India’s Citizenship Amendment Bill dismays US religious liberty commission

CNA Staff, Oct 26, 2020 / 01:00 pm (CNA).- The Chinese government continued to enforce sweeping restrictions on religious freedom in the weeks prior to the renewal of a deal with the Vatican on October 22. 

According to Bitter Winter, an Ita… […]

Sydney, Australia, Aug 6, 2019 / 06:01 pm (CNA).- As the parliament of New South Wales opened debate on a bill to decriminalize abortion in the Australian state Tuesday, hundreds of pro-lifers joined a three-day prayer vigil.

The Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill 2019 would allow abortion for any reason up to 22 weeks of pregnancy; after that, it would allow for abortions if two doctors believe an abortion should be performed, considering physical, social, and psychological circumstances.

The Legislative Assembly, the lower house of the state parliament, began debating the bill Aug. 6.

Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney is calling all Catholics to pray against the bill’s passage. He opened St Mary’s Cathedral for 65 hours of continuous Eucharistic adoration beginning the afternoon of Aug. 5, which will conclude the morning of Aug. 8.

“I need you to be praying, to be fasting and to be contacting your MP and saying this is not good enough,” Archbishop Fisher said in an Aug. 1 video message.

The bill does not mandate any counseling or period of consideration for the woman, and it would require doctors with conscientious objections to refer women to other abortion providers.

Dr. Richard Lennon, a Sydney medical doctor, participated in a pro-life vigil and spoke to The Catholic Weekly, the publication of the Archdiocese of Sydney, about his concerns regarding lack of conscience protections.

“To send someone off to have an abortion is just as bad as doing it oneself,” he said. He added that “similar law is in existence in Victoria where one doctor has been brought before the medical board and warned because he refused to do a sex-selection abortion.”

“As a doctor what I want to do is to offer them support and the best medical care I can. But abortion is none of that, it is anti-health and anti-medicine,” Lennon stated.

The bill would also make it a criminal offense for individuals to perform abortions without the proper authorizations, carrying a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment for doing so.

According to supporters of the bill, it clarifies what they believe were previously ambiguous terms in penal code with regard to abortion.

But opponents believe it opens the possibility of elective abortion at any time, as long as two doctors consent.

Under current law, abortion is only legal in NSW if a doctor determine’s that a woman’s physical or mental health is in danger. “Mental health” has been interpreted by courts to include “economic and social stress.”

The bill was to have been introduced to the state parliament July 30, and debated last week. Debate was delayed, however, after concerns it had been rushed through without proper consideration.

During debate Aug. 6, Kevin Conolly, a member of the Liberal Party (part of the governing Coalition with the National Party), said the bill “will allow more abortions to occur including late-term abortions. I do not believe there is public support for that.”

“The bill is not just about the decriminalisation of abortion – it’s about the expansion of practice of abortion.”

Conolly added: “Doctors should not be forced to participate in ending the life of their patient.”

Tanya Davies, a Liberal member and fomer women’s minister, said the bill fails sufficiently to support women, saying, “There must be inbuilt requirements for pre- and post-abortion counselling if we are truly to be caring and compassionate to the women,” adding that it sees abortion “as a medical procedure akin to removing an ingrown toenail almost.”

The bill is opposed by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church of Australia, and the NSW Presbyterian Church.

“Rather than pursuing laws that will lead to more abortions, we should instead be investing in ways to support pregnant women who feel they have no other choice,” Archbishop Fisher said July 29.

Bishop Michael McKenna of Bathurst said July 31 that “Those who propose the legislation are no doubt sincere in their arguments. However, as so often in this debate, someone is forgotten. That is the human being: unborn, but human, who has no rights when her or his life or death is being decided. Also forgotten are those medical professionals who would conscientiously oppose such procedures, from whom the law could withdraw protection. And thoroughly forgotten are the mothers faced with difficult circumstances in their pregnancies, for whom, instead of genuine care, only the bleak option of a termination is offered.”

And Fr. David Ranson, administrator of the Diocese of Broken Bay, said that “the killing of life, with the liberal possibility allowed for in the proposed legislation, cannot make ours a more human society. If with legal sanction we kill those who are most vulnerable, either at the beginning or at the end of their life, we rob ourselves of our human dignity which is best demonstrated in a quality of care exercised even in the face of life’s demand and challenge. Such an option represents a gross failure of social imagination and public moral leadership.”

But Simon Hansford, the head of the Uniting Church in Australia, an ecclesial community which claims 243,000 members across the country, has indicated his support for the bill, saying, “people face difficult decisions. Respect for the sacredness of life means advocating for the needs of women as well as every unborn child.”

Both Coalition and Labor MPs are being given a conscience vote on the bill.

It is supported by NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian and health minister Brad Hazzard, but is opposed by police minister David Elliott, finance minister Damien Tudehope, and treasurer Dominic Perrottet.

The bill was introduced by Alex Greenwich, an independent member who was instrumental in the legalization of same-sex marriage in Australia.

[…]

Melbourne, Australia, Apr 17, 2018 / 02:47 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- As Cardinal George Pell’s pre-trial hearing closes, his lawyer told an Australian court Tuesday that the charges being brought against the cardinal is based on false accusations.

“The allegations are a product of fantasy, the product of some mental problems that the complainant may or may not have, or just pure invention in order to punish the representative of the Catholic Church in this country,” Robert Richter, head of Pell’s defense team, said April 17, according to Reuters.

Richter added that the most serious of the alleged offences could not possibly have occurred, telling the court that the charges brought against Pell, who has been “the face” of the Catholic Church in Australia, “ought to be regarded as impossible and ought to be discharged without batting an eyelid.”

Pell’s attorney additionally cast a shadow over the credibility of some of the complainants, highlighting their inconsistencies with dates, saying that the alleged instances of abuse are “not to be believed,” because they remain “improbable, if not impossible.”

Richter told the court that Pell, who is prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, should not be committed to trial because the evidence did not hold “sufficient weight to support a conviction,” and that a trial would “be a waste of public time, effort and money.”

Prosecutor Mark Gibson said Richter’s statements were speculation, remarking that the defense’s arguments do not “fundamentally impact on the reliability of the complainants’ evidence.” He also suggested that Richter’s claims about complainants seeking revenge on the Church were “nothing more than a theory.”

Magistrate Belinda Wallington said that Richter may have taken some arguments “too far,” saying that she believes “issues of credibility and reliability are issues for a jury.”

Pell was not present during the hearing’s final day at the Melbourne Magistrates Court. Wallington will determine May 1 whether Pell will be sent to trial.

Pell has been involved in ongoing court proceedings since June 2017, when he was charged with alleged historical sexual abuse crimes in his home state of Victoria dating back to the 1970s. He has maintained his innocence and will plead not guilty if his case proceeds to trial.

“I am innocent of these charges, they are false,” Pell told journalists in June 2017.
 
During the hearing, the Melbourne Magistrates Court heard testimony from 50 witnesses. During this time, Richter launched a counter-attack against the Victorian Police, who opened a special operation in 2013 to investigate Pell. Richter called it “an operation looking for a crime because no crime has been reported.”

Pell, 76, was ordained a priest of the Diocese of Ballarat in 1966. He heads the Secretariat for the Economy and is one of the nine cardinals advising Pope Francis, but has been on leave from his duties since last summer.

[…]