Oregon: Bishop Vasa Severs Church's Ties with Hospital over Sterilizations

Bishop Vasa, whom I have given his own label, has taken serious action in the Diocese of Bend, Oregon, severing times with St. Charles Medical Center over sterilizations.  From LifeSiteNews (bold is mine):

By Patrick B. Craine

BEND, Oregon, February 16, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Catholic Diocese of Baker, Oregon announced yesterday that it has severed ties with St. Charles Medical Center, in Bend, because the hospital has adopted practices that violate Catholic teaching and will not back down on them.

"It is my responsibility to ensure the hospital is following Catholic principles both in name and in fact," said Bishop Robert Vasa.

The hospital, founded by the Sisters of St. Joseph 92 years ago, became a community non-profit organization in the 1970s. A statement from the diocese explained that the hospital continued its relationship with the Catholic Church and has voluntarily followed the U.S. Bishops' Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services.

The hospital has insisted on interpreting the directives in its own way, however, which has involved, in particular, performing tubal ligations, which is a form of sterilization for women and is thus in violation of Church teaching against such procedures.

"It would be misleading for me to allow St. Charles Bend to be acknowledged as Catholic in name while I am certain that some important tenets of the Ethical and Religious Directives are no longer being observed,” explained Bishop Vasa.

The bishop discovered that the hospital was performing tubal ligations after he asked it in 2007 to account for its compliance with the directives. ABC News reports that approximately 200 of the procedures were being performed every year.

James Diegel, president and CEO of Cascade Healthcare Community, which runs the hospital, explained in the diocese's statement that they were “saddened” by the decision due to the historical relationship the hospital has with the Catholic Church. He defended the sterilizations, however, by insisting that the hospital has “an obligation to provide comprehensive health care services to our patients while remaining true to our values of compassion and caring for all.”

Diegel says that the hospital will continue to use the directives, and will be adopting their own version soon. As a result of the decision, Mass will no longer be celebrated in the hospital's chapel and all Catholic articles will be removed, though the name will stay the same and a cross will remain on the roof.

Despite the separation, Bishop Vasa has encouraged the hospital to remain true to Catholic principles of health care. "St. Charles has gradually moved away from adherence to the requirements of the Church without a clear knowledge that it was doing so," he said. "Unfortunately, that distance is now too great to sustain a formal sponsorship relationship but I believe that using the Church's Directives as a basis for their local ethical guidelines is a good idea."


Contact Information:

Bishop Robert Vasa
Diocese of Baker
P.O. Box 5999
Bend, Oregon 97708-5999
Fax: (541) 388-2566
Email: chancellor@dioceseofbaker.org

The bishop is probably going to get plenty of flak, so consider sending him a note of encouragement with a promise of prayer for him and his diocese. 

At the Diocese of Bend website, you can read a full statement from Bishop Vasa himself, which gives even more background. This was not a decision made when he got out of bed one morning. 

Go read Bishop Vasa's artice:  Hospital decided it could not meet the Catholic standard

Click my label below this post for Bishop Vasa and  you will see a bishop filled with holy boldness. 

Also, go to the web page at Life Site News for the above article and scroll to the bottom where they have additional coverage of some of his past actions. 

I think I'll create a new label going forward called Holy Boldness in Action!

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Bishop Vasa: Excommunication is a declaration of acts that severs ties

"Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done.....The Lord has called bishops to be shepherds. That shepherding entails both leading and protecting. - Bp Robert Vasa

Bishop Robert Vasa, who writes almost weekly in the diocesan paper of Baker Oregon, the Catholic Sentinel, explains the purpose of excommunication because so many do not understand what it is, and why it is done.  He does not rule out declaring "out of communion" those who put themselves in such a position and publicly lead others astray, even after private instruction.  I encourage you to read this in it's entirety. The good bishop provides some excellent catechesis on a sensitive topic in a gentle way.

BEND — During the course of this past year there have been a number of occasions when bishops have hinted to laity that being Catholic involves a bit more than claiming the title. This has been done, in particular, with regard to politicians who may, in their own way, love Jesus, who may attend Sunday Mass and who do identify themselves as “faithful” Catholics. The press usually hints at the big “E” word, excommunication. The question of when a Catholic should be excommunicated has even been asked quite frequently and very seriously. While bishops are extremely reluctant to take the seemingly dramatic step of excommunication, I think there is very good reason for us to explore more thoroughly what excommunication really means and why it might be considered in certain circumstances.

The press would undoubtedly accuse Bishops who talk or even think about excommunication as being tyrannical power mongers but this is unfair. Excommunication is a declaration, based on solid evidence, that the actions or public teachings of a particular Catholic are categorically incompatible with the teachings of the Church. It is intended primarily as a means of getting the person who is in grave error to recognize the depth of his error and repent. A second reason, while somewhat secondary but no less important, is to assure the faithful who truly are faithful that what they believe to be the teaching of the Church is true and correct. Allowing their faith to be shaken or allowing them to be confused when Catholics publicly affirm something contrary to faith or morals, seemingly without consequences, scandalizes and confuses the faithful. This is no small matter. The Church, and particularly bishops, have an obligation to defend the faith but they also have an obligation to protect the faithful. We do not generally see the dissidence of public figures as something that harms the faithful but it has a deleterious effect upon them.

I find, very frequently, when I speak a bit more boldly on matters of morality or discipline, there are a significant number of the faithful who send messages of gratitude and support. It is their gratitude which stirs my heart for it makes me realize how much there is a need to support and affirm the clear and consistent teachings of our Catholic faith for the sake of the faithful. While the press may caricature such bishops in rather uncharitable fashion, I trust that they are men devoted to true compassion and to the truth itself. Their compassion extends to those who are misled and to those who, while not misled, are discouraged when their faith is attacked without rebuttal. This discouragement of the faithful is not insignificant. When we look at the word itself we see that its root is “courage” and allowing someone’s courage to be dissipated, or “dissed” as the young might say, is harmful to the person. En-couragement, by contrast, builds up the courage of the faithful and increases their strength for doing good. It is life giving and revitalizing. Allowing error, publicly expressed, to stand without comment or contradiction is discouraging.

When that moral error is espoused publicly by a Catholic who, by the likewise public and external act of receiving Holy Communion, appears to be in “good standing” then the faithful are doubly confused and doubly discouraged. In that case, the error is certainly not refuted. Furthermore, the impression is given that the error is positively condoned by the bishop and the Church. This is very dis-couraging to the faithful. In such a case, private “dialogue” is certainly appropriate but a public statement is also needed. In extreme cases, excommunication may be deemed necessary.

It seems to me that even if a decree of excommunication would be issued, the bishop would really not excommunicate anyone. He only declares that the person is excommunicated by virtue of the person’s own actions. The actions and words, contrary to faith and morals, are what excommunicate (i.e. break communion with the Church). When matters are serious and public, the Bishop may deem it necessary to declare that lack of communion explicitly. This declaration no more causes the excommunication than a doctor who diagnoses diabetes causes the diabetes he finds in his patient. The doctor recognizes the symptoms and writes the necessary prescription. Accusing the doctor of being a tyrannical power monger would never cross anyone’s mind. Even when the doctor tells the patient that they are “excommunicated” from sugar it is clear that his desire is solely the health of his patient. In fact, a doctor who told his diabetic patient that he could keep ingesting all the sugar he wanted without fear would be found grossly negligent and guilty of malpractice.

In the same way, bishops who recognize a serious spiritual malady and seek a prescription to remedy the error, after discussion and warning, may be required to simply state, “What you do and say is gravely wrong and puts you out of communion with the faith you claim to hold.” In serious cases, and the cases of misled Catholic public officials are often very serious, a declaration of the fact that the person is de facto out of communion may be the only responsible and charitable thing to do.

Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done.

The adage usually attributed to Edmund Burke was correct: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

The Lord has called bishops to be shepherds. That shepherding entails both leading and protecting. In an era when error runs rampant and false teachings abound, the voice of the Holy Father rings clear and true. The teachings of the Church are well documented and consistent. Bishops and the pastors who serve in their Dioceses have an obligation both to lead their people to the truth and protect them from error.

Source: Catholic Sentinel column - January 7, 2010

The Bishop's column, which may have already been written for print, happened to follow the very public pronouncement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D - CA), that her pro-abortion views are consistent with her Catholic faith.

Pelosi's bishop, Archbishop George Neiderauer of San Francisco, offered a public correction back in September of 2008, following her very error-filled attempt to explain to the nation what the Catholic Church teaches.  I'm sure many are watching the Archbishop's column's and statements page to see if he will offer a reaction this time.   Pelosi reportedly had a private meeting with Abp Niederauer in early February of 2009, just ahead of a scheduled trip to Italy where she planned to also stop in to meet the Pope.  That proved disastrous for the politician as it was revealed she was instructed also by Pope Benedict XVI in a brief meeting, without press and cameras.  She tried in vain to gloss over it, not knowing that the Holy See had released a statement before she even left the building - brief and to the point. Pelosi's account was entirely different.

People naturally think about politicians when they read this article, but keep in mind there are many Catholic journalists who are also putting themselves outside of communion with their very public distortions of the faith. What boggles my mind is how dissenting priests, religious, and lay people are allowed to feed their poison in Catholic universities year after year, when their publicly revealed material or writings show they are sowing the seeds of dissent.

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Bishop Vasa on Devotions and Active Participation in the Mass

I'm slowly getting back into my routine following the death of my mother. Thanks again for the many prayers and words of support.

I could have went scouring the news for something to blog on, but if you go to any number of popular blogs, you begin to see the news recycled over and again. I was in this grind and I am currently leaning towards finding interesting things like this, which are not as widely circulated.

Bishop Vasa of Baker, Oregon is one of several bishops whose websites I like to visit for articles written. It has been a good two months since I have done this. I found a great article by His Excellency, dated June 11, 2009. He looks back at how devotions like the Rosary were prayed during Mass, and he takes a closer look at devotions in general, and addresses attempts to dismiss or forbid them in the name of Vatican II.

Interior Participation is the Real Goal
by Bishop Robert Vasa

The Catholic Church incorporates into its liturgical practices a significant number of devotions. The most notable and traditional of these is the devotion known as exposition and benediction with the Blessed Sacrament. Others include stations of the cross, the recitation of litanies, recitation of the rosary, May crowning, statues and images of saints. One of the illegitimate interpretations of the liturgical adaptations of the 1960s was that such devotions were to be diminished and limited. The unfortunate interpretation seems to have arisen, in part, because of a previous overemphasis on devotional practices which sometimes eclipsed even the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. One still occasionally hears the stories of Mass attendees reciting their rosaries throughout Mass or engaged in other private devotions while Mass was being celebrated. My own recollections include images of my grandparents reciting Czech prayers and the rosary during Mass. The modern liturgist cringes at the thought of such a perceived aberration. Yet, I know that my grandparents had a tremendously deep and rich devotion to the Eucharist and while they may have engaged in other devotions during the course of Holy Mass they were never far in thought from the Lord whose sacrifice they were also recalling.

Nevertheless, those spiritual activities which were classified as “devotions” were frowned upon, discouraged and even forbidden. This was done, in many instances, without a suitable catechesis and without a legitimate interpretation of what full and active participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice entailed. Full and active participation, which is the phrase from the liturgical documents, was often interpreted in an inappropriately superficial fashion to mean physical activity. Thus there was a great increase in “participation” through recitation of the Mass parts in English, reading the scriptures, leading the prayers of the faithful, and singing, but whether this actually led to a deepened “full and active participation” in the Holy Sacrifice on the part of the congregation as envisioned by the Council is certainly questionable. It is legitimate to wonder whether my grandparents were not just as fully and actively participating in the Eucharistic Sacrifice even though their participation would have had all of the external appearances of great passivity. Our secular age certainly recognizes and praises “activity” and liturgical “activity” has been presumed to be the same as “active participation” and this is not necessarily so. In the training video for lectors and acolytes this active participation is divided into that activity which is from the neck down and that which is from the neck up. There has been a great increase in the neck down form of participation and this is not necessarily bad but the real goal is for greater “neck up” activity throughout the whole of the Holy Sacrifice on the part of all in the congregation. This is a much greater challenge.

Two things bring this topic to mind for me. The first is the more and more frequent reference to the future Roman Missal with its more careful, intentional and perhaps even more devotional translation. This new translation will most likely be available for liturgical use in the fall of 2010. There is a founded hope that this new work can help accomplish more completely the “full and active participation” intended by the Council. While it was the intent that this participation be interior as well as exterior, it is highly possible that the actual result was a replacement of the interior participation by the exterior participation. Since the interior looked to be more passive and the exterior more active a false sense of “greater participation” was generated. The second is the Year of the Priest which formally begins on Friday, June 19 with a holy hour, benediction and the recitation of the Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ Priest and Victim. Every deanery has been asked to sponsor such a holy hour and to gather in prayer for priests. Throughout the course of the Year of the Priest I hope that many such holy hours are sponsored and attended at both the parish and deanery levels. There will undoubtedly also be diocesan sponsored devotions once we are able to use our retreat center.

The more somber and dignified language of the new translation as well as beautifully ceremonial devotions have the potential of helping us lift minds and hearts to God and to Godly things a bit more effectively. Liturgy and devotions are concerned with both the mind and the heart. Beautiful, dignified language, while not always appealing to the mind, can and does appeal to the heart. The ceremony of solemn exposition and benediction may not appeal to the secular or practical mind but it appeals very strongly to and touches the heart. I think it enhances the possibility of a deeper interior participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass where the host used for adoration is consecrated. Without the devotions we run the risk of losing our hearts. With an exaggerated emphasis on devotions we run the risk of undermining intellectual knowledge and understanding. Both are necessary. They complement one another.

I started out with a reference to the Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ Priest and Victim. This is a litany used by Pope John Paul II as a seminarian and it is both devotional and challenging. For us priests the series of petitions to which we answer, “Deliver us Jesus,” includes the following: “From the unworthy administration of the Church’s treasures; From the love of the world and its vanities; From the unworthy celebration of Your Mysteries; Through Your priestly spirit.” These are powerful petitions and they are also powerful reminders to us of how much we must rely on the Lord.

There are also prayers for priests: “That You would deign to provide Your people with pastors after Your own heart; That you would deign to fill them with the spirit of Your priesthood; That You would deign to give them gentleness in their ministry, resourcefulness in their actions and constancy in their prayer; That through them You would deign to promote the veneration of the Blessed Sacrament everywhere.” The good and holy response, which needs to be both interior and exterior: “We beseech You, hear us.”

Source: Interior participation is real goal



Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Bishop Vasa: Some forms of so-called 'contraception' take a human life

The columns of the Baker, Oregon bishop, are well worth checking in on. I have blogged on Bishop Vasa several times (see links at the bottom).

This week, he talks about how some forms of contraception are not preventing conception, but causing abortions.

Print Edition: 02/05/2009

Some forms of so-called 'contraception' take a human life

By Bishop Robert Vasa

BEND — It is impossible for the Church to treat the subject of the dignity of a human person without reiterating its consistent teaching about the sinfulness of artificial contraception. Dignitas Personae, a 2008 instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, does not make any direct comment about whether contraceptive pharmaceuticals (i.e. the pill) are abortifacient but this does not mean that the question is completely ignored. The document does distinguish between those mechanisms which are contraceptive, which has its own clear meaning, and those which are “interceptive” and “contragestative.” These words, too, have their own clear meaning. These latter two are designed and intended to “act after fertilization.” As such, they directly touch the human being about whom this document is concerned.

A fuller citation is in order: “Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act, there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.

“In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods, [IUD (intrauterine device) and the so-called “morning-after pills] it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.” (D.P.,23)

This last sentence is most significant: “anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.” While the document very narrowly defines those mechanisms, which are primarily and intentionally designed to work in this fashion, it also acknowledges that “there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate.” The document does not directly state, but it certainly must be inferred, that where “scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present,” abortion is generally intended. This is where the meaning of words is very important. When a “contraceptive” is solely “contraceptive,” in keeping with the clear meaning of that word, then there is no direct offense to the dignity of a newly created human being. The dignity of the spouses is a whole other question. Unfortunately, the clear meaning of the word “contraceptive” (i.e. that which prevents conception or fertilization) has been altered to mean that which prevents pregnancy. That which prevents pregnancy includes not only contraception but also interception and contragestation. Scientific studies indicate that inhibiting implantation is one of the effects of the so-called contraceptive pill. Thus the contraceptive pill is not solely contraceptive, as this document defines “contraceptive.” It would perhaps be more accurate to begin to refer to such pharmaceuticals as contra/interceptive pills. It would seem to stand to reason that what is said about interceptives in this document needs to be applied also to those pharmaceutical contraceptives, which also have an interceptive function.

This is not an easy concept to grasp and it is not any easier to explain than it is to grasp. This document concerns itself with the dignity of a human person, which needs to be extended to every human being. Since the human embryo, even hours after the establishment of a unique genetic signature consisting of 23 pairs of chromosomes, is already a human being, any action on the part of anyone who wantonly disregards that humanity violates the dignity owed to a human person. Such a violation diminishes us all.

Another area, closely aligned with abortion, is embryonic stem cell research. It must be said that the Church does not in any way disdain legitimate and ethical research, even stem cell research. The document notes: “Therapeutic protocols in force today provide for the use of adult stem cells and many lines of research have been launched, opening new and promising possibilities.” (D.P.,31) This research, following proper ethical standards, is legitimate.

The major difficulty with embryonic stem cell research, and the reason why such research becomes a part of a Church document on the dignity of a human person is that: “The obtaining of stem cells from a living human embryo, on the other hand, invariably causes the death of the embryo and is consequently gravely illicit: research, in such cases, irrespective of efficacious therapeutic results, is not truly at the service of humanity. In fact, this research advances through the suppression of human lives that are equal in dignity to the lives of other human individuals and to the lives of the researchers themselves.” (D.P.,32) Endorsing embryonic stem cell research, in the simplest of terms, is to embrace the direct and intentional killing of human beings for the sake of scientific advancement. This is grotesque. Recognizing that such a violation of human dignity is commonplace, and still worse recognizing that our government sometimes provides the money needed for this desecration, ought to be offensive to us all.

“By treating the human embryo as mere ‘laboratory material,’ the concept of human dignity itself is also subjected to alteration and discrimination. Dignity belongs equally to every single human being, irrespective of his parents’ desires, his social condition, educational formation or level of physical development.” (D.P.,22)
This includes the human embryo, a real human being.

More from Bishop Vasa

• Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, OR: Those who profess to love God, but back abortion, are liars
• A Must Read for Catholics: A Bishop's Humble Admission about Fear and Courage
• ***Giving Testimony to the Truth: A Pastoral Letter for Diocesan Lay Ministers (PDF File at diocese of Baker, Oregon - we need this in every diocese.
  
  
  Te Deum Laudamus! Home
  
  

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, OR: Those who profess to love God, but back abortion, are liars

H/T to Fr. Z for this great article out of Baker, Oregon.

At the bottom are some links you will want to explore if you like what this bishop has to say.

Those who profess to love God, but back abortion, are liars

Print Edition: 01/15/2009
By Bishop Robert Vasa

BEND — The Mass readings for the week between Epiphany and the Baptism of the Lord are taken from the First Letter of St. John. These readings are not always used for it often happens, depending upon the day on which Christmas falls, that the season of ordinary time begins immediately after the celebration of Epiphany. This year, however, the occurrence of Christmas allowed for a full week between these two post-Christmas celebrations and thus the readings from St. John’s first letter. As often happens, the daily Mass readings are both appealing and challenging. The reading of Thursday from I John 4:19ff is particularly appropriate in this year when the life issues are very much on the minds of pro-life persons.

The reason for the increased awareness and even concern on the part of the pro-life community is the specter of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which is highly rumored to be in the works at the federal level. It is this act which has stimulated the bishops of the United States to launch a massive postcard campaign calling upon the House and Senate to abandon FOCA. While further details about the dramatic impact of FOCA on our American culture can be found in many places, I will simply say that it would establish abortion as a federally protected right and, as I understand it, preclude state limitation or regulation of abortion. Further, since abortion would be a federally protected right, it is very possible that even Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Physicians would be mandated to provide this heinous service.

Thus I strongly urge all who have a glimmer of concern for the lives of pre-born children to engage themselves in this postcard campaign. This is not an action which would limit or alter present permissive abortion laws, which some so-called Catholic pro-choice persons might object to, it would simply preclude a dramatic expansion of that permissiveness. Thus it would be very difficult for any Catholic, no matter how much in favor of abortion itself, to find a reason to refuse to participate in this campaign. At the same time, I do not see how any Catholic senator or representative could vote for the passage of FOCA without recognizing that such a vote would constitute a direct and intentional declaration of their disdain for Catholic teaching. Such a vote would be tantamount to a public declaration of their intention to abandon the Catholic faith. It would be imperative that the faith consequences of such a declaration be allowed to fall fully on the heads of those who would make it.

The writing from St. John applies: “Beloved, we love God because He first loved us. If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from Him: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.”
We of the Catholic faith certainly know that love of God is central to our tenets, this is the appealing part. It is hard to imagine a Catholic saying, “I am a Catholic in good standing but I do not love God.” But the inspired scriptures tell us that whoever does not love his brother or neighbor does not and, indeed, cannot love God. This is the challenging part. The people of Jesus’ day understood this and it was this understanding that prompted them to ask, “And who is my neighbor?” For all of us, and especially for Catholic legislators in every strata of government, it is necessary to declare, in conformity with the Natural Law and the teaching of the Catholic Church that, the pre-born child is our brother, our sister, our neighbor!

It may sound a little strong to state that legislators “hate” the pre-born child but hate is an absence of love and love means to wish another well. There is nothing about abortion that wishes the pre-born child well. The preservation of abortion “rights” is already an absence of love for the pre-born child but the passage of FOCA could be construed as nothing less than active and positive disregard, even hatred, for these our brothers and sisters. To paraphrase St. John, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but votes for FOCA, thus showing a disregard for his pre-born brother or sister, he is a liar.” Lots of things can be rationalized in government but I do not see any way in which any Catholic could rationalize or justify an affirmative vote for FOCA.

It is not necessary for your postcards to be as outspoken as this bishop but you do have an obligation to participate in this concerted effort to show love for the tiniest and most defenseless of our brothers and sisters. President-elect Obama made it very clear, prior to the election, that he would happily sign FOCA and the millions of Catholics who voted for him hopefully did so for reasons other than this promise and certainly not because of it. It seems to me that it is particularly incumbent upon these same voters to make it clearly known to their representatives that their vote may not in any way be taken as a sign of support for FOCA.

Another way in which we show our affirmative love for our pre-born brothers and sisters is by way of our annual memorial on Jan. 22. This year the Diocesan Office of Pro-life Activities has scheduled a rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville on Thursday evening, Jan. 22. The rosary will commence at 6:30 p.m. with Mass beginning at 7 p.m. While I recognize that many parishes host similar memorial Masses to pray for the two-fold victims of abortion, the child and the mother, I invite any who can to join me at the rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville.

Regardless of how many years have passed since the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision and regardless of how prevalent and routine abortion has become in this country, the simple truth remains, it is an act of extreme violence to the pre-born child and to the distressed mother. Thus, if anyone says, “I love God” and still favors abortion, he is, to quote St. John, a liar. May we all live out faithfully what it means to love God.

More on Bishop Vasa:

• A Must Read for Catholics: A Bishop's Humble Admission about Fear and Courage


• ***Giving Testimony to the Truth: A Pastoral Letter for Diocesan Lay Ministers (Read this and ask your own bishop for something similar. This should be in every diocese!!!)
  


• Bishop Vasa regarding his Vacation
  

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!