Oh Canada: The evil potential of surrogacy

I was left terribly upset after reading the following from Faithwire,  

A homosexual couple in Canada has filed a lawsuit against a surrogate mother who refused to abort the baby after doctors detected a cleft lip and a possible heart defect.

Filed in the Ontario Supreme Court in May, the same-sex pair is claiming the surrogate did not keep them informed of the baby’s health, which, they argue, put the preborn child at risk, caused them emotional distress, and violated their confidentiality, according to a report from the National Post.

The lawsuit came two years after the couple asked the woman to terminate the pregnancy at 22 weeks, a demand she declined.

Both the mother and the surrogacy agency indicated the relationship between the surrogate and the couple deteriorated after the woman refused to abort the child.

“That’s when everything changed,” said Sally Rhoads-Heinrich, owner of Surrogacy in Canada Online. “They wanted a termination. What I find most difficult in this is they are suing the woman who brought their son to them. How is their son going to feel someday if he learns that?”

The surrogate purportedly had a fine relationship with the couple prior to the abortion dispute. The baby was conceived via in vitro fertilization with a donor egg and sperm from each of the intended fathers. The couple, after learning through an ultrasound about a cleft lip and possible cleft palate or minor heart issue, requested an abortion.

“Considering that medical tests indicate that the fetus has, or is likely to have, a genetic, chromosomal or other abnormality or defect, and in accordance with article 8.5 (a) of our surrogacy agreement … we want to inform you of our wish that the pregnancy be terminated,” the gay couple wrote. “Although very difficult, this decision is free and informed.”

The woman said she was “devastated” by the request and admitted she would have considered terminating the pregnancy if the preborn baby was determined by doctors to have no realistic chance of surviving after birth. However, medical personnel at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto later determined the baby was otherwise very healthy with the possible cleft lip as the only significant finding.

Ultimately, the couple accepted the surrogate mother’s suggestion and agreed to move forward with the pregnancy. That, though, was not the end of the friction. The couple wanted a hospital birth over concerns there may be complications from the potential cleft lip. The surrogate, though, moved forward with a home birth monitored by midwives, as stipulated in the original contract.

The newborn did experience difficulty breathing at birth but recovered quickly after midwives administered oxygen and arranged ambulance transportation to the hospital.

After all was said and done, the surrogate mother sought repayment of about $10,000 for out-of-pocket expenses connected to the pregnancy and delivery, including lost income and missed pension contributions. While her complaint was first filed in small-claims court, her contract with the couple stated such disputes must go through arbitration.

At the same time, the couple filed a lawsuit for roughly $600,000 against the mother, a single woman. In their filing, the men claimed the surrogate failed “to follow the direction regarding decisions affecting the fetus’ medical care.” The surrogate said she believes the couple rejected the child for not meeting their expectations.

“You know I’m a single mom, you know I have a daughter, and you’re basically suing me for my house,” she told the Post. “[I]t’s just awful. I just feel used. … They didn’t get the perfect child they wanted and they threw me away.”

What evil men.  

Where is your mind set?

 This Sunday's reading is from Romans 8:1-11,

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

In other words, you are what you think. 

Which is pretty close to "Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi" or  "the law of what is prayed is what is believed and is the law of what is lived." 

"But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you."

Meanwhile In the Pennsylvania State House: Pride attire yes, Patriotic attire no

 I remember when American flag shirts first came out during the Vietnam war. They were considered disrespectful of our flag. Nowadays it is considered patriotic to wear all sorts of flag attire except in Pennsylvania's State House.

From Fox News,

A Republican lawmaker was booted from Pennsylvania’s Democrat-controlled State House chamber over his choice of patriotic attire celebrating the U.S. founding 250 years ago this week in the commonwealth.

The dispute comes as Americans prepare to celebrate the nation's semiquincentennial and as the Trump administration showcases the Great American State Fair while the Shapiro administration features America250PA concerts and fairs from Pittsburgh to Wilkes-Barre.

America’s most prominent swing state has long enjoyed closely-divided government, with Gov. Josh Shapiro controlling the executive, Democrats holding a one-seat House majority and Republicans holding a four-seat Senate majority – which has led to dustups like that involving state Rep. Eric Davanzo this week.

Davanzo, who represents a swath of Westmoreland County between Pittsburgh and Greensburg, said he was shocked by the reaction of House Speaker Joanna McClinton, D-Southwest Philadelphia, when he came to Tuesday’s session sporting a red, white and blue suit and tie.

Davanzo told Fox News Digital he walked around the chamber greeting colleagues and eventually stopped to chat with House Minority Whip Timothy O’Neal, R-Washington.

"We were talking, I turned around when a House photographer got a picture… and the next thing I know Whip O’Neal is gone."

Davanzo initially decided to stay on the floor despite Democratic leaders' wishes until a House security guard informed him McClinton was demanding he either remove his suit jacket or leave.

Davanzo said House leadership had previously endorsed thematic attire in the chamber.

"They were asked to dress in pride colors because they were going to do a House photo on the floor," Davanzo told Fox News Digital, noting June is Pride Month. "That's OK. We can take our photos for pride but we can't show up as a patriot and take a photo or even get on the House floor apparently," Davanzo said. He then read from a statement from McClinton about Pride Month and how it encourages people to be "authentic" and "love freely."

"You're only able to love freely because the brave men and women died for this flag," Davanzo said.

"They died for our country. This is complete hypocrisy. You're allowed to wear tennis shoes on the floor. You're allow to wear top hats. You can wear camo-jackets. Everything across the board, but don't show up with a patriotic outfit on because you're going to be asked to leave."

 

The National Hymn Controversy

 As most of our United States celebrate 250 years since the Declaration of Independence from British rule, I saw a little debate on-line about the appropriateness of singing "National Hymns" during church services on July 5, 2026. Most Anglican priests were opposed to the practice. I did find some support for my plan which is what I did last year, and that is to ask the congregation to stay and sing one or more after the service. I was kind of surprised that this seemed to be a novel idea to the on-line group. I didn't see any objections posted. 

I ran it by our worship committee (which pretty much consists of me and the rector), and that's the plan.

Now, if I only had a few singers like this guy.

Suicidal Liturgies for a Dying Denomination

From The European Conservative,

 The Anglican Church of Canada has taken a step that, until just a few years ago, would have been difficult to imagine even within the most progressive Christian denominations.

Its General Synod has authorized for “trial use” a specific liturgy intended to accompany people who have chosen euthanasia, known in Canada as Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). The document includes prayers to be read immediately before the fatal drugs are administered, as well as prayers after the patient’s death.

The 66-page text goes far beyond offering pastoral guidance for terminally ill patients. It establishes a complete set of religious rites adapted to the moments before and after euthanasia: confession, the laying on of hands, anointing with oil, Holy Communion, blessings, and specific prayers for those who have chosen to end their lives through medical intervention.

The introduction acknowledges that many Anglicans believe euthanasia “may indeed be against God’s wishes for humanity.” Yet rather than attempting to resolve that theological question, the stated purpose of the resource is to provide spiritual accompaniment to those who have made that decision.

The document repeatedly insists that it is not intended to bless the decision to seek euthanasia. Nevertheless, critics are likely to question whether surrounding an assisted death with Scripture, blessings, sacraments, and an official Church liturgy inevitably lends it moral legitimacy.

One of the most striking passages states that people who choose euthanasia “may indeed be ready to go” and that they wish to “die well, and with the grace and blessing of God and with the presence of the Church at their side.”

The ceremony includes a period of silence immediately before the medical procedure. The patient may then pray: “Father, I place myself in your hands. Holy God, I believe in you. I trust you. I love you.”

Following the administration of euthanasia, the liturgy provides prayers traditionally associated with the Christian accompaniment of the dying. Among them is the petition: “Welcome them now into paradise where there will be no more sorrow, no more weeping or pain, but only peace and joy.”

Another prayer states that the deceased has been “freed from all its cares” and asks God to grant them “happiness and peace forever.”

The text goes even further in some of its supplementary materials. One prayer gives thanks that family members were able to be with the deceased when they received the lethal injection and concludes that “their final gift to N was to see N safely home.”

The decision places the Anglican Church of Canada in an unprecedented position within historic Christianity.

The novelty does not lie in the Church accompanying a person in their final moments—something that has been part of Christian ministry for centuries—but in the creation of an official ritual for a practice that Christian tradition has long regarded as incompatible with the belief that human life is a gift from God and should not be deliberately ended by human hands.

The liturgy has been authorised for trial use while feedback is gathered from dioceses across Canada until May 2027. A revised version could then be presented to the Church’s General Synod in 2028 for possible permanent adoption.

That "Southern Obsession With Sin"

 I once heard a revisionist Episcopal priest say during a sermon that he was sick and tired of the "Southern obsession with sin." That was a good indication that his congregation would never have to worry about him giving an expository sermon based upon this Sunday's reading from Romans 6:12-23.

 Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

 What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification.

 When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. So what advantage did you then get from the things of which you now are ashamed? The end of those things is death. But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Our revisionist priest would have us believe that Sin has been removed from the Earth and that he and his congregation are living the dream of sin free lives. 

The denial of the reality of Sin may be one of the deadliest sins of all.

 

For Sale: 815 A Parable of Postmodern Christianity

Over at World Opinions Newsletter, Albert Mohler posted about the recent announcement that Episcopalians will be selling their headquarters in New York city. A building we call 815. 

After a discussion of the timeline of the decline of the Episcopalian denomination, he gets to the point, 

"In recent days, the church has announced plans to sell its Manhattan headquarters, formally known as the Episcopal Church Center. A press release from the Episcopal News Service indicated that the sale of the church’s 63-year-old headquarters building, located at a prestigious New York City address, might be in order. As far back as the 1970s, the denomination had considered the sale of the facility. Now, the church’s presiding bishop has announced the intention to sell the building, if the real estate will bring an adequate price. The church’s leadership indicated that they would be open to co-development proposals and other options. It is also clear that any specific proposal to sell the facility will be hotly debated and, if financially adequate, might still trip ideological and social justice tripwires within the denomination.

In any event, the announcement of the intention to sell the denomination’s headquarters is deeply revealing. The story has to include the displacement of The Episcopal Church in American culture. The church of presidents has moved so steadily to the left that it has become a parable of postmodern Christianity—what’s left when the gospel is sidelined and the Holy Scriptures are undermined.

Even as this news story broke, a series of unrelated articles in the media considered what would happen to abandoned church buildings in American cities. Mayors and others are looking to abandoned churches for repurposing as social centers or subsidized housing. The hard fact is that even healthy denominations may decide to sell real estate—even a venerable headquarters building. But it’s a very different thing when denomination collapse is on the horizon. That’s the parable visible in this announcement from The Episcopal Church. In that sense, the sale of a building is the least of its problems."

Sell it!? 

If they were serious about being "woke", they would give it back to the Indians.