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

INTRODUCING STEVE

I. Headline: "Monsignor Feeney Foundation presents... An Evening with Stephen Lewis". Byline: "Celebrated Humanitarian: Stephen Lewis is one of Canada's most influential commentators of social affairs, international development and human rights. He has been named by TIME magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world (he was cited in the category which included The Dali Lama, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey and Nelson Mandela)". Where: Hilton Hotel, 300 King Street, London, ON. When: Wednesday February 16, 2011, Cocktails at 6 pm, Presentation at 7 pm. Cost: Tickets $45 each... So splashed the poster for Steve. Query: Why did a Catholic foundation sponsor this enemy of the Roman Catholic Church?

II. Before diving into this affair, let's provide a brief backgrounder. Prior to his current incarnation as cause célèbre humanitaire, Steve played two significant roles in his global campaign against human life. First, as politician. As a young man, his entry dans le monde started with a "clerical position" at the Socialist International. His socialism, no doubt, was inculcated by his father, one time National Secretary of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The CCF was Canada's Communist party before morphing into the Fabianst NDP. The fact that Steve twice dropped out of law school, from the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia, was irrelevant for his qualification as a future prominent politician. CCF leader and eugenicist Tommy Douglas, CBC's "greatest Canadian", made sure of that. He became NDP Member of Parliament in Ontario in 1963 and it was as early as 1965 that Steve the atheist was promoting the legalization of abortion.[1] He was NDP Leader from 1970 to 1978. The second role was as diplomat/broadcaster. From 1984 to 1988 he was the Canadian Ambassador to the UN. During the 1980s he was also a regular a political panelist on the most boring radio program ever produced in the history of humanity: CBC's Morningside with Peter Gzowski. Finally, from 1995 to 1999 he was Deputy Director of UNICEF, thus interassociated with his later self-named The Stephen Lewis Foundation. Humility is not a trait endemic to this B-grade secular messiah.

III. Just one more aside, on Steve's familial cohorts. His wife Michelle Landsberg is a notorious activist and columnist at The Toronto Star. For decades she's penned tracts against the Catholic Church, being particularly vicious against the pro-life movement. Landsberg is also a good friend of "professional Catholics". In 2007 the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) asked her to be keynote speaker at its biennial conference.[2] To be sure, there's something very Sidney and Beatrice Webb about these two.[3] Also note that their son Avi Lewis, formerly of the CBC via the nepotistic gateway, is now a program host at Al-Jazeera. To top things off, his wife is popular author Naomi Klein, proponent of Eurostyle socialism, hater of free markets.[4] This isn't the Brady Bunch.

IV. It was with Steve's CBC Massey Lectures in 2005, and its resulting book,[5] that The Stephen Lewis Foundation (an NGO that financially supports HIV/AIDS groups in Africa) really started to mete itself out, as in the endorsement of abortion, "safe sex", condoms, including the unproven notion that male circumcision mitigates HIV risk.[6]. Given this agenda, it was inevitable that Steve's anti-Catholic bigotry would emerge during the Pope's visit to Africa in March 2009, whereupon B16 acuminated:

The problem of HIV/AIDS cannot be overcome with mere slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanisation of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with the suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to stand by those who suffer.[7]

The international media, of course, went bonkers and quickly pounced on Pope Benedict. Steve, too, got in on the action and, lo!, the vilifications spewed from this so-called humanitarian: "The Pope is living on the moon - every stitch of scientific evidence says condoms are the best preventative measure we have against the virus... another example of the complete indifference to the vulnerability of women".[8] Not according to a liberal professor at Harvard, who (rather surprisingly) came to B16's defence after the media onslaught.[9] Later in a November 2009 the Globe & Mail quoted Steve as saying the "Pope's words are simply not to be taken seriously on the issue. People are too smart to be taken in". Benny must have really gotten on Steve's nerves as the latter was still bemoaning in 2010, stating that the former is "sending a message which ultimately kills people... His words were, frankly, irresponsible and damaging and it was like inviting death".[10] Let's see, invocations of "kills people" and "death" yet he is pro-abortion... Logic is not one of Steve's preponderating faculties.

V. Flashfoward now to 2011, London, Ontario. Last January the London Free Press announced the speaking gig sponsored by the MFF.[11] The reporter, a certain Herman Goodden, perhaps amused by the whole affair, prefaces the article by indicating Steve was "selected by Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina Monologues, as one of the world's foremost feminists". Qualifiers, you know. Although denouncing MFF, Goodden finds Steve's work to be "commendable". Fellow LFP reporter Jennifer O'Brien was euphoric, referring to Steve as "one of Canada’s best orators"[12] Maybe she was having a flashback to her Tigerbeat reading days when Sean Cassidy was king. Even LFP blogger and dissident Catholic Kathy Rumleski offered congratulations to the MFF for its sponsorship. Poor thing, she deems the Church's teachings "frustrating", "sad", "I do not think I'm going to hell because I don't agree with everything taught in the Church".[13] Such a profound and singular theological cogitation! Further, just consider the adulations Steve's received after the February 16 speech: "...amazing energy ...very engaging ...Powerful. Phenomenal ...You're struck by his passion."[14] Surely, they must all be right. For goodness sake, the Sisters of St. Joseph in London were advertising Steve's talk. Sr. Margo Ritchie had the vapours:

There was controversy about Lewis's visit because he holds views on abortion that run counter to official Catholic teaching. Our challenges are too great and our potential too awesome to let our energy be drained away by focusing on differences. The fact that many on our planet, and in our city, struggle for daily survival needs to be front and centre for us.

Do you think Sr. Margo wears a habit? And lest we forget, the Prairie Messenger provides a link to The Stephen Lewis Foundation.

VI. Now it's not as if Steve doesn't have a history of commingling and confabulating with like-minded "professional Catholics". Go back to 2001 and observe that the Canadian Catholic Health Care Association (CCHA) invited him to be keynote speaker at its annual conference.[15] Apparently, everybody loves Steve. Nonetheless, the question must be posed as to why the MFF sponsored this anti-Catholic bigot. Obviously, apostasy and heresy are existent therein. An editorial at the Catholic Register, stating the MFF's choice as a "significant misstep", nevertheless claims that it "can be commended for almost three decades of achievement".[16] Achievement at what specifically? This is an assertion. It cannot be corroborated since it's based only on viewing the website, consisting of a scant five or six pages with no historical data on past sponsorships. What is interesting are the rationalizations proffered by MFF Executive Director Mary Anne Foster. A LSN report quotes her as saying:

Basically what we say is that even though he holds those views [anti-Catholicism, verbal attacks on B16], the Foundation doesn’t agree with them... No. We're not endorsing that... He is an expert on global health and Christians should be open to learning from him just on that level. He's only coming to speak here in London about poverty, children, and education. That's all he's speaking about... We've already told him that those are not up for discussion and they are not going to be part of any speech... If people have asked, we've, you know, basically what we're hoping is the same thing, that he's just here to speak on poverty, children, and educational issues. Most people are happy with that. Ninety percent of the people that have purchased tickets are Catholic.[17]

When you read statements like this, do you ever wonder who the hell these people are? What motivates them? How did they acquire their positions? The answer to the latter no doubt involves inserting one's proboscis up another's behind. However, this entire controversy is mere surface noise, a symptom of something noisome operative within. Accordingly, we now turn our gaze to the chancery office at the Diocese of London.

VII. After complaints about Steve's appearance were made to Bishop Ronald Fabbro, here is what Diocesan Gatekeeper Mark Adkinson said to the Catholic Register:

The bishop indicated that the choice was imprudent, but he verified that the foundation does not endorse Stephen Lewis' views on Catholic teaching, which they have stated publicly, and that they are solidly committed to their Catholic identity. Further, Stephen Lewis will not speak on any matter where he contradicts Church teaching.[18]

Thus it is confirmed that Foster, as quoted above (from a January 20 LSN report), was regurgitating triangulations originating from the chancery office (Adkinson's statement was given in a February 2 article). Wonder how that phone conversation went? Here, triangulation is not meant just in the political sense of being above and beyond a position. It is also meant in a mathematical sense. +Fabbro is a mathematician. He has Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Mathematics. Therefore his approach is not so much as an administrator than as a scientist, and a cool customer at that. Very important. Also noteworthy: he is a multi-decadal friend of fellow Basilian Fr. Thomas Rosica, CEO of Salt+Light TV. Watch the grandstanding here. Fabbro's half-assed response to the controversy, i.e. "the choice was imprudent", divulges cowardice and/or complacency on an issue necessitating strident outspokenness on the part of a bishop. But this is no surprise. He is, after all, a member of The Star Chamber. Given Steve's combinatorial anti-life/pro-abortion/antinomian stance, it is ironic (but really despicable) that Fabbro is a member of the CCCB committee for Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF), whose stated mission is "to build a culture of life and a civilization of love by promoting respect for human life and dignity and the essential role of the family". Somewhat at variance with Steve's worldview, wouldn't you say?

VIII. Party alignment in general is illustrated in how the Diocese responded to the Catholic press. Although Gatekeeper Adkinson offered time to comment for the Catholic Register, he refused speaking to LifeSite News when contacted. Moreover, Ian Hunter at Catholic Insight wrote about his concern of Steve's appearance both to Fabbro and MFF. No reply. Very telling. But this is not the end of the story. For there was another celebrity gala in +Fabbro's diocese on February 16, 2011. Same city. Same evening. Stay tuned for the sequel in the next post.


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. CI Staff, "UNICEF and Catholic Schools", Catholic Insight, April 2003, vol. XI, no. 4. LINK

2. A. de Valk, "The Assault on the Family", Catholic Insight, September 2007, vol. XV, no. 8. LINK

3. N.J. White, "Michelle Landsberg, Stephen Lewis speak in Toronto", The Toronto Star, February 11, 2008. LINK

4. See N. Klein, No Logo (New York: Picador USA, 2000). This is Klein's most famous book. Praise for it from the Guardian and the Socialist Review says enough.

5. S. Lewis, Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa (Toronto: House of Anasi Press, 2005).

6. Lewis attempts to justify HIV reduction by male circumcision in this video. A countering position can be found in Doctors Opposing Circumcision: HIV Statement, "The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection". Includes many references to the scientific literature. LINK

7. "Pope Replies to Questions from Journalists", Vatican Information Service, March 18, 2009. LINK

8. I. Hunter, "Catholic foundation sponsors talk by Canada’s leading Catholic-basher", Catholic Insight, January 2011, vol. XIX, no. 1. LINK See also A. de Valk, "The Pope on condoms and the AIDS crisis", Catholic Insight, May 2009, vol. XVII, no 5. LINK

9. "Harvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa", Catholic News Agency, March 21, 2009. LINK

10. D. St. Pierre, "Pope's message will kill people, says Stephen Lewis", The Barrie Examiner, 2010 (exact date not indicated). LINK

11. H. Goodden, "Lewis, Catholic Church odd bedfellows in local speaking gig", London Free Press, January 29, 2011 (last updated). LINK

12. J. O'Brien, "Lewis lightning road", London Free Press, February 4, 2011. LINK

13. K. Rumleski, "Congrats to the Monsignor Feeney Foundation for inviting Lewis", London Free Press (blog), February 4, 2011. LINK

14. K. Dubinski, "Lewis speaks out on global poverty", London Free Press, February 17, 2011. LINK

15. A. de. Valk, "Scandal in Hamilton", Catholic Insight, June 2001, vol. IX, no. 6. LINK

16. "The wrong choice", Catholic Register (editorial), February 9, 2011. LINK See also P.B. Craine, "Canada’s largest Catholic paper slams Stephen Lewis invite", LifeSite News, February 10, 2011, LINK

17. Quoted in P.B. Craine, "Catholic group hosting abortion advocate Stephen Lewis knew about his views", LifeSite News, January 20, 2011. LINK

18. Quoted in P.B. Craine, "Ontario Bishop: Stephen Lewis talk for Catholic group 'imprudent'", LifeSite News, February 2, 2011. LINK

INTRODUCING STEVE

WHO GOES THERE ?

I. It seems EWTN always has had a tough time making inroads up here in the Great White North. In the 1980s and most of the 1990s, this highly successful Catholic broadcaster, started by that most wonderful and longsuffering nun Mother Angelica, was only available outside the United States on shortwave radio via its station WEWN Global Catholic Radio, broadcasting from Birmingham, Alabama. Listening required the purchase of a specialty radio able to tune in to frequencies outside commercial AM/FM bands as the broadcast ranges of the latter are restricted to just hundreds of miles. Yet in 1997 when EWTN first applied for a television broadcast license its application was rejected by the CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission). At the time, the communication regulator's policy disallowed non–Canadian single–faith licensing. The prominent Canadian religious broadcaster during the 1990s was the "multi–faith" channel Vision TV, whose programming can be characterized as a kind of New Age syncretism. Road blocks against EWTN were even being erected from within the Catholic Church. Sr. Stephanie Vinec, CSJ, former president of the Association of Roman Catholic Communicators, evoked this disqualifier:

It's not just a matter of not wishing to work as a team with Canadian producers. It's a question of basic theology. Canadian Catholic producers have worked in the tradition set by our bishops after Vatican II... The Holy Father himself has urged the coming Church of the laity to prepare for the millennium in the light of Vatican II teaching. The renewal for the church for the new age depends on it... We have no assurance that EWTN would carry on the teaching of Vatican II in its fullness.[1]

With phraseology like the "coming Church of the laity", "new age" and "Vatican II in its fullness" it is a rather pedestrian task to identify the agenda Sr. Vinec was attempting to uphold. Nonetheless, a broadcast license was eventually approved, very likely to the dismay of Sr. Vinec and her fellow "professional Catholics", as B16 might phrase it. EWTN has been available in Canada for over a decade now, via three of our major television providers, namely Bell Canada, Rogers Communications and Shaw Communications, including a suite of smaller outfits. Reportedly, EWTN was experiencing "explosive growth" in 2006.[2] I assumed this ascending trend continued to the present day...

II. That is until coming across an item on my Twitter news feed last week. A CNS tweet was reporting that Bell Canada will drop EWTN from its programming schedule this February 27.[3] It appears that LifeSite News was the first to report on the story, on January 27.[4] The Catholic Register had an article four days later on February 1.[5] Quoting from the LSN report:

A representative of Bell told LSN that the removal was done because it "will free up bandwidth for new and more popular channels". The representative said that there would be a "repackaging" with other channels "similar to EWTN", but did not have information about what the "similar" channels would be. EWTN told LSN they had asked Bell TV to reconsider, but were told the decision to drop them was final.

The Register article, referring to EWTN (with evident aversion) as a "conservative, American Catholic TV service", provides these e–mailed remarks by Bell spokeswoman Marie–Eve Francoeur:

EWTN had a low viewership and Salt + Light (Canada’s national Catholic television channel) is a strong alternative. This channel capacity is needed for new and high–demand channels... Bell must continually make programming choices and adjustments to match consumer demand with the channel capacity we have available. Channels with very low viewership or subscriber totals, such as EWTN, are removed to free up capacity for more popular programming.

Another e–mail was received by Bell TV subscriber and blogger Vox Cantoris after making an enquiry to Bell. Here is an abstraction from the message by a "Clients Customer Relations Associate":

Please note that Salt & Light, a popular Catholic television network, remains available on Bell Satellite TV. Bell must continually make programming choices and adjustments to match consumer demand with the channel capacity we have available. Channels with very low viewership or subscriber totals, such as EWTN, are removed to free up capacity for more popular programming.[6]

Brady Grant, EWTN marketing manager for Canada, mentioned this to Bell:"You will be the only major carrier or provider in North America that doesn’t carry us".[7] Very telling. So how could this be? Why is Bell Canada's decision "final" in dropping EWTN? Besides the reasons provided, has another factor been overlooked? Is there something else heretofore unseen which hides itself by its very obviousness?

III. Now let's break it down. Three main points are given so as to justify removing EWTN from the channel line–up: (i) low viewership/subscribers, (ii) freeing up of bandwidth for more channel capacity, thus permitting for more high–demand programming and (iii) an emphasis on Salt+Light TV as a "strong alternative" for a Catholic channel in Canada. Let's examine these...

IV. MediaStats, a consulting firm that collects and distributes data and information on the broadcast and cable industries in Canada, provides some interesting numbers. In its March 2010 compilation of the "Number of TV subscriptions for Digital Specialty Channels", EWTN had 154,471 subscribers (1.3% of total).[8] The list also indicates that 17 channels had even less viewership than EWTN (less than or equal to 0.2%). Most of these were multilingual stations of which at least five channels are offered by Bell.[9] Interestingly, Salt+Light TV had 144,388 (1.2%) subscribers, less than EWTN. It is well to remember that these statistics represent all of Canada's television providers. The big three, namely Bell, Rogers and Shaw, likely have the biggest share in subscribers and it would not be unreasonable to assume (roughly) an equal division (by three) in total numbers. Moreover, Bell provides TV principally via satellite, meaning that access (with a dish) to satellite is direct, uninhibited by location, not bound by (land–based) underground cable jurisdictions or telecommunication tower ownership.[10]

V. Exact subscriber numbers are hard to gauge. According to the Register article, EWTN claims a Canadian viewership of 500,000. However, neither EWTN or Bell Canada are supplying data on the those specifically subscribing to Bell. Going back to January 27, 2006 (coincidentally, 5 years ago to the day of the breaking LSN report about Bell/EWTN), in a ZENIT interview Fr. Thomas Rosica, CEO of the Salt+Light Catholic Media Foundation, claimed 100,000 viewers for Salt+Light "in a little less than three years", from its 2003 start–up, "and the number of subscribers is growing".[11] Recall, as quoted above in a 2006 LSN report, EWTN was concurrently experiencing "explosive growth". Accordingly, the abovementioned information strongly evidences that viewership for EWTN in Canada either surpasses or is at least equivalent to that of Salt+Light TV. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that Mother Angelica and her team constitute a telecommunications superforce with extremely high demand on a worldwide basis, irrespective if the broadcast format is television, radio, internet or their variations. And all of this is done exclusively with financial support from viewers, unlike Salt+Light TV (we will return to this important aspect in a moment).

VI. Logically, then, this question must be posed: Why is it that, due to "very low viewership", Bell Canada is only dropping EWTN from its programming when the data evidence that Salt+Light TV has an equivalent or even lower viewership, thus warranting its elimination as well? Perhaps there is a special need for a Canadian Catholic television station. In that same ZENIT interview Fr. Rosica addressed this very subject, that is, the uniqueness/specificity of Salt+Light TV relative to EWTN: "We view our efforts at Salt and Light as complementary to those of EWTN, but we are also responding to specific needs and complexities of the Canadian Church".[12] A rather innocuous statement. Fair enough. This blogger also recalls seeing Fr. Rosica in a cordial TV conversation with Doug Keck, EWTN Executive Producer, circa 2006. It intimated a friendly relationship between the two Catholic broadcasters.

VII. But a few years later, in 2009, the dam broke. In a blog post on the controversy surrounding the public funeral of abortion enabler Senator Ted Kennedy (a dissident Catholic), Fr. Rosica accused "well–known colleagues in Catholic television broadcasting and media in North America... to be not agents of life, but of division, destruction, hatred, vitriol, judgment and violence".[13] Reference here was being made to coverage/commentary of the affair by Raymond Arroyo at EWTN. An unexpected and shocking outburst that was, with many unsubstantiated allegations levelled against pro–lifers. Even Archbishop Raymond Burke got in on the action.[14] Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that a palpable tension exists between Salt+Light TV and EWTN in the present day.

VIII. Now Fr. Rosica's antagonism with EWTN is not entirely unexplainable. Firstly, note that he is member of the Episcopal Commission for Communications for the CCCB. In other words, he is a main spokesman for The Star Chamber which, most of us know, is not comprised of the most faithful of bishops, and that is an understatement. The status quo, apostasy and heresy are rife therein. The Canadian bishops have been in de facto schism from Rome since they issued the Winnipeg Statement in 1968, and I am not the only one to make that observation.[15] In an analogous way that the USCCB attempted to hijack EWTN in the late 1980s[16], the boys at the CCCB weren't exactly ecstatic that Mother Angelica was coming to town, which is echoed in the statement by Sr. Vinec quoted at the outset. Secondly, it must be emphasized that Salt+Light TV is not, shall we say, "orthodox Catholic" in its commentary and current affairs programming. As Fr. Rosica's good friend John Allen, Jr. approvingly said: "Salt and Light under Rosica, have positioned themselves firmly in the Catholic middle"[17]... whatever that means. Simply stated, Salt+Light TV is not, nor is modelled after, Mother Angelica's EWTN. It is underwritten, à la Fr. Rosica, by the CCCB and is financially supported by... well, now we come to the Invisible Man.

IX. John Allen, Jr., "one of the world's leading Vaticanistas"[18] according to Fr. Rosica, wrote that there is "nothing wrong with asking where a group that takes positions on public policy gets its money, and how that funding might influence its judgments".[19] Allen was referring to battle between LSN and Fr. Rosica during the Kennedy fiasco, but I think we can also apply that statement to Salt+Light TV. Note that heavy hitters are on the S+L Board of Directors. They include: Venterra Realty Management, Longo Brothers Fruit Markets Incorporated, Clearwater Capital Management Incorporated, Diamante Development Corporation, Carpe Diem Growth Capital, CPI Card Group and UCS Forest Group.[20] Quite an ensemble of the business glitterati: presidents and CEOs of a real estate company, a grocery store chain, a condominium development corporation, capital management firms, a high tech plastic card manufacturer and a consortium of lumber importers/exporters.

X. But the big boy on the block, in terms of financial support for Salt+Light TV, is St. Joseph Communications, whose CEO, quite the superstar in the Canadian business community, is also Chair of the S+L Board of Directors. SJC is Canada's largest privately owned marketing, printing and communications company. Recalling Allen's remark about "how... funding might influence... judgments", it is revealing that SJC founder Gaetano Gagliano can regularly be seen in conversation with Fr. Rosica on Salt+Light TV from 6:30–7:00 pm or 5:30–6:00 am Monday to Friday (see schedule here). This program, entitled In Conversazione con Gaetano Gagliano, has been rebroadcast for years and I still haven't figured out its purpose, except as a venue for Rosica and Gagliano to extol their virtues.

XI. "But what does all of this have to do with Bell Canada dropping EWTN from its programming line–up?", the reader may be enquiring. The answer is very simple. Leaving aside the Salt+Light/EWTN enmity, know that Bell Canada is a client of St. Joseph Communications. The screen shots below outline recent work conducted by SJC for Bell:

XII. Once again this question is put forward: Why is it that, due to "very low viewership", Bell Canada is only dropping EWTN from its programming when the data evidence that Salt+Light TV has an equivalent or even lower viewership, thus warranting its elimination as well? Is Salt+Light TV exempt from this (proposed as a "strong alternative") because of Bell Canada's business relationship with St. Joseph Communications, whose CEO is also the Chair of Board of Directors of the Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation? Is there a conflict of interest here? Is there an investigative journalist out there looking for a story? Check it out... See what's going on.


NOTES / REFERENCES

1. Quoted in "Why was EWTN turned down?", Challenge, October 1997, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 8. Subnote that former CBC/CTV TV national newsreader Larry Henderson (1917–2006) was managing editor of this Canadian Catholic periodical. More importantly, he was also editor at the Catholic Register from 1973–1986. For a brief bio of Henderson's life see Fr. L.A. Kennedy, "Larry Henderson: Journalist", Catholic Insight, November 2002, vol. x, pp. 14–15. LINK

2. "Catholic Network EWTN's Explosive Growth in Canada", LifeSite News, March 22, 2006 (author not indicated). LINK

3. CNS News Briefs, "Canada's Bell TV plans to drop EWTN from its digital satellite service", Catholic News Service, February 3, 2011. LINK

4. M. Millette, "Bell ExpressVu will no longer carry EWTN in Canada", LifeSite News, January 27, 2011. LINK

5. See M. Swan, "Bell drops EWTN from digital service", Catholic Register, February 1, 2011. LINK

6. Click here for the e-mail message/post regarding Bell Canada.

7. Quoted in M. Swan, op. cit.

8. The MediaStats website can be found here. A PDF document of the statistics used in this article can be found here.

9. According to the Bell Canada channel line-up (as of October 6, 2010) these channels are: Tamil Vision, ATN Tamil Channel, ATN B4U Movie Channel, ATN Alpha Punjabi and ATN Commonwealth Broadcasting Network. The Catholic Register article (note 5) further states that Bell will be dropping "some other channels with low viewership".

10. Just recently Bell began providing television through underground fibre optic lines. It is unclear as to whether or not EWTN will be available on this system in the future.

11. "Evangelizing Through TV in Canada", ZENIT, January 27, 2006. LINK

12. Ibid.

13. T. Rosica, "Senator Edward Kennedy’s funeral: On mercy and misery", Salt + Light Television (blog), September 3, 2009. LINK See also J.-H. Westen, "Battle of the Catholic Stations: Salt and Light's Fr. Rosica Rips EWTN's Raymond Arroyo over Kennedy Funeral", LifeSite News, September 4, 2009. LINK

14. Burke (now Cardinal and Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura) responded to Fr. Rosica in the Romanita manner: "One sees the hand of the Father of Lies at work in the disregard for the situation of scandal or in the ridicule and even censure of those who experience scandal". An article adapted from this talk can be found at Abp. R.L. Burke, "Reflections on the Struggle to Advance the Culture of Life", Catholic Culture, September 2009. LINK

15. "Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, PSS (1918-2007), one-time head of the Committee of the Family and later President of the Council for the Family, expressed more than once the opinion that those Canadian bishops who supported the Winnipeg Statement were in schism". See Msgr. V. Foy, "Recovering Humanae vitae in Canada", Catholic Insight, October 2010, vol. xviii, no. 9, pp. 8–14. Msgr. Foy provides an overview of the Winnipeg Statement and its scandal in "Tragedy at Winnipeg: The Canadian Catholic Bishops' Statement on Humanae vitae", Challenge, vol. 14, 1988. LINK

16. See R. Arroyo, Mother Angelica: The Remarkable Story of a Nun, Her Nerve, and a Network of Miracles (New York: Doubleday, 2005), pp. 166–179, 208–216.

17. J.L. Allen, Jr., "Incivility hurts the pro–life cause", National Catholic Reporter, September 11, 2009. LINK

18. Administrator, "Covering the Vatican and the Church: John Allen’s lecture in Toronto", Salt+Light Television (blog), October 1, 2010. LINK

19. J.L. Allen, Jr., op. cit.

20. Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation, "S+L Board Members", Lampstand, Spring 2010, p. 10.

WHO GOES THERE ?