Christian Newswire reports that Irish pharmacist and pro-life leader Patrick McCrystal is in New York City this week for the U.S. launch of his second book, which deals with the devastating effect contraception has on marriages and the culture as a whole.
McCrystal's book comes on the heels of Nancy Gibb's recent expose in Time magazine, "Love, Sex, Freedom and The Paradox of the Pill," which celebrates the "first medicine ever designed to be taken regularly by people who were not sick." This was followed by the surprisingly candid commentary on the Pill by movie star and celebrity sex symbol Raquel Welch, who sees the lasting legacy of the Pill as the breakdown of marriage and the family: "I myself have been married four times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy."
"Contraception is a most potent destroyer of marital harmony," said McCrystal, author of Who's at the Centre of Your Marriage: The Pill or Jesus Christ. "Most would be surprised to see me and Raquel Welch lining up on the same side of a debate, but she makes some very smart and accurate points in her column," observed McCrystal. "While her diagnosis is correct, my book goes a step further to offer the prescription that can help heal ailing couples: re-centering their marriage on Christ."
A trained pharmacist, McCrystal stopped dispensing the contraceptive pill in 1993 because of its abortion-causing nature. This decision resulted in the loss of his job and subsequent unemployment for three years. Undaunted, he has since spent thousands of hours researching, writing and speaking internationally on contraception and related issues. He is the chairman of Human Life International's Ireland office. One who "practices what he preaches," McCrystal resides in Northern Ireland with his wife, Therese, and is the father of 5 children.
On Friday, McCrystal will be joined in New York by Tony and Ann Crowe, a young Irish couple who bear witness to how contraception almost destroyed their marriage and how they were able to reverse the toxic situation.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
ACTION ALERT! ‘Civil Partnership Bill’
we wish to draw the attention of Irish readers to a statement from the organisers of a peaceful protest against the Civil Partnership Bill outside Dail Eireann (the Irish Parliament) on Wednesday next.
Whether you can come for just half-an-hour, or for two-and-a-half hours, please do your best to take part in the peaceful protest at the gates of Dáil Éireann, Kildare Street, Dublin, on Wednesday next, 30 June, from 11 am to 2.30 pm.The protest is part of the ongoing effort to persuade the Irish politicians to abandon the ‘Civil Partnership Bill’. As I mentioned previously, the members of parliament (TDs) are being denied the opportunity of a free, or conscience-related, vote on the Bill. And who is denying them the possibility of voting according to their conscience? None other than the Minister for Justice, Mr. Dermot Ahern.
Of whom is he afraid? Is it his masters in Brussels who are threatening him with dire political and financial consequences if he fails to implement their orders that the homosexual and lesbian lifestyle be promoted and rewarded, to the detriment of marriage and the family?
‘What group above all others constitute a challenge to the traditional vision of the family? We do.’ [Out, 1986 – an Irish homosexual publication]
The Patron Saint of politicians is St. Thomas More, the English martyr who abided by his conscience rather than submitting to King Henry VIII in the matter of the king’s divorce. ‘I am the King’s good servant, but God’s first’, he is quoted as saying. It seems that there is no man or woman of the calibre of St. Thomas in the Irish Parliament today. Maybe there is - but, if so, let him or her speak out now against the proposals contained in the ‘Civil Partnership Bill’, which, if passed into legislation, will have dangerous and far-reaching consequences for marriage and the family and society in Ireland.
FOURTH ALL-IRELAND RALLY FOR LIFE, Saturday, 3 July 2010
I promised to keep you up to date with arrangements for the Fourth All-Ireland Rally for Life. The Rally will take place on Saturday next, 3 July, at 2.00 pm, and those wishing to take part are asked to assemble at Custom House Square, in Belfast City Centre, at that time.
Buses are being arranged from many parts of Ireland North and South as follows:
Antrim [07980967994]; ------------------Armagh [07599489499];
Ashbourne (Co. Meath) [01-8353643] --Ballymena [07980967994];
Buncrana [0749361625]; -----------------Carnlough 07900883319];
Castlewellan [07766259933]; ------------Cork [0876576568];
Craigavon [07771965059]; ---------------Derry (Creggan) [07814067471];
Derry (Shantallow) [07724791252]; ----Derry (Southway) [07779265415];
Downpatrick [02844843381]; -----------Drogheda [01-8353643]
Dublin (City Centre) [01-8730463]; ----Dublin (Tallaght) [0876729393];
Duleek [01-8353643] ---------------------Dunloy [02829541360];
Enniskillen [07787437914]; -------------Galway [0876217702];
Kilkenny [0863227634];------------------Kilrea[02829541360];
Limerick [0863303561];------------------Louth [0877671657];
Lurgan [07708537242];-------------------Monaghan [0877687257]
Newry [02830252414 & 04830838783];
Omagh [02882259541];-------------------Portadown [02838343091];
Rasharkin 02829541360];----------------Strabane [ 02871883453]
Tipperary [0861769743/ 0504235328]
Warrenpoint [07756897856];------------Waterford [051851558]
Westport [0861785160];------------------West Belfast [07593914535];
We hope you’ll be there!
Other information from:
02890278484 (Belfast)
01-8730463 (Dublin
Maternal Mortality
we reported last week on the UN special session on maternal mortality at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, that the Holy See was excluded from making an oral intervention at the special session on that day.
Due to the fact that the Holy See along with other delegations was unable due to time constraints to make the intervention orally arrangements were made for these to be submitted to the secretariat and placed on the UN website
We now report on the intervention prepared by the Papal Nuncio to the UN in Geneva, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi for that session and which was subsequently submitted to the UN secretariat for inclusion on the website.
Archbishop Tomasi in his intervention focused on the issue of both maternal and child mortality.
"My delegation" according to Archbishop Tomasi's statement
wishes to express its urgent concerns about the shocking number of maternal deaths that continue to occur – estimated by reliable indicators at 350,000 a year – most especially among the poorest and most marginalized and disenfranchised populationsThe Archbishop's statement quoted the recently issued Lancet report figures thus directly challenging the now discredited figures presented in the High Commissioners report on maternal mortality.
The Holy See's approach to Maternal Mortality according to Archbishop Tomasi's intervention, is holistic, since it gives priority to the rights of mothers and child, both those already born and those awaiting birth in the womb of the mother.
Improvements to reduce Maternal Mortality according to the Archbishop
have been made possible due to higher per capita income, higher education rates for women and increasing availability of basic medical care, including "skilled birth attendants". A recent study on Maternal Mortality has suggested that maternal mortality in Africa could be significantly reduced if HIV-positive mothers were given access to antiretroviral medications. The availability of emergency obstetric care, including the provision of universal pre and post-natal care, and adequate transport to medical facilities (when necessary), skilled birth attendants, a clean blood supply and a clean water supply, appropriate antibiotics, and the introduction of a minimum age of 18 years for marriage, are all measures that could benefit both mothers and their children.
Link to Archbishop Tomasi's full statement
Friday, June 25, 2010
European Court of Human Rights ruling: European nations do not have to allow same-sex marriage
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has affirmed that there is no right to marriage or registered partnership for homosexuals under the European Convention of Human Rights.
Seven judges at the European court ruled in a majority 4-3 decision ruled that two Austrian men denied permission to wed were not covered by the guarantee of the right to marry enshrined in Europe's human rights convention and that the Austrian government had not discriminated against them by not allowing same sex marriage.
The Court reiterated that the right to marry is granted only to “men and women”, as set forth in Article 12 of the Convention. The Court observed that among Council of Europe member States “there is not yet a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples. The area in question must therefore still be regarded as one of evolving rights with no established consensus” (§105). Consequently, the Court recognized that “national authorities are best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society in this field” (§62), and “States must also enjoy a margin of appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes”. Because “marriage has deep-rooted social and cultural connotations which may differ largely from one society to another, the Court reiterates that it must not rush to substitute its own judgment in place of that of the national authorities, who are best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society” (§62) and “that States are still free, under Article 12 of the Convention as well as under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8, to restrict access to marriage to different-sex couples.”(§108)
As the careful wording of the decision implies, the Court keeps very open a possible recognition in the near future of a “human right” to legal recognition of same-sex couples. The Court says that States are “still free” to restrict access to marriage to different-sex couples, because there is not “yet” a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples, that this question must therefore “still” be regarded as one of “evolving rights” that the States enjoy a margin of appreciation limited to “the timing” of the legal recognition, and that the Court should therefore not “rush” to substitute its own judgment in place of that of the national authorities.
In other words, the Court prudently renounced, although only for the moment, to impose to National States the legal recognition of same-sex couples.
Gregor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ELCJ) interprets this prudent renouncement in the light of the current “rebellion” of a dozen Member States in the Italian Crucifix case (Lautsi v. Italy) against a tendency of the Court to impose new “post-modern” Human Rights that contradict the underlying values of the Convention. “Either way, the ECLJ take this ruling as an extremely important victory of our long standing efforts. The states cannot be bound to accept new obligations that are not in the Convention and moreover that are contrary to the Convention.”
Seven judges at the European court ruled in a majority 4-3 decision ruled that two Austrian men denied permission to wed were not covered by the guarantee of the right to marry enshrined in Europe's human rights convention and that the Austrian government had not discriminated against them by not allowing same sex marriage.
The Court reiterated that the right to marry is granted only to “men and women”, as set forth in Article 12 of the Convention. The Court observed that among Council of Europe member States “there is not yet a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples. The area in question must therefore still be regarded as one of evolving rights with no established consensus” (§105). Consequently, the Court recognized that “national authorities are best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society in this field” (§62), and “States must also enjoy a margin of appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes”. Because “marriage has deep-rooted social and cultural connotations which may differ largely from one society to another, the Court reiterates that it must not rush to substitute its own judgment in place of that of the national authorities, who are best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society” (§62) and “that States are still free, under Article 12 of the Convention as well as under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8, to restrict access to marriage to different-sex couples.”(§108)
As the careful wording of the decision implies, the Court keeps very open a possible recognition in the near future of a “human right” to legal recognition of same-sex couples. The Court says that States are “still free” to restrict access to marriage to different-sex couples, because there is not “yet” a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples, that this question must therefore “still” be regarded as one of “evolving rights” that the States enjoy a margin of appreciation limited to “the timing” of the legal recognition, and that the Court should therefore not “rush” to substitute its own judgment in place of that of the national authorities.
In other words, the Court prudently renounced, although only for the moment, to impose to National States the legal recognition of same-sex couples.
Gregor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ELCJ) interprets this prudent renouncement in the light of the current “rebellion” of a dozen Member States in the Italian Crucifix case (Lautsi v. Italy) against a tendency of the Court to impose new “post-modern” Human Rights that contradict the underlying values of the Convention. “Either way, the ECLJ take this ruling as an extremely important victory of our long standing efforts. The states cannot be bound to accept new obligations that are not in the Convention and moreover that are contrary to the Convention.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
