The Pope Who Said Abortion Is NOT Murder: Secrets of the Catholic Church
Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic's duty to be morally coherent, found within one's conscience, which is one and indivisible. When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.
This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate. Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. No Catholic can responsibly take a "pro-choice" stand when the "choice" in question involves the taking of innocent human life. We urge those Catholic officials who choose to depart from Church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin.
We call on them to reflect on the grave contradiction of assuming public roles and presenting themselves as credible Catholics when their actions on fundamental issues of human life are not in agreement with Church teaching. No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life.
As is true of leaders in all walks of life, no political leader can evade accountability for his or her exercise of power Evangelium Vitae, Those who justify their inaction on the grounds that abortion is the law of the land need to recognize that there is a higher law, the law of God. No human law can validly contradict the Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill. The law is not the only means of protecting life, but it plays a key and often decisive role in affecting both human behavior and thinking. Archbishop John Baptist Odama, leader of the local Ugandan conference of bishops, told the AP that unverified or verified allegations against individual priests should not be used to smear the whole church.
Long before the most recent incidents, confidential reports into the problem focused on Africa and AIDS were prepared in the s by members of religious orders for top church officials. In , the late Sr. Four years later, in a report to top religious superiors and Vatican officials, Sr. The problem travelled when the sisters were sent to Rome for studies. The reports were never meant to be made public. The U. National Catholic Reporter put them online in , exposing the depths of a scandal the church had long sought to keep under wraps.
But the fact that in just a few weeks scandals of priests allegedly molesting sisters have erupted publicly on two other continents — Asia and Latin America — suggests that the problem is not confined to Africa, and that some women are now willing to break the taboo to denounce it publicly. In India, a sister of the Missionaries of Jesus filed a police report last month alleging a bishop raped her in May during a visit to the heavily Christian state of Kerala, and that he subsequently sexually abused her around a dozen more times over the following two years, Indian media have reported.
The bishop denied the accusation and said the woman was retaliating against him for having taken disciplinary action against her for her own sexual misdeeds.
The scandal got so bad that in May, Francis summoned all Chilean bishops to Rome, where they all offered to resign en masse. The case, exposed by the Chilean state broadcaster, involves accusations of priests fondling and kissing nuns, including while naked, and some religious sisters sexually abusing younger ones. The victims said they told their mother superior, but that she did nothing. The Vatican is well aware that religious sisters have long been particularly vulnerable to abuse.
Once word got out, the Vatican poured the full force of its Inquisition to investigate and punish. These Popes have condemned abortion clearly and unmistakably. No honest or open-minded person could possibly believe that there is a 'diversity of opinion' on the subject of abortion within the Catholic Church. As strongly as the Church has spoken on abortion, perhaps nobody has described the very heart of the matter as well as Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who even condemned it during her Nobel Prize acceptance lecture. On September 17, , in Ottawa, Canada, Mother Teresa eloquently reiterated this belief; "Every abortion kills two the child and the conscience of the mother.
The latter will never forget she, herself, has killed her own child. If you don't want that child, I want it, give it to me! Some so-called 'Catholics' claim that the only teachings of the Church that its members are bound to follow are those that have solemnly been declared to be infallible. Conversely, they say, any teaching of the Church that has not specifically been declared infallible is open for individual interpretation. This category of teaching would, of course, include those that have addressed such sexual conduct as fornication, adultery, abortion, divorce, and the use of artificial contraception.
The question of conscience vs. In other words, "natural law" is man's instinctual knowledge of what is right and what is wrong his "conscience. Thomas, who is quoted in The Catechism of the Catholic Church , says that "Natural law is simply the light of intelligence placed within us by God; by it we know what we should do and what we should avoid. God bestowed this light, or this law, with the creation. The practical effect of pronouncements made under natural law is that they can never be changed not even by the Pope and all of his assembled Cardinals and Bishops.
And certainly not by disgruntled lay people and dissident priests! But 'Catholics' for a Free Choice is always telling us that we can choose abortion if we do so with a clear conscience. In other words, just as homosexuals are "born that way," some people are born with a conscience that is vestigial in that it does not restrict their activities in the slightest. Occasionally these pro-abortion 'Catholics' will quote a Vatican II document entitled Declaration on Religious Freedom in support of their contention that we should be able to do anything our 'conscience' does not object to.
He stated in a footnote to the Abbott-Gallagher edition of the council texts that "The Declaration does not base the right to the free exercise of religion on 'freedom of conscience. And the Declaration nowhere lends its authority to the theory for which the phrase frequently stands, namely, that I have the right to do what my conscience tells me to do, simply because my conscience tells me to do it.
This is a perilous theory. Its particular peril is subjectivism the notion that, in the end, it is my conscience, and not the objective truth, which determines what is right and wrong, true or false. After settling the question of "natural law," we must turn our attention to the related issue of ex cathedra 'from the chair' pronouncements of the Pope. There are two methods by which Catholics may know that a teaching of the Church is infallible and therefore must be obeyed by all Catholics in order to remain Catholic.
The first of these, of course, is an ex cathedra pronouncement. Popes use this mechanism very infrequently, and then only to address the very fundamentals of Catholic faith. Many pro-life theologians have debated the wisdom of having the Church's teachings on birth control and abortion be formally declared infallible, and have decided that this would not be wise in the larger scheme of things.
The reason is that such a pronouncement in an area of morals as opposed to fundamental beliefs would give the impression that all other moral teachings of the Church were optional. This might lead to a situation where disbelief would run rampant in the areas not specifically addressed ex cathedra , and would lead to more and more demands for such pronouncements in almost every area of Church teaching.
The second means by which Catholics may know that a Church teaching is infallible is by examining the ordinary magisterium. This is the usual, day to day expression of the Church's infallibility. The Canon of St. Vincent of Lorenz declares that any doctrine that has been taught semper ubique obomnibus always, everywhere, and by everyone makes it part of the ordinary and universal Magisterial teaching.
As shown by the quotes of ancient and modern Catholic theologians in Figures and , the prohibition against abortion has indeed been taught semper ubique obomnibus. It simply reiterates the infallible doctrine that human life is sacred from conception to natural birth. From this, we may state without fear of contradiction from anyone who counts, that is that the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is, indeed, derived from an infallible doctrine. Before wrapping up this discussion on infallibility, we must consider this question: Do we really think that 'Catholic' abortophiles would suddenly stop their child killing if the Pope suddenly issued an ex cathedra decree that abortion was a mortal sin?
Obviously, they would not. Just as with the question of ensoulment, the pro-aborts couldn't really care less about the degree of solemnity of Catholic condemnation of abortion. This is another red herring they use to distract attention from the real issue. The Catholic Church has recently expanded its definition of abortion to include new drugs and surgical procedures. This expansion has not been necessary until recently because such drugs and procedures simply have not existed until this time, and their invention had created a new 'grey area' that needed to be clarified.
The Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, on November 24, , stated that abortion is not only "the expulsion of the immature fetus," but is also "the killing of the same fetus in any way and at any time from the moment of conception. For a description of the modes of action of birth control pills manufactured today, see Chapter The modes of action of the IUDs are described in Chapter If you carefully examine your conscience and then decide that an abortion is the most moral act you can do at this time, you're not committing a sin.
Therefore, you're not excommunicated. Nor need you tell it in confession since, in your case, abortion is not a sin. If a person refuses to play by the rules of a game, he is almost always barred from playing that game. If a basketball player insists on travelling, he will eventually be ejected. If a card player insists on cheating, he will be identified as a cheater and nobody will play with him.
If a soldier refuses to salute, wear a uniform, or carry a rifle, he will be court-martialled and jailed or thrown out of the service. The same holds true of the 'games' of life and religion. If a person constantly preys on others, he is not playing by the rules that society has set down, and, if he persists in his predatory activities, he will eventually be separated from society or even 'ejected' from life if his crimes are serious enough.
Perhaps every faithful Catholic has heard ignorant bigots sneer "if da Pope no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules," with regards to abortion and contraception.
These people are missing the point. The Pope is not a player in the game; for Catholics, he is the coach and referee. And if so-called 'members' of the team members of the Catholic Church do not play by the rules, then they should be 'cut' from the team by excommunication. We might take the "play the game" remark and turn it around to use against the so-called 'Catholic' abortophiles: "If you no play-a by de rules, you no play-a de game. The pro-abortion media, of course, might be expected to maintain a double standard on anything impinging upon abortion.
Excommunication is no exception. Members of the media simper that the excommunication of bad 'Catholics' is an unacceptable interference in public life, but they see no inconsistency when they attempt to meddle in Church affairs. Of course, the media propagandists don't really care about excommunication; they only care about abortion. The New York Times proved this point with its greatly divergent reactions to the excommunication of two leaders from separate spheres of social activism. When San Diego's Bishop Leo Maher excommunicated pro-abort state assemblywoman Lucy Killea in , the Times sniveled "By imposing a test of religious loyalty, Bishop Maher threatens the truce of tolerance by which Americans maintain civility and enlarge religious liberty.
However, when Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans in excommunicated Leander Perez, a white supremacist and Louisiana political boss who had opposed desegregation of the schools, the Times didn't seem to mind at all; "Men of all faiths must admire the unwavering courage of the Most Reverend Joseph Rummel, Archbishop of New Orleans We salute the Catholic Archbishop. He has set an example founded on religious principle and is responsive to the social conscience of our time. Of course, Catholic clergymen aren't the only people who excommunicate the dissenters within their ranks, but they are the only ones who get negative media attention.
Openly sodomite Congressman Barney Frank D. The presiding Rabbi, Joseph Friedman, stated that the excommunication was for "Desecrating the name of God and the Jewish people, for bringing dishonor and disgrace upon the high office of Congressman, and for promoting and encouraging the moral corruption of society. A prominent Jewish public official, to our deep embarrassment, Frank has been a blatant promoter of moral depravity. Although this eminently justifiable writ of excommunication was extraordinarily stronger in tone and content than anything that Cardinal O'Connor or anyone else in the Catholic Church had issued, and although it was directed at a far more famous person than a lowly abortion clinic operator, the secular press played it down or ignored it altogether.
The position of the Catholic Church on abortion could not be clearer. Only a person who is willfully blinding himself or herself to the facts could make the ridiculous claim that there is 'room for a diversity of opinion' within the Catholic Church on abortion. The church not only does not want to change its teaching on abortion it absolutely cannot change its teaching, because this critical issue deals with fundamental questions of faith, morals, and ethics.
Those 'Catholic' abortophiles who are waiting for a change will be waiting for a very long time indeed. Canon , promulgated in , states that all who procure abortion shall be automatically excommunicated. Qui abortum procurat, effectu secuto, in excommunicationem, latae sententiae, incurrat. Those who successfully abort a living human fetus bring on themselves instant excommunication. Abortum procurat means anyone who works to kill a human fetus in any manner at all. This may be the boyfriend or husband who drives the mother to the abortion mill, pays for the abortion in full or in part, or even advises that abortion may be an option in her case.
Latae sententiae means that the person brings instant excommunication upon himself with his act. No solemn pronouncement need be made by the Church or a Bishop or priest, and no one else need even know about the abortion. For automatic excommunication to take place, the woman must know that she is pregnant and must freely choose abortion. At the moment the woman's child dies, she is cut off from all the Sacraments completely, and cannot return unless she sincerely repents and makes a good confession. This sanction also applies to the abortionist, attending nurse or counselor, and anyone else who assists in the abortion.
Keep in mind that Rome or the Bishop did not excommunicate her, nor did any priest; she excommunicated herself. It is important to note here that the woman must be fully knowledgeable of her act. Since many women are completely unaware of the abortifacient effects of these devices and drugs, they would not generally be liable to excommunication.
Effectu secuto means that the excommunication takes place only if the abortion is completed. Canon Law quoted above and Section 2 of Canon Law outline quite clearly the penalty for assisting in an abortion. The latter Canon Law states that "Accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept, incur the same penalty [ latae sententiae excommunication] if, without their assistance, the crime would not have been committed, and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them; otherwise, they can be punished with ferendae sententiae [inflicted by clergy] penalties.
In fact, the United States Catholic Bishops have stated quite clearly that one cannot be Catholic and even support the general concept of abortion; "No Catholic can responsibly take a 'pro-choice' stand when the 'choice' involves the taking of innocent human life. The very rare cases of pregnancy that pose a real and immediate threat to the mother's life including uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies are a source of great confusion, especially among Catholics.
It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans abortion to save the life of the mother. However and this is an extremely important point the mother's life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the unborn baby's life. The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother's life against that of her unborn child's are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary.
Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention. In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube and with it, the unborn baby , or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder abortion and unintentional natural death.
The principle of the "double effect" also applies to sexual sterilization. If a woman must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously cancerous uterus, this will result in her sterilization, but is not a sinful act. However, if the purpose of the operation is not to heal or safeguard health, but to directly sterilize, then that act is intrinsically evil and is always a mortal sin.
Pope Pius XII summarized the intent of the double effect when he addressed the Family Front Congress on November 27, ; "Both for the one and the other, the demand cannot be but this: To use every means to save the life of both the mother and the child. Pius also stated the general principle of the "double effect" on October 29, , at his address to the Italian Union of Midwives. This speech is codified in the Pope's Acta Apostilicae Sedis , 43 , page The pertinent passage of this document reads; "Deliberately we have always used the expression 'direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,' 'direct killing.
- Inquisitor Blues.
- Publisher Description.
- Derwent Valley Walks: Derby Silk Mill;
- The Pope Who Said Abortion Is NOT Murder.
- Pope Francis on Abortion and Other Issues;
- The Catholic Church Should Abolish the Priesthood - The Atlantic.
Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies. As described in Chapter 10 of Volume I, "Infiltration and Subversion," one of the most effective general strategies employed by pro-abortionists and other anti-lifers involves the assertion that "this is not a black and white question.
Of course, this concept is the ultimate red herring: According to 'Catholics' for a Free Choice and other phony 'Christians,' any abortion that any woman wants inevitably falls into this "gray area. As with every other ethical and moral question posed to pro-abortionists, "wanna-be" theologians stretch the "double effect" to cover all abortions, and the effects are frequently comical. For example, John Swomley, a propagandist for the 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights, claims that "The Roman church argues that although the death of the fetus is foreseen, it is not intended because the intention is to preserve the health and life of the woman.
Isn't it just as reasonable to assert that the intention of most women is the separation of the fetus from the woman, not the killing of the fetus, though its death may be foreseen? Swomley obviously isn't thinking here: He "forgets" that Canon law requires that the desired effect in his example, "separation of the fetus from the woman" must be accomplished in such a way as to best assure the survival of both mother and child. Thus, the approved method to achieve "separation" would be the natural termination of pregnancy known as "birth," occurring at about nine months' gestation.
Additionally, if the intention of most women is the "separation of the fetus from the woman," why do 1.https://www.cliccanotizie.it/wp-includes/come/1902.html
Clarification on procured abortion
And why do abortionists deliberately use methods designed to kill preborn babies in late abortions? It is plain that the purpose of abortion is indeed to produce a dead baby. Some pro-abortion propagandists with no particular regard for the truth point to the fact that Saint Thomas and Saint Jerome speculated as to when the soul was infused by God, and say that this uncertainty constitutes a definite approval of abortion. Others, like Dr. Robert E. Hall, simply make flatly untrue statements such as "One can admire St. Augustine for conceding that no one will ever know when fetal life begins.
Other misleading statements by bogus "Catholics" used to prop up their unjustifiable support of prenatal child killing are even more bizarre. For example, "Catholic" Marjorie Reilly Maguire, a board member of the National Abortion Rights Action League, claims with a straight face that the Annunciation "proves" that ensoulment does not take place until the mother consents to "the pregnancy that is within her. Keep in mind that, according to the Gospels, the Virgin Mary consented prior to the moment of conception. These statements are illogical and, of course, dead wrong.
Both Saints Thomas and Jerome recognized that ensoulment and abortion were two distinct and separate issues. They both condemned abortion in the strongest possible terms see Figure for one of St. Jerome's statements against abortion. In any case, the matter of when the body is 'ensouled' has historically made no difference to the Catholic Church; see the quotes in Figure by Saints Basil and Jerome, for proof. It is quite obvious from the language he uses that St.
Basil had extensive experience in dealing with Fourth Century pro-abortion doublespeak. In summary, Saints Thomas and Jerome were postulating a theory based upon the best medical knowledge of their time, which had been set forth by Aristotle centuries before.
Ahead of 2020, Beware the Deepfake
Aristotle taught that the unborn did not become human until forty days after conception. This notion was only discarded in , based upon the work of Paulo Zacchia in his Quaestiones Medico-Legales , question 9. It is quite evident that the 'ensoulment' argument is nothing more than a red herring. It is an attempt to 'prove' that the Catholic Church is 'inconsistent' in its teachings on abortion. In reality, of course, pro-aborts couldn't care less when the soul is infused. They know that such a concept cannot be scientifically proven one way or the other, so they are 'safe.
If someone suddenly developed a new and advanced technology that could definitively detect the presence of a soul in the preborn child, does any thinking pro-lifer believe that the pro-aborts would suddenly give up their precious 'right' to kill as a result? If there are people that naive out there, we know of a slightly-used bridge for sale at a very attractive price Pro-abortion groups will go to laughable extremes in their attempts to prove 'inconsistency' in Church teachings.
For example, they actually say with a straight face that the Catholic Church is not consistent because it does not insist on a funeral Mass for each miscarried baby. Can you believe it? This idiotic statement glaringly highlights the pervasive pro-abortion double standard. On the one hand, the pro-aborts insist that any mother who wants to kill her child should be able to define it out of existence with a mere thought, i. All she needs, curiously enough, is an abortuary to eliminate this supposedly 'nonexistent' baby.
On the other hand, a grieving pro-life mother who has miscarried has to jump all kinds of hurdles before the existence of her baby can be 'validated. Also, whatever happened to the 'right to privacy' cherished by the pro-aborts? Apparently, it is only for them. After all, they're special cases. Just ask them. This is typical of the pro-abortion mentality. The mother's wishes or biological fact do not make the baby a human being; the funeral does! The National Abortion Rights Action League even insisted in its June A Speakers and Debaters Notebook that every Catholic woman must have a formal funeral Mass and burial each time she menstruates, since the 'products of menstruation' just might include an unnoticed very early miscarriage!
Population controller Garrett Hardin, always at the forefront of the abortion debate with a wide variety of silly statements, weighed in with the slightly differing but still profoundly absurd opinion that "Whenever a woman is late with her period, the menstrual products will have to be collected and given a proper burial.
These and other pro-abortionists know that the Catholic Church is potentially their most dangerous enemy, and thus they are constantly trying to saddle it with obviously impossible missions in the name of 'consistency. Ah, the 'logic' of the abortophile mentality! As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Most pro-abortionists don't believe in God at least not a Christian God , and therefore don't believe that human beings have souls. Why, then, are they quibbling about a concept that they don't believe in to begin with?
Why, to divert attention away from the central issue the immoral and unethical slaughter of real live unborn babies. Curiously, those very few pro-aborts who do believe in 'ensoulment' are nevertheless willing and eager to kill what they believe does have a soul the unborn baby. Many Catholics believe that the greatest tragedy of abortion is not the actual deaths of preborn babies, but their loss of Heaven due to the fact that they were not baptized. However, it is rather presumptuous to state as fact that all unbaptized people go straight to Hell or even to some Limbo-like state , because this includes a broad assumption that God is restrained by certain laws as understood by man.
God's power obviously cannot be limited by the desires or opinions of men; His power is infinite, and He can do anything He wants, including welcoming to Heaven unbaptized preborn babies. Some theologians believe that, after their deaths, God gives aborted and miscarried babies full knowledge and does so that they may make their own decision about eternity, just as they would have done on earth. It is a repugnant concept that God would condemn to Hell a person who, through no fault of his own, has never heard of Christ. Therefore, the Catholic Church teaches that even persons who have never heard of Christ may be worthy of Heaven if they live a benign lifestyle that generally adheres to the precepts of Christianity.
Since unborn babies are guilty of no sin other than original sin, they certainly fit this category. As proof of this, the Catholic Church has formally canonized as Saints a group of unbaptized persons the Holy Innocents, who died directly because of others who hated Jesus, just as all of the aborted babies are dying for hate of Him today. Catholic pro-life groups, including Catholics United for Life and the Shield of Roses, commonly pray the Rosary for the dying and the dead outside abortuaries. The purpose of these Rosaries, in part, is to request the baptism of desire for the unborn babies being slaughtered there that day.
Even if the aborting mothers are atheists and couldn't care less about their babies' souls, Catholics believe that it is possible to request baptism for them. This is essentially the same understanding used by mothers who conditionally baptize their miscarried babies. Many religions share the belief that those who die for God are martyrs who gain Heaven.
Catholicism is no exception. Many believe that the little preborn babies who die of abortion are sacrificed for convenience or necessity, in rare cases , and are therefore true martyrs, as were the Holy Innocents, the babies who died at Herod's hands in place of Jesus. The Catholic Church canonized the Holy Innocents due because their deaths were to odium fidei , or hatred of the Faith. Father Benedict Groeschel says that it is reasonable to expect that unborn babies may also be killed due to odium fidei or odium Dei , and therefore assume the status of latter-day Holy Innocents.
Many pro-abortionists practically go into a frenzy looking for perceived 'inconsistencies' in the teachings of the Catholic Church, and will bellow triumphantly when they 'find' it even if their conclusions are mistaken because they have failed to do proper research. One typical example of mistakenly-perceived 'inconsistency' deals with the administration of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction "The Last Rites" to infants.
As illegal abortionist Ruth Barnett asserted, "However, somewhat contraditory [sic] I would think, it the fact that Catholic priests do not, ordinarily, give a fetus the usual extreme unction or burial services afforded a still-birth. It seems to me that this kind of differentiation, in practice, is in variation with their beliefs. If they do consider the fetus to be alive, why do they deny it the extreme unction given the child born dead?
I have never heard this question answered. It is quite obvious that Barnett never bothered to ask a competent Catholic priest her question on Extreme Unction, or she would have heard it properly answered. To begin with, Barnett flaunts her ignorance of the Catholic faith by asserting that stillborn babies receive Extreme Unction.
This is impossible, since this Sacrament can only be given to living people. Stillborn babies are dead. If there is some question as to whether or not the baby is living, this Sacrament may be administered conditionally. As for her 'unanswered' question, Extreme Unction is not usually given to any children under the age of reason about seven years. This is because intent is a necessary part of any sin and children under seven are deemed incapable of having the intent necessary commit serious sin.
Therefore, priests generally do not administer Extreme Unction to very young children because they have no intentional sins to remit. Almost all anti-life 'Catholics' know the truth about abortion. They simply want to rationalize their 'trendy' beliefs, both to themselves and to others this is a very common phenomenon, and is well-known to psychiatrists. And they try to do so with absurd and dangerous assumptions that even they know, deep down inside, are false. Somehow they think, that on the Judgement Day, they will be able to excuse themselves by saying that they were sincere.
But our eternal Judge knows better, because He knows us much better than even we know ourselves. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "The greatest power of the mind is its capacity to deceive itself. One of the more common assertions made by anti-life 'Catholics' in this country is that the Pope is just another Bishop of a small and not particularly important Archdiocese in some far-flung Mediterranean country. As such, why should we listen to him? The reason for this subterfuge is obvious. The pro-abortion propagandists loathe the unyielding pro-life position of the current Pope, and so disregard his edicts in favor of a local 'authority' that better suits their viewpoint.
To these 'Catholic' pro-abortionists, we say: Listen to your own United States Bishops, who have repeatedly condemned abortion for any reason. The dates of just a few of their major declarations, statements, and letters against abortion are listed below. The sweeping judgement of the U. Supreme Court in the Texas and Georgia abortion cases [the Roe and Doe cases] is a flagrant rejection of the unborn child's right to life Although as a result of the Court decision abortion may be legally permissible, it is still morally wrong, and no Court opinion can change the law of God prohibiting the taking of innocent human life.
All of the above Bishop's declarations, statements, and pastoral letters are reproduced in their entirety in the Daughters of St. Paul's book Yes to Life. Order from Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul's Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, If, even after seeing all of this evidence, an anti-life person continues to insist that there is some ill-defined 'plurality of opinion' regarding abortion within the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, simply ask him or her for a statement by any Pope or Bishop supporting abortion for any reason.
Catholic Church and abortion
If the person is to any faint degree open-minded, this should finally close the argument. You may wish to conclude by showing them the next few paragraphs dealing with excommunication. What "Diversity of Opinion? I know that if either of my girls came to me and said, "Mom, I'm pregnant, and I'm not gonna have that baby," I would say "Here's the money. Please go see a doctor. Geraldine Ferraro, Ms. Magazine, July Pro-abortion propagandists very commonly claim that the Catholic Church has, at one undefined time or another, tolerated abortion.
And that position is unyieldingly against abortion. The treasured "diversity of opinion" has, on the one side, the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops, all reputable theologians, and the Magisterium of the eternal Roman Catholic Church. On the other side is a ragtag, disreputable gaggle of defrocked priests, dissidents, and those with an unending itch to destroy that which stands for good. These people include;. Just a few examples of the dissidents' bizarre antics and ridiculous statements are shown below. The phrase, "by their fruits you shall know them" rings true in the cases of these pro-abortion propagandists.
Father Richard O'Brien, former Chairman of the Theology department at the University of Notre Dame, says that "Catholic tradition" forbids efforts to change current American law on abortion. Father Charles Curran agrees.
On the "Pro-Choice" Position on Abortion
Naturally, in their view, "Catholic tradition" allows changing the American law to permit abortion! Father Raymond G. Wade " Washington's Archbishop James A. Hickey stated that pro-abortion Catholic politicians and judges, no matter how ruthlessly they push abortion, are "practicing Catholics in good standing.
Wade Supreme Court decision that condemned literally tens of millions of preborn children to death. Archbishop Hickey's claim was in direct contradiction to the November 18, Vatican Declaration on Abortion , which clearly stated that "Nor can he [the politician] take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a[n abortion] law, or vote for it. In a failed attempt at parallelism, these dissidents use this purported quote by Pope Leo XII to 'show' that the Catholic Church does indeed change its moral teachings with regard to biological matters like birth control, sterilization, and abortion.
However, after intensive research, experienced investigator Father Donald Keefe concluded that no such papal statement or Bull existed in any records anywhere, and the above-mentioned dissident priests could not provide substantiation of the statement. In other words, some abortophile simply made the statement up and every one of these 'theologians' was so eager to attack the Catholic Church that they seized upon the fabrication without bothering to check it for authenticity.
Historians remember the hysterical anti-Catholic propaganda vomited by the Know-Nothing Party and the Ku Klux Klan in the s and early s. Embittered former 'Catholics' have resurrected this garbage and are freely spewing it today; "The financial demands made on Catholics are atrocious. Churches are extremely wealthy institutions. I see what Churches have because I work in a bank. I work hard for what I have, and I need what I have for myself. I can't afford to support a priest.
Let the priest support me once in a while. The Pope sits over there and makes all the rules and shakes his head, "Yes, no, yes, no. Who does he think he is?
Did he ever sit down and talk to a woman who got into a jam? I'd like to say to him, "If I had this child, would you take care of it? Pull a few of those rocks off that habit and take care of it for me? Give up your jewels This trash is not produced by white-robed KKK bigots but by bitter former 'Catholic' Neofeminists who claim to 'love their Church. One particularly clever tactic the Neoliberals use to undermine Church teaching on abortion is to claim that most Catholic men and women ignore Church teaching on contraception.
Therefore, of course, since this is America where the majority rules, the Church must be 'wrong' on contraception. It naturally follows that the Church might also be 'wrong' on abortion. Unfortunately, the Neoliberals are entirely correct when they claim that the majority of Catholic men and women ignore Church teachings on artificial contraception. The flaw in the Neoliberal line of reasoning is quite plain. The Catholic Church is not anti -American; but it is un -American in that it is not a democracy. God did not set up a pluralistic system.
He made the rules; the Church interprets the rules; and it is up to us to follow the rules. If only one Catholic man or woman in the country adhered to Church teachings on abortion or contraception while everyone else ignored them, that one person would be in the right. Everyone else would be wrong. It is as simple as that. But a Neoliberal mind simply cannot grasp the concept that some people might want to give up some of their "freedom of choice" in order to save their souls.
Faithful Catholics 'trade' a portion of their personal autonomy in exchange for an infinitely great reward. Since Neoliberals do not believe in the existence of the 'reward,' they simply cannot understand such a transaction. Pro-abortion Catholic 'priest' Robert Drinan. There have been many full-fledged media campaigns conducted by pro-abortionists for the purpose of undermining Catholic Church teaching on abortion, but the New York Times statement is undoubtedly the most notorious example of this genre.
It is also entirely typical of this type of subversive attack. The New York Times advertisement by the pseudo-religious splinter group 'Catholics' for a Free Choice which is excerpted at the beginning of this chapter is an absolutely classic use of the propaganda strategy commonly referred to by professionals as "infiltration and subversion. Simply stated, this pro-abortion group seeks to render ineffective or less effective a dangerous opponent to abortion 'rights' in this case, the Catholic Church by confusing its rank-and-file members and marginal priests as to authentic Catholic teaching.
This tactic has been effective in wars of all kinds since the beginning of time.