While Dave Pellowe has written a very useful article intended to equip Protestant pastors, I thought I'd put together some resources specifically for Catholics or for those who want to understand the Church's stance on marriage. There has been a great deal of misinformation in Catholic circles regarding the marriage debate: while the Church's teaching is very clear, there are those who are content to deviate from this teaching and promote their own views - views which may in some circumstances be classified as formal heresy. [See Edward Peter's article linked below.] One example of this is a statement from Jesuit lecturer Fr. Frank Brennan, which suggests that it is appropriate for Catholics to support the  redefinition of marriage and that it may even be 'good for society.' [Click here to read his views.]

"I am going to die anyway. I am not being involuntarily euthanized. My nearest and dearest sympathize with my decision. I have tried very hard to beat the disease, but I have had enough and want - quite literally in my case - to go and meet my maker."

Rev. John Cartwright

Assisted Dying: Who Makes the Final Decision?

These words were written by philosopher and Congregational minister, John Cartwright. He is also a member of the Inter-Faith Leaders for Dignity in Dying. John Cartwright's outlook is shared by many people who want to see euthanasia and assisted suicide legalised, and who are convinced that the so-called 'slippery slope' poses no danger to such legislation, because stringent safeguards will be written into the laws.

Sometimes I'm stopped in the shopping centre by kind-hearted young people who are trying to raise money for various charities. One of them recently told me that diarrhea is the biggest killer of children under 5 worldwide. But I told him that abortion is the biggest killer of children world wide. [By a factor of 56!] In actual fact,  it's pneumonia that is the disease that kills the most children - it's responsible for 18% of childhood deaths worldwide. This still doesn't come close to the number of children lost to abortion, though. For children under the age of 5: 

Abortion is a Human Rights Catastrophe

According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, human rights are defined as "...the rights and freedoms contained in specific international instruments..." to which the ARHC adheres. These 'instruments' are 7 documents, including the Declaration on the Rights of the Child. Let's take a look at what the documents say about the right to life: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: 

Part III Article 6 

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Article 6 

Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities: 

Article 10 

Declaration of the Rights of the Child:

Introduction 

Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons:

Point 3 

Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons:

Points 1 & 2

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief:

Article 5 part 5 - [This document doesn't specifically mention a right to life, since that right is assumed as a basis for desiring freedom of religion or belief. It does, however suggest that pre-born babies are to be protected from being aborted, for cultural reasons, on the basis of gender.] Regardless of what we might think of the United Nations, Australia is a signatory to the seven documents mentioned above. So why does our country pay only lip service to this most fundamental right, by allowing 100,000 babies to be slaughtered every year? Our government not only allows this killing on demand, but subsidises it, and promotes it through a sexualised education system. Far from discouraging abortions for flimsy reasons, it's permissible to abort on the basis of gender, or for a minor disability. This callous disregard for life flows into society and creates - not a haven from abuse, as we've been promised - but an increase in child abuse and the number of murders of pregnant mothers. If we fail to acknowledge the humanity of the preborn, how can we not be confused about glaringly fundamental facts such as the nature of marriage and even gender identification? It's no wonder that we have black deaths in custody. It's no wonder that detention centres are inhumane. And it's no wonder that the criminal justice system rewards perpetrators and blames the victims. If we can't get the basics right, then nothing else is going to work properly. If we don't respect the right to life of our children, then all other rights are meaningless. We don't have to look far for a humanitarian crisis: we have one at our own front door.  

O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

The famous words from Sir Walter Scott are no less applicable to the tangled world of IVF than they were when Scott applied them to treason and betrayal in the 19th century. For the IVF industry operates on the deception that man, and not God or nature, is capable of producing new life in a way that builds up families and societies. The IVF process changes what should be a natural consequence of marriage into a highly invasive and expensive manipulation of parents and children, which simultaneously puts a price tag on human life while completely devaluing it. IVF is an ethical and moral minefield, with problems for the artificially-conceived children ranging from their compromised health to their psychological well-being. But one of the most urgent problems is knowing what to do with excess embryos created during the IVF process.

The Australian ‘Safe Schools’ Curriculum has been exposed as an insidious platform for delivering gender theory to impressionable children. The programme has its roots in Marxist ideology, but also in research based on the experience of pedophiles, as well as that of pedophilic academics.  Even worse, the input from pedophiles into school curricula isn’t limited to Australia alone.

This talk was given by Cardinal George Pell at the Legatus Summit in Florida, in 2006. It appears on the Endeavour Forum website and is used here by permission. The Endeavour Forum is an Australian organisation, who describes itself thus: 

Endeavour Forum started out as Women Who Want to be Women. That explains the four Ws on the ship Endeavour above. [ - on their emblem.] It was set up in response the militant feminism which first came around in the early 1970s and which became increasingly influential in the Whitlam and even Fraser Governments. While militant feminism did address some legitimate grievances it went too far getting into issues like abortion, equal opportunity and affirmative action. There was a need for women to defend the legitimate rights of traditional women in families and the rights of male breadwinners to get jobs. We believe that men and women are equal but different not equal and the same.

Conservatives may laugh about the childish intolerance of Generation Snowflake, but in reality, we have much to fear if they are allowed to continue to wield their latest weapon:18C. In fact, it could be argued that cartoonist Bill Leak's untimely death was due, at least in part, to the stress brought about by accusations that he violated 18C. Legal battles and unwanted media attention are a very stressful form of 'humiliation and insult' - precisely the kind of activity that this law purports to eliminate. More about Bill Leak later.

Although abortion providers don't like to admit it, medical abortions - that is, abortions which use medication such as mifepristone/RU-486 - can often be reversed without any harm to the unborn child. I recently spoke with a Victorian GP who has successfully helped an aborting mother to continue her pregnancy; our interview is recorded below. But, first let's look at the reversal process and what's happening in the US and Australia.

Those who know me know that I have never considered myself a feminist. I've always held on to the radical idea that men and women were put on the earth to help each other out, and not to compete with each other. Before I had my family, I worked in a male-dominated industry, but never felt excluded, passed over or discriminated against. (However, I was once asked to help out in a recording studio when an all-female band wanted an all-female crew. They weren't interested in my qualifications, just my gender. Isn't that discrimination?)

Maybe my favourable experience within a male-dominated workplace was coincidence - or maybe, just maybe - this was the fruit of an attitude which sees my femininity as one of my God-given attributes, something to be grateful for and not rebelled against, something which marks us with special features that complement those of our counterparts.

The founder of Marie Stopes International left a legacy rivalled only by Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger: the belief that discrimination on the basis of race, wealth and wantedness is the right of women and that they are only truly free when allowed to legally dispense with their children. Marie Stopes saw herself as a visionary whose ‘evolutionary’ take on marriage would create a world where child labor was acceptable but unplanned children were not.

The evolution of mankind will take a leap forward when we have around us, only fine and beautiful young people, all of whom have been conceived, carried, and born in true homes by conscious, powerful and voluntary mothers. Then at last will God’s will be done on earth and the power of Satan broken. Radiant Motherhood, p 252.

I think you'll agree that the power of satan is increased, rather than diminished by the world's insistence on physically perfect, wanted children born into exclusively wealthy, caucasian households!