Every few years, representatives of bishops’ conferences from around the world gather for several weeks of deliberations in Rome concerning one or another aspect of the Church’s work. In order to guide their deliberations, a working document is prepared, and the input of the entire Church is sought.

The topic of the “New Evangelization” is one about which Blessed John Paul II spoke often. It refers to a new fervor in proclaiming the unchanging gospel, especially in places where, the gospel having once been proclaimed and accepted, there are powerful forces of secularization that cause people to forget God.

In forgetting the Creator, moreover, as the Second Vatican Council taught, the creature becomes unintelligible. As Pope Benedict pointed out recently in creating a new office at the Vatican for promoting the New Evangelization,

“… [T]here has been a troubling loss of the sense of the sacred, which has even called into question foundations once deemed unshakeable such as … a common understanding of basic human experiences: i.e., birth, death, life in a family, and reference to a natural moral law.” (Decree Ubicumque et Semper, Sept. 21, 2010).

By far the most destructive and offensive manifestation of this obscuring of the meaning of birth, life, and death is abortion. Therefore our Priests for Life team compiled reflections on how the pro-life mission of the Church intersects with the New Evangelization.

One of the contributors to these reflections was my friend, Rev. John Ensor, and he pointed out that Satan has always used child-killing to try to slow or stop the advance of the Gospel of Christ.

The attempt is seen in Egypt (see Exodus 1), when mass child-killing is used to try to snuff out the life and work of Moses.

Then, as God’s people live in the Promised Land, Satan allures them into mingling with the surrounding nations in practices of idolatry, including the sacrifice of their sons and daughters to demons in the fire (see Psalm 106:37-38). This practice leads to the exile.

History moves on to the Incarnation, and the life of Jesus is targeted in the mass child-killing ordered by Herod.

Finally, in our day, abortion kills countless future disciples and evangelists. As Rev. 12:17 indicates, the war against Christ and his Church is symbolized in the attempt to kill a child, and the triumph of the Gospel is seen in the victory of life.

The Word of God is clear: “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter” (Proverbs 24:11); “Seek justice, rescue the oppressed” (Isaiah 1:17). The entire Church is under obedience to this Divine command to stop the killing. We can hardly be credible in proclaiming that the destiny of the human person is to be on the throne with Christ (Rev. 3:21) if we ignore those persons thrown in the garbage.

The opening prayer for the first of these Masses reads as follows:

God our Creator,
we give thanks to you,
who alone have the power to impart the breath of life
as you form each of us in our mother’s womb;
grant, we pray,
that we, whom you have made stewards of creation,
may remain faithful to this sacred trust
and constant in safeguarding the dignity
of every human life.

Drawing images from Genesis 2:7 and Psalm 139, the prayer affirms that only God can create. Parents cooperate with his creative power, but the conception of each new life is a direct choice and act of God. He alone owns human life — not parents, nor doctors, nor government — and he alone can take it.

Our role, as the prayer indicates, is to carry out a “sacred trust” as “stewards.” In “The Gospel of Life,” Blessed John Paul II said it this way: “Yes, every man is his ‘brother’s keeper’, because God entrusts us to one another” (EV, 19). Some think it’s none of their business to defend the life of someone else’s child. But God Himself makes it our business. The child scheduled to be killed today by abortion is our brother, our sister, our sacred trust.

We safeguard human life in a variety of ways, including speaking words of encouragement, teaching, assisting parents, and shaping public policy. This Mass text is especially appropriate to use in pro-life gatherings of those who work in the legislative and political arena.

The opening prayer for the second of these Masses reads,

O God, who adorn creation with splendor and beauty
and fashion human lives in your image and likeness,
awaken in every heart
reverence for the work of your hands,
and renew among your people
a readiness to nurture and sustain
your precious gift of human life.

Echoing the imagery of Psalm 104 and drawing from Genesis 1:26, this prayer focuses on how human life itself reflects the image of the Creator, and therefore should evoke in our hearts a reverence and awe which should outweigh any fear in welcoming or defending human life.

This Mass is especially appropriate to use in gatherings of those who assist moms and dads in pregnancy centers, and who do spiritual and educational work in the pro-life movement. The reverence for the work of God’s hands feeds the love which is expressed in that “readiness to nurture and sustain” human life. As Blessed Teresa of Calcutta said, “The mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts” (Prayer Breakfast, 1994).

Let’s use these new Mass texts often!

These words come from paragraph 26 of the document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States. Every four years, just before a presidential election year, the bishops’ conference issues a statement on political responsibility. The bishops recently re-issued the same document they voted on four years ago, accompanied by a new introductory note.

Two other quotes found in the document are as follows:

“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many (n. 28).”

“In our nation, ‘abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others’ (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5) (n. 22).”

Now some people will say, “Yes, but that’s only part of what the document says.” Of course it is. And many will comment on other sections. As for me, I carry out a prophetic ministry to call the People of God to place priority and urgent attention on ending the slaughter of children by abortion. And nothing in any of the Church’s teaching contradicts that priority, or any of the quotes above.

We at Priests for Life echo the bishops’ call for a consistent ethic of life, properly understood, which begins with the proclamation that life is sacred and that the right to life can never be denied to a person, whether born or unborn. This ethic continues to call for the efforts of public officials and citizens to preserve other fundamental rights and to enhance the quality of life in the arenas of education, health care, security, and many more.

The bishops furthermore point out that as we participate in political parties, we are also called to change those parties wherever and whenever their positions fail to correspond to the demands of justice and the common good. In particular, we at Priests for Life call upon the Democratic party to abandon its pro-abortion stance, recognizing that such a stance imperils and dilutes any progress that can be made on other issues.

The statement encourages Catholics to use voter education materials produced by their dioceses, and so do we. Unfortunately, many dioceses do not produce any voter guides or election-related materials. Priests for Life urges such dioceses to do so. The faithful, of course, are always free to produce and use other election-related material. This is consistent with the statement’s call to be active in the political process and in political parties themselves.

These documents have been prepared by our friends at National Right to Life, in conjunction with legal experts, to conform to the laws in each of the 50 states. I would like to send one to you, and you can order it at www.priestsforlife.org/store/p-250-will-to-live.aspx . There is no charge.

This document is meant to protect you. The danger in our day is not that we will have treatments we don’t want; the danger, instead, is that we will not have treatments that we do want.

The “Will to Live” lets you indicate in advance that you want the care that is morally obligatory, that you do not want your life to be taken, and that if you cannot speak for yourself, a person you appoint and who shares your values and understands your desires will speak for you.

This arrangement can not only spare your life, but can preserve your loved ones from the confusion and anguish that can happen if they don’t know your wishes. The case of Terri Schiavo, in which I was deeply involved, is an example, click here for an eyewitness account of that case.

Because illness or tragedy can strike at any time, the “Will to Live” is for adults of all ages.

The “Will to Live” is important, because we cannot predict the future, or know in advance what form of sickness or disease we may be afflicted with in the years ahead. We do not know what treatments we will need or what will be available.

We do not ever want to pretend, therefore, that we know what kind of medical treatments we will want to use or avoid in the future. It makes no sense to decide on treatments before we even know the disease.

Not every medical treatment is always obligatory. But to figure out which treatments are obligatory, morally speaking, and which are only optional, one must know the medical facts of the case. These facts are then examined in the light of the moral principles involved. But to try to make that decision in advance is to act without all the necessary information.

People already have the right to make informed consent decisions telling their family and physicians how they want to be treated if and when they can no longer make decisions for themselves. Doctors are already free to withhold or withdraw useless procedures in terminal cases that provide no benefit to the patient. Some people fear that medical technology will be used to torture them in their final days. But it is more likely that the ‘medical heroics’ people fear are the very treatments that will make possible a more comfortable, less painful death.

A safe route is to appoint a health care proxy who can speak for you in those cases where you may not be able to speak for yourself. This should be a person who knows your beliefs and values, and with whom you discuss these matters in detail. In case you cannot speak for yourself, your proxy can ask all the necessary questions of your doctors and clergy, and make an assessment when all the details of your condition and medical needs are actually known. That’s much safer than predicting the future. Appointing a health care proxy in a way that safeguards your right to life is easy.

Order your “Will to Live” today at www.priestsforlife.org/store/p-250-will-to-live.aspx . Please be sure to indicate what state you want it for, especially if you are getting one for someone who lives in a different state than you. Please also let others know of this offer.

Each year our parish provided each family with a video of the First Communion Mass. One year, the music that the company we hired placed on the video was “The Greatest Love of All.” It played as scenes of each of the children and their families were shown.

The lyrics of the song are as follows:

I believe the children are our are future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children’s laughter remind us how we used to be
Everybody searching for a hero
People need someone to look up to
I never found anyone to fulfill my needs
A lonely place to be
So I learned to depend on me

[Chorus:]

I decided long ago, never to walk in anyone’s shadows
If I fail, if I succeed
At least I live as I believe
No matter what they take from me
They can’t take away my dignity
Because the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me
The greatest love of all
Is easy to achieve
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all

The song is a beautiful song, and there’s much in it to agree with. We have to foster healthy self-esteem in the hearts and minds of our children, because we know the evils that result when children lack a sense of their own dignity.

But I felt compelled, after the video came out, to point out in a Sunday homily that there are some key ways in which the song contradicts what we believe. For saying this, I was severely criticized by some of the parishioners. But you be the judge.

“I never found anyone to fulfill my needs…So I learned to depend on me.” This is being sung as backdrop to a video in which the children receive the One who fulfills all our needs, the One on whom alone we are to depend and who is totally dependable.

“I decided long ago never to walk in anyone’s shadows.” But Communion is about union with Jesus, about walking in his shadow, in his light, in his will and in his truth.

“At least I live as I believe.” Communion is about living as Christ teaches. Our beliefs are to conform to his teachings.

“Learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all.” No, it’s not. Learning to love the Lord is the greatest love of all, a love by which we sacrifice ourselves and give ourselves away for others – just as Jesus does in the Eucharist.

It’s okay to like the song. But let’s at least be aware of what is and isn’t our Faith.

On the one hand, many pro-life people claim our movement is not strong or aggressive enough politically. They complain that we do not set the standard high enough by which a candidate should be considered “pro-life”, do not hold their feet to the fire if they are elected, and do not elicit in them the fear that we can punish them politically.

In particular, pro-life people are fed up with what they perceive to be a failure of the clergy to do what is needed to stop the killing. One problem here is an unwillingness to carry out those activities that the IRS indicates Churches may do and still maintain their 501 (c)(3) status — such as non-partisan voter registration drives and voter guides that do not directly or indirectly endorse or oppose candidates, parties or their positions. Often, this inactivity is accompanied by outlandish, exaggerated, and inaccurate portrayals of what IRS guidelines require, and those who put forward these portrayals have no expertise in that area of the law.

On the other hand, a criticism many pro-life people voice is that the pro-life movement is too political, too partisan, and too identified with the Republican Party. The real weakness here is a lack of understanding of what “non-partisan” really means. It does not mean that we have to avoid any activity that in fact helps a candidate or party. Rather, it means that we pursue the goals for which our Church or 501(c)(3) organization was established without regard for whether they help or hurt a particular candidate or party.

Ironically, therefore, the very complaint that an activity helps a candidate is in the end often more of a partisan action than is the activity against which the complaint is leveled — simply because the complaint shows more concern about helping or hurting the candidate than the activity does. For instance, the bishops teach that life is the fundamental right, and that concern for this right carries more weight in our voting decisions than other issues. Now indeed, such a teaching helps pro-life candidates and parties, and hurts pro-choice candidates and parties. But being non-partisan doesn’t mean we keep silent. It means we speak no matter what, and moreover, it means that if tomorrow the parties or candidates swapped their positions on abortion, our message would not change a single word.

So, another political season is upon us. I, for one, will be more aggressive than ever. As for who qualifies as “pro-life,” I prefer to speak (and listen) in descriptive rather than evaluative terms: what is this candidate willing to do to protect the babies? Don’t give me labels, give me specific commitments.

And as for being partisan, I belong to neither major party, and will continue to challenge both to protect the unborn.

America has, on various occasions, recovered the recognition of the equal dignity of those who were deprived of their rights and suffered violence which was given legal cover under a different name. This legal cover was often mistakenly recognized by the Supreme Court for a while, but then such decisions were overturned.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) is the most commonly cited instance. The slaveholder’s right to property eclipsed and subsumed the slave’s right to freedom. But the Constitution was eventually amended to correct the error.

Decisions like Lochner v. New York (1905) show us another error: employers’ right to contract eclipsed and subsumed the workers’ rights to humane conditions and hours. These abuses were corrected by subsequent Supreme Court decisions like Muller v. Oregon and Bunting v. Oregon.

The “Separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) sanctioning segregation was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education some 58 years later.

Erroneous decisions like Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) institutionalized child labor. But this was overturned 23 years later by United States v. Darby. A new development — a “pedagogical moment” — occurred here in Constitutional law. The question was whether constitutional rights applied to children too. The answer was yes.

Many reversals of Supreme Court cases came about when new evidence was brought forward that made it clear that someone’s rights, not previously recognized, were being violated. Thus, Louis Brandeis brought forward the facts about how workers were being harmed.

We are now witnessing the same trend regarding the children in the womb. Evidence that has been around for quite some time demonstrating their humanity is finding its way into legislatures and courts. One of the most striking instances comes out of South Dakota.

Federal courts have upheld South Dakota’s law requiring that abortion providers tell women that the procedure destroys a “whole, separate, unique, living human being.” This came about because of the evidence presented to the court regarding the humanity of the unborn child.

With hundreds of embryological sciences, and massive evidence of the harm abortion does to women, such evidence, combined with new legal concepts, can challenge Roe vs. Wade in the same way its erroneous ancestral decisions were challenged.

The day after Roe vs. Wade was decided, the New York Times headline read, “Supreme Court Settles Abortion.” Yet it has remained the most unsettled issue on our national landscape.

The facts above should shape the way that senators, Supreme Court nominees, and all the rest of us speak about Roe vs. Wade and the so-called “right” to choose an abortion. History should shape our language, and should strengthen our hope that abortion policy can change again just as radically as it did in 1973.

Abortion advocates either deny that the baby is a baby, or they say they just don’t care that abortion kills that baby. More and more over the past decade have been taking the latter approach.

And in some ways, they have less and less choice in the matter. Not only has science indisputably confirmed fertilization as the starting point of each unique human life, but the law is catching up with the science.

A law was passed in South Dakota’s in 2005, and subsequently upheld in federal court, that actually requires the abortionist to tell the woman who comes for an abortion that the procedure destroys a “whole, separate, unique, living human being”. North Dakota has passed the same law. A couple of other states have also introduced such legislation.

This is a tremendous victory for the pro-life movement, and a wonderful triumph of truth over an industry based on the denial of truth. The truth about who unborn children are, after all, has come to light more in the time since the law deprived those children of protection than it did from the beginning of human history. It is only in recent decades that we have developed ultrasound and other visualization techniques, as well as fetal therapy and surgery, not to mention amazing advances in genetics.

While considering this law, the court concluded that evidence like this, presented by the state, “suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician, and Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion.”

One of the things that abortion advocates complained about through this process was that the state should not be allowed to force a doctor to convey an ideological message (like pro-life). But the Eighth Circuit court pointed out that there’s a difference between that and requiring the doctor to provide truthful and accurate information about the abortion. The fact that such information may lead the person to choose life over abortion does not, the Court said, make it unconstitutional to require doctors to provide such information.

So there you have it: abortionists being required to admit that the abortion destroys a “whole, separate, unique, living human being”. The law and the courts are awakening from an almost forty-year slumber induced by the assertion in Roe vs. Wade that “we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” Laws and court decisions like the ones coming out of South Dakota are declaring, “Yes we do need to resolve that question, and yes we already have resolved it.”

So abortion advocates must decide: will they pretend not to know, or will they admit that they just don’t care?

“He would have died in the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, along with Fr. Mychal Judge,” Mary said to me. Fr. Judge was the first officially recorded victim of the September 11 terrorist attack, killed as he ministered to people in the lobby of the World Trade Center north tower after the initial attack. Cardinal O’Connor would have rushed to the scene as soon as he heard of the attack.

The Cardinal was an exemplary priest and bishop, teacher and leader. Catholics rightly take pride in how he gave witness to the Faith and to what the Church is all about. Priests and bishops drew strength for their ministry by following his example.

But his appeal, much like that of his friends Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II, reaches far beyond the Catholic world. He was a witness to humanity, to its meaning and its dignity. His ecclesiastical motto was “There can be no love without justice,” and he was committed to promoting both.

He eased racial tensions, helped resolve labor disputes, held starving children in Ethiopia, intervened in crises in Cuba and Central America, and much more. Yet his motivations were not secular; they were rooted in Christ. That accounts for what the world sees as the paradox of a man whose compassion was as strong as his orthodoxy.

He taught unapologetically, for instance, that homosexual activity was contrary to the teaching of Scripture and the Church. Yet he opened New York State’s first AIDS-only unit, at St. Clare’s Hospital, and gave thousands of hours of personal volunteer service to the AIDS patients, emptying their bedpans and tending to their other needs.

He was loud and clear about the immorality of abortion. Yet from his first moment in New York, he issued an urgent invitation to any woman anywhere who felt tempted to abort her child. “Come to me,” he said. “The resources of the Archdiocese of New York will be at your service to assist you and your child.” It was a promise he repeated continually.

Along with founding the Sisters of Life, he was instrumental in starting Priests for Life. After ordaining me and letting me do parish work for several years, he gave me permission to head Priests for Life on a full-time basis. “I know of no effort more noble, more timely or important than the recruitment of our clergy in the cause for life,” he later wrote to me. “I remain convinced that the Priests for Life, by their Masses, prayers and example, will cause this great country to one day again follow God’s Will for Life.”

Thank you, Cardinal O’Connor, for being a mentor to me and so many others!

If you take a tour of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, you eventually reach a relatively small room in the basement. It is the old Supreme Court. Prior to getting its own building across the street, the Supreme Court used to be housed under the building in which our federal lawmakers represent us. They pass laws; judges don’t. Judges simply judge whether an existing law has been violated in a particular case, by particular parties.

Or at least that’s what they’re supposed to do. We live in an age of judicial activism, or as some have called it, judicial tyranny. Judges are striking down laws and writing new ones left and right, without precedent and without reason. The most damaging instance of this in our nation’s history was the Roe vs. Wade decision, unleashing the holocaust of abortion.

So, in short, the judge’s position on the issues shouldn’t matter. Judges aren’t politicians. There shouldn’t be a tug of war between factions trying to get people confirmed because they take “their position” on particular issues, or because they are “moderate” in their views. Commenting on the concept of “moderate judges,” Justice Antonin Scalia once said, “What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we’d like it to say?”

All this is fair enough. People on both sides of major issues say they are not in favor of “litmus tests.”

But if a judge had written an opinion in a law review about why women should not have the right to vote, wouldn’t that single issue be enough to most people to disqualify him from being confirmed? Or what if a nominee were known to belong to the Ku Klux Klan? Wouldn’t that single fact be enough to disqualify him from consideration?

The fact is that we use litmus tests all the time. There are certain lines that most people agree should not be crossed.

Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to shape public policy, and their nomination and confirmation should be based on their qualifications, not their views on specific issues.

But there are certain issues so central to the very nature and purpose of government that one’s position on those issues is tantamount to a qualification for the job. The very purpose of government is the protection of human rights, starting with life. No court can legitimize an act of violence, or take away human rights. Anyone who fails to affirm that does not belong in any public office, much less the US Supreme Court.

The United States Senate will have the responsibility to vote for or against the President’s nominee. Let’s start now letting our Senators know where we stand. And please help us rally support on Facebook as well at this link: http://ow.ly/1xixP.