Skip to main content

Reproductive Health Services…thanks UN!

By August 11, 2007September 3rd, 2007News, Pro-Life

The United Nations has long outlived its usefulness but a report issued by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) yesterday (10 Aug) confirms that it should be dissolved, or at a minimum removed from US soil and its tax-payer funding terminated. The UNFPA report proposes that we pay to spread the gospel of “reproductive health services??, around the world. The four year plan will only cost about $224 million. Catholic World News has the details of the plan with a very nice itemized price-list broken down by region.

Father Thomas Euteneuer, President of Human Life International speaks to the mentality of “reproductive health services?? in his regular e-newsletter, “Spirit & Life??. The last installment of the newsletter (Vol. 1, N. 79) also released yesterday talks about the “Sacrament?? of Abortion. In his letter, Fr. Euteneuer defines the “sacrament?? of abortion as having the same characteristics as a real Sacrament in that it is efficacious in bringing about death and destroys grace by imparting moral sin. Check out Fr. Euteneuer’s article here He’s always worth reading.

One thing is certain we live in a culture of death, moral relativism and secular humanism. The United Nations is the flag bearer for the values that go along with that culture. We taxpayers foot the lion’s share of the UN’s annual budget. While possessing a very small amount of persuasive control. And, believe it or not, the UN is actually seeking ways to further insinuate itself into American politics so that it can have taxing power over the American people! The devil sure knows what he’s doing.

Extra Frate

Author Extra Frate

More posts by Extra Frate

Join the discussion 6 Comments

  • tomie says:

    Isn’t the Catholic Church exempt from taxes? Do you pay property taxes on your monastery?

    As we see more and more religious groups taking up the banners of politics, and the U.S. government paying religious groups to perform “charity” with taxpayer funds, perhaps it is time for the Federal and State governments to begin taxing Churches. Certainly most communities’ bottom lines would profit from the additional property taxes on all the church owned land within their borders — enabling them to provide more services for their elderly and low-income citizens, and improve their schools, parks, roads and the like.

    It is time for churches to decide for whom they toil. If they toil for a governmental agenda, they should be paying governmental taxes. If they toil for God, then they should serve as refuges from politics and encourage people to look to their souls and God… not the government.

  • Tomie,

    Your suggestion is unconstitutional. Separation of church and state secures freedom of religion, not freedom from it. In the free market of ideas, religious ideas are as valid as any other. We can discuss whatever we want. Why would you want to restrict free speech about issues that concern all of us so much?

    Tax exempt religious organization may not campaign for parties or candidates; there is nothing, however, limiting their freedom from expressing opinions regarding government policy.

    You may not like it, and you are free to express that; however, that has nothing to do with our constitutional freedoms.

  • tomie says:

    Yes, you are certainly free to voice your opinions, and I will support wholeheartedly your right to do so.

    Despite the popularly parroted phrase you all like to bandy about, I, as an American, have every right to be free FROM your religious beliefs.

    If you are not ashamed of the intellectual and moral dishonesty in your
    second paragraph, you most certainly should be. You know as well as I do that you do indeed, through your words and actions, campaign for political parties and candidates, whether you actually say their names or not.

    The movement to remove tax exempt status from religion is growing, and will continue to grow, as this sort of dishonesty and hypocracy and general immorality continues.

  • Extra Frate says:

    There’s a movement to remove tax exempt status? Only from religious groups? What about all the others? There are thousands of organizations who enjoy tax exempt status, everyone from the Arizona Asian American Association to the 99th Bombardment Group Historical Society. Including, by the way, the American Atheist Center, American Atheists Inc. and Assembly of Wicca who are arguably religious in nature[Cumulative List of Organizations described in Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986].

    The point I was trying to make is that as a private citizen I am a taxpayer, I have a vested interest where my money is being spent and I have no desire to subsidize the UN’s vacuous pet projects.

    One small thing, when Thomas Jefferson proposed the separation of Church and State in his Wall of Separation letter he intended that the State not be allowed to impose a single religion upon the people. The 19th century mis-interpretation of this concept has put us where we are now. If there should be any “movement” in America it should be to stop having the legal system treat the Constitution as if it were a living document left to selective interpretation by those with no moral foundation and completely lacking regard for natural law.

  • Benny F. says:

    Hi Tomie,

    I read though the IRS 501( c ) code and no where did I find that people in these tax exempt organizations could not speak out against the government as long as they did not engage in prolonged propaganda. See—-000-.html, in particular, 501(c)(3).

    I wanted to add a comment in clarifying the meaning of the “separation.” Separation of church and state implies that the government, (1) though the establishment clause, cannot establish a national religion, provide tax dollars to support this belief, and so on in favor of any religious point of view and (2) though the free exercise clause, does not restrict religious practice. Hence, separation of church and state has to do more with the government not imposing its religious will on the people.

    However, since the government enacts civil laws, these laws may not always comply with the moral laws. Civil laws represent a moral minimum, and, as Catholics, we also consider moral laws. We could argue back and forth if the government uses tax monies to fund immoral actions compliant with the civil law. For example, abortion is legal by the civil law, but the Catholic point of view is that abortion is immoral. Why should my tax dollar support and fund a public school system that encourages promiscuity, funds field trips to abortion clinics, teaches gay marriage, and endorses Islam and its practices.

    If the civil law conflicts with the moral law, who else can I depend upon to educate me but the priest at mass or one on one. I do not see a conflict in a priest stating, “Our faith teaches that abortion is immoral.??? Indeed, if there are two candidates running and one of them is pro-life the other is not, clearly, the priest need not use the name of the candidate.

    You may, as I did, find the following link informative: and then look at the original documents or the Syllabus and Quanta Cura.

    Thanks for reading.

  • Fr Angelo says:


    We act according to our constitutional freedoms, and according to legal tradition of our country when we argue against practices like abortion, and gay marriage. We engage in rational discussion. What you advocate is silencing an opinion that you disagree with.

    It is a matter of moral principle that a Catholics should act according to their faith whether in private or in the public square. Religion teaches moral principles and their application, and controversial social issues are well within that moral domain.

    Certainly we hope that the moral principles taught by the Church will be translated into choices, even political choices, that are consistent with those principles. That is obvious. No one is being deceived. That is our right, one which, unfortunately, you are not eager to uphold.

    The fact is that religion, morality and politics overlap. I find it absurd when secularists say: “We shouldn’t legislate morality?” What else do we legislate?

    The state stays out of the business of establishing, promoting or regulating religious practice, and we stay out of the business of funding and promoting candidates and parties.

    That’s the law, and we observe it. I am sorry you do not like it.