Archive for December, 2008




May 12-14, 2006

Lansdowne Park | Ottawa, Canada







Makes a Great Stocking Stuffer!


Number Talk Description Speaker CD $ DVD $
HV-1 Feed My Lambs: The Priest as spiritual guide to individuals Fr. Joe Hattie $5 $7
HV-2 Medical Consequences of Contraception * Dr. Maria Kraw $6 $8
HV-3 Natural Family Planning: One Guy’s Perspective Guy Levac $5 $7
HV-4 Contraception & The Breakdown of Marriage Pete Vere $5 $7
HV-5 Procreation Without Union: Addressing the Problem of Infertility Dr. Maria Kraw $5 $7
HV-6 Contraception: Friend or Foe? * Dr. Janet Smith ** **
HV-7 The Spectacular Story of Humanae Vitae & Role of Conscience Dr. Janet Smith ** **
HV-8 The Culture of Life vs.The Culture of Death * Dr. Janet Smith ** **
HV-9 Theology of Your Body Cale Clarke $5 $7
HV-10 Q&A Round Table Smith, Kraw, Cataudella $5 $7
HV-11 The Whole Man & The Whole Mission: Humanae Vitae Discovered Steve Kellmeyer $5 $7
HV-12 Closing Remarks, Yes to Life, Archbishop Gervais Homily   $5 $7
HV-13 Sacred Music Society Mother’s Day Concert Symphonia Sacra ** **
HV-PK1 Conference Package – All Recordings (13 separate disks) For TV $75 $100
HV-PK2 Conference Package – All Recordings except concert (1 Disk – wmv format only) For Computer $25 $35
** Available only in package      
* 2 CDs

To purchase the above products,
please contact us beforehand 
here to
make arrangements to pay by cheque or through PayPal.

Prices subject to 6% GST (Canadian residents only), and
8% PST (Ontario residents only). Shipping costs are extra: add $1 per disk.


The Rosarium
P.O. Box 11400, Station H
Ottawa, Ontario
K2H 7V1

Comments No Comments »

Comments No Comments »

In the last fifty years, the modernist attack on Christianity has succeeded in advancing its pernicious teachings and vain theologies on many fronts. Indeed, the biggest gains have been made against the very heart and foundation of the Church – the human family. This assault has been directed at the divine sexual union between a man and a woman through that damnable self-imposed curse of the twentieth century, traditionally known as coitus interuptus, contemporarily known as contraception. Today, of course, modern man looks at it no longer as a curse but a blessing.

Eric Svendsen’s recent attack on the sacrosanct act of sexual intimacy is a splendid example of the thoughts of modern man being conformed to this world. His article titled Sex, Lies, and Papal Encyclicals-Oh, and a Book Review, Too) sets the tone for his article which  takes aim at the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception.   Being a scholarly individual, Dr. Svendsen prides himself on producing…..well…scholarly work. [After all, his recent book Who Is My Mother?, he assures us, is "the definitive work in Evangelicalism on what the New Testament teaches about Mary. This work debunks the Marian mythology and superstition that so permeates Roman Catholic piety, apologetics and theology today."]

You would think that an individual who purports to represent theology on a scholarly level would allow his work to reflect such a level.  Unfortunately, as you have probably surmised by now, the article noted above, not only falls significantly short of that mark, but also reflects a contemptuous attitude towards the perennial Christian view. Yes, folks, it’s sad but true.

Dr. Svendsen makes a number of embarrassing comments which serve to detract from any substantial objections he might otherwise have.  As a former Catholic, you have to wonder if Dr. Svendsen even cares to give the Church’s teaching on contraception a fair shake.   I guess you can’t blame him.  After all, contraception is one of (if not the central) ‘hinge’ issue that former Protestants point to as their turning point in becoming Catholic – Matatics, Hahn, and Woods come to mind in this area.  So it comes as no surprise that Eric would eventually address this issue.

While his attitude toward contraception might be expected, you would at least expect him to be fairly knowledgeable about the issue in order to come out so strongly against it.  In fact, the article in question certainly does not lead one to believe that Dr. Svendsen knows that much about it all.  Apparently, he neither knows much about theological and moral licitness of natural family planning (based on some of his comments, on for instance ‘the rhythm method’, one can quickly see that the man is not exactly cutting edge in his research into this area), nor does he appear to have even a cursory grasp of the religious and secular history of contraception.

And so it’s left to me, dear reader, to correct, to reprove, and to admonish Dr. Svenden of his most grievous and injurious errors.

Dr. Svendsen makes the following remark:

“Since Pope Paul VI issued his papal encyclical Humanae Vitae it has been commonplace for conservative Roman Catholics to adopt an almost hostile attitude toward sexual relations with one’s spouse…”

What utter nonsense.  The Catholic Church has always been the greatest defender of the sexual act within the context of marriage.  Catholics simply insist that the pleasurable consequence of the act not be separated from the procreative purpose of it:  what God has joined, let no man put asunder.  It has always been the constant teaching of the Church that contraception was intrinsically evil, and three pontiffs of recent times have reiterated that very ancient teaching -  Leo XIII in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae [1880], Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubi [1930] and Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae [1968].  (See Appendix A for selected quotes.)

In fact, for 1,930 years, both Catholics and Protestants stood firm against contraception until the Anglican Conference at Lambeth.  No theologian of any substance, including the Reformers as we will later learn, supported contraception.  The universal and unanimous condemnation stood as a testimony of a common moral tradition until Lambeth.  At Lambeth, however, the demonic contraceptive lie, fueled by Social Darwinism, eventually toppled the first Christian church, and then later on all the others, except one JJ.  As the Eugenic pressure swept western culture, the Anglican Communion steadfastly condemned contraception at the two previous conferences at Lambeth in 1908 and 1920.   The Eugenicists would not let up, however.  The opinions of these people were outrageous:

“Before eugenicists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenicists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods. Eugenicists emphasize the mating of healthy couples for the conscious purpose of producing healthy children, the sterilization of the unfit to prevent their populating the world with their kind and they may, perhaps, agree with us that contraception is a necessary measure among the masses of the workers, where wages do not keep pace with the growth of the family and its necessities in the way of food, clothing, housing, medical attention, education and the like. We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. The eugenicist also believes that a woman should bear as many healthy children as possible as a duty to the state. We hold that the world is already over-populated. Eugenicists imply or insist that a woman’s first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state.” (Margaret Sanger. “Birth Control and Racial Betterment.” Birth Control Review, Volume III, Number 2 (February 1919), page 11.)

“Parenthood should be a licensed profession and only those fully equipped should be allowed to become parents … Dr. Hart believes that the race has deteriorated and that this deterioration can be stopped only by scientific methods of reproduction which will prevent “persons least able intellectually and materially to provide for them” from having “rafts of children,” while those better fitted are having very few.” (Birth Control Review, Volume VIII, Number 12 (December 1924), page 357.)

As one can clearly see, if anything else, people who think contraception is totally benign should sober up a bit and consider what ‘birthed’ the movement; namely, the eugenics movement.  An additional representative selection of these monstrous citations is listed in Appendix B.

As the gates of hell swung wide open at Lambeth, the Anglican Church finally capitulated to the growing enormous political and cultural pressure bearing down on it.  According to the section entitled, “The Life and Witness of the Christian Community – Marriage and Sex”, the Anglican bishops declared:

“Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.” Voting: For 193; Against 67. [1930 Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops Resolution 15]

Predictably after Lambeth, Protestant Christianity completed, almost universally, the Judas project begun by Margaret Sanger, the eugenicist, atheist, and founder of Planned Parenthood.  The Federal Council of Churches capitulated just one year later, and within three decades, all major Protestant Churches fell, including the National Council of Churches in 1961.

In commenting on the account of Onan in Genesis 38:6-10, Svendsen says this:

“They think the reason God put Onan to death was because God condemns contraception. But this misses the point of the passage entirely. What is condemned here is not a contraceptive practice, but rather neglect in fulfilling the duty of every Jew to carry on the lineage of his dead brother…. This principle is later reiterated in the Law of Moses in Deuternomy 25:5-6.”

Ah yes, “this principle is later reiterated”.  But the “principle” ain’t the law, Dr. Svendsen.  The law is the law, and the law was something more specific than the principle.  What Dr. Svendsen neglects to cite is the succeeding three verses, Deuteronomy 25:7-9 which clearly indicate that the penalty for abstaining from sex with your brother’s widow was public humiliation NOT death:

“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.  And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.  And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ (Deuteronomy 25:5-9)

Therefore, Onan’s penalty (death) in Genesis 38 was the result of a greater sin (contraception) than simply refusing to uphold the ‘levirate’ whose consequence was public humiliation only.

There is other evidence as well.

Deuteronomy 23:1 condemns birth control through primitive forms of male sterilization: “He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.”

The contraceptive mentality was condemned by Jesus Himself:  “Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say, `Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’” (Luke 23:28-29)

There are many Old Testament references where God refers to Himself as the Husband and to His people (the Church) as His wife (Isa. 54:5; 62:5; Jer. 2:2; 3:1, 14; 31:32; Eze. 16:8; 23:5; Hosea 2:7, 19).  The same is true in the New Testament:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” (Ephesians 5:25)

“I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.”  (2 Cor.11:2).

“I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.” (Revelation 21:2)

It is absolutely anti-Christian and completely antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the consummation of the union between husband (Christ) and the bride (the Church) to be frustrated by a foreign element (contraception).  Contraception is a blasphemy against God since, even by its very words, it represents a demonic slight and denial of creation itself.  “Contraception” means “against the beginning”.  God says “In the beginning.  The Devil says “Against the beginning”.

4) Contraception is decidedly anti-Trinitarian as well.  Here is a selection from an earlier piece I wrote on the subject:

“…There is also another element in the Trinity that lends itself to human likeness. The Nicene Creed professes this about the Trinity: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Now what exactly does this mean? Well, Catholic theology understands the Father as God knowing himself; the Son as the expression of God’s knowledge of Himself; and the Holy Spirit as the result of God’s knowledge of Himself. The Father ‘looks’ at the Son and the Son ‘looks’ at the Father. They behold in one another their mutual divine goodness and beauty. The love between the Father and the Son ‘generate’ (not create as there is no creation of God) another person, whom we call the Holy Spirit. And so, the Holy Spirit is love ‘proceeding’ or ‘coming from’ the first two persons of the Blessed Trinity.

The human family has, of course, a rather striking parallel to this. The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal procession of the Trinity since the act of love itself ‘generates’ another human being. (Generation is probably even a better term to describe the act than create since humans can create nothing, and so the analogy is closer to the Trinitarian relationship than one might have originally assumed.)”  Clearly then, we can see the great difficulties encountered when contraception is admitted into Trinitarian Christianity.

5)  Another interesting point is that all infertile methods of intercourse incurred the death penalty:

Bestiality in Leviticus 20:15-16
Homosexuality in Leviticus 20:13
Withdrawal in Genesis 38:6-10

Svendsen then goes on to sum up his opinion of the Church’s teaching on Onananism with this comment:

“But that nicely illustrates how exegetically inept Rome really is.”

Exegetically inept, eh?  My oh my…..

“Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” (St. Augustine,”De Coniug. Adlt.”,Lib. II,n. 12; Genesis 38:8-10)

Wait!  For your continued amusement, there’s more…

“Not only do Roman Catholics insist on obedience to a decidedly flawed interpretation of the passage, but none of them actually obeys the correct interpretation of it! How ironic-not to mention hypocritical.”

Flawed and hypocritical?   Hmmmmm…….I think you should do a little reading, Dr. Svendsen. To see what your Protestant forefathers had to say on the issue,  I think you should peruse this site:

In the meantime, I have selected a few the citations for your amusement.

Luther, Martin Luthers Works, Volume Seven:
“[The] exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches follows [Genesis 38:9, 10]. Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, Yes a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates; and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment. He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred. Therefore he did not allow himself to bear that intolerable slavery. Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him….That worthless fellow…preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother.”

Calvin, John Commentary on Genesis
“Besides [Onan] not only defrauded his brother of the right due him, but also preferred his semen to putrify on the ground, rather than to beget a son in his brother’s name…. I will contend myself with briefly mentioning [Onan's act], as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor.”

Wesley, John Commentary on Genesis
“Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married, and the memory of his brother that was gone, he refused to raise up seed unto his brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile actions. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord–And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls. ”

And here is a Protestant minister’s testimony against contraception (which is, by the way, becoming a hotter topic in Protestant Christianity today):

A Catholic debunking of the liberal Protestant line can be found here:

After he finished with Onan, Dr. Svendsen turns his attention to sexual morality.  He writes:

“Isn’t lust identical to sexual attraction, after all? When Jesus gave the mandate not to lust after a woman, he obviously meant nothing other than that a man should refrain from sexually desiring a woman other than his wife.”

Well, no, Eric.  Lust is most certainly not identical to sexual attraction. Lust is a sin; sexual attraction is not (or maybe your theology is demanding that connection since your Reformed theology believes that God causes sin?)  It is possible to sexually mistreat and abuse your wife.  In fact, that’s exactly what you are doing when you engage in contraceptive acts.  She becomes a mere repository for your carnal pleasures.  Perhaps Dr. Svendsen can enlighten us on what the substantive moral difference is between engaging in contraceptive acts and masturbation.  Some prominent evangelicals have already admitted that there is none, and because they see nothing wrong with contraception, they logically see nothing wrong with masturbation either.

In any case, if you won’t listen to the Catholic Church, perhaps you will heed the judgement of St. Augustine:

“You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive.  They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing]…they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives.” (St. Augustine, Against Faustus, 15:7, 400 A.D.)

“I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed.  Those who do this, although are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame.  Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]…I dare say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife.”  (Marriage and Concupiscence, 1:15:17, 419 A.D.)

Dr. Svendsen continues:

“It is a sin, on this view, to prevent pregnancy from occurring. In the particular case of Onan, contraception was achieved by “spilling the seed”; hence, in Roman Catholicism, if a marital sex act leads to a man “spilling the seed” before intercourse, that is a sin.”

Well, it sure is Rome’s view.  But Rome’s view is the perennial Christian view.  Sorry to disappoint you, Eric:

“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor to Children, 2:10:91:2, 191 A.D.)

Appendix C has many more references from the Fathers.

….An opinion on the pill…

“The purpose of contraception is to provide a couple the ability to enjoy pleasurable sex while minimizing the likelihood of conception. That’s what the pill does; that’s what a condom does; and, like it or not, that is precisely what the rhythm method does.”

No, Dr. Svendsen, that is not all that the pill does or can do.   The pill can and does act as an abortifacient.  You can read about it here:

The final comments I wish to address concern Dr. Svendsen’s rather sub-par logic in objecting to the Catholic position:

“First, the very fact that they are using the “rhythm” method indicates that they intend to engage in sexual relations for the sheer pleasure of it, apart from procreative intent. But isn’t that a form of lust?

Well, first of all, persons who practice (NFP) natural family planning (like me) do not use the “rhythm” method, which went out in the early ’80s.  Most of us use the Billings Ovulation Method.

Secondly, Dr. Svendsen is equivocating.  Couples who engage in sexual intercourse within the infertile period are recognizing two things:

#1 – They are respecting the natural ovulation process and thereby respecting God’s natural law.

#2 – Their intent might be to postpone pregnancy at a particular point in time, but they are still allowing God the final say in the matter – unlike the ultimate intention of contraception.   Moreover, God can neither contradict himself in his natural laws, nor expect humans who know that law to refrain from using it if it is morally licit.  It is morally licit to have sex during infertile periods (with the hope that no child will be conceived) since the couple is allowing God to use nature to ultimately determine whether a child is conceived.  Ultimately, natural family planning obeys the natural law of God by respecting the cycle of a woman.

Practicing NFP during infertile periods represents a request to God by the parents to postpone a child, but ultimately respects, by virtue of the possibility of children, that God could have other plans for them.  On the other hand, contraception is a big fat NO! to God where children are labeled ‘mistakes’ who ‘slipped past the goalie.’  The NFP couple is always open to the possibility of children by the very fact that they are abiding by God’s rules whereas the contracepting couple is usurping nature, and inviting God into the sexual act only when (or if) it suits them.

At the same time, however, the Church also makes the following stipulations:

“If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier…In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases: in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes.” Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 1968, pp. 17-18; See also, Pope Leo XIII, Responsa S. Paenitentiariae, 1880

“At the same time it must be understood that the moral problem with respect to the practice of periodic continence arises not from ‘the use of their marital right even on days of natural sterility,’ but from the fact that this continence means limiting ‘the conjugal act exclusively to these days,’ a practice which ‘seems to be the clear expression of a will opposed to that fundamental readiness’ to serve life. Therefore, ‘the conduct of the married couple must be examined more attentively,’ to make sure that it in no way includes a contraceptive intention.” Pope Pius XII, Address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives, October 29, 1951, extracted from Haro, Ramon Garcia de, Marriage and the Family in the Documents of the Magisterium, Ignatius Press, 1993, p. 163.

Dr. Svendsen continues…

“Second, even though this couple may think they are avoiding contraception, they are in fact practicing the only authorized form of contraception available to a Roman Catholic. Premeditated abstinence for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy is itself a form of contraception because it shares a common purpose with all other contraception.”

Ah….no.  Dr. Svendsen needs to make the elementary distinction between ends and means.  While both couples might be seeking the same ends, they are hardly going about it using the same moral means.  One involves respecting God’s natural law and the other obviously does not.  I might have the laudable goal of helping the poor.  If I raise the money, that is good.  If I steal it from someone else ala Robin Hood, it’s not so good.

Premeditated abstinence for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy is certainly NOT a form of contraception.  Contraception involves frustrating the ‘openness’ of the intended action.  Premeditated abstinence, however, does not initiate or participate in the sexual act (by definition), and therefore cannot be said to frustrate something it is not involved in.   Dr. Svendsen’s logic demands that he equate premeditated abstinence with contraception because, he says, “it shares a common purpose with all other contraception”.  As stated above, however, the ends do not justify the means.

Finally, he says this:

“Now let’s look at a second couple. This couple is equally devoutly Roman Catholic, with the difference that they actually want to have children, but can’t due to the infertility of one or the other. Is it then okay for that couple to engage in marital sex that leads to “spilling” the man’s “seed”? After all, if one or the other is fertile, and neither of them intends to prevent pregnancy-and in fact they ensure that they regularly engage in intercourse during her “fertile” days to maximize the chances of conception-what real difference would it make if they are engaging in other-than-intercourse sexual activities at other times? How has this couple engaged in “onanism”?”

Dr. Svendsen still has not appreciated something which should be rather straight forward.  A general intention towards a good cannot mitigate the one instance of serious sin.  Each and every sexual act is subject to the natural law of God such that even one transgression is….well…still a transgression.  For instance, let’s say I volunteered at my local soup kitchen once a week for a whole year.  Within the year, I got upset at one of the local patrons because he didn’t like my soup and, as a result, I killed him.  Does God say:  “Oh well, don’t worry about it, you’re a good volunteer.”   I think not.  Au contraire, God says quite the opposite: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” (James 2:10)   Dr. Svendsen’s position, then, is none other than modernism to its core, otherwise known (in this case) as the ‘fundamental option’.

It really never ceases to amaze me how Christians can be so oblivious to the contraceptive war that has been fought in western culture.  Allow me to let you all in on a little secret:  Western civilization is dying.  Population control through contraception and abortion are the biggest reasons why that is happening.  Don’t believe me?  Take a gander at these facts and statistics (Source:  Population Research Institute):

“The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Two are required to replace the parents and 0.1 to make up for infant mortality and women who do not procreate. A fertility rate of 2.1, in the long term, does not multiply population – it only maintains it. Some fertility rates in “Catholic countries” are staggering low – Italy (1.2), Spain (1.15), Portugal (1.37) and Ireland (1.9). Most of Europe averages to 1.4. The US is 1.99. This reality is well known by the US government which predicts that the current situation with social security which has four people working for every person receiving social security, will shrink to 2 to 1 by the year 2030. It is unlikely that the economy can support such an arrangement. Italy is burying more people than are born. Russia has lost 500,000 in total population every year since 1989. Europe will shrink to a fraction of its current population by the end of the 21st century, which has negligible immigration, will lose 25% of its population by 2050. Not only have we disobeyed God by ceasing to multiply, we have not filled the earth. Australia, a continent nearly the size of the United States only has 19 million people versus 280 million for the US. Most of South America is so sparsely populated that telephones do not exist except in major cities. The entire population of the world can fit into the State of Texas, with 1000 square feet per person, which is a slightly higher density than San Francisco but a slightly lower density than the Bronx in New York City.

Every single intended “benefit” of contraception, that was promised in the sixties, has not occurred. Instead, the opposite of what its promoters once promised has arisen. The pill was supposed to make marriages better by relieving parents of the worry of pregnancy in their sexual relationship. It failed to achieve that promise. In fact, the opposite occurred. The divorce rate went from 25% in 1960 to 50% in 1980 as the pill came into widespread use. Although other factors were involved in the escalating divorce rate, it is hard to make a case that the pill improved marriages. Barrier contraceptives were supposed to reduce sexually transmitted diseases. The opposite has occurred. The pill was supposed to reduce abortion. The opposite has occurred. In fact, abortion mills provide contraceptives free of charge to their clients because they know that it is good for business. About 50% of all abortions are due to contraceptive failures. The abortionists know that contraceptive failures will occur and that the woman, with or without her partner will seek an abortion.

In practically all countries of the more developed regions fertility is significantly below the level necessary for the replacement of generations (TFR of approximately 2.1). In 20 of the more developed countries the TFR has stayed at below-replacement level for at least two decades. In the 1980s-1990s fertility has decreased to levels below replacement in several countries from the less developed regions, including all countries in the populous region of Eastern Asia (except Mongolia). Rapid fertility transition in South-eastern Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean brings an increasing number of developing countries close to that threshold: currently the TFR is below 3 (but higher than 2.1) and decreasing in 34 countries with a combined population of 930 million people.

While fertility decline constitutes the only cause of the deceleration of world population growth and the major reason of population aging, its impact varies across regions and countries – depending essentially on the speed and depth of the demographic transition. According to the medium variant of the 1998 Revision, a very slow and decelerating population growth in Northern Europe during the first quarter of the 21st century will be followed by steady population decrease in 2025-2050; however, the region will be confronted to a relatively small (4 per cent) population loss. Western Europe will start experiencing negative population growth earlier and its population will shrink by 6.5 per cent. Populations of Eastern and Southern Europe will be decreasing during the entire projection period at a high and accelerating pace; by the mid-century they are expected to lose 18 and 20 per cent of their 1998 sizes, respectively. On the contrary, the populations of Eastern Asia, Northern America and Australia/New Zealand are projected to keep growing; their respective increases by 2050 will be 15, 29 and 39 percent. Among the 61 countries with below-replacement fertility, 30 will experience population declines ranging from 1 per cent in Yugoslavia to 35 per cent in Estonia, whereas in 31 countries populations will continue increasing, due to their young population structures and to immigration.”  (See Appendix D for some staggering statistics)

Comments No Comments »

Form letter from John McKay, Liberal MP from Scarborough-Guilwood in response to my letter to him here.

My Fellow Canadians:

In the last election Canadians indicated that they wanted Parliament to work. They wanted a Parliament that would ensure stability during this time of economic uncertainty. Canadians also said that they wanted the tone of Parliament to change from one of hostility and bickering to one of cooperation.

The Prime Minister apparently agreed.

However, it has become abundantly clear that the Prime Minister was not only not interested in working with the opposition, but in a stunning lack of respect for democracy, wanted to silence all opposition. The ideas offered by the Liberal Party and others were treated with contempt and were summarily dismissed. He spent millions of dollars ridiculing Stephan Dion. All the while he seemed to be unaware that he had received less than 40% of the popular vote. The Canadian people had not seen fit to trust him with a majority. Twice.

Secondly, the insult to Canadians contained in the fiscal update showed that not only was there no fiscal stimulus like that of every other G7 nation, it was in fact an anti-stimulus package, instituting ideological cuts. All of the world’s leading economists are calling for governments to stimulate the economy, but Mr. Harper goes in the opposite direction.

The projections produced by the Finance Minister can only be described as “economical with the truth.” In an effort to conceal from Canadians the reality of a looming deficit he projected the sale of Canadian assets. Under no set of accounting principles do you book a sale of assets before they have been identified for sale, let alone sold, and then add those imaginary sales to your fiscal projections. It is a little like spending money from the sale of your home before you’ve even put a For Sale sign up on your front lawn. 

Thirdly, the Prime Minister launched an attack on the fundamental principles of our country and society. He attacked democracy by unilaterally taking away civil servants’ guaranteed right to strike, funding for political parties (both of which he has since retracted) and women’s right to equal pay.

After the Prime Minister realized the magnitude of his miscalculation, he has been furiously back peddling. Simultaneously he has launched a massive advertising campaign to help his job.

Canada needs strong leadership during this time of economic uncertainty – not ridicule, political brinkmanship and efforts to silence democratic debate. Canada needs a government that will act as a steward to the economy, not a government that is content to leave Canadians to fend for themselves.

It is the duty of a responsible opposition to ensure that the government is acting in the interests of its people. A firm resolution to create a cooperative coalition will ensure that the government of Canada takes action to strengthen the economy, works to ensure the financial security of Canadians, and brings stability to our fragile democracy.

Canada at its foundation is a coalition of people with diverse interests and backgrounds, lead by great leaders like Sir John A. MacDonald and George Etienne Cartier who recognized that our strength and genius as a nation lies in our ability to compromise and work together for the good this great land and its people. It was the ability of our founders to cobble together diverse, yet stable, coalitions that gave birth to the Canadian federation. It is an inherent part of the tradition of our country, and it is a tradition that makes our democracy durable and robust.

I have spoken to many constituents and have received an overwhelming amount of correspondence, much of it supportive, though some have concerns. I have endeavoured to take all of your thoughts into account and communicate them with my colleagues. I thank you for your calm and resolution during this time of historic political and economic change.

Finally, this issue boils down to the most basic principle of Canadian democracy. Does the Prime Minister, the leader of the Canadian government, enjoy the confidence of his elected colleagues or does he not? At present, a majority in the House of Commons have no confidence in the current government’s ability to govern Canada responsibly. Mr. Harper should put the issue to vote and let the people’s chosen representatives decide. The prorogation of Parliament shows that Mr. Harper is afraid to face the House the Commons.


Hon. John McKay P.C., M.P.


Here is my followup response…. 

Dear Mr. McKay,

As someone who belongs to a constituency that has received the muzzling effects of Mr. Harper on many occasions, I sympathize with your complaints.  Social conservatives know all too well about the Prime Minister’s penchant for shutting down debate and marginalizing groups who are in his way in order to secure his coveted majority.  In fact, the past federal election was the first time ever I spoiled my ballot because I could not vote for any candidate, largely in part because of  Stephen Harper’s political muzzle.  There seems to be no boot too small for his tactics at times.  I share your concerns on this matter, although my issues will differ from yours.

However, let us face the facts squarely and honestly.

The Prime Minister has withdrawn the controversial legislation you mentioned above, so there is no substantive impediment remaining (notwithstanding the negotiations to follow on the economic plan for the country’s future).   Instead, you are essentially complaining about his methods and his contempt for the Liberal Party’s ideas.  Whether or not such contempt is deserved is certainly a question of debate considering some of the destructive policies the Liberal Party has supported over the last few years.   But, whether Stephen Harper finds the Liberal Party contemptible or whether he called your mother a nasty name, it matters little.  Contempt and ridicule have been the currency of Canadian Parliament for decades, and the Liberal Party has done its fair share of trading  in it during its time of power and entitlement.  Whatever mud has been slung across the aisle all these years, it was always done among and between MPs who were loyal to Canada whatever their political or economic ideology.  The currency of contempt and ridicule remained within Canadian political borders. It was never used to sell out Canada until, apparently, now.

And that, really, is the bottom line.

The Liberal Party has sold Canada out to the Bloc’s veto.  Nothing, absolutely, nothing can compare to this betrayal, and I really wonder whether the Liberal Party will be able to recover from this after the next general election when Stephane Dion is long gone while his foolish gamble lives on to crush the Liberal Party.  And that is not a good thing for Canada or for democracy. Indeed in seeking to impede Stephen Harper’s thirst for total control, the Liberal Party may have just guaranteed it not only in the immediate future but for the political long term as well. Have you even considered this?  Based on your partisan tone and silly jingles in your letter, I doubt it very much.

There’s still time to turn back and refuse to join this disastrous Coalition.  My suggestion to you is that you take the next seven weeks and think about it carefully.

 Yours truly.

John Pacheco
Social Conservatives United

p.s. No political party should be financed by a subsidy from the Federal Government, outside of regular supporter donations. It only entrenches the current political establishment and ensures that mediocrity and corruption thrives.  And as you well know, it also makes it very difficult for new and reforming political movements to compete with the existing political establishment.  Is this what you mean by fair and democratic politics? 


Here is another response, brilliantly written:

There is a lot of blustery rhetoric in your form letter, yet most of the hand-wringing about good governance tells nowhere so starkly as in alliance with nationalists and socialists. Do you not recall what National Socialism spelled in Germany? One of your eminent forebears, Mr. Trudeau, understood the severity of a national socialist threat out of Quebec, and every parliamentarian must soberly consider the nature of your alliance which allows the same threat a back door through the BQ (and PQ in the wings).

 My advice to the governor general is that in fact such an alliance is not even fit to be called a “loyal opposition” since its power-balance wielders don’t even recognize the crown. It is further unfit to form a government because (a) it was not elected to do so and (b) the tail that wags it could never recognize an act of prorogation by the crown if it got out of hand. Hence it is open, like an infamous German chancellor, to seize power irrevocably. Talk about an afront to democracy!  Your alliance was FAR more combative and ‘warlike’ than Harper’s proposed repeal of tax-funded party cushions or anything else you have carped at.  Alternate proposals hammered-out are what we Canadians are looking for; not a destabilizing coup d’etat.

Yours sincerely,

 Gary K.

Comments 1 Comment »

We did not elect a former liberal CBC journalist with separatist sympathies, who believes she was elected because she was “hot”, to become Governor General, a position which can determine the country’s government and prime minister for years without an election.

We did not elect the Bloc or elect to have the Bloc, a Party whose stated goal is the break-up of Canada, to be given veto power over Canada’s laws.

We did not vote for a Socialist coalition, propped up by Separatists, whose ideological aim is to borrow against our children’s future and spend the money on stupid welfare programs that in the words of their messiah himself are a “bridge to no where”.

We did not elect to give Jacques Parizeau and Gilles Duceppe the power to extort billions of dollars from the rest of Canada and the West in particular.

We did not vote to support and encourage the Quebec Welfare State for the benefit of lazy malcontents and at the expense of our hard work and toil.

We do not think it’s right that the majority of MPs who actually believe in a unified Canada should not be able to govern this country (145-113:  Conservative – 143, Independent – 2 vs. Liberal – 76, NDP – 37). 

We did not elect to be ruled by Quebonto.

We did not elect a man to be Prime Minister who was Mr. Clarity Act to the Separatists one day and Mr. Charity Act the next day.

We did not elect a coalition of godless socialists, one third of which is hell bent on the break-up of Canada, to represent a country which is neither godless nor socialist nor separatist.

We did not elect a man to the position of Prime Minister who will be leaving the post in a few months, a post he has never held or earned, and whose leadership and policies were soundly rejected by the Canadian people 7 weeks ago.

We did not elect a man to be Prime Minister who is not even supported by his own Party, but rather represents only a minority view in that Party, and a fractional interest of the country as a whole.

And finally, we did not elect Taliban Jack as our Deputy Prime Minister.

Comments 5 Comments »

OTTAWA — Frank Valeriote does not favour a coalition government and instead hopes Prime Minister Stephen Harper can work toward rescuing the Canadian economy.“I believe in working toward a solution, not working toward a coalition,” Guelph’s Liberal MP said Wednesday.

Valeriote added he does not believe a Liberal-NDP coalition, with support from the Bloc Quebecois, will unseat the Tories.

“I have given no thought to that,” Valeriote said when asked whether he saw himself in a cabinet role under such an arrangement. “I am not, frankly, anticipating moving into government.” (Source)

Opponents of the Socialist-Separatist Coalition:

Conservative Party MPs = 143 

Independents = 2

Frank Valeriote, Liberal MP (Guelph) = 1

Total = 146

Total MPs Needed = 154 

Additional MPs Required = 8

Also, there are rumours that 1 or 2 Bloc members are very unhappy with the Bloc.  Cardin, a Bloc MP. who voted against gay marriage plus maybe one or 2 more….

Comments 1 Comment »

Social Conservatives United

December 4, 2008 

To:  Wayne Easter,  Mark Eyking , Judy Foote, Albina Guarnieri , Jim Karygiannis, Lawrence MacAuley, Dan McTeague , Shawn Murphy,  Paul Szabo,  Alan Tonks, Borys Wrzesnewskyi, Derek Lee,  John McKay,  Massimo Pacetti,  Bryon Wilfert


In this time of political crisis for our nation, it is imperative that the Members of Parliament consider the good of the country over their own immediate political interests.  The long-term implications of the proposed socialist-separatist agreement of the three opposition parties will have dire political and economic consequences to the Liberal Party and the unity and survival of Canada itself.

By accepting this Coalition, you are inviting financial abuse by the socialists in a time of economic uncertainty and instability.  A recession calls for prudent financial management of the country’s finances, not a ballooning of the federal deficit, caused by irresponsible spending initiatives.  The Liberal Party should not exacerbate our recession by forming a coalition with extreme left wing ideologues who have no concept of financial responsibility or restraint.  It is bizarre how we can believe that the proposed ballooning of our deficit will overcome our current difficulties, when spending money we didn’t have was the reason for our financial collapse in the first place! Please don’t throw more fuel on the fire.

You are also, wittingly or not, unleashing regional forces in both Quebec and the West that will threaten Canada’s confederation.  The West will not sit idly by while this Coalition, which has very little representation from the West,  panders to the Bloc’s financial extortions. The Liberal Party had long prided itself in being a centrist party which stood for a strong federal government and eschewed any co-operation or compromise with the separatists from Quebec. Yet, over a mere weekend, that whole legacy has been thrown under the bus, as the once champion of Canada’s unity and federalism has sold out for a few months of extreme socialism, propped up by a Party whose very existence is to break up Canada.

I have decided to write this letter to 15 Liberal MPs who I have identified as having moderate to strong social conservative values.  I ask you to look around the proposed Coalition of MPs and ask yourself honestly if these politicians reflect your views of life, family, and freedom.  In truth, the Coalition can only be described as godless, socialist revolutionaries who will be intent on pushing forward their destructive agenda, regardless of the cost to our nation’s social and financial fabric.

For the good of our country, and on behalf of all social conservatives in this country who have supported you in your political vocation in the defense of the unborn and the Canadian family, I implore you to consider the good of our nation and its families over your Party’s leadership.  I encourage you to discuss this matter with other socially conservative Liberal Party members because the hesitation that you are most certainly experiencing right now is being shared by them also.

For the good of our country, don’t let this Coalition happen.

Yours truly,

John Pacheco 
Social Conservatives United

Comments 3 Comments »

The 2003 decision by the Ontario Superior Court to redefine marriage and the almost unanimous support by the federal and provincial governments has made me wonder just why this has been allowed to happen? Is there any one group or institution that should be held accountable? In recent years, I have blamed the politicians, their governments, heretical clergy and a variety of special interest groups who want to recreate society in their own image and likeness. While these examples may be accurate in the broader sense, it seems that the answer is much simpler. The true culprit is the male sex. If only the feminists could hear me now. Unfortunately for them, their glee would be short lived because where they hold men accountable for the repression of women, I hold men accountable for standing behind women who have desired a society without restraint.

In the Genesis account of the fall of man, it could be easy to assign most of the blame to Eve, after all, she ate of the fruit first and offered it to Adam. We forget, however, that Adam was supposed to be the gatekeeper of the garden and he should have prevented the serpent from entering in the first place. For about the past forty years, the fox (satan) has been in the hen house while the roosters (men) have been hiding behind the nests. Obviously, there are a few good men, but in my opinion, the majority have sat on the sidelines and watched as our Christian culture has been deformed and dismantled.

In the 1960′s a group of small but driven feminists started to convince women that domesticity and motherhood was a form of slavery. Women were pounded with negative messages on a daily basis by the media and female students started burning their bras on university campuses. Where were the men during all of this? They could have put a halt to this nonsense in a variety of ways. First of all, they could have been living examples of marital chastity for their university bound daughters. Secondly, they could have tried to make things easier on their wives by helping out with some of the domestic duties. Thirdly, they could have reaffirmed the infinite value of their wives by trying to be chaste within their marriage. Finally, they could have reinforced the fact that their wives were doing the most important work on earth – raising the next generation of children. Unfortunately, the consequences of their neglect have been devastating for both families and society.

When Playboy magazine began to usher in an era of mainstream pornography, good men could have stood up and put a stop to it. They could have protested; they could have lobbied their governments; they could have brought shame to those who distributed the filth; but they didn’t. Instead Playboy magazine, which based a lot of its beliefs on the unscientific and just plain unethical research of Alfred Kinsey, was allowed to flourish. The success of Playboy opened the floodgates and ushered in the most degrading, filthy and vulgar pornography lining the shelves at our local convenience stores and being broadcasted worldwide on our televisions and the internet. I would argue that pornography is now so acceptable that an adult male would be considered a bit abnormal if he did not indulge in it at least once in a while. In fact, many psychologists even encourage its use to spice up marriage.

I would argue that most women instinctively know that they should not be putting chemicals that interfere with their reproductive cycle into their bodies. They just need good men to support them. Fr. Joseph Hattie, writing for Catholic Insight magazine, said that husbands as protectors of their wives and children should have stepped forward and said NO to the pill in their marriages. For many men, however, their lives revolve around sex, beer and sports. Funny how a large portion of our television commercials espouse these themes. These are the new gods or the things that fill the vacuum in their hazy, lazy existence.

We all know about the millions of children that have been killed in North America since abortion has been decriminalized. We often forget about the horrifying ordeal that the women who choose abortion must endure. Mark Crutcher has written in his meticulously researched book, Lime 5, that thousands of women have been mutilated, sexually assaulted and even killed in federally approved abortion clinics for decades now. Men have just stood by and allowed this carnage to happen because these ‘products of conception’ would interfere with their desire for so-called consequence-free sex. To allow a child to be born, means that a man is suddenly thrust into fatherhood, yet according to the feminists, children didn’t need fathers anyway.

It has been a long time since men have had to take responsibility for anything. Contraception has allowed men to engage in sexual intercourse without having to make a committment of marriage. This has been reinforced by society’s acceptance of co-habitation. If a pregnancy should ‘accidentally’ occur, no problem, it can be terminated. If my wife doesn’t submit to my sexual perversions, I can just file for divorce and find a tall blond ‘sex partner’ who looks just like the women in those magazines and videos. What the heck, if I can’t find a women who will engage in the pleasures of the flesh with the frequency that I desire, there is one other option – other men! Society has become a ‘new Eden’ for men, one that is ordered to satisfy the lusts and cravings in their hearts.

Unfortunately for women, they have been hoodwinked into believing that men actually support them in their desire to have control over their own bodies. The truth is that the unholy trinity of contraception, abortion and divorce, has caused men to have no control over their own bodies. As G. K. Chesterton was once quoted as saying, “birth control equals no births and no control,” and boy o’ boy have men revelled in it to the detriment of women. Instead of channeling their energy into the raising of their children, men have been roaming the streets like dogs in heat, leaving many women and children abandoned and broken.

Another consequence of the selfishness of men is that women have in many cases been left to wear the pants in the family while men have been more than willing to wear the skirts. The lack of leadership or ‘headship’, which is the rightful role of men, has been forfeited. Instead of loving their wives like Christ loved the Church, men have used their wives and may as well have paid them for their services. These days, some women would probably be more than happy to accept some form of financial compensation.

Why should a man feel that he should work extra hard to financially support his family when women are expected to be financially independent? More women in the work force has been a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it has opened the doors of opportunity for women, but on the other hand, it has led to men and women competing for many of the same jobs.

The feminization of our culture is also a consequence of these weak linguini-spined men. A little sensitivity and feeling is a good thing, but too much creates the talk show culture that dominates the television media. The new campaign slogan for the next government should be, “it’s about feelings, stupid.” Don’t worry about what people say or do but rather how they feel. Forget, reason, logic or just plain common sense. If it feels good do it. Unfortunately, this emphasis on feelings has been a disaster for men, who need to learn to channel their creative and destructive tendencies into positive behaviours such as marriage and parenthood. William Gardiner, the best selling author of the book, The War Against the Family, has found in his research that over ninety percent of all violent crime is committed by unmarried men under the age of thirty. Unmarried, sexually active men are hazardous to the health of any nation.

If you dovetail the last paragraph with the phenomena of absentee or fatherless homes you have a recipe for disaster. Young boys grow up with weak role models who do not demonstrate the self-sacrifice and dedication to family life. Instead these boys have been pawned off at daycare centres, so that mom can make a living or find ‘fulfillment.’ To these children, life is just one big schedule that never gets smaller or slows down. The most common phrase of parents today is “we’re so busy.” Schools out for the summer, no problem, we’ll just enroll them in summer camp. What these families can’t give them in time, they give them in possessions and activities to placate their feelings of guilt. One female teen that I worked with in the past wrote a sad letter to her mother in which she lamented, “my earliest memories were of you dropping me off at daycare.” These feelings of loss, I believe are probably all too common.

Not only do men allow complete strangers to take care of their children, they are also quick to institutionalize their parents when they become too old, demanding or sick. The attitude in many cases seems to be “if they get in my way, I’ll get them out of the way”. It has become so bad that elderly parents seem to expect that this is their final destination. The number of elderly people who have told me personally that they would never want to be a bother to their children is stunning. When we as a society, devalue the contributions of the elderly we put ourselves on a fast track to euthanasia. Canada is on this path because of men.

Let’s face it, if men wanted to change society, they could do it. We still have most of the power in government and in the economy. The moral fabric of any society is a direct reflection of the moral character of its men. This may offend some feminists, but the only reason you have made the gains you have made is because men have allowed you to. The reality is that where men go, women follow. Women are naturally inclined to the things of the heart such as chastity, marriage, family and children. All they need is strong men to say, yes this is how our lives should be ordered and we support you. Are there any of these men left? I know some, but not many. The redefinition of marriage has been allowed to happen because good men have done nothing. And no one will be the better for it – not men, not women, and certainly not future generations.

Chris Beneteau

Comments No Comments »

Comments No Comments »

Social Conservatives United

News & Action Alert 

December 2, 2008

As many of you know, the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP have agreed to join in a coalition with the support of the Bloc Quebecois to bring down the current Conservative government.   While Stephen Harper has repeatedly squashed pro-life attempts to advance the rights of the unborn child on many occasions and done nothing to alleviate the persecution of conservatives and Christians by the totalitarian thugs who work for the Human Rights Commissions, the prospect of financial and social bankruptcy along with the break-up of the country is a real possibility should this coalition ever obtain power. Even now, politicians from the Western provinces who will have nominal representation in this coalition are already talking possible secession.

Whatever our political animosity towards Stephen Harper is as social conservatives, the alternative to him at this moment in our nation’s history is nothing short of cultural, financial, and national suicide.  This is a hard truth for us to accept given his unacceptable treatment of social conservatives in his Party and indeed in his own caucus.  But it is a truth we must accept and deal with nevertheless.

We simply cannot let the lunacy of the opposition parties win the day.  It’s really that simple.

Therefore, as social conservatives, there are some things that we can tangibly do to oppose this Socialist-Separatist Coalition:

First, pray like the country is falling apart…because it is.

Second, sign this petition to oppose the Coalition and demand a full and fair election. 

Third, there are a number of rallies planned this coming Saturday December 6 from 12Noon – 2PM, including one at Parliament Hill.  You can read more of the details on this site.  Please make arrangements to attend.

Four, as social conservatives we must put pressure on the more socially conservative-minded and pro-life Liberal MPs to reconsider their support for Dion’s power-grab.  There are news reports that many Liberal MPs might withdraw support from this separatist-socialist coalition, and an e-mail or letter or phone call to them might be enough to convince them to withdraw.  The first eleven names listed below represent the pro-life Liberal MPs.  The second list of 4 names are the MPs who were against the Order of Canada being awarded to Morgentaler and who supported Bill C-484, the unborn victims of crime bill.


Wayne Easter


Mark Eyking


Judy Foote


Albina Guarnieri


Jim Karygiannis


Lawrence MacAuley


Dan McTeague


Shawn Murphy


Paul Szabo


Alan Tonks


Borys Wrzesnewskyi


Derek Lee


John McKay


Massimo Pacetti


Bryon Wilfert

Copy and paste into your email program “To” field:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Please take the time to contact them and express your views strongly.  It is important to stress to them that you believe Canada is facing a real threat to its national unity, and they have a responsibility as Members of Parliament to remain loyal to this country and to this nation’s families who rely on their good judgement.  In particular, remind them that this coalition is largely made up of godless socialists who will continue to rip apart the fabric of this nation, and continue to undermine and extinguish social conservative and family values.

We must act.  

Yours truly,

John Pacheco
Social Conservatives United 

p.s. These are high stakes not only for us, but for the socialist liberals and their clique as well.  If they fail at capturing power and there is a backlash, it might cripple them indefinitely for siding with the Bloc and give the social conservative movement within the CPC more influence.

Comments 16 Comments »

Jody Ann Lee stood in the prisoner’s box and pleaded guilty to one count of infanticide and one count of neglecting to obtain assistance in childbirth. She’ll be sentenced Jan. 9 in Barrie Superior Court of Justice. No facts were submitted yesterday, but during a preliminary hearing held last year, court heard the bizarre story of how the dead baby was discovered three days after Lee gave birth to its twin brother on Nov. 2, 2005. Lee, an educational assistant for the Simcoe County Board of Education, insisted to doctors that she could not be pregnant and had never had sex, even as doctors rushed her off for an emergency C-section. It was only after the birth of her healthy baby boy that doctors noticed the placenta had two umbilical cords and two embryo sacks instead of one. Somewhere, another baby had recently been born. The CAS was quickly called and the question was put to Lee: “Where’s the other baby?” But Lee insisted there was no other baby. While in the hospital, nurses noticed how she referred to her baby boy as “it” and never asked to see the infant. Lee’s boyfriend, Mark Eccelston, shocked and bewildered to learn he was suddenly a father, rushed to his girlfriend’s bedside to hold her hand. Although he had been a little concerned about Lee’s recent weight gain, she had always had a weight problem and so he had believed her when she said she was not pregnant. To his horror, three days later, investigators found the other baby, which had been hidden in the trunk of Lee’s car. It was a full-term baby girl, tied up in two plastic Wal-Mart bags. In previous court proceedings, a pathologist testified that the baby was born alive and healthy and died of asphyxiation. While it is unusual for baby twins to be born three days apart, it can happen, but it would be impossible for the mother not to know that she had just given birth to the first baby, court heard. Lee was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and later released on $10,000 bail to live with her mother. But yesterday the charge was reduced to infanticide, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Outside of court yesterday, the father, visibly upset, said he was unable to comment because of the ongoing custody battle with Lee over the surviving baby. Those proceedings are under a publication ban because of CAS involvement. “We are glad she pleaded guilty, but we think it should have been to murder,” said the baby’s grandfather, Allen Eccleston, outside of court. “She gave birth to my granddaughter and did everything she could to hide it. To me, that is murder.” He said the surviving baby, now three-years old is healthy and happy and living with the father. The family is expected to read victim impact statements in court next month where they will be given the opportunity to tell the judge how it has affected their lives. (Source)

Yes, it’s murder. It’s also abortion. And abortion is legal. Like infanticide is going to be legal. 

Why is this a surprise?  C’mon, get real.

Comments 2 Comments »

I’ve always had a profound respect for Jean Vanier and his tireless work with the disabled.  It is with some sadness and disappointment, however, that I recently read his justification in not returning his Order of Canada.  You can read his remarks here.

I simply cannot understand his position. We are not asking him not to be compassionate to women, but simply to acknowledge that the “award” he still clings to declares that murdering unborn life is not only acceptable but is to be lauded and applauded.

There is no justification for Jean Vanier’s muddled thinking on this matter, and sadly there is plenty of muddled thinking and logical incoherence in his remarks. 

I find it quite unconscionable that anyone who values the dignity of the unborn child will still cling to a medal that represents a brazen attack on that same dignity.  Yet, that is what he has done, despite the clear witness of his fellow Catholics on this matter.

The general thrust of Jean Vanier’s letter seems to be that he wants to foster peace, understanding, and unity. In itself, that is very good and noble.  Indeed, helping women who are in a crisis pregnancy is not only the right thing to do, it is a commandment of Love. However, none of this means anything unless a clear and unequivocal position is taken on the inviolability of human life.  Any search for peace, understanding and good will is a false one if it does not recognize, and more importantly, act on this reality.

It’s great to declare oneself to be “pro-life”, but like the Catholic politician who refuses to conform his actions to such a belief, any Catholic who knowingly belongs to a “club” which extols the murder of unborn children is really no better.

Jean Vanier has done the pro-life movement and especially his work with the disabled who are the first ones to be discarded in this abortion holocaust a huge disservice.

Catholics must indeed have compassion but it cannot be a false compassion, resting on a false sense of “unity” or “understanding”.

Comments 7 Comments »

As a candidate in the 2003 provincial election, I had the opportunity to participate in a number of all-candidates meetings. Unfortunately, most of the issues were agenda-driven and every effort was made to avoid the more controversial moral issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage. Besides the usual spending promises, the NDP candidate discussed how her party would implement a ten-dollar per day day-care program. This promise caught my attention because a few days earlier the media reported about a day-care workers’ strike in Quebec.

Quebec, as our readers may or may not know, has a five-dollar per day day-care system. Although it is often touted as a major success, the facts prove otherwise. Outside of the devastating impact on children, the system has become so costly, that the Quebec government has had to withdraw funds from the Quebec pension plan in order to keep the system afloat. While this fact is certainly scandalous in its own right, it pales in comparison to the message that it sends about the importance of parenthood.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that all of the day-care centers in Quebec could house sixteen children. Sixteen children times five dollars is eighty dollars. If each child had two parents, there would be thirty-two parents in each program. Next, if you take eighty dollars and divide it by thirty-two parents, you get two dollars and fifty cents. In essence, the day-care industry in Quebec is saying that parenthood is worth a couple of bucks and some change. The message here is that parenthood is something that you can put a price on. It is the commodification of parenthood taken to its extreme.

It is not my intent to bash day-care. Some parents truly do need day-care programs in order to work and make ends meet. These parents, however, are clearly in the minority. In my opinion, there is no excuse for middle class or wealthy, dual income couples to put their children in day-care centres.

I make a modest living and my wife is a stay-at-home mom. We have five children and we are regularly asked just how we are able to make ends meet. What I usually tell people is that children are born with a loaf of bread under their arms. Our Lord himself said that He would provide for us. We must depend on providence and trust that God will give us what we truly need (Cf. Lk. 12: 22-32).

My wife was a preschool teacher for the first two years of our marriage. She worked for a very professionally run day-care program that could accommodate a maximum of sixteen children. I can remember with vivid detail the stories that she used to tell about the damage done to children who attended her day-care. For example, a number of children would cling to the legs of their parents while crying and begging not to be dropped off. After a few weeks, these children would develop a hardness of heart as a result of the stress associated with the separation and feelings of abandonment. Parents would report that on weekends their children would say things such as, “I miss Lindy” (my wife’s name is Melinda). Other parents would report that their children actually dreamt about the caregivers. The saddest of all were the children who waited by the window with long, sad faces for their parents to pick them up at 6:30 pm and beyond. This becomes even more tragic when you consider the fact that most of these parents were doctors, lawyers and other professionals.

As I watched the day-care workers in Quebec picket and chant slogans in front of their workplaces, I couldn’t help but think just how lucky some of the kids were that day. Alternative arrangements would certainly be made for some, but for others the day would mean something else – a chance to spend it in the company of mom, dad or even both parents.

How did it come to this? How did our country come to de-value parenthood? I would argue that this has been the goal of the state for a number of years. Communist dictatorships have always known that they must destroy the family and all of its traditions in order to secure allegiance to the state. In the academy award winning film, The Killing Fields, there is a scene where the North Vietnamese are indoctrinating the Cambodians in one of their concentration camps. Children are shown attending a school. There is a “stick drawing” on the blackboard of a family holding hands. The teacher asks a question and one of the children raises his hand. The child then gets up, goes to the blackboard and proceeds to draw a big X through the mother and father. The communists understood that the younger the Cambodian, the greater the chance of indoctrination.

In the formative years, children have no baggage and they have not yet developed a value-system or a properly formed conscience. It is the parents who are primarily responsible for this formation process. Christian parents must begin to instill a sense of the sacred and divine at this age or else risk losing their children to the dominant post-Christian culture. Even parents who are able to do this still must compete with the dominant culture that is at war with traditional Christian morality. Although the deck seems to be stacked against Christian parents, there is at least hope within the family.

Obviously Canada is not a communist dictatorship, but it would seem that we are heading in this direction. Those in our government who would seek to undermine the family would never be upfront about it because Canadians would never tolerate it. Incrementalism is the modus operandi of those who seek to re-define the family unit. Like the frog that is being cooked to death slowly on low heat, we Canadians have been willing to accept minor encroachments on our freedom during these past forty years. As the readers know, there are many groups that are actively trying to dismantle the very definition of family.

Make no mistake about it, the Canadian government realizes that he who controls education controls the future of any society. Why do you think that the current provincial government seems so hostile to home-schools and private education? They know that the faith and values that so many of these families hold dear are passed on within the family. Secular humanism and moral relativism, which are the pillars of most public education, are undermined within the alternative systems. I would argue that the Catholic secondary system lost something when it decided to accept government funding. They inadvertently opened the door enough for the State to water down the Faith.

After being deprogrammed and then reprogrammed, the children in the concentration camps developed a resentment and hostility towards their parents as a result of being isolated and alienated from them. Many of the children were then given the authority to ‘rule’ over their parents. Faced with the trauma of daily separation and the competition for the attention of the day-care workers, children will most certainly rebel against those who should be raising them – mom and dad. Recent studies have found heightened levels of aggression in children who have attended day-care compared to those who have been raised at home. What the North Vietnamese did by force, too many Canadian parents are doing the same thing by choice, the consequences of which will resonate for generations.

Chris Beneteau

Comments No Comments »