From LifeSite’s Report.
…In response to LifeSiteNews’ question about the statement, CCCB media relations director Rene Laprise explained that D&P cannot always obtain the local bishop’s permission for a project.
Have I missed something? So now the CCCB media relations director is talking to LifeSite after bouncing them from the Plenary a couple of days ago? Can someone fill me in on what exactly is going on here? Has the CCCB brain trust finally figured out that banning pro-life news media from their Assemblies is not exactly the way to “communicate” their message? I sure hope so, otherwise, we’re dealing with some serious schizo issues here.
“There will … need to be [flexibility], especially in situations when communication is difficult within a diocese, such as during civil war, or when government is antagonistic toward Church efforts on behalf of literacy or democratic movements, or during other forms of social unrest,” Laprise said.
In such situations, he continued, D&P may need to consult with a neighboring bishop or the local bishops’ conference instead.
“There are times when a local Bishop cannot authorize a CCODP project without endangering himself or his diocese,” Laprise said.
Oh pulease! Is that the gist of what Bishop Fred Henry was getting at in his interview? Civil War? Give me a break. He didn’t even come close to suggesting that. He made it sound like it was ultimately D&P’s decision, regardless of what the local bishop said, otherwise there would have been no point in bringing in the “nihil obstat”.
Besides, this excuse doesn’t really cut it. The conditions Mr. Laprise raises are virtually irrelevant and moot.
#1 – What is D&P going to be doing in a civil war zone anyhow? Setting up more condom-promoting radio stations, perhaps?
#2 – Unless the bishop is under arrest and in prison, under what circumstances would it not be possible to communicate with him? Rome is still able to communicate with underground bishops in China, after all.
This clarification by the CCCB is an EPIC FAIL of a communication because either Bishop Henry’s original comments stand or the CCCB’s media director’s comments are reflective of the true intentions of the working policy.
Well, which is it? Because they are very different.
I invite Mr. Laprise on to this blog to reconcile Bishop Henry’s comments with his own “clarification”, as reported by LifeSiteNews.
For me and the pro-life community, the rubber hits the road on the single most important requirement: if the local bishop rejects the group, there should be absolutely no partnership. PERIOD. Bring on the nihil obstat!
“One of the purposes for the CCCB Standing Committee for CCODP is so Development and Peace can talk these challenges and difficulties over with our own Bishops, and also so the CCCB can work with CCODP in helping it extend its contacts with Bishops in the Global South.”
Bishop Henry, who serves on that standing committee, has in the past maintained that it is acceptable for D&P to fund projects run by “pro-choice” groups.
“CCODP is not supporting abortion but a project to help the poor and their partners also happen to [be] pro-choice,” the bishop wrote in an e-mail to concerned pro-lifers in 2009. “There is an important difference between the two.”
“Lifesite’s position seems to suggest that before we cooperate with anyone or any organization in supporting a good action, our opening question must be: ‘What is your stance on abortion?’ and that as the litmus test should override everything else. I don’t think that this would be the starting point of Jesus.”
Frankly, yes, your Grace. For the Catholic faith and Catholic partnership, abortion is the litmus test, among many such non-negotiable tests. It’s all about re-establishing our “Catholic identity”, as the Pope has insisted we do. The thing about identities is that you need boundaries in order to form them. Boundaries help to form identity. It keeps muddled thinking and the drugged-up “spirit” of Vatican II out, and provides some coherence and consistency to what we believe as Catholics.
The fact that you don’t get it only serves to show us why you should excuse yourself from this Committee. Perhaps your past and current tragic support of the Winnipeg Statement has something to do with your original position on the issue of supporting pro-abort groups. The Winnipeg Statement, as you may or may not realize, provided the foundation for your original position on funding pro-abort groups, and continues to obviously impact your reticence to come around fully and respect the Church’s ecclesiological nature as well.
For you and the rest of the Canadian bishops, it’s a question of obedience and deferrence to ecclesiatical authority that is not your own.
And as for a “starting point of Jesus is concerned”, it is certainly true that Our Blessed Lord was very open to gently correcting the woman caught in adultery. But, we must admit, He wasn’t so keen in plundering His ministry’s treasury to finance her existing lifestyle, which I’m sure was not all just about sexual immorality or prostitution.