I invited two of the fourteen people present to address the group. First, I asked Georges (Quebec Life Coalition President, Mr. Georges Buscemi) to say a few words. He spoke eloquently about the importance of the present vigil, not only that for Montreal but for each of the 300 other locations worldwide.

The vigil team is packed with many persons who have participated in each of the previous five campaigns - quite a dedication. I invited one of these to speak next. Charlotte (Ms. Charlotte l'Heureux - a.k.a., "La Memère Charlotte") is seen below sharing her thoughts, which are frequently punctuated with "rimettes" - i.e., an expression she has coined to mean a humourous rhyme.

After the two speakers, night prayer was recited, at the end of which we gathered near the banner that had been lain out on the grass next to the sidewalk. Stringing ourselves along and a few of us holding the banner, Gabriel led us in a few closing prayers. Jerry (seen below, third from the left) added to the evening, as he frequently does during the vigil, in a customary fashion, paying his harmonica (not shown).

The evening ended with refreshments in the community hall of a nearby convent.

The vigil continues through until Sunday, November 6. 

Up is down and down is up?

Please excuse my confusion, but would somebody kindly explain to me what Fr. Donat Gionet did that his bishop, His Grace Most Rev. Valéry Vienneau, Bishop of Bathurst, has revoked his rights to serve mass across the Diocese of Bathurst.

For those of you unfamiliar with recent events in the Acadian peninsula, Fr. Gionet caused a whirlwind of commotion at the end of August. While sub’ing, he preached standard Church doctrine on homosexuality and abortion, and pointed to the lacunas within his own college of priests. All this got him into trouble with his bishop. Synopses of the proceedings may be found here and here.

My confusion isn’t allayed by examining what the principals had to say for themselves. First, I turn to Fr.Giovet. The following written statement is from the father, translated from the original French and given to a local newspaper:

I said: 'Today, it is we Catholics who are destroying our Catholic Church. We need only look at the number of abortions among Catholics, look at the homosexuals, and ourselves.' (That's when I pointed at my chest - through that action I wanted to say, we the priests) and I continued saying: We are destroying our Church ourselves. And that's when I said that those were the words expressed by Pope John Paul II. At that point, in the St-Léolin church only, I added: 'We can add to that the practice of watching gay parades, we are encouraging this evil' ... What would you think of someone who seeing what was happening on (Sept.) 11, 2001, the crumbling of the towers, had begun clapping? We must not encourage evil, whatever form it takes.

Second, as for the diocese several statements were made by the vicar-general, Fr. Wesley Wade. First, “We have to respect people on their own journey.

Has Fr. Giovet has demonstrated a lack of respect to Catholics, of whom he is a member?

The vicar general added:

It was mainly the pastoral approach that was lacking...” and  “A lack of respect, perhaps, for the people identified, for the groups of people as well, which caused a division in the community.  It was a difficult decision.

"Lack of pastoral approach... lack of respect… caused a division in the community." Pray tell how?

Finally the vicar general concluded with the following: “the first message of Christ was to reveal to us a loving father and a merciful father and that we are all called to be his children and that we are all loved unconditionally by Him.”

Can we presume that he is accusing Fr. Giovet for a lack of fatherly love and mercy as well as a lack of unconditional love?

Is not the Good shepherd to guide his sheep over rocks and around briars? As someone with much pastoral experience - Fr. Giovet is 85 years old, his statement strikes me from one who loves the Church dearly, to point of examining its foibles and suggesting how to redress current ills. Pointing to the dangers of abortion and the support of the homosexual lifestyle, he is shedding light upon the ills of current Catholic behaviour rather than leaving it in obscurity. Is fraternal correction dead?