A Time for War: A Response to the D&P Abortion Scandal Report (Part 3 of 4)

This is the third part of a four part series on the D&P Abortion Scandal report issued by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

FACTFINDING BY THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY

The following are the facts found by the Committee of Inquiry, and subsequently accepted by the Permanent Council of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB).

1. The five Mexican organizations do not support or promote abortion. Their goals are to promote access to justice, civil security, the defence of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, the environment, freedom of speech for journalists, protection of persons abducted, and defence of the poor and Aboriginal Peoples.

False.  The “All Rights for Everyone Network” (Red Todos los Derechos para Todos– TDT) was one of the first five groups identified by LifeSiteNews as being a D&P pro-abortion partner.  Before they pulled damning evidence of their pro-abortion-pushing messages off of their website, they published the following statement on it:

 ”The law that permits the legal interruption of pregnancy in the Federal District [Mexico City] represents an advance for the human rights of women,” declared the group. … “The law that permits the legal interruption of pregnancy up to twelve weeks of gestation, which establishes preventative measures in the area of sexual and reproductive health, approved by the Legislative Assembly of the Federal District on the 24th of April, 2007, is a moderate and integral law that has contributed significantly to the exercise of human rights in women, both in the City of Mexico and in some other states,” TDT adds…”We exhort the organs of government, particularly the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, to consolidate the advancement that this law represents and avoid retrogressive actions in prejudice of the human rights of women.” (Source)

Furthermore, “the Director of Mexico’s National Pro-Life Committee has confirmed to LifeSiteNews (LSN) that he is personally aware that at least three of the groups funded by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP) in Mexico are pro-abortion. In a telephone interview, Jorge Serrano told LSN that he is aware that “The All Rights for Everyone Network is an abortionist group, CENCOS [National Center for Social Communication] is also abortionist, and [the Center for] Human Rights Augustin Pro is also abortionist.” Although some of the groups were once Catholic, they no longer are, Serrano said, adding that they have embraced Liberation Theology, which is a socialistic movement condemned by the Catholic Church.” (Source)

2. The five Mexican organizations did include their names on a United Nations Report which represented the sum total of all the recommendations of 50 Mexican human rights organizations. However:

a. Each signatory group had expressed its concerns about one or more human rights.

b. Each organization presented its own views without necessarily consulting the others. This is why some of them, by their signature, now appear to accept what the others had presented.

c. The organizations had only six months to send to the United Nations their observations and hopes on human rights in Mexico. The synthesis of all documents received was done in Geneva and resulted in the United Nations Report being ratified by all of the organizations that had contributed to the inquiry.

d. Unfortunately, some organizations that focused on women’s rights took advantage of this opportunity to add “sexual and reproductive rights”, hoping to open the way to abortion in Mexico and thus also leading to allegations that all the signatory groups supported abortion.

It is true that the “Augustin Pro Juarez Center for Human Rights” (“PRODH”), another one of the five D&P pro-abortion partners, sent a letter to the CCODP claiming that, “We signed the reports for the Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights led by the United Nations with the intention of supporting the general cause of human rights in Mexico; not in order to specifically support the legalization of abortion.” However, LifeSite has already answered this rebuttal by reminding D&P “just last year PRODH signed a public declaration denouncing a proposed amendment to the constitution of the state of Jalisco which would protect the right to life from conception to natural death.  The statement, unlike the two others previously reported, is an exclusively pro-abortion statement. Published on page 25 of the June 9, 2008, edition of the Guadalajara newspaper Publico, the declaration affirms that

attempting to re-penalize abortion will put the lives of the women of Jalisco at risk.” “The public initiative presented by the Association of Mexicans for the Lives of Allto reform the political Constitution of Jalsico with the intention of protecting ‘the life of every individual from conception until natural death’ would eliminate the right of the women of Jalisco to interrupt a pregnancy, including when the life of the woman is in danger or when the pregnancy is the product of a rape,” the declaration reads. The declaration also claims that “the initiative annuls fundamental women’s rights, such as the right to life, to health, and to personal integrity and security.” (Source)

3. While abortion in most instances remains illegal in Mexico, a 2007 legal debate on abortion in Mexico involved a number of groups opposing imprisonment as a punishment for abortion, but continuing to oppose abortion on moral and legal grounds. Other Catholic groups, however, claimed that to be in favour of abolishing imprisonment for abortion meant promoting abortion and not being pro-life.

Isn’t that how the abortion movement works? Incrementally? First depenalize, then normalize, then declare it a “human right”.  This statement only shows just how distant and clueless the CCCB and D&P are about how the abortion juggernaut works.

4. The representatives of the five Mexican organizations were clearly committed to defending human rights. They described in great detail and provided documentation on the programs introduced to improve the lot of the most destitute, victims of oppression, and persons treated unjustly and deprived of their rights.

Yes, BUT, they also support abortion.

5. Withdrawing the financial support of Canadian Catholics would cause immense harm to the five organizations in their work.

Good.  That’s the point.

Get them to renounce their pro-abortion advocacy.  Then, and only then, should they be permitted to get on with legitimate human rights work…if that is, in fact, what they are doing. 

6. With respect to various statements found on their Web sites, the five Mexican organizations have acknowledged the concerns of the Bishops of the Canada.

Huh?!?  Why doesn’t this “fact finding” report reproduce what these “various statements”  were?!  The answer is obvious, is it not?  The statements were pro-abortion statements!   That’s why “concerns” had to be “acknowledged”.  Good grief.  This is becoming one big exercise in absurdity and foolishness.

OTHER FACTS TO BE NOTED

1. The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace adheres to Catholic teaching on the sanctity of each and all human life.

It does? Then why does it fund pro-abortion advocates? And why doesn’t it have a policy of refusing funding to those who do? And why is it necessary for the Development and Peace staff be encouraged to develop a good and sound understanding of the social doctrine of the Church?

2. Development and Peace does not fund projects that support or promote abortion.

Broken. Record.  

3. Development and Peace does not fund groups or organizations, but provides funding assistance for specific projects, each of which are individually approved.

Then why does D&P keep referring to their “PARTNERS” all over their website and reports?  Show us the “project” bank accounts and the proper accounting and audit of how the money was used. Then maybe we can start getting some real answers. Until then, this is all just a pathetic whitewash.  By the way…..

Core funding is provided to our partners and relationships are established with a medium- to long-term view, in recognition that social change results take time and organizations require stability to effectively implement their vision. Many of the partnerships DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE establishes last more than 10 years.”  (Source, p. 15, under the heading : Programming principles)

A Time for War: A Response to the D&P Abortion Scandal Report (Part 1 of 4)

A Time for War: A Response to the D&P Abortion Scandal Report (Part 2 of 4)

A Time for War: A Response to the D&P Abortion Scandal Report (Part 4 of 4)

D&P ABORTION SCANDAL VIDEO & INDEX PAGE

2 thoughts on “A Time for War: A Response to the D&P Abortion Scandal Report (Part 3 of 4)

  1. We need to organize a DEBATE between Archbishop Weisgerber and somebody from the pro-life side, perhaps John-Henri Weston. Only by sitting down face to face will we be able to force them to address the specific evidence and not let them dance around the issue.

  2. Obviously this “fact-finding committee” hasn’t read D & P’s own “Program of support for the South (2006-2011)” where it is stated :

    “Core funding is provided to our partners and
    relationships are established with a medium- to long-term
    view, in recognition that social change results take time and
    organizations require stability to effectively implement their
    vision. Many of the partnerships DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE
    establishes last more than 10 years.”
    (Source : http://www.devp.org/devpme/eng/publications/documents/2006-2011PROGRAM_ENG.pdf -p. 15, under the heading : Programming principles)

    That’s a huge dissonance with “Development and Peace does not fund groups or organizations, but provides funding assistance for specific projects, each of which are individually approved.”

    All in all, this pathetic attempt to whitewash D&P, has only served to discredit both it and the CCCB. This report and D&P’s and the bishops’ public comments since the beginning of this affair have been replete with sophistry, as have been the replies I have personnally received from D&P, the CCCB and my own bishop’s spokesperson. It is really quite the insult to the Canadian Catholic’s intelligence, considering one has access to all the documentation necessary to form one’s opinion on the matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
4 × 29 =