AN EVENING OF PANES AND PÂTÉ WITH PARTYING PROPORTIONALISTS

I. PARTY TIME. "It was truly a glorious night of rejoicing and being among family and friends!", fawned Mary Rose Bacani at the Salt+Light TV blog. The date: Wednesday February 16, 2011. The occasion: "St. Peter’s Seminary Foundation hosted the premiere of the first episode of Panes of Glory: The Windows of St. Peter’s Seminary":

...St. Peter's Seminary staff and students gathered together to relish Fr. Prieur's Panes of Glory on film. These are the people with whom Fr. Prieur has shared his a-ha moments, his great moments of discovery... At the end of this screening, there was a standing ovation, and a great fondness for Fr. Prieur and his work was very evident... the highlight was the 7:00 pm screening for benefactors and supporters of St. Peter's Seminary and for Salt + Light staff... The reception of the first episode was incredible! Fr. Prieur got up [and] took us back to 2004 at his book launch, when Fr. Thomas Rosica was struck by the visual impact of the stained glass windows of the Seminary chapel and said to Fr. Prieur, "There's a movie in this book, and it is of Hollywood quality!"... The evening ended with a lively reception in the refectory, accompanied by cake and drinks. True to the theme of the evening, the cake featured... logos of Salt+Light and the supporters of the series. What a night! [1]

How nice, an evening with the Canadian Catholic glitterati. Now I wonder if anyone in attendance was actually aware who Fr. Prieur is and what he opines as a prominent bioethicist. My guess would be that not a few were cognizant. Yet because they had to keep up appearances (not to mention the "glorious night" of entertainment involved), Fr. Prieur's proportionalist positions on life issues were overlooked. Indeed, why make a fuss. Cake, drinks, ovations, silicon eye candy and a schmoozing endorsement from movie mogul Fr. Rosica: "There's a movie in this book, and it is of Hollywood quality!" Lights. Camera. Action! Score another one for the Salt and Light Media Foundation.

II. BACKGROUNDER. For over 35 years Fr. Michael R. Prieur has been Professor of Moral and Sacramental Theology at St. Peter's Seminary in London, Ontario. Currently, he is also Coordinator of the Permanent Deacon Program for the Diocese of London. He obtained a B.A. from University of Western Ontario, B.Th. from St. Peter's Seminary in 1965, and a Doctorate in Theology from the Pontificio Ateneo di S. Anselmo in Rome in 1969. His specialty is Bioethics, he has published numerous papers and books. Unfortunately, he is also the go-to-guy for many requiring an advisor/consultant on medical/life issues. Pretty straightforward. Well, not really. What you won't read or see or hear in the Canadian Catholic MSM,[2] including from the apparatchiks at Salt+Light TV, is that Fr. Prieur maintains a series of opinions at variance with Catholic teaching, rooted in an ethical philosophy coined proportionalism. Veritatis splendor defines:

The teleological ethical theories (proportionalism, consequentialism), while acknowledging that moral values are indicated by reason and by Revelation, maintain that it is never possible to formulate an absolute prohibition of particular kinds of behavior which would be in conflict, in every circumstance and in every culture, with those values.[3]

The various proportionalist positions of Fr. Prier already have been challenged by some websites and blogs two or so years ago, most notably at LifeSite News. However, as most of us know, orthodox Catholics in Canada, whether expressing themselves on the internet or in print (e.g. Catholic Insight), are ignored/marginalized by the Canadian Catholic MSM. Alas, in recent years public persona of Catholicism in Canada has been dominated by the smiley face people at Salt+Light TV. So it's time for a brief refresher course on four opinions maintained by Fr. Prieur, to which I will interrelate with the concluding comments of this post.

III. WINNIPEG STATEMENT. The first of Fr. Prieur's controversial positions relates to his defence of the Winnipeg Statement, a 1968 issuance by the Canadian bishops repudiating Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae vitae. Here, let's just cut to the chase and get to the infamous statement in Paragraph 26 of the text wherein, regarding the use of artificial contraception, it was declared that "whoever chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience".[4] Detail is not now required regarding this unprecedented bishopric revolt against a Pope, which opened the gates wide for abortion in Canada (let alone it's other moral repercussions). But know that WS is neither a magisterial or collegial document and therefore has zero binding force over Canadian Catholics. WS is a proportionalist text, especially the Protestant notion of private judgement as echoed in Paragraph 26, and accordingly it is not inconsistent that Fr. Prieur, with some measure of audacity, came to its defence. His argumentation thereof is rather charming, but so was Fr. Teilhald's for cosmic pantheism, and we know all about the trouble he caused. Fr. Prieur's main contention is that, within the context of moral theology, WS is consistent with Catholic teachings on conscience and faithful to Humane vitae.[5] Perhaps he hasn't looked at the Catechism lately:

Faced with a moral choice, conscience can either make a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, and erroneous judgment that departs from them.[6]

Does Fr. Prieur presume that "whoever chooses that course which seems right to him" (WS, para. 26) always makes the right judgment? That all consciences are well formed? If so, he seems not to have ruminated much on human nature. But, hey, the Catechism is for the folks. Small potatoes. So let's make reference to a classic work by the pre-Vatican II manualist Fr. Thomas Slater:

A right conscious is in accordance with the eternal law of morality; an erroneous conscience gives a false instead of a true judgment. If the mistake could and ought to have been avoided by the agent who has a false conscience, the conclusion is vincibly erroneous; otherwise it is invincibly erroneous.[7]

Too many distinctions? But this discussion isn't even necessary. Why? The bishops themselves admitted that WS was not faithful to Humanae vitae. CCCB President Bishop Alexander Carter voiced the following in 1968:

For the first time we faced the necessity of making a statement which many felt could not be a simple Amen, a total and formal endorsement of the doctrine of the encyclical.[8]

Fr. Prieur can tip toe all he wants. Unfortunately for him, facts keep getting in the way.

IV. EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS. How is it possible that a Catholic priest could support the "moral possibility" of killing human embryos outside the womb? Well, if you have connections with the Kennedy Ethics Center (which bespeaks much), compose a "position paper" as lead author with a band of fellow proportionalists so as to give it so-called credibility within the Catholic sphere, plus chucking therein a bunch of euphemisms and mercurial phraseologies, then, yes, Fr. Prieur et allia can argue that "such research could be conducted legitimately in a Catholic institution by using an ethical analysis involving a narrative context".[9] Note right away that the word "research" is substituted for killing the human embryo. This kind of linguistic acrobatics is customary with those who tacitly work toward the objectification and thus the dehumanization of human embryos, whether in the womb or in extraneous frozen storage at some laboratory.[10] Intended or not, the effect is the same. Once this form of non-specific semantics becomes a common acceptation, any kind of "research" can be justified because Pandora's box has already been opened. The conclusion of the paper can be quoted thus:

We maintain that the embryonic stem cell research we propose would not give tacit approval to IVF procedures since these already routinely occur at many sites that are totally distinct geographically and in ownership from any Catholic sites... Our present research leads us to believe that embryonic stem cell research on extant cell lines is, at the present time, a legitimate moral possibility for Catholic research facilities.

It also stated that "whether such cooperation is licit will be discussed further on in the paper". No need. The Pontifical Academy for Life pronounced on this very issue six years prior (in 2000) to the paper by Fr. Prieur et allia, making that statement a non sequitur:

Is it morally licit to use ES cells, and the differentiated cells obtained from them, which are supplied by other researchers or are commercially obtainable? The answer is negative, since: prescinding from the participation - formal or otherwise - in the morally illicit intention of the principal agent, the case in question entails a proximate material cooperation in the production and manipulation of human embryos on the part of those producing or supplying them.[11]

Even earlier (in 1987) the CDF's Instruction Donum vitae stated that "the corpses of human embryos and foetuses... cannot be subjected to mutilation or to autopsies... in the case of dead foetuses... all commercial trafficking must be considered illicit".[12] Moreover, two years after the Prier et allia paper (in 2008) the Instruction Dignitas personae indicated this:

...the criterion of independence as it has been formulated by some ethics committees is not sufficient. According to this criterion, the use of "biological material" of illicit origin would be ethically permissible provided there is a clear separation between those who, on the one hand, produce, freeze and cause the death of embryos and, on the other, the researchers involved in scientific experimentation... When the illicit action is endorsed by the laws which regulate healthcare and scientific research, it is necessary to distance oneself from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance of actions which are gravely unjust... Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to the growing indifference to, if not the approval of, such actions in certain medical and political circles... there is a duty to refuse to use such "biological material" even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion... This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself, within the area of one's own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life.[13]

Personal note: Just recently a relative very close to this blogger, young and innocent, asked me to donate to the Heart and Stroke Foundation. The reason being a school campaign to raise money for HSF. Yet I declined because the aforesaid organization performs "research" on embryonic stem cells,[14] to which this child (obviously) and parents are oblivious. Because I refused, doing my best in adhering to Catholic teaching, I will now have to endure the ire and awkward tension from this family in the near future. I can deal with that. Part of the package when you submit yourself to the Redeemer of Humanity. Although what is infuriating is having to undergo this in the first place, because proportionalists, like the influential bioethicist Fr. Prieur, create an atmosphere such that embryonic stem cell "research" is transmogrified into a "moral possibility". These dissidents have no idea how their criminal ideations - after dissemination in the public square - deeply affect the personal lives of Catholics.

V. TUBAL LIGATION. This is a type of female sterilization involving the sealing/severing of the fallopian tubes to prevent fertilization, otherwise known as a woman getting her "tubes tied". The Church forbids contraceptive sterilization. For example, Humanae vitae delineates:

...the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.[15]

In a 2001 interview, Fr. Prieur stated that, although ligation is an evil action, a Catholic hospital can perform this procedure under "material cooperation":

We live in a messy world, the alternative... do we get out of health care completely? We tolerate something for the greater good, the greater good being the health of the woman.[16]

Here clarification is necessary regarding "cooperation", the two kinds being immediate (proximate) and mediate (remote). The former involves direct or essential cooperation in an act. This always is always an evil, except in rare cases when a participant is under duress. But where's the duress of medical practitioner performing the sterilization? Mediate cooperation infers indirect or remote participation. It is justifiable in that another evil would occur should there be a failure in cooperation, thus involving the principle of the "double effect". Now whether or not the cooperation is immediate or mediate is a function of how closely connected the secondary agent is to the action of the principal agent, and it is in the determination of this connection which moral theologians have found to be difficult. As Fr. Slater wrote: "The chief difficultly lies in determining the gravity of the cause which will justify in co-operating materially in another's sin".[17] So, then, what is the gravity involved regarding tubal ligation? Is it, as Fr. Prieur contended, "the health of a woman"? But how can sterilization work toward the health of a woman? Where's the relation? What's the definition of "health" in this instance? Effectively, aren't "health" and ligation being made equivalent to one another? Common sense says they are not co-equal. Thus the gravitas in this situation is the tubal ligation procedure as such. Accordingly, what has the Church said with respect to the gravity of the act? The CDF's document Sterilization in Catholic Hospitals makes it plain and clear:

[Sterilization] ...is absolutely forbidden, therefore, according to the teaching of the Church, even when it is motivated by a subjectively right intention [i.e. Fr. Prieur's "the health of a woman"]... Sterility induced as such does not contribute to the person's integral good... Rather does it damage a person's ethical good, since it deprives subsequent freely-chosen sexual acts of an essential element... The congregation... is aware that many theologians dissent from it, but it denies that this fact as such has any doctrinal significance, as though it were a theological source which the faithful might invoke, forsaking the authentic magisterium for the private opinions of theologians who dissent from it.[18]

Remember: Fr. Prieur speaks only his opinion as a dissenting moral theologian. He does not represent the Magisterium of the Church.

VI. EARLY INDUCTION. In December 2008 LifeSite News issued an exclusive, reporting that the "early induction" technique was being performed for the last two decades at St. Joseph's Hospital in London, Ontario. Early induction, as the phrase suggests, involves the inducement of labour for diagnosed cases of "lethal fetal anomalies". The policy for performing early inductions at St. Joseph's Hospital were/are based on guidelines drawn up in document by Fr. Prier, wherein his proportionalism is evident: "An early induction may be permitted after viability for a proportionate reason which can include grave physical, psychological or psychiatric considerations".[19] Note right away the linguistic characterization of the child in utero as a "viability". The controversy that occurred after the breaking LifeSite article centred around, primarily, whether or not "early induction" is an abortion and, secondarily, "health" considerations of the mother. Fr. Prier claimed negatively on the former: "Now it's not called abortion. We’re not killing the baby. We’re bringing the baby out and allowing the baby to die. That's a very important distinction."[20] Did you note the trick in this statement? Dr. John B. Shea, a medical doctor, did: "Early induction is equivalent, not to abortion, but to euthanasia, if the baby does not die until after birth. If the infant dies as a result of the early induction before birth, early induction is an abortion". Silly me, I always figured that moral theologians were better than medical practitioners at forming distinctions. Moreover, regarding "lethal fetal anomalies" as such, Dr. Shea stated that "diagnoses of fatal fetal anomalies are not always correct". Regarding the "health" matter, he further wrote of "the fact that a fetus has a lethal fetal anomaly is not associated with a threat to the life of a mother". Dr. Shea's conclusion was that, based on Catholic teaching (including consideration of the principle of "double effect"), St. Joseph's Hospital's "practice of early induction does not appear to be justified".[21] Others, too, challenged Fr. Prieur, including Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro, Rome's Director of Human Life International: "early induction is akin to euthanasia. It willfully creates a life threatening situation for the child that will hasten his death".[22]

VII. MACHINATIONS. Reportedly, Bishop Ronald Fabbro of the Archdiocese of London sent a letter to Rome to have the matter undergo review.[23] But why wait for media exposure for Vatican approval? +Fabbro is on record as saying that "I know that an early induction of labour is not an abortion".[24] If so, why ask for the review if you already know? Why has it taken 20+ years? Obviously, the request was made because it was provoked by LSN's December 2008 article. +Fabbro's view is mere opinion. Now when LSN contacted the Archdiocese of London, Gatekeeper Mark Adkinson said that +Fabbro had no comment on the controversy. No surprise. Fr. Prieur was originally given approval to permit early induction by now retired Bishop John Michael Sherlock. When queried about the issue, he responded thus:

Well, I can't remember any details now. You're on a very specific topic... I know that he was responsible for ensuring that the Church's moral teaching in the matter of life was maintained at St. Joseph’s hospital and I trusted his judgement, and had absolute confidence that he would be utilizing the most advanced moral theology in judging the appropriateness of certain medical procedures and I had trust in him.[25]

So +Sherlock can't recall but trusted the judgement of Fr. Prieur! Now consider what is happening here: Firstly, we have the current bishop of London who believes early induction is not an abortion, but is anyway checking with the boys in Rome to get their view, and this only after media exposition. Secondly, we have a retired bishop who cannot recall exactly what the hell is going on, but still gave approval to early induction because he had "absolute confidence" in Fr. Prier. Thirdly, we have Fr. Prier himself who, 26 years ago, made the sole decision with a significant degree of uncertainty to permit early inductions at St. Joseph's Hospital after going for a "walk and thought, 'Lord, I hope we're going the right thing'". This is an objective justification?! The article continues: "Back then he still had a nagging sense that the decision might not be quite in line with the Catholic Church".[26] Subsequently, Fr. Prieur went for consultations, getting the opinions of theologians "around the world". Still, no Church oversight, especially on the crucial moral principle of the "double effect" and whether the procedure was permitted for so-called "pre-viable" babies (see below). Early inductions were permitted at St. Joseph's for over two decades. And LifeSite News was vilified for bringing this controversial issue to public attention?! Nobody else would have done so.

VIII. MSM TO THE RESCUE. Now, of course, Fr. Prier and/or +Fabbro had to do something to get out of the self-imposed mess. And they got an out from Charles Lewis at the National Post, of the Holy Post blog. Connections with the lapdog MSM help, you know. Lewis' article is a whitewashing puff piece.[27] Fr. Prier is portrayed as a victim haunted by pro-life vigilantes. LSN is described as "extreme by many Catholics". Who would those Catholic's be? Perchance, would Fr. Rosica be one of them? Lewis also claimed that LSN accused St. Joseph's Hospital of "secretly performing abortions" when the word "secret" wasn't even used in the breaking article. Fr. Prieur himself admitted the occurrence of early inductions. LSN made it clear that "the matter was brought to our attention by knowledgeable persons who were deeply concerned about what they knew was going on at St. Joseph's Hospital".[28] What was most reprehensible about the NP article was the stage play communicated in the photograph therein of +Fabbro (left) and Prier (right). Feigned humility with the clasped hands, pursed lips, "look at me I'm a martyr", and an air of defiance on +Fabbro's part, whose appearance in the photograph is a telltale sign of support for Prieur's proportionalist ways. Let it be known that +Fabbro consented with much in the Prieur et allia embryonic stem cell paper: "Although he liked the paper and agreed with many aspects of it, he did not think think he could approve of any research at the St. Joseph's site. He did encourage to publish to further the discussion of the subject".[29] This is the same evasive illogic employed by politicians who say that they're personally opposed to abortion but would not deny a woman's "right to choose".

IX. PROPORTIONALIST PATTERN. Fr. Prier did retract his position on early induction of (particularly) so-called "pre-viable" anencaphalic babies. However, this eventuated only after outside correction from the American bishops. Yet he still endorses early inductions for severely deformed babies. The updated guidelines at St. Joseph's make salient that "there have been no significant shifts in recent thinking since 1999 which would necessitate revising the basic thrust of our Principles and Guidelines".[30] Nonetheless, for years he was contravening the deferrable authority on this recently emergent bioethical subject. Even if opinions were maintained with the best of intentions, an error is an error, corrections must be effectuated, and recourse must be made to the teaching authority of the Church, not the rationations of individual theologians. This has been the case with Fr. Prieur through the years, this tending away from Catholic moral teaching, step by step, little by little. As above: Tubal Ligation (2001), the Winnipeg Statement (2005), Embryonic Stem Cells (2006), Early Induction (2008) - there is a consistent pattern here which, to reiterate from Dignitas personae, gives the "appearance of acceptance [but] would in fact contribute to the growing indifference to, if not the approval of, such actions in certain medical and political circles". And the driver is the philosophy of proportionalism.

X. IRONY AND SILENCE. Getting back to the glitterati gala in London mentioned at the outset, it is not surprising that Fr. Rosica was involved with celebrating a dissident moral theologian. But, then again, what affaires Catholiques du Nord is there to which Rosica is not involved? He has a history of outlandishly defending those who endorse opinions at odds with Church teaching. Forget the Kennedy fiasco, in 1996 he called on the cops to "restrain" a group of two dozen Catholics peacefully picketing outside the Newman Centre, at the University of Toronto. They were protesting against a lecture to be given by the Marxist excommunicated priest Gregory Baum. The tragic irony in Fr. Rosica schmoozing up to bioethical proportionalist Fr. Prieur relates to the fact that, just a few years ago, the former expended much time celebrating and promoting the life of St. Gianna Beretta Molla (a pro-life icon, canonized in 2004), even getting to know her family.[31] A good thing in itself, except that, unlike the latent anti-natalism which pervades Fr. Prieur's thinking, St. Gianna died "rather than undergo a medical treatment that would have caused an abortion".[32] Quite a contrast, you think? Oh well, "There's a movie in this book, and it is of Hollywood quality!" Compounding this situation in London is the current news story regarding Baby Joseph, disseminated throughout Canada and the US[33]. Here we have an activist judiciary, antinomian doctors and health care bureaucrats (i.e. the State) vehemently overlording the little guy and his parents (i.e. the Family). As one blogger just observed, where is the outcry against this anti-natalist onslaught? Not a word from prominent bioethicist Fr. Prieur at St. Peter's Seminary, London, Ontario. No report from Fr. Rosica at Salt + Light TV. Not a peep from Bishop Fabbro of the London Archdiocese. Nothing. Silence. Hey +Fabbro, why don't you give your buddy at the National Post a call? Too busy? Sleep well... Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us. Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on poor Canada.


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. M.R. Bacani, "Panes of Glory: The Premiere!", Salt+Light TV (blog), February 17, 2011. LINK

2. The underdogs at Catholic Insight and LifeSite News first brought Fr. Prieur's proportionalism to public attention.

3. Pope John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, ch. II, IV, 75. LINK

4. Quoted in V. Foy, "Tragedy at Winnipeg: The Canadian Catholic Bishops' Statement on Humanae vitae", Challenge, vol. 14, 1988. LINK

5. V. Foy, "A response to Fr. Michael Prieur's defence of the Winnipeg Statement", Catholic Insight, September 2005, vol. XIII, no. 8. LINK

6. Catechism of the Catholic Church (Ottawa: Publications Service, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1994), no. 1799, p. 380.

7. T. Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1925), vol 1, bk. II, ch. I, para. 2, p. 29.

8. Quoted in V. Foy (note 5). Original reference: E. Sheridan, "Canadian bishops on Of Human Life", America, October 19, 1968, p. 349.

9. M.R. Prieur, J. Atkinson, L. Hardingham, D. Hill, G. Kernaghan, D. Miller, S. Morton, M. Rowell, J.F Vallely, and S. Wilson, "Stem Cell Research in a Catholic Institution: Yes or No?", Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, March 2006, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 73-98.

10. For an good book on how language is used to objectify/degrade human beings see W. Brennan, Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1995). See especially Chapter 13 (pp. 127-138). The first sentence of this chapter is relevant to the characterization of killing of embryonic stem cells as "research": "The semantic transformation of undesired human beings into inanimate objects - mere things with no semblance of personality, humanity, consciousness, life, or vitality - constitutes one of the most radical and pervasive forms of denigration. In this process of objectification people are reduced to the level of insignificant matter that can be used, moved, manipulated, and disposed with impunity".

11. Pontifical Academy for Life, Declaration on the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells, August 25, 2000. LINK

12. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum vitae, On Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, Replies to Certain Questions of the Day, I, 4. LINK

13. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas personae, On Certain Bioethical Questions, III, 35. LINK

14. Cf. J.-H. Westen, "Canada's Heart and Stroke Foundation Continues to Support Embryonic Stem Cell Research", LifeSite News, February 5, 2007. LINK

15. Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, On the Regulation of Human Births, 14.LINK

16. Quoted in J.B. Shea, "Father Michael Prieur on 'staying in the game'", Catholic Insight, June 2001, vol. IX, no. 6. LINK

17. T. Slater, op. cit., vol 1, bk. V, pt. III, ch. VII, pp. 133. Modernist commentators regularly malign Fr. Slater (1855-1928) in their histories/reviews of moral theology. Almost anticipating the modernist antinomian onslaught to come, Slater wrote the essay "The Roots of Liberal Theology", Irish Ecclesiastical Record, January, 1907. LINK

18. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Sterilization in Catholic Hospitals (March 13, 1975) In: ed. A. Flannery, Vatican Council II, More Post Conciliar Documents (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press), vol. 2, pp. 454-455.

19. M.R. Prieur, "Early Induction for Lethal Fetal Anomalies", June 2, 1997 (Revision No. 6), p. 2. LINK

20. Quoted in J.-H. Westen, "Exclusive: Twenty Years of Eugenic Abortion at Ontario Catholic Hospital", LifeSite News, December 11, 2008. LINK

21. J.B. Shea, "The early induction of labour", Catholic Insight, April 6, 2009 (updated). LINK

22. "Doctor of Dogmatic Theology and Ob/Gyn Condemn Early Induction Abortions at Catholic Hospital in London", LifeSite News, January 7, 2009 (author not indicated). LINK See also J.-H. Westen, "Mother Rejected Advice to Terminate Pregnancy Given by Priest at Centre of 'Early Induction' Scandal", LifeSite News, March 18, 2009. LINK

23. "Ontario Bishop Says 'Early Induction' Policy at Catholic Hospital Under Vatican Review", LifeSite News, March 5, 2009 (author not indicated). LINK

24. Quoted in C. Lewis, "Operating on Faith", National Post, February 20, 2009. LINK

25. Quoted in J.-H. Westen, op. cit. (note 20).

26. Quoted in C. Lewis, op. cit.

27. Ibid.

28. "Letter to the Editor for March 2, 2009", LifeSite News, March 2, 2009. LINK

29. See the post "Troubling discussion with Fr. Prieur about embryonic stem cell research" at the blog Catholic Dialogue, December 14, 2009. LINK

30. St. Joseph's Health Care, "Early Induction for Lethal Fetal Anomalies: Ethical Guidelines", May 2006 (revised), p. 1. LINK

31. See, for example, T. Rosica, "A Holy Couple Reunited in Heaven - Death of Mr. Pietro Molla, Husband of St. Gianna Beretta Molla on Holy Saturday Morning in Mesero (Milano) Italy", Salt + Light TV (blog), April 3, 2010. LINK

32. "A Pro-life Icon to Be Canonized, Gianna Molla Gave Her Life for Unborn Daughter", ZENIT, May 13, 2004. LINK

33. See the Bioethics section at LifeSite News website to read about Baby Joseph Maraachli. LINK

AN EVENING OF PANES AND PÂTÉ WITH PARTYING PROPORTIONALISTS