Bishop explains Catholic position in response to death of Chilean woman who refused blood transfusion

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 29

Santiago, Chile, Jul 26, 2008 / 02:30 pm (CNA).- In response to the commotion caused by the death of Chilean woman who was a Jehovah’s Witness and refused a blood transfusion, Bishop Alejandro Goic of Rancagua explained that “respecting the conscience of each person” does not override the duty “to safeguard respect for life.”

Bishop Goic, who is president of the Bishops’ Conference of Chile, lamented the death of Edith Morales, a 52 year-old Chilean woman who died in Rancagua of leukemia after refusing to receive blood transfusions, which she said went against her religious beliefs, despite efforts by her family members to persuade her to accept them.

Bishop Goic expressed condolences to her family members and noted that Morales “belonged to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who totally reject blood transfusions as a means of treatment.” Their belief, he said, is based on their interpretation of some passages in the Old Testament which prohibit blood transfusions.

“What do we say about these interpretations? Jesus Christ taught us that the old prohibitions of food have no meaning in the New Covenant. ‘The Kingdom of God is not a matter of food or drink, but of justice and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit’ (Rom. 14:17). It is not clear how the Jehovah’s Witnesses deduce from the prohibition against eating the blood of animals in the Old Testament the prohibition against blood transfusions that are precisely aimed to save human life,” the bishop said.

“The Catholic Church accepts transfusions,” he emphasized. “The Sacred Scriptures are not opposed to this kind of therapy that, on the other hand, was unknown in the times of Jesus. Jesus Christ teaches us that giving one’s life for others is the greatest show of love,” Bishop Goic said.

“In the vision of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, there are three important elements to consider: religious freedoms, respect for consciences and laws,” he added.

“For the Catholic Church, the position of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is what we call one of an erroneous conscience. That is, they believe something that is mistaken. This is part of their profound convictions, and therefore it merits respect in their decision making. Religious freedom invites us to respect the conscience of each person. What we must safeguard is the respect for life. In response to this, many laws dealing with minors in danger of death allow for the will of the parents to be overridden, not because children have more rights than parents, but because their lives are in jeopardy (Spain, Canada, to name of few).”

“God is the God of life. For Jesus life is something precious and ‘saving a life’ prevails over the law of the Sabbath (Mark 3:4), because ‘God is not a God of the dead but of the living’(Mark 12:27),” Bishop Goic stressed. “We are followers of Jesus Christ. In the example of Christ, we can give our lives out of love of neighbor. ‘No one has greater love than he who lays down his life for his friends’ (John 15:13). Therefore, we strongly affirm ‘life, always’,” the bishop said.

Comments: 29

Subscriber comments:

Published by: michael
gangtok 03/31/2009 03:05 AM EST

When you eat 'blood'- it is after its being cooked; and to drink it is 'raw' one, am I right? Christ at the Last Supper told His disciples to 'drink'His Blood, as it was not either cooked. Christ possessed two natures: True God's and True Man's. Do you think God has BLOOD in His body to keep Him alive? Does He really need BLOOD to be alive? Here comes the True answer that Christ also needed BLOOD in His Body to keep Himself Alive while He was in True Body like you and me. So He said, " drink my Blood" which gives life in us. Christ's Blood is 'Living Blood'- do break the Law of Moses God's Law here? Was Christ not aware of the Mosaic Law about Blood Drinking? Did Christ break the Mosaic Law then? If yes, was He God then to break His Father's Law? Instead, He said, "...I have not come to break the Mosaic Law, but to ammend it."And the Ammended Mosaic Law on drinking of Blood is "Drink, it is life giving!"If you say "No,because it is living thing..."then kill it by cooking and eat it, if not drink.So what problem is there about drinking and eating Blood. If there is no sin in killing an animal for food, what sin is there in killing the Blood by cooking till it dies...that you can eat and get some protein from it so that you may live long!

Published by: emily
Australia 01/13/2009 03:12 AM EST

It's probably too late for anyone to read this, but I can't not say anything about Jeff Schwems comment: "Church that Jesus founded....The Catholic Church. "

Jesus did not found the catholic church!!! Jesus did not found any church. People who followed Jesus and believed in his teachings founded various christian churchs!

Published by: Doug Pruner
Belen NM USA 08/29/2008 12:07 AM EST

Arlene of Chalfont:
Acts 15:20,29 say, "But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols AND from fornication AND from things strangled AND from blood ... That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols AND from blood AND from things strangled AND from fornication:"
Three times "and" is used to separate four clauses; meaning four separate prohibitions. These are orders to "abstain from":
(1) "idols" and
(2) "fornication"; both are non-controversial; and
(4) "blood" in some unspecified sense and
(3) "things strangled".
How would someone use a "thing strangled"? Only as a sacrifice or food. The former is part of the old Law system of worship, which Christ fulfilled. (Mt 5:17) What remains is the Holy Spirit's desire to extend the prohibition of eating blood to Christians. (Acts 15:28) No doubt you know this was found also in Jehovah's commands to Noah and to his descendants- Gen 9:4. So the command not to eat blood is binding on all of us who take God's word seriously. All these scriptures were clear to the people to whom they were addressed- except number (2). It has been noted elsewhere that blood transfusions were unknown to the ancients (until the Middle Ages) and were not practical until about WWII; HIV came in about 30 years later. That is an amazing example of prophetic protection!
There is much more to consider; I have already recommended our brochure "How Can Blood Save Your Life".

Published by: Doug Pruner
Belen, NM USA 08/23/2008 12:06 AM EST

ChristUnite of NY:

Can you explain what you mean by 'taking all blood fractions separately'? We in fact do NOT take the major fractions of blood, including plasma, or solutions of red or white cells or platelets. Other treatments may involve the use of so-called minor fractions. These we see as a matter for our private conscience to decide, hoping always that our consciences are bible-trained.
For example, when my son was seriously ill three years ago (facing death, in fact) two alternative treatments were proposed. One was considered more certain, but it involved the use of minor blood fractions in its preparation. We and our experienced elders researched the issues, prayed about it, and he decided against it. He accepted the other, less sure treatment. I'm happy to say he survived the illness, although he is still somewhat disabled. (The other treatment would not have prevented that.)

You can get a copy of our brochure "How Can Blood Save Your Life" at any Kingdom Hall or through our easily-obtained mailing address. It has a thorough discussion of the issues, including technical information about blood fractions that you can discuss with your doctor.

Published by: Doug Pruner
Belen NM USA 08/22/2008 11:46 PM EST

Sharon of Fostoria:

Do you have a specific case in mind where "A Jehovah [sic] Witness ... may try to keep a Roman Catholic from having a blood transfusion, at their hospital bedside"? I don't know of any.
Are you aware that there are no "JW" hospitals where we MIGHT impose our beliefs, even if the laws allowed it?
Of course you do know that there is any number of religion-affiliated hospitals, including various Catholic ones. In most cases we receive good medical care there, BTW.
Here is a related fact: Since HIV and other terrors entered the health care system, it is not unusual for our visitation people to be informed that, 'Mr. Smith in Room 200 is one of you.' In fact, Mr. Smith turns out to be a non-Witness, fearful of being given a blood transfusion! (Lu 21:26)

Published by: Joe Stroupe
Colorado Springs, CO USA 08/07/2008 03:15 PM EST

Elsie, you're entirely missing the point - the passing away of the many regulations contained in the Mosaic Law had no effect on God's prohibition against taking ANY SORT of blood into our bodies. Why so? Because the Divine prohibition against blood came BEFORE, and persisted AFTER, the Mosaic Law. The value of considering Leviticus chapter 17 (which was part of the Mosaic Law) is that it reveals the details of God's thinking on the matter of blood. It shows ALL blood is sacred to him, and Acts chapter 15 fully agrees. The ONLY blood that can benefit us in our standing with God is Christ's blood, which was poured out once for all time on the symbolic 'altar' in our behalf, and unless I'm mistaken, none of the blood transfusions people are given contain his blood! So, blood transfusions are an attempt to prolong one's present physical life at the terrible spiritual expense of violating God's explicit commands. For those who truly value God's approval, that's too high a price to pay. The genuine Christians had only to burn one pinch of incense to the emperor to avoid being eaten by lions in the arena - but they refused. We follow their worthy example and shun disobedience to God.

Published by: elsie
Chicago, IL 08/06/2008 10:56 AM EST

Leviticus says: God forbids us from wearing "a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff" (19:19); "if a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death" (20:10); "When a woman has a discharge of blood...whoever touches anything upon which she sits shall was his clothes and bathe himself in water" (15:19-22); animal and cereal sacrifices were commanded; consuming rabbits and pigs was prohibited; circumcision was ordered for all males; "On the fifteenth day of the seventh month...You shall dwell in booths for seven days" (23:39-42).
When Jesus ushered in the New Covenant, He made all things new. He made animal sacrifices obsolete. He commanded us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. God showed the apostles that circumcision was no longer required and that all of His creation is cleansed and is good. Thanks be to God Who gave us Jesus Christ in the New Covenant in place of the Mosaic Laws.

Published by: Thomas Roberts
Minneapolis MN USA 08/01/2008 08:01 PM EST

“What we must safeguard is the respect for life”. Therefore, we strongly affirm ‘life, always’,” the bishop said. No one loves life more than Jehovah’s witnesses. They sacrifice much to go to their neighbors to show them how they can have everlasting life. They will not go to war because they love life and will not kill their neighbors. But would rather suffer imprisonment, concentration camps, scorn and abuse and even death than kill their fellow man. But they will not disobey God’s plainly stated command to “ABSTAIN from blood.” The Bishop says “life always” Was that the Catholic position during the Crusades, the Inquisitions, two world wars where Catholic killed Catholic. History has shown that Catholics have shed the blood of millions upon millions The Bishops words are so hollow they carry no weight. Whereas, history had shown Jehovah’s witnesses have lived up to the teachings of Jesus Christ. But there is something better than life. Psalm 63:3 “Your loving-kindness is better than life”. So Jehovah’s witnesses view their relationship with God as more valuable so they Obey God and don’t continually try to step aside from God’s commands.

Published by: Joe Stroupe
Colorado Springs, CO USA 07/31/2008 06:24 PM EST

Part 2: This discussion began with the Bishop asserting that Jehovah's Witnesses are sincere but Scripturally wrong in their stand. However, we do have full Scriptural backing, as can be seen by the proof offered here. It is not we, but our critics who make unfounded assertions about the Scriptures on the subject of blood. We strive to hold to God's Word, both to its letter and to its spirit. Adam and Eve attempted to modify, qualify and circumvent God's clear commands - so it is also today, as most persons are unwilling to risk much of anything of value for the sake of obedience to God's commands. But we place great value on having his favor through the sin-atoning value of Christ's sacrifice, and showing our faith by our honest attempts to be obedient to Him. I think this is what the Bishop admired in his statements about us. I hope he and all the others will see that our faith and conviction regarding blood is fully based in the Scriptures, and is not in error, as many assume.

Published by: Joe Stroupe
Colorado Springs, CO USA 07/31/2008 06:07 PM EST

My response Part 1: Those who claim God's clear prohibition against taking blood into our bodies only applies to animal blood are greatly mistaken. As I made clear in a previous post, his prohibition was stated before (Genesis 9:4), during (Leviticus 17:10-16), and after (Acts 15:20, 28, 29) the Mosaic Law was in effect. During nearly all that time human sacrifice was rampant in the ancient world, and almost always the drinking of human blood was part and parcel of the ceremonies. This was true among the ancient Greeks, and among many other ancient peoples and tribes. The Jews were surrounded by such peoples and practices. And the Romans commonly drank the blood of wounded gladiators at the Games circa the 1st century. God's statement at Leviticus 17:10-16 specifically and repeatedly forbids "ANY SORT of blood" - hence the prohibition includes human blood. Acts 15 refers to animal blood ("things strangled") but then includes ALL blood ("and from blood") - period. God's thinking on the matter is abundantly clear - ALL blood is sacred to him and he forbids humans from taking it into their bodies.

Published by: Francis Xavier T
Virginia 07/31/2008 12:20 PM EST

It does not matter what the Scripture said. Lord Jesus Christ demostrates that he broke the laws of Sabbath Day 7 times deliberately in order to save lives. The Witness is dead wrong

Published by: Arlene
Chalfont PA USA 07/30/2008 10:07 PM EST

The New Testament scriptures cited by the Witnesses do not mean what the Witnesses claim they mean. We are to abstain from blood from animal sacrifices to false gods and abstain from blood from strangled meat is the more correct understanding.
Arlene

Published by: Elsie
Chicago, IL 07/30/2008 09:09 AM EST

The Bible prohibition against blood is a prohibition against consuming animal blood. Why? "For the life of every creature is the blood of it ..." (Lev 17:14) The ban emphasizes the fact that we are not called to enter into the life of the animals. We are called, however, to enter into the life of Jesus, which is why He commanded us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. We become the Body of Christ through membership in His Church. Failing to reason the distinction between animals and human beings is how the Jehovah’s Witnesses fall into error.

Published by: Francis Xavier T
Virginia 07/30/2008 08:59 AM EST

For Mr. Joe Stroupe, Laws are made for a reason. If the biblical people cook food like how we cook today, we wouldn't see the laws that you read in Leviticus and Acts. That laws were meant to protect people from eating bloody raw meat and contracting disease. Read the spirit of the laws, not the letters...

Published by: Joe Stroupe
Colorado Springs, CO USA 07/29/2008 08:10 PM EST

The argument that the Divine prohibition against "eating" blood does not also cover injecting it into one's veins, as in a blood transfusion, cannot stand under simple scrutiny. Medical science recognizes that injection of a substance into the veins is fundamentally just a shorter route than is eating and digesting that substance. That is why, when a patient cannot eat, he is "fed" directly through the veins. In essence then, "eating" must also cover any other technical/scientific method humans have recently invented of taking a substance into one's body. Simply put, we are indeed commanded at Acts the 15th chapter to "keep free from" idolatry, fornication and blood. Skirting such clear prohibitions, on semantical or technical grounds, is commonplace, but it fundamentally violates the obvious spirit of God's written Word.

Published by: Jeffrey Schwehm
Sheboygan, Wisconsin USA 07/29/2008 03:37 PM EST

The Bishop is correct in stating that the Jehovah's Witnesses views on Blood Transfusions are incorrect but people have the right to be wrong.

Essentially, Blood Transfusions are the equivalent of organ transplantation and to view them as the equivalent of eating blood is just false. It is like saying that eating a human kidney is the equivalent of receiving a human kidney as an organ transplant. In fact, JWs are allowed to receive organ transplants these days.

In addition, there are many Jehovah's Witnesses discovering the fullness of the Christian faith in the Church that Jesus founded....The Catholic Church.

Jeff Schwehm
President
The Fellowship of Catholic Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses

Published by: Joe Stroupe
Colorado Springs, CO USA 07/29/2008 01:44 PM EST

Regarding the assertion of V Fajardo to the effect that the prohibition on taking blood into one's body is merely a "recommendation" and not a Divine prohibition - fornication is also listed as prohibited right along with the unlawful use of blood. Will V Fajardo have us believe that abstaining from fornication is also only a "recommendation"? Does not the context therefore make clear how seriously God views the misuse of blood? Those who minimize its seriousness are at odds with God's Word.

Published by: Claude Kenneson
Tallahassee, Florida U.S.A. 07/29/2008 01:05 PM EST

One should note that blood transfusions did not exist at the time Acts was written. The writer could hardly have been condemning a practice which did not yet exist. What, therefore, did it condemn? The eating of blood as food. When someone is hungry in the hospital, however, the doctor doesn't order blood as nutrition. Blood goes directly into the veins and is not ingested or digested. It is only used in cases of emergency when blood is needed to transport oxygen to the system. A blood transfusion, as a medical procedure, has nothing to do with eating or the Book of Acts.

Published by: Joshua
Houston, Tx, USA 07/29/2008 10:48 AM EST

The alcohol corralary is flawed. When we drink alcohol, it cannot be metabolized so it enters the blood stream, is filtered out and then disposed. If blood were ingested, it would be broken down like any other protein and enter the bloodstream in its component parts. By contrast, a compatible blood donation will continue to act in the capacity of blood rather than as sustainance. Eventually the cells will break down and be flushed out of the blood stream.

In this light I would argue that the ban on blood ingestion is one against sustainance, which a blood transfusion is not.

Published by: ChristUnite
Canandaigua, NY 07/28/2008 05:54 PM EST

I don't understand why Jehovah's Witnesses can take all blood fractions separately, but not take them all at once as whole blood. What gives?

Published by: Sharon
Fostoria/OH/USA 07/28/2008 05:43 PM EST

A Jehovah Witness must respect that others do not believe as they do. Instead, they may try to keep a Roman Catholic from having a blood transfusion, at their hospital bedside. I perfectly agree with the Bishop's quotes, the Bilbe is not for argument: The Holy Spirit is in charge! God gave us these medical treatments because He is merciful. If the JWs were correct in their interpretation, than noone would be dying from the lack of blood transfusions.

Published by: V Fajardo
San Bernardino, CA USA 07/28/2008 03:01 PM EST

It was not so much of a “prohibition”, as one of our “Witness” friends called it, but a recommendation of the Counsel at Jerusalem. For they did not want to put and “further yoke” upon the necks of these Gentiles, as there were within the Jewish religious system (Acts 15:10).

The recommendation was to “abstain from blood and things strangled”. WHY? The very next verse answers this well: “For THESE LAWS OF MOSES have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations." – Acts 15:21 NLT

There was much friction at that time between the Jews and the followers of Christ. The recommendation given was for the purpose of not further antagonizing the Jewish community, who were still followers of the “laws of Moses”.

And of course, a blood transfusion was the furthest thing from their minds when this was written.

Published by: cglenn
USA 07/28/2008 07:54 AM EST

Acts 15:20, 28, 29

Published by: paul sandidge
Canada 07/27/2008 10:24 PM EST

Leviticus 17:10-12 says: “If any man whosoever . . . eat blood, I will set my face against his soul, and will cut him off from among his people. Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls.”
The only use for blood was “that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls.” The animal sacrifices of the Mosaic law all foreshadowed the greater sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Jesus, when he offered the cup of wine to his faithful apostles on the night of his death said; “Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:27,28) The apostle Paul wrote; “For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of an heifer, being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost offered himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? - Hebrews 9:13,14
Therefore, the prohibition against taking in any kind of blood was also given to Christians at Acts 15:28,29; “For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood.” Blood is sacred to God and true Christians will not partake of it, even to save their present life.

Published by: Jan Fredericks
Wayne, NJ USA 07/27/2008 02:08 PM EST

The Council of Jerusalem told the Gentiles to abstain from meat of strangled animals and from blood. Acts 15:20. (New Testament)

Published by: Plabius
Buffalo, NY 07/27/2008 08:47 AM EST

Part Two:

To scandalize one's brother, according to Saint Paul, is evil, and tends to impair justice and the peace, and to wound joy in the Holy Ghost -- the very things that are the Kingdom of God. Hence, while meat and drink are not the Kingdom of God, they do, according to Saint Paul, have an impact on Kingdom of God, and for that very reason, cannot be ignored. The logic of this position, which is inescapable, entails that if a Jehovah's Witness is scandalized by a transfusion of blood (for whatever reason, and rightly or wrongly), then it is evil to force him to have a transfusion.

The bishop also quoted Mark, 12:27, the first sentence of which, quoting Christ, says, "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And yet, in Romans 14:9, Saint Paul says, "For this end Christ died and rose again; that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living."

Conclusion:

I am not saying that the bishop's position in opposition to the Jehovah's Witness is wrong.I am not saying that the bishop's position in opposition to the Jehovah's Witness is wrong. What I am saying is that the passages of the bible which he quotes do not support his position; in fact, they seem to undermine it.

Published by: Plabius
Buffalo, NY 07/27/2008 08:46 AM EST

Part One:

I am affraid that logic simply is not on the side of the bishop, here. I'm not going to address the issue of the article, which regards the death of a woman due to a belief that rejects the transfusion of blood from one human to another, based upon a particular interpretation of the Old Testament prohibition against the eating of the blood of animals. Rather, I want to point out some problems with passages that the bishop used in support of his position.

Saint Paul does say, in Romans 14:17, that, "For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but justice, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Yet, he goes on to say, in 14:20-21, "Destroy not the work of God for meat. All things indeed are clean: but it is evil to for that man who eateth with offence. It is good not to eat flesh, and not to drink wine, nor anything whereby they brother is offended, or scandalized, or made weak." Also, in I Corinthians, 8:12-13, he says, "Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother."

Published by: Joe Stroupe
Colorado Springs, CO USA 07/26/2008 05:50 PM EST

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I am pleased to respond to this article. First of all let me express my sincere appreciation for the Bishop's respect for the conscientious stand of Jehovah's Witnesses on the matter of blood transfusions. Second, let me explain by the Scriptures how we do deduce that God looks with disapproval upon blood transfusions. The Bishop makes oblique reference to the matters of the old Law of Moses contained in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), and reminds us that we are no longer under that Law, with its various prohibitions as to certain foods, etc. While certainly true, one must see that God's revelation of divine displeasure against eating or otherwise taking into one's body any sort of blood pre-dates (and therefore supersedes and transcends) the Law given through Moses. Note Genesis 9:4 in that regard. Furthermore, Divine prohibition against taking blood into one's body was restated to the Christian Church after the Law given through Moses had already passed away. Note Acts 15:20, 29 in this regard. Hence, God holds blood as sacred and he has the right to forbid its misuse, no matter what human wisdom and well-meaning doctors may say about the matter. While occasionally one of Jehovah's Witnesses may die for refusal of blood transfusions, in many more cases such refusal does not lead to harm and in fact protects one from many ills and diseases. Finally, the Scriptures warn against trying to prolong one's life by transgressing God's Laws.

Published by: Rolf
Germany 07/26/2008 04:05 PM EST

Their belief,is also based on passages in the new Testament

(Acts 15:28-29) 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”
Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.

Professor Vicente Amato Neto, Brazilian expert on infectious diseases, says: “I often say that the best prevention for AIDS is for one to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, for the members of that religion are neither homosexuals nor bisexuals, they are loyal to their marriage—they associate it with reproduction—don’t use drugs and, to complete the picture, they don’t accept blood transfusions.”
Yes, accepting the Creator’s standards for human behavior is the best way to avoid AIDS and so many other problems.

agpe

Rolf

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com