THURSDAY     April 6, 2000    vol. 11, no. 69    SECTION THREE

     See why so many consider the Daily CATHOLIC as the "USA Today for CATHOLICS!"

    e-mail: webmaster@dailycatholic.org

To print out entire text of today's issue, print this section as well as SECTION ONE and SECTION TWO


SECTION THREE Contents: Go immediately to the article:
  • LENTEN MEDITATIONS for April 4, 5 and 6
  • HOW HOLY WOULD HELP HOLLYWOOD
  • Dr. Frank Joseph's Pro-Life Prescriptions part two
    WORLDWIDE NEWS & VIEWS with a Catholic slant:
  • Statistics show increase in Catholicism worldwide
  • Pope denounces any kind of artificial means of reproduction
  • Latest ShipLogs of visitors sailing on the DailyCATHOLIC


  • LENTEN MEDITATIONS FOR APRIL 4, 5 and 6:

    Special Prayer for Tuesday in the Fourth Week of Lent

      O Lord, we beseech Thee, that the fasts of this holy observance may procure us an increase of piety in our lives and the perpetual assistance of Thy loving kindness. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, One God forever and ever. Amen.

    Special Prayer for Wednesday in the Fourth Week of Lent

      O God, who through fasting grantest to the just the reward of their merits and to sinners forgiveness; have mercy on Thy suppliants, that the confession of our guilt may avail to obtain the pardon of our sins. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, One God forever and ever. Amen.

    Special Prayer for Thursday in the Fourth Week of Lent

      Grant, we beseech Thee, O almighty God, that we who are chastised by the fasts we have undertaken, may also be gladdened with holy devotion: that our earthly affections being weakened, we may the more easily lay hold on Geavenly things. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, One God forever and ever. Amen.

    Back to Top of Page

    Vatican Radio pinpoints what went wrong with the Oscars last Sunday

        Today, with Michael Vincent Boyer's column on hiatus, we bring you a special report by ZENIT on Vatican Radio's candid take on the Academy Awards a week ago last Sunday in which they lament the loss of values and the shallowness of the awards which shows where Hollywood's mindset and soul truly is. It does not fare well for the industry or society as a whole. For the article, Vatican Radio analyzes the Oscars , see HOW HOLY WOULD HELP HOLLYWOOD

    VATICAN RADIO ANALYZES THE OSCARS

    Lack of Religious Films in Jubilee Year

          From Zenit we have the following story on Vatican Radio's take on the Oscars. As happens every year, screams of joy and pleased and disappointed looks, characterized the 72nd edition of the Academy Awards, held in Los Angeles' Shrine Auditorium last Sunday. "American Beauty" won 5 Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director (Sam Mendes), Best Actor (Kevin Spacey), Best Original Script, and Best Photography.

          The other favorite, "The Cider House Rules," was recognized for Michael Caine's performance with a Best Supporting Actor award, and for John Irving's Best Adapted Script. Several protests were lodged against this film for its blatant endorsement of abortion. A group of California young people, the Survivors (so called because they were born after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the U.S.) staged a protest outside the auditorium.

          Vatican Radio believes that this Oscar ceremony will go down in history as one of war between two great film companies: Miramax, which lost with its "The Cider House Rules," and Dreamworks, the big winner. It could be said that "American Beauty's" triumph was a given, as it was supported by an impressive press campaign, Vatican Radio commented.

          According to Andre Piersanti, president of the Italian Catholic "Entertainment Organization," the great battle in the cinematographic industry contrasts with the absence of really interesting films, especially of a religious nature, especially notable for the Jubilee Year. "This is the only year that the media throughout the world are giving positive news, repeatedly, every day, involving the interest of the public, especially the Pope's pastoral effort in the Holy Land, where he has made an enormous effort to promote peace between religious cultures that up until recently have done nothing but fight in that bit of land. On the night of the Oscars, there wasn't a trace of all this, and of the great anxiety over religion and faith in God manifested in humanity, especially in Western humanity, represented in a certain sense by Hollywood."

          Piersanti said over Vatican Radio that it seemed as though the Academy wished to redeem itself of its superficiality when it handed a prize to Polish film director Andrzej Wajda, "a man very much loved by the film critics around the world and, as was reflected in the applause on the night of the Oscars, by the whole film world. With this distinction, Hollywood has not only awarded a director but a whole life of moral integrity and civil and social commitment, destined to build a healthier and more beautiful world."

          As regards the Best Foreign Film, "All on My Mother," by Pedro Almodovar, Andrea Piersanti believes that the Spanish director has performed a "very curious operation": "with his well-known style, he has addressed the topic of the family. However, he has done so with personages who are far from the common family: transvestites, prostitutes and other persons wounded by life. It is as though one wishes to address a certain topic and demonstrate with fact, especially with one's own testimony, something totally different."

          Almodovar himself described the film as "a grotesque, absurd, baroque drama with exaggerated personages."

          For the film critic, the big absence on the night of the Oscars was "The Green Mile," a film by Frank Darabont with Tom Hanks in the lead role. It addresses the problem of the death penalty, especially thorny for the American public. "I was hoping that a film that has been very successful with the public in that country and that has won the attention of spectators for its argument, would have received official recognition on the night of the Oscars. This wasn't the case, and it is not a good sign." ZE00032804

    Back to Top of Page

    The lethal link between abortion and breast cancer is being concealed by the pro-aborts' brazen bra of lies   Today Dr. Frank Joseph pulls no punches in telling it like it truly is. Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice pro-abort organizations seem to have a cover-up of their own, which fits comfortably into the on-going culture of death society in which we live. In new research done by Dr. Joseph, he uncovers an alarming fact that connects a higher rate of breast cancer among those women who have chosen to have an abortion, a fact that Planned Parenthood and the NARL et al will not reveal. Dr. Frank shows that the real agenda is to cover up not only the brutal murder of the unborn, but of the alarming number of abort mothers dying from breast cancer linked to their decision to abort. With all the evidence he has uncovered, the question is are we headed for a genetically-superior race of selected "types" of children with embryos implanted in "superior" surrogate mothers? For part two of his phenomenal findings in The Abortion/Breast Cancer Link is America's Best Kept Secret , see Pro-Life Prescriptions: LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL!

    The Abortion/Breast Cancer LInk is America's Best Kept Secret part two

          We are told what to eat and not to eat, but the biggest risk of all, the abortion/breast cancer link, they tell us NOTHING.

          One common rebuttal offered by the ACS, and the abortion advocates to dismiss the ABC (Abortion-Breast Cancer) link we introduced in last week's first part of this article, is to point out that most of the studies done, have relied on interviewing women and asking them if they have ever had an abortion and asking them if they have been diagnosed with breast cancer, and then comparing their answers. So, those who fear the truth say -- probably women who have breast cancer are more likely to remember or admit that they have had abortions, whereas women who do not have breast cancer may not admit they had an abortion. They call this, "recall bias." I call it, "grasping for straws."

          But when your back is to the wall, you'll try anything, even accusing some women of lying. Women know how important these studies are. They're not going to lie. It means life or death for thousands of women. After all, they don't have to take part in the study -- they can just refuse, rather than lie. Notice they don't actually say they're lying -- they say more likely to remember. As if someone would forget if they had their unborn baby killed.

          An experiment done in Michigan in 1980 destroys this theory. According to a report in the American Journal of Pathology, August 1980, pp 497-511, cancer researchers injected a number of pregnant rats with DMBA, a cancer-causing substance. They then aborted half the rats; the other half were allowed to carry their pregnancies to term.

          Among the aborted rats, 77% developed breast cancer. Among the term rats, only 5.5% developed breast cancer. Too bad they couldn't interview the rats -- they might have found recall bias.

          With all of the evidence provided so far, even without epidemiological data, and given the extremely high estrogen levels experienced by women in the first several weeks of normal pregnancy, which doctors have always known -- for the ACS to say that the link is inconclusive is not only repugnant, but in my book, it's downright CRIMINAL.

          But we DO have epidemiological data to prove it. 10 of 11 studies in the United States have proven it and 31 out of 35 world wide. A 1996 study carried out in the Netherlands found almost a twofold increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion. However, the investigators suggested that this figure may have been influenced by reporting bias attributed to the underreporting of abortions by healthy control subjects in the largely Catholic southeastern region of the Netherlands. In the western regions of the country, the association between abortion and breast cancer was statistically insignificant. The authors concluded that their "study does not support an appreciably (whatever that means) increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion."

          These people are constantly looking for excuses. Now, you can't rely on this study because someone's religion is involved. Are they trying to say that Catholics are more liable to lie than Protestants? This is disgusting. Why didn't the study involve the whole country, it's not that big and average it out? Because they wouldn't like what they would find. I never knew that a certain section ofthe Netherlands had a largely Catholic region.

          We must also believe that middle-aged black women, in particular, are incredible liars, as a study published in the Journal of the National Medical Association (December 1993) traced the breast cancer experience of about 1,000 black women (500 with breast cancer, 500 without) as they grew older. "Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African-American Women: The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience" confirmed that the risks of breast cancer increased much more for women who had aborted than for those who had not. This fine study found the same overall 50% increased risk factor for women under 40 who had aborted. But black women now in their 40s who had aborted experienced a 180% increased risk. The risk jumped to a whopping 370% for black women over 50 who had aborted

          Well, this completes the cycle -- someone's religion and now their race makes them liars. In the future, in order to save time and money, let's not include Catholics and Blacks in any study, because we all know they are liars. We have been told so, by the study that the ACS endorses. So, that eliminates about 40% of the world's population for all future studies.

          In 1996-OCT, four US scientists announced the result of a statistical analysis of previous studies. They selected 23 studies which involved over 60,000 women. They combined all of their results using a process known as "meta-analysis." They found "overwhelming" evidence that women who terminate a pregnancy by an abortion have a 33% higher chance of contracting breast cancer later in life.

          Now, read how this study was attacked by those who are conspiring to withhold the truth from the American people: "This particular statistical method is fraught with hazard, because the results can easily be influenced by the method of selecting the studies to be included. Three of the four scientists in the 1996-OCT study are known to be vocal opponents of abortion. They might have been biased, consciously or unconsciously, in their selection processes."

          That's it -- the above statement proves nothing - it's just plain grasping for straws. Three of the scientists are pro-life, so their study cannot be taken seriously. What about the other scientist, who was pro-choice? Now someone who believes that life is sacred is wasting his time, if he participates in any scientific studies.

          The ACS, scanned the entire world, to look for a study that would match their political views. And sure enough, they found just what they were looking for -- a study that was done in little Denmark, which stated that the link was inconclusive. So they accepted it as the Gospel truth and published the Melbye/Danish Report. There was no mention, if those who conducted the Report were pro-choice.

          Isn't it odd that they couldn't find a study in the USA that they liked. 10 of 11 studies in the United States, showed the abortion/cancer link. Our country has the best scientists and researchers in the world. They didn't publish these studies, because it wasn't what they wanted to hear.

          Dr. Joel Brind shreds this report to pieces, as well as his , "Comprehensive Review and Meta Analysis" of the Abortion/Breast Cancer risk. That can be found at Dr. Brind's Meta-Analysis ABC. So now, if anyone who is involved in a study, is pro-life, then that study cannot be trusted. We can now add pro-lifers to the distrustful list along with Catholics and blacks. Now, we have about 70% of the world's population on the list.

          I guess the only people who are trustful and and do not lie, are the highly moral people, who kill their unborn baby, or condone the killing, even while they're being born and suffer excruciating pain in the process. And we must not forget the trustful and honest people who publish only one side, (their side) of an issue, in their medical journals, strictly for political reasons.

          It now appears that the only studies that the ACS, would even consider to publish are those conducted by those who hold their same political views. Since Catholics, Blacks and Pro-lifers cannot be trusted, according to the ACS, and the Pro-aborts, the only ones left to study are the abortion advocates. The abortion advocates will study the rest of the abortion advocates. It's absolutely ludicrous.

          How the American Cancer Society can continue to perpetuate this cover-up, is mind boggling, in view of the fact that their own man, Dr. Clark Heath, who is the head of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research of the American Cancer Society, on February 20, 1998, conceded to one aspect of the ABC link -- that an abortion delayed first birth increases breast cancer risk. The longer the time to her first term delivery, the greater the risk. Quite a concession, isn't it? So then, why aren't women told of this one aspect, before they have their first unborn baby killed and why don't we hear of this on TV, or read about it in the newspapers? Why didn't it make the headlines?

          The only court decision, regarding the abortion/cancer risk that I am aware of -- is Christ's Bride Ministries (CBM) who wanted to put posters, warning of the ABC link, in public transit areas. They sued Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation (SEPTA) for denying them that right. After hearing both sides of the argument, the appellate court stated there WAS a link and ruled in favor of CBM. It didn't help their case when the SEPTA experts admitted that some studies showed a weak association between abortions and breast cancer. If the SEPTA experts would admit to a slight link, then you know, the link is much greater. They were paid by SEPTA.

          But you can bet your bottom dollar that this is just the tip of the iceberg. It's only a matter of time before there will be a flood of lawsuits brought on by women who were not warned of the risk by the abortion clinics.

          Critics who formerly dismissed the possibility of a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer are increasingly on the defensive, largely as a consequence of the findings of a fascinating study by Dr. Janet Daling, (who by the way, is Pro-choice) and her colleagues at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Daling's findings can be found at Daling abortion/breast Cancer .

          In summation, let's isolate the facts that are indisputable:

    1- It's an indisputable fact that Estrogens are strong growth promoters of normal and most cancerous breast tissue.
    2- It's an indisputable fact that most known risk factors for breast cancer are attributable to some form of estrogen overexposure.
    3- It's an indisputable fact that maternal estradiol (estrogen) rises 20-fold (2,000%) during the first trimester of a normal pregnancy.
    4- It's an indisputable fact that abnormal cells are more vulnerable to cancerous changes than normal cells.
    5- It's an indisputable fact that pregnancies which abort spontaneously (miscarriage) usually generate subnormal amounts of estradiol; no increased risk of breast cancer is seen.
    6- It's an indisputable fact that the incidence of breast cancer is dramatically increased in rats whose pregnancies are aborted.

    Dr. Frank

    Back to Top of Page

    WORLDWIDE NEWS & VIEWS with a Catholic slant:


      Church is multiplying tenfold as lastest statistics released by Holy See bear out

         Yesterday the Vatican issued new statistics that show a significant increase in the number of Catholics worldwide, and these same stats point ou that the growth of the Roman Catholic Church surpasses the growith of the overall worldwide population. While vocations to the priesthood also seem to be increasing on the diocesan level, there is still much evangelizing to do to meet the growing demands of the larger Catholic family worldwide. That is the main reason why we created the DailyCATHOLIC to reach as many Catholics as possible. continued inside

    WORLD'S CATHOLIC POPULATION GROWING

        VATICAN (CWNews.com) -- On April 3, the Holy See released an annual statistical summary of the world's Catholic population.

        The figures show an increase in the number of Catholics around the world. In fact, the Catholic population has grown slightly faster than the overall world population. Consequently, in 1997 there were 17.4 baptized Catholics for every 100 people in the world; by the end of 1998 that figure was 17.4.

        Nearly half of the world's Catholics now live in the Western hemisphere. Latin America accounts for 30 percent of the world Catholic population, and North America another 15 percent. Europe also accounts for nearly 30 percent, and Africa 12 percent. Asia, by far the world's most populous continent, boasts only 12 percent of the Catholic population-- with most of those Catholics concentrated in the southeast of Asia. And Oceania accounts for the remaining 1 percent of the world's baptized Catholics.

        These figures show a few distinct changes over the past two decades. In 1978, Catholics were more numerous in Europe, and distinctly less numerous in Africa and Asia.

        The number of Catholic bishops has soared during that same time span. In 1978 there were 3,714 bishops; today there are 4,439. The bulk of that increase can be attributed to Africa.

        The number of priests, on the other hand, has decreased since 1978- - especially in Europe and North America. For the world as a whole, the number of priests has declined from 420,971 to 404,626. Most of that decline came in the religious orders, which accounted for 158,486 priests in 1978 and 140,424 today. In fact, the number of diocesan priests has increased slight in the 20-year period: from 262,485 to 264,202. A closer look at those numbers shows a particularly lively growth in priestly vocations in Africa.

        The decline in the number of priests may soon be reversed, however, because the number of seminarians is much larger today than it was in 1978-- 109,171 as opposed to 62,670. Again, the growth is most visible in Africa, with Latin America trailing not too far behind.


      Holy Father upholds Sanctity of Life as he denounces techniques of artificial reproduction

         Standing at the forefront of the dignity of life, Pope John Paul II has denounced the techniques of artificial reproduction. His stance will surely raise the blood pressure of those who believe they can 'think' for themselves. However the Holy Father's remarks make clear the long standing stance of the Church regarding all technological or artificial means to either 'create' a fetus or destroy one. Either way, only God can make or take a life. continued inside.

    PAPAL CONDEMNATION FOR REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES

       VATICAN (CWNews.com) -- Pope John Paul II has firmly condemned the techniques of artificial reproduction which entail the elimination of human fetus.

       Speaking on April 3 to 3,500 people attending an international conference on "the fetus as patient," the Holy Father remarked that "some techniques of artificial reproduction, ostensibly in the service of life, actually open the door to new attacks on life." The conference which the Pope addressed was organized by the obstetrical institute at the Sapienza University in Rome.

       The Pontiff went on to say that artificial-reproduction techniques can be "morally unacceptable" when they "separate procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act," as well as when they cause the destruction of unborn children.

       A particularly objectionable technique of reproduction, the Pope continued, is the "selective reduction" of multiple pregnancies-- that is, the abortion of one fetus or more in cases of multiple pregnancy. He went on to say that such abortions, while gravely wrong in cases when the multiple pregnancy occurred by natural means, are still more heinous when the multiple pregnancy is the result of deliberate efforts.

       However, the Pope went on to say that the life of an unborn human must be respected fully, regardless of how the pregnancy occurred. However the conception took place, he said, the unborn child should be accorded "the dignity that he possesses from the moment of his conception."

         For more headlines and articles, especially during this abbreviated three days, we suggest you go to the Catholic World News site at the CWN home page and Church News at Noticias Eclesiales and the Dossiers, features and Daily Dispatches from ZENIT International News Agency CWN, NE and ZENIT are not affiliated with the Daily CATHOLIC, but provide this service via e-mail to the Daily CATHOLIC Mon thru Fri.

    Back to Top of Page

    Latest ShipLogs

      • Total number of visits in 2000 as of the morning of April 3:
            2,250,328
      • Total number of visits in 1999:
           5,345,880
      • Total number of visits since this daily publication went on line November 1, 1997:
           9,504,985
    For more details, see DAILY SHIPLOGS

    Back to Top of Page


    Click here to go to SECTION ONE or SECTION TWO or click here to return to the front page of this issue.

    To research any of the past 600 plus issues in archives from November 1, 1997 to the present, see ARCHIVES


    April 4, 5, 6, 2000     volume 11, no. 67, 68, 69
    The DailyCATHOLIC is available Monday thru Friday at www.DailyCatholic.org