Colombian bishops pray for victims of two new massacres

Ottawa, Canada, Feb 3, 2020 / 03:30 pm (CNA).- The president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has written to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decrying the effort to further expand euthanasia within the country. 

“We strongly urge the Government of Canada, before proceeding further, to undertake a more extensive, thorough, impartial, and prolonged consultation” on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) legislation, Archbishop Richard Gagnon of Winnipeg wrote last week.

The archbishop told the prime minister that a delay in further legal changes was urgently needed “in order to ensure all pertinent factors–social, medical and moral–are carefully and thoroughly considered,” wrote Archbishop Richard Gagnon of Winnipeg. 

The letter, dated January 31, was also addressed to three members of Trudeau’s cabinet as well as the leaders of the other four parties represented in Canada’s parliament. 

Gagnon called the proposed changes to MAiD legislation, which include advance directives and allowing those who do not have a reasonably foreseeable death to be euthanized, “deeply troubling.” 

“Further attempts to make (MAiD) available to mature minors, the mentally ill, and the cognitively impaired are evidence that the current safeguards are inadequate and can be legally challenged and overturned,” he said.

In September, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that MAiD should not be restricted to those with a terminal illness or a “reasonably foreseeable death.” The Canadian federal government announced that they do not intend to appeal the decision and will let it stand. The law will go into effect in March. 

Prior to this decision, a Canadian would have to be an adult with a “reasonably foreseeable death” in order to be eligible for an “assisted death.” There is no legal requirement for a patient to possess a prognosis of a certain number of months or weeks left to live in order to receive “assisted death.” 

In Canada, patients have the choice of either self-administering the lethal medication, or having a doctor do it. The vast majority of MAiD cases involve a doctor administering the drugs. 

Gagnon said that the bishops were “disappointed and deeply concerned” by this decision, as well as by a Department of Justice questionnaire that provided Canadians an opportunity to weigh in on the legalization and eligibility criteria for MAiD patients. 

Although the bishops “agree in principle with consulting Canadians,” they found the questionnaire to be flawed on multiple levels. 

It is “inappropriate and superficial to use a survey to address grave moral questions concerning life and death,” wrote Gagnon. He added that he believed that the two-week for responses was “entirely insufficient” to study the issue of euthanasia. 

Gagnon also raised concerns that the questionnaire was biased towards increased eligibility for MAiD, and neglected to address concerns regarding the outside factors that may cause a person to wish to end their life. The archbishop said that consultation on the euthanasia question “should take account of the full rage of factors that can influence a decision to request euthanasia/assisted suicide,” such as loneliness, inadequate medical support, a lack of family and community assistance, or psychological crisis. 

Instead of MAiD or euthanasia, Gagnon said that Canada should expand access to palliative care services. 

This, he argued, would result in fewer people seeking to end their lives. Presently, most Canadians do not have access to palliative care, and it is not guaranteed to be fully funded by the country’s Health Act. Conversely, Canadians have both a right to widely-available MAiD services, and the procedure is fully funded. 

Gagnon explained that the Church’s ministry of attending to the sick and protecting the sick means that Catholic institutions, in addition to everyday Catholics, dedicate their lives to assisting the sick and suffering. This history is motivating their opposition to euthanasia and the proposed expansions. 

“We listen to those who, gripped by a physical or psychological crisis, see no reason for going on,” he said. “All of these people are endangered by euthanasia/assisted suicide. They need our steadfast support, our advocacy, and indeed the protection afforded by the very safeguards this government is trying to overturn.”

[…]

Catamarca, Argentina, Apr 26, 2018 / 07:23 pm (ACI Prensa).- Residents of the Catatumbo region of Colombia, which borders Venezuela, are trapped in their own homes due to an ongoing conflict between two guerilla groups fighting over drug trafficking routes.

“People are trapped in their own homes and the people who dare to go out are intimidated by motorcycle riders who tell them, ‘You have to obey the order to strike.’ They simply cannot go out or open their businesses,” Bishop Gabriel Ángel Villa Vahos of Ocaña told RCN Radio April 23.

The National Liberation Army (ELN) and the People’s Liberation Army (EPL), two Marxist-Leninist guerilla insurgents, declared war some 40 days ago for control of the drug trafficking routes for about 62,000 acres of coca in Catatumbo, which is a sub-region in northeast North Santander.

The problem worsened with the “armed strike” decreed last week by the EPL which has restricted commerce and people’s free movement in the area.

The United Nations has estimated that the conflict has caused more than 4,000 people in the rural areas to leave the region since March 14, El Tiempo reports. It is estimated that there are more than 145,000 people affected in 11 townships.

Bishop Villa appealed to the armed groups to leave the civil population out of their confrontations, “because they are those most affected at this time.”

The bishop stressed that the government needs to make a major effort to address social problems. He said he hopes “there will be an immediate response to the emergency,” that respects the safety of civilians.  

This article was originally published by our sister agency, ACI Prensa. It has been translated and adapted by CNA.

[…]

Mexico City, Mexico, Jan 2, 2020 / 05:51 pm (CNA).- The president of the Mexican bishops’ conference expressed his support for a bill that would grant more freedom to the Church in the country, loosening long-established restrictions on religious groups.

“I like the proposal a lot because it is framed in terms of human rights,” said Archbishop Rogelio Cabrera López of Monterrey at a Dec. 22 press conference.

He stressed that “citizens have the right to believe or not believe, the right to belong or not belong to a church or religion. This is the point of departure and it’s very important.”

The bill reforming the 1992 Law on Religious Associations and Public Worship was introduced last month by Senator María Soledad Luévano Cantú and is now being studied by Senate committees.

The AP reported Dec. 18 that “among specific measures, it would reportedly allow religious groups greater access to all manner of media, including TV, radio and newspapers, relax regulations on church ownership of property, provide for cooperation between church and state on cultural and social development and allow ‘conscientious objections’ to law on religious grounds.”

It would also let church authorities offer spiritual services in government facilities including hospitals, rehabilitation centers and military institutions.

The separation of church and state in Mexico traces back to the mid 1800s when a series of reforms were instituted, particularly under the presidency of Benito Juarez. Church properties not used for worship and instruction, such as cemeteries, were nationalized. Birth and marriage records were placed under civil authority.

Tensions heightened at the beginning of the 20th century with the enactment of the 1917 Constitution and the “Calles Laws” instituted by then President Plutarco Elías Calles, which banned religious congregations and imposed restrictions on priests and public worship.

The Calles Laws sparked the Cristero rebellion for religious freedom in the late 1920s, leaving tens of thousands of government and rebel fighters dead. Although the war ended in 1929, religious persecution continued for a number of years afterwards.

It was not until the constitutional reforms of 1992 and the enactment of the Law on Religious Associations and Public Worship that same year that the Catholic Church was able become a juridical person and monastic orders were no longer prohibited.

Catholic churches built before 1992 are still considered federal property and the Church cannot have radio or TV stations.

According to Archbishop Cabrera López, amending the religious associations law would give “freedom to citizens but it also gives the state freedom to be autonomous, to be independent against any reading of the law that would make a break with the secularity of the state.”

“I believe there is no law as secular as this one that has been introduced because nowhere do there appear privileges and cronyism between government officials and pastors.”

Luévano Cantú, who introduced the proposal, is a member of President López Obrador’s Morena political party. However, President Lopez Obrador recently came out against the proposed reform. At a Dec. 18 press conference he stated that “that issue should not be broached.”

“I consider that this has already been resolved for more than a century and a half, I believe this was resolved, the separation of the Church and the State. To God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” he said.

López Obrador said the majority of Mexicans “agree that the secular state should prevail, which the Constitution establishes. And the secular state, it also has to be said, means guaranteeing religious freedom.”

“We shouldn’t sponsor anything that means confrontation,” the president said.

However, Archbishop Cabrera López argued that the reform bill does not harm the secular state.

“No priest, no bishop can claim to have power in the country,” he said, and stressed that the bill “is very good; although it does not expressly say that the separation of Church and State must be maintained, it is sufficiently clear that there can no longer be privileges, and of course it would be antiquated to imagine a government married with some religion.”

[…]