Threads by bdeaner and me.
In the wake of the Notre Dame commencement scandal, Catholic college leaders representing some of the worst violators of the U.S. bishops 2004 ban on honoring public opponents of fundamental Catholic teachings are lobbying the bishops to withdraw their policy.
Yesterday the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), which represents more than 200 Catholic institutions, released its summer 2009 newsletter, including a report on the ACCUs board of directors meeting last week. The ACCU directors concluded that it would be desirable for the [U.S. bishops] to withdraw their 2004 policy, according to the newsletter.
The policy in question is found in the U.S. bishops 2004 statement Catholics in Political Life, which reads in part:
The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.
The bishops gather today in San Antonio, Texas, for their biannual meeting.
Why is it so hard for Catholic college leaders to understand that a Catholic institution does great harm when it honors or gives speaking platforms to those who work against core Catholic values? said Patrick J. Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society. . .
______________________________________________________________
June 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) A national Catholic higher education organization has identified 10 Catholic colleges and universities that are promoting student internships with organizations whose missions or activities are directly opposed to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, including on fundamental issues such as abortion and marriage. This discovery validates the concerns of so many thousands of faithful Catholic parents and students, that public scandals at Catholic colleges are just the tip of the iceberg, said Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society (CNS). Under what definition of Catholic education do students receive academic credit to work for leading pro-abortion organizations? Last week, CNS wrote to the presidents of these colleges and universities to inform them of the problems with their internship programs. None have yet indicated that they will take steps to remedy the problems. . .
Thanks for keeping up with this, wagglebee! We need to be vigilent. God bless.
Thread by me.
NEW YORK, NY, June 19, 2009 (C-FAM) - A year-and-a-half after the "Global 'Safe Abortion'" conference took place in London, abortion advocates Marie Stopes International and Ipas just released the conference report detailing the abortion movements worldwide strategy.
While organizers claimed that the primary objective of the conference was to "save women's lives and reduce maternal mortality," the report reveals that participants prioritized a so-called "right" to "safe and legal abortion" above all else dismissing any evidence of its harmful effects on women and even denying the right of conscientious medical professionals to object to participating in abortions.
The 800 conference participants, culled from the world's major abortion advocacy groups, crafted and signed the "Global Call to Action for Womens Access to Safe Abortion" demanding that women everywhere "have full access to legal, voluntary, safe, and affordable abortions as part of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care." The Call to Action also demanded that governments reform their laws and policies "at all levels" to ensure "rights to contraception and safe abortion," and that medical schools provide "physicians, nurses, midwives, and other healthcare workers" with abortion training.
Presenters lamented that even where abortion is legal, there are technical and policy barriers to contend with, such as shortages of trained, authorized healthcare personnel, particularly in rural areas. Strategies to address this lack of access to abortion focused on training non-physician "mid-level providers," such as nurses and midwives, and promoting "medication abortion" to "facilitate" the "expulsion of uterine contents," as well as undermining conscience protections relied on by physicians, nurses and other health care workers opposed to taking unborn life. . .