Bishops' conference donates to NAC.
"The CCCB supports NAC's seven demands," General Secretary Father Doug Crosby wrote, and "we hope that many Catholics will participate in the March." Please apply the $2,000 only to promoting participation, he told NAC. He then added: "We hope that March organizers acknowledge, as we do, the reality that when building coalitions there must be respect for differences of opinions on matters not related to the central concern."
NAC, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, is vehemently "pro-choice," that is, pro-abortion, pro-lesbian, pro-suicide, pro-whatever-lifestyle-one-chooses. Recently it has become racist as well, with retired president Sunera Thobani, 38, declaring that white women are unsuited to lead the lobby group. (A black woman was elected who promised "much more" radical action.)
From its very beginning NAC's history has been one of public anti-Christianity, starting with its first president Doris Anderson, long-time editor of Chatelaine, the country's most influential women's magazine. She and her associates spearheaded the adoption of the permissive society throughout the sixties and seventies.
Thobani's immediate predecessor, Judy Rebick--who today has her own CBC TV show--was spokeswoman for Morgentaler's Toronto abortuary in the 1980s. She is a hard-nosed atheist. Again, in 1993, NAC supported the Report on Women (Status of Women Council) with its anti-Christian and anti-religious resolutions, a fact glossed over at the time by CCCB staff in their response to the Report (see "Catholics and the Panel on Violence," C.I., Dec. 1993).
Fr. Crosby is wrong on several counts. First he states that in "coalition-building" one shouldn't bring up matters "not related to the central concern." But that depends on the coalition partner. In the case of NAC, a "coalition" is both wrong and a waste of time. Its anti-Catholicism is not accidental but part of its philosophy. Giving them $2,000 smacks more of a bribe than a donation.
Secondly, he is naive in thinking that a sum of money can be reserved for special aspects. It all goes into a general pot used to strengthen NAC.
He is also wrong in thinking that an organization with such a corrupt ideology as NAC can be sound on poverty.
There used to be people who believed Henry VIII to be a good king, though they admitted he was a wretched husband. Most people today, however, are convinced Henry was a bad king not least because he was a wretched husband. They do not believe that private immorality can be separated from public action. So it is with NAC.
The lobby's anti-life, anti-family ideology has also given it a distorted view on poverty, out of touch both with economic reality and the common good. Those who want to reduce Canada's debt are looked upon as demons who are said to willingly and eagerly harass the poor. The state is treated as omnipotent, as called upon to "eradicate poverty." NAC calls for a minimum wage ($7.85) that economists say will worsen unemployment. It continues to insist on national daycare, when daycare is no solution at all. Moreover, the country can't afford its $6 billion start-up cost.
What then does the $2,000 donation mean? If the CCCB staff agrees with NAC on poverty, then they are just as out of touch with the real needs of people as is NAC. Secondly, it is another example of sacrificing the Conference's role as moral leader in favour of building coalitions with dubious partners or seeking a false consensus. The latter is what happened during the sixteen annual meetings of Church leaders with Trudeau and members of the Cabinet during the years 1968-1984. The ecumenical delegation brought up every subject under the sun except one: abortion. Why was it left off the agenda year after year? Because the CCCB's coalition partners--the Anglicans, United Church, Lutherans, etc.--accept abortion. In deference to them, that is, out of human respect, the CCCB kept it off the agenda, helping to relegate it thereby to the status of a minor nuisance in Canada's public life.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Date:||Sep 1, 1996|
|Previous Article:||False profits (Svend Robinson; Gregory Baum; Anthony Padovano; Hedy Fry).|
|Next Article:||Quebec feminist unmoved.|