Tis the Season of ‘The Gospel of Life’

The Dream of St. Joseph (with unborn Christ Child) by Francisco Rizi (1608-1685)

My mother was betrothed to Joseph the carpenter, but he was unsure of what to do about me. Here is a picture of him sleeping and an angel of the Lord explaining everything to him in a dream. You can see my mother and I in the background. Joseph awoke from the dream and adopted me while I was still an unborn baby! (Mt 1:18-25)

Meditation

In Joseph’s midnight angelic revelation John Paul II sees Joseph’s “personal Annunciation” and the moment of his “Divine election….His place in the history of salvation is defined”. The Pope, continuing his observations, points out that the response of Joseph was exemplary: “’When Joseph woke from sleep ‑ we read in Matthew ‑ he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him’ (Mt 1:24). In these few words there is everything. The whole description of Joseph’s life and the full characteristic of his holiness: ‘He did’. Joseph, the one we know from the Gospel, is a man of action.”

Pope John Paul II, General Audience, March 19, 1980

“In these days of Advent, the liturgy invites us to contemplate in a special way the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph, who lived with a unique intensity the time of waiting and preparation for the birth of Jesus. Today, I want to direct our gaze toward the figure of St. Joseph… The one who gives the most importance to the adoptive father of Jesus is the Evangelist Matthew, emphasizing that thanks to him, the Child was legally introduced into the lineage of David fulfilling the Scriptures, in which the Messiah was prophesied as the ’son of David’.”

Pope Benedict, Angelus address, December 18, 2005

It pleased God to bring the beauty of human adoption into the heart of the Incarnation mystery. Adoption is a noble institution and has been a major theme of the Pro-Life message, but it was God’s idea and He relayed it to us. So we can find here another experience of solidarity, that is, a solidarity between God the Father and adoptive parents – His blessing upon their commitment to embrace a little one and, like Joseph, raise the child to the best of their abilities to fullness of life.

It’s become common for Christians to speak of the importance of a “culture of life,” a phrase popularized by Pope John Paul II and dealt with extensively in his Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life). John Paul II argues against abortion and euthanasia, as well as birth control, the death penalty, and unjust war. He writes,

19. … There is an even more profound aspect which needs to be emphasized: freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.

20. This view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in society. If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another. Everyone else is considered an enemy from whom one has to defend oneself. Thus soci- ety becomes a mass of individuals placed side by side, but without any mutual bonds. Each one wishes to assert himself independently of the other and in fact intends to make his own interests prevail. Still, in the face of other people’s analogous interests, some kind of compromise must be found, if one wants a society in which the maximum possible freedom is guaranteed to each individual. In this way, any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social life ventures on to the shifting sands of complete relativism. At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life.

The Pope’s point, wisely made, is that democracies do not inherently respect the right to life even of its own people. Absent an overriding commitment to a truth greater than the will of the majority, a nation may well choose to kill its unborn children, its elderly … anyone lacking the political power to defend themselves. Hence, he advocates for a culture of life built on the scriptures’ “gospel of life.”

Of course, his interpretation of the gospel is not universally accepted, even among Catholics, many of whom reject the Pope’s teaching on birth control. Nonetheless, there is a lot of wisdom in this tract. Sadly, the teaching has been distorted by the politicians and by those advocating for more extreme views. And I think there’s an important, subtle flaw in the Pope’s thinking that makes this distortion all but inevitable.

It was partly in response to this teaching that Congress involved itself in the tragic Terri Schiavo case, literally passing an act of Congress to preserve the life of a woman in a persistent vegetative state with very severe, irreparable brain damage.

There’s an important error to notice here. Somehow or other, in the face of the truly great sin of mass abortion, the Pope transforms the “gospel of Jesus” to the “gospel of life,” as though the kingdom of heaven is about the principle that no one should die. But as soon as you say it that way, the contradiction becomes obvious. The gospel came by the death of Jesus and triggered the willing submission of countless Christians to martyrdom. The gospel is about death to this world but life in the age to come. It’s not about keeping people alive — not at its core. It’s about something bigger and much more important. Staying alive is not the most important thing.

It’s not that the “culture of life” is wrong so much as that we can be duped by slogans into overlooking the necessity of framing the value of life within the gospel. I mean, most Christians think suicide is sin, but is it sin to go to Saudi Arabia to teach the gospel, knowing that the odds of being executed are near 100%? I don’t think so.

Moreover, while “Thou shalt not kill” is certainly a command that Christians must honor, it is not the heart of the gospel or even of gospel ethics. The heart of gospel ethics is love –

(Gal 5:6b)  The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

(Rom 13:8-10)  Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Love fulfills the law. So what happens when “Thou shalt not kill” and love are in contradiction? I think, clearly, love is the right choice. It’s not always easy to decide what to do in a given case, but the principle should be plain.

Let me offer a true example from my home town. Several years ago, gunman entered a Christian school and held small children hostage, threatening to kill them all. The police showed up and tried to reason with the man to talk him into giving up. However, they could not risk the lives of the children, who were very young and panicked. The situation was as grim as you can imagine.

A police sniper had the gunman in his sights and, eventually, was given the order to fire. The sniper was a devout Christian — as were the police chief and mayor, who gave the order. He pulled the trigger, the gunman died instantly, and the children all came out alive.

A Christian killed a man quite intentionally. Did he violate the Ten Commandments? Clearly not. It was an act of love, rescuing the innocent children from death. In the real world, sometimes we have to kill people to be loving people.

Love does not equal never killing anyone for any reason. That’s not good Bible. And it’s not what the Pope said. And if I’m ever in a persistent vegetative state, please — PLEASE — pull the plug. I’m going to a better place. You see, the gospel changes how we see those decisions. It’s not about preserving life in this world at all costs. It’s not.

I’ve done a little estate planning, and as part of that, we have our clients sign the Alabama version of a living will. It’s my experience that devout Christians check the box to pull the plug rather than being kept alive in a vegetative state. They don’t really hesitate. It’s an obvious choice. They know they’re going to a better place. Those who are less certain of the afterlife sometimes say that they want all means used to keep them alive — some even say to keep them alive at any cost to their families.

Which decision is truer to the gospel and which is more loving? Life is not always the choice of love.

Now, once we accept this line of reasoning, we have to face some serious problems. The first is that the ethical world gets a little more gray. When I was a kid, the preachers all railed against “situation ethics.” A book by that name had been recently published, and it became standard cant to preach against it. In fact, it still is in many circles. But it’s true that the right decision very often depends on the situation. Yes, it’s wrong to kill. Except to save 30 terrorized children. Or when Jay is in a persistent vegetative state. The situation matters.

In the comments to another post, the question arose whether the pro-life position is inconsistent with a failure to prevent as many naturally-occurring deaths in the womb as possible.  I found the discussion worth a separate post, and I hope that the gentleman with whom I was conversing will take no offense at the separate post written in response to his comments:

You’re conflating, perhaps, my position with those that make this pro-choice argument.  I am not claiming that the law should remain morally neutral.  I am claiming that, on this particular moral question [of whether to legally prohibit abortion], I cannot provide a judgment without relying solely upon dogma (I’ve tried, I can’t make one stand up and hold water).  [Bracket added]

I previously provided a non-religious principle for opposing abortion through law: “the intentional killing of innocent human life must never be permitted by secular human law.”  With this principle there can be no dispute. It is a principle of natural reason that is apprehended by all humans to be correct, and for a person to disagree with it is to demonstrate that there is something wrong with that person.  You have not raised a single reason, whether by secular or religious reason, why this principle should not be a bedrock for our human law.  It is as obvious as any other principle of reason on which our law can be based.  There is nothing hard to understand about this principle, including for all non-religious people; everyone already knows it’s true. 

There are many religions that do not equate abortion with murder, because they do not recognize that life begins at conception. 

There are also religions that permit child sacrifice.  There are religions that hold that people of certain races are sub-human and may be enslaved.  If you are not comfortable deeming certain religious practices illegal, you are not comfortable with the concept of law itself.  The fact that some person opposes a law on any religious grounds cannot serve to defeat the reason for having the law when the religious grounds are contrary to reason. 

If the law cannot withstand someone’s supposedly religious claim that unborn humans are unhuman, neither can it withstand someone’s religious claim that black people are unhuman.  (Keep in mind that there was a time when most people in various American jurisdictions believed black people were sub-human; there was no human consensus on the issue to which a moralist could appeal.)  Your logic, to the extent it bows to religious or public opinion rather than plain moral reason, mandates that slavery be legal, at least in many cases.  Mine dictates that religious beliefs that are contrary to reason must be ignored in law-making.  To hold that innocent human life may be intentionally killed is plainly contrary to reason, regardless of religious belief. 

There are certainly entirely reasonable positions that can be made regarding the beginning of life, that are self consistent with various criteria that match those conditions that everyone agrees are “obviously” cases of living people.  So one can certainly say that the law should not be morally neutral, but that in this particular case the morality of the action cannot be judged properly, inside the context of our particular social construct.

It is not any more “obvious” that black people are human life than that unborn humans (in whatever stage) are human life (i.e. living).  In the practice of biotech medical products, I have heard lawyers say that the issues in pharmaceutical law are unique because the products are “alive.” 

There is no dispute, from any credible scientist, that unborn humans are human life.  None.

People deceive themselves into thinking that unborn humans are not human life, notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary, because they want to.  Just like people used to employ the same self-deception with respect to black slaves; because they wanted to.  And Nazis with respect to Jews, militant Muslims with respect to infidels, Russian/Asian communists with respect to religious people…  But despite the long history of self-deception and people taking it upon themselves to decide who gets to be fully human with rights, the fact remains that all of the above are indisputably innocent human life and must not be wantonly murdered.

Keep in mind that my last point (which you agree with) also generalizes to a number of seriously potent questions for people who support the pro-life stance.  Let us suppose that in fact we do have the capability to remove a fertilized egg from a woman after the moment of conception.  Let us further suppose that we accept your working premise: that, after the moment of conception, the being created has precisely and exactly those rights which we grant to anyone we recognize as a sapient being.

Yes, and after thinking about your argument (your challenge did force me to dwell on it for a bit), I must note here that no person has a positive right to be kept alive in all circumstances.  If I may say so, I note that positive rights are a consistent theme in your arguments.  I submit that people have a negative right to life that results by virtue of the moral and legal restriction on all other people against intentionally killing them.  It is true that a person can intentionally kill another person by starving them to death or other failure of basic care, as in when a mother abandons her baby in a trash can.  But there is no moral requirement that anyone take extraordinary or unreasonable means to keep a person alive. 

That is a summary of the right to life that we all enjoy, including the unborn, though their (negative) rights are so brazonly violated today.

It’s established as likely that the vast majority of conceptions do not result even in the fertilized egg reaching an implantation stage; it appears (from study) that actual pregnancies that reach even the first trimester represent a statistically small portion of overall births.  I’ve heard many numbers bandied about, but I have no idea which if any of them is accurate; however, it seems a solid proposition.

This implies that it is likely that *many more lives are lost* even than are aborted.

“Lives lost” does not equal “lives killed.”  Famine is obviously not the same as Stalin’s mass murders; there is no culpability in the former.

It follows, then, that the act of sex comes with the inherent staggering risk that a life is being created which will not survive, due to mischance or genetic flaw.

And yet, we have accepted the premise that this life is to be granted the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as anyone else. 

Yes, and note that the right to life is not a positive right to always be kept alive.  Nor is one’s negative right to life contingent on the odds of survival.  Every one of us will die sometime, whether in or beyond the womb; that doesn’t give others the right to cause deaths sooner than God/nature would otherwise dictate. 

This represents a serious difficulty for the pro-life person, who usually does not consider this case.  We now have the capability to capture those lives, using technology.  In fact, if we can show that the technology improves the survival rate of conceived persons, then it follows that we have an obligation to *forbid* normal childbirth, as it is statistically staggeringly more likely to result in the death of a life than the technological option. 

I beg to differ.  There is no difficulty at all.  Intentionally killing someone is obviously a wholly different thing than watching a person die when you can do nothing about it within your ordinary, reasonable means.  Everyone dies eventually; it does not follow that giving birth is immoral just because the chances of eventual death are 100%.

Furthermore, I previously explained the principle of double-effect in a prior comment.  You can have sex with the intent that any resulting child live, even if you know the odds are that a resulting child will die.  Consider bygone centuries when medical technology did not exist.  Was it immoral to have sex just because they knew that a death was more likely than life?  Today, is it immoral to have a child in the United States when you know that the birth survival percentage is higher in Canada?  There is no moral requirement that you increase the odds of survival; only that you not intentionally kill human life.  This whole technology argument is a red herring that does absolutely nothing to alter the principle that you must not intentionally kill innocent human life. 

The woman’s desire to give birth must be considered a cosmetic concern in the light of the risk to the child, much like the woman’s desire *not* to be pregnant must be considered a cosmetic concern in the light of the pro-life argument we are now assuming is axiomatic.

I believe I agree (if I understand you).  In other words, a woman’s desire to be pregnant or not to be pregnant is as relevant as a mother’s desire to be a mother or not to be a mother.  By nature, no one owes her a thing, other than to respect her negative rights.  And she must respect the negative rights of her child, whether born or unborn, not to be intentionally killed. 

Since the vast number of those pregnancies which self-terminate are due to genetic flaw, if we use technology to extend those lives to birth, it follows that it is also likely that we will be bringing into the world a great number of infants who possess incredible genetic flaws, resulting in physical, mental, or developmental defects.

I don’t see how this is relevant, unless you think that disabled people are sub-human.  However, since you (or a lot of people, anyway) don’t want to live in an inconvenient world with too many disabled people, it may comfort you to know that we do not owe unborn children a duty to use extraordinary or unreasonable means to save them.  If God/nature chooses them for death in the womb, that is His decision, and we don’t owe it to the child to take extraordinary medical steps to keep him or her alive.  But when we go ahead and decide instead of God, we commit murder.  It’s akin to you seeing a stranger lying on the street alive but apparently not breathing.  You are not legally required to give it your best shot at CPR (especially if giving CPR is “extraordinary” for you, like if you don’t know CPR or you have a breathing problem) and we won’t throw you in jail if you don’t try; but if you hold your hand over the stranger’s nose and mouth to finish the job, you indisputably commit murder under the law, even though the person was going to die anyway. 

Now, you can perhaps receive some comfort from a belief that these cases aren’t likely, but you must still address the possibility that your stance will generalize into such a scenario.

I’ll concede, for the sake of argument, that they are likely, but it won’t make a bit of difference to the principle I repeat and repeat: the intentional killing of innocent human life must be deemed illegal by secular law. 

Do you then agree, that given the technology, we would have to forbid natural birth as being an unnecessary risk to the child?  Do you then agree, that given the technology, we would have to force anyone engaging in a sex act to undergo screening to test for, and rescue, any conceived life that may have resulted from the act?  Do you then agree, that given the technology, we must carry these lives to term, regardless of the physical or mental deformities and attendant health and developmental problems?

(1) Of course not; see above.  Natural occurrences are not immoral; volitional abortion is never, ever natural.  (2) Of course not; see above.  Again with the nature thing…  (3) Yes, but not because of the technology.  We must let nature run its course, which would involve carrying these lives to term if they make it that far, regardless of the child’s health or developmental problems (just like after the child is born–we can’t kill the child just because he or she has such problems).  But we do not owe the unborn child an extraordinary or unreasonable life-saving procedure.

If not, I then must level a charge of inconsistency, as you clearly do not maintain that the conceived life is of equivalent value to the established pregnancy, or of the infant child.

And you would be mistaken.  There is no inconsistency.  A conceived life is of equivalent value of an infant child, or an elderly person for that matter.  Neither innocent life may be intentionally killed, but neither has a positive right to extraordinary care, either.  A helpful discussion is provided by the classic encyclical Evangelium Vitae (required reading in a philosophy class I took in college) with respect to euthenasia, but it applies equally to your objection:

For a correct moral judgment on euthanasia, in the first place a clear definition is required. Euthanasia in the strict sense is understood to be an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering. “Euthanasia’s terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used”.

Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forego so-called “aggressive medical treatment”, in other words, medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience “refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted”. Certainly there is a moral obligation to care for oneself and to allow oneself to be cared for, but this duty must take account of concrete circumstances. It needs to be determined whether the means of treatment available are objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.  [Emphasis supplied]

Thus, to allow a child to die in the womb by failure of extraordinary care, so long as death is not intended and survival is hoped for, is not murder or immoral.  It is an “acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.”  The law need not contravene natural occurrences, but it must prevent humans from intentionally killing other innocent humans.

In sum, it is immoral and must be illegal to intentionally kill innocent human life.  With this statement there can be no dispute.

A new essay by Archbishop Raymond Burke over at Inside Catholic is well worth your time, “Reflections on the Struggle to Advance the Culture of Life“.  I particularly enjoyed this part, where Burke quotes JP II:

In some way, our consciences have become dulled to the gravity of certain moral issues. When insistence on the elimination of legalized abortion in our nation is dismissed as a kind of “single-issue” approach, as the obsession of the “religious right,” which fails to take account of a whole gamut of moral issues, then we have lost the sense of the horror of destroying a human life in the womb. In a similar way, when the denial of nutrition and hydration to the gravely ill is seen as a “single issue,” then we have lost a sense of the horror of failing to give basic care to a brother or sister who has grown weak for whatever reason. It is not a question of a single issue but of what is fundamental to life itself and to society. I recall the words of the Servant of God Pope John Paul II:

The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception (Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “On the Good and Inviolability of Human Life,” 25 March 1995, no. 58).

Station – Jesus meets the weeping women  in Pfefferschlag He blesses those who are pregnant and the children in the square in front of the historic village church.

“They are a sharing in the mystery of the Cross, in which Jesus reveals the value of every person, and how life attains its fullness in the sincere gift of self. Over and above such outstanding moments, there is an everyday heroism, made up of gestures of sharing, big or small, which build up an authentic culture of life….

Part of this daily heroism is also the silent but effective and eloquent witness of all those ‘brave mothers who devote themselves to their own family without reserve, who suffer in giving birth to their children and who are ready to make any effort, to face any sacrifice, in order to pass on to them the best of themselves’.

In living out their mission “these heroic women do not always find support in the world around them. On the contrary, the cultural models frequently promoted and broadcast by the media do not encourage motherhood. In the name of progress and modernity the values of fidelity, chastity, sacrifice, to which a host of Christian wives and mothers have borne and continue to bear outstanding witness, are presented as obsolete …

We thank you, heroic mothers, for your invincible love!

We thank you for your intrepid trust in God and in his love.

We thank you for the sacrifice of your life …”

From: The Gospel of Life, Section 86

 Non pochi Centri di Aiuto alla Vita sono promossi da persone e gruppi che, con ammirevole dedizione e sacrificio, offrono un sostegno morale e materiale a mamme in difficoltà, tentate di ricorrere all’aborto.

Giovanni Paolo II

Questa frase è tratta dall’enciclica Evangelium Vitae (puoi leggerla qui), precisamente nel punto 26. Giovanni Paolo II dev’essere una bella spina nel fianco per tutti quelli che osteggiano il diritto alla vita nel mondo, perchè? Semplice, è stata una figura di una trasparenza disarmante e amata praticamente  in tutto il mondo. Insomma è facile attaccare un movimento prolife tacciandolo di integralismo, ma è più difficile prendersela con Giovanni Paolo II senza suscitare sospetti nell’opinione pubblica. E il Papa che ha portato la Chiesa nel terzo millennio si è speso tanto per la difesa della vita umana.  Non ho usato la parola disarmante a caso…

continua 

L’Evangelium Vitae  condanna duramente  l’aborto, ma prima di concedersi a fraintendimenti ideologici, esordisce ricordando il perchè di questa posizione immutabile: ogni uomo nasce per la gioia e non per morire. In questo senso disarma ogni avversario della vita, ricordando che tutti, credenti e non, sono chiamati a riconoscere il diritto alla vita e a difenderlo, poichè su esso si fonda l’umana convivenza e la stessa comunità politica. La  citazione riportata ci riempie di gratitudine per l’ammirazione che il Santo Padre ebbe per il nostro volontariato. In particolare ne rivela quattro punti chiave su cui riflettere adesso che sta per cominciare la formazione dei nostri volontari (per saperne di più vai nell’ area formazione): dedizione e sacrificio, sostegno morale e sostegno materiale. Parliamone insieme

Arrivederci al prossimo pensiero. Ogni mese uno spunto di riflessione sul diritto alla vita, la bioetica e la dignità dell’uomo. Dai grandi protagonisti del nostro tempo all’impegno quotidiano dei nostri volontari. Vuoi diventare volontario o vuoi suggerire una riflessione? Qui trovi i nostri contatti.

Ostatnio dotarło do Stolicy Apostolskiej szereg listów, również od wysoko postawionych osobistości życia politycznego i kościelnego, informujących o zamieszaniu, jakie wytworzyło się w różnych krajach, przede wszystkim Ameryki Łacińskiej, w następstwie manipulacji i instrumentalizacji artykułu abp. Rino Fisichelli, prezesa Papieskiej Akademii Nauk, o smutnej sprawie brazylijskiej dziewczynki. W artykule tym, który ukazał się na łamach L’Osservatore Romano z 15 marca 2009 r., przedstawiono nauczanie Kościoła, biorąc jednak pod uwagę dramatyczną sytuację wspomnianej dziewczynki, która – jak można się było później dowiedzieć – spotkała się z wszelką duszpasterską delikatnością zwłaszcza ze strony ówczesnego ordynariusza Olindy i Recife, abp. José Cardoso Sobrinho. W związku z tym Kongregacja Nauki Wiary, w nocie opublikowanej 11 lipca w L’Osservatore Romano przypomina, że nauczanie Kościoła o aborcji nie zmieniło się i nie może się zmienić. Nauczanie to wyłożono następująco w numerach 2270-2273 Katechizmu Kościoła Katolickiego:

(Nr 2270) „Życie ludzkie od chwili poczęcia powinno być szanowane i chronione w sposób absolutny. Już od pierwszej chwili swego istnienia istota ludzka powinna mieć przyznane prawa osoby, wśród nich nienaruszalne prawo każdej niewinnej istoty do życia. «Zanim ukształtowałem cię w łonie matki, znałem cię, nim przyszedłeś na świat, poświęciłem cię» (Jr 1, 5). «Nie tajna Ci moja istota, kiedy w ukryciu powstawałem, utkany w głębi ziemi» (Ps 139, 15).

(Nr 2271) Kościół od początku twierdził, że jest złem moralnym każde spowodowane przerwanie ciąży. Nauczanie na ten temat nie uległo zmianie i pozostaje niezmienne. Bezpośrednie przerwanie ciąży, to znaczy zamierzone jako cel lub środek, jest głęboko sprzeczne z prawem moralnym. „Nie będziesz zabijał płodu przez przerwanie ciąży ani nie zabijesz nowo narodzonego” (Didaché, 2, 2). „Bóg… Pan życia, powierzył ludziom wzniosłą posługę strzeżenia życia, którą człowiek powinien wypełniać w sposób godny siebie. Należy więc z największą troską ochraniać życie od samego jego poczęcia; przerwanie ciąży, jak i dzieciobójstwo są okropnymi przestępstwami” (Sobór Watykański II, konstytucja Gaudium et spes, 51).

(Nr 2272) Formalne współdziałanie w przerywaniu ciąży stanowi poważne wykroczenie. Kościół nakłada kanoniczną karę ekskomuniki za to przestępstwo przeciw życiu ludzkiemu. «Kto powoduje przerwanie ciąży, po zaistnieniu skutku, podlega ekskomunice wiążącej mocą samego prawa» (Kodeks Prawa Kanonicznego, kan. 1398), «przez sam fakt popełnienia przestępstwa» (kan. 1314), na warunkach przewidzianych przez prawo (por. kan. 1323-1324). Kościół nie zamierza przez to ograniczać zakresu miłosierdzia. Ukazuje ciężar popełnionej zbrodni, szkodę nie do naprawienia wyrządzoną niewinnie zamordowanemu dziecku, jego rodzicom i całemu społeczeństwu.

(Nr 2273) Niezbywalne prawo do życia każdej niewinnej istoty ludzkiej stanowi element konstytutywny społeczeństwa cywilnego i jego prawodawstwa: «Niezbywalne prawa osoby winny być uznawane i szanowane przez społeczeństwo cywilne i władzę polityczną. Owe prawa człowieka nie zależą ani od poszczególnych jednostek, ani od rodziców, ani nie są przywilejem pochodzącym od społeczeństwa lub państwa. Tkwią one w naturze ludzkiej i są ściśle związane z osobą na mocy aktu stwórczego, od którego osoba bierze swój początek. Wśród tych podstawowych praw należy wymienić… prawo do życia i integralności fizycznej każdej istoty ludzkiej od chwili poczęcia aż do śmierci… W chwili, gdy jakieś prawo pozytywne pozbawia obrony pewną kategorię istot ludzkich, których ze swej natury powinno bronić, państwo przez to samo neguje równość wszystkich wobec prawa. Gdy państwo nie używa swej władzy w służbie praw każdego obywatela, a w szczególności tego, który jest najsłabszy, zagrożone są podstawy praworządności państwa… Wyrazem szacunku i opieki należnej mającemu urodzić się dziecku, począwszy od chwili jego poczęcia, powinny być przewidziane przez prawodawstwo odpowiednie sankcje karne za każde dobrowolne pogwałcenie jego praw» (Kongregacja Nauki Wiary, instrukcja Donum vitae, III)”.

W encyklice Evangelium vitae Papież Jan Paweł II potwierdził to nauczanie swoim autorytetem najwyższego Pasterza Kościoła: „Mocą władzy, którą Chrystus udzielił Piotrowi i jego Następcom, w komunii z Biskupami – którzy wielokrotnie potępili przerywanie ciąży, zaś w ramach wspomnianej wcześniej konsultacji wyrazili jednomyślnie – choć byli rozproszeni po świecie – aprobatę dla tej doktryny – oświadczam, że bezpośrednie przerwanie ciąży, to znaczy zamierzone jako cel czy jako środek, jest zawsze poważnym nieładem moralnym, gdyż jest dobrowolnym zabójstwem niewinnej istoty ludzkiej. Doktryna ta, oparta na prawie naturalnym i na słowie Bożym spisanym, jest przekazana przez Tradycję Kościoła i nauczana przez Magisterium zwyczajne i powszechne” (nr 62).

Gdy chodzi o umyślnie wywołaną aborcję w pewnych trudnych, złożonych sytuacjach, pozostaje w mocy wyraźne, precyzyjne nauczanie Papieża Jana Pawła II: „To prawda, że często przerwanie ciąży jest dla matki przeżyciem dramatycznym i bolesnym, ponieważ decyzja o pozbyciu się owocu poczęcia nie zostaje podjęta z racji czysto egoistycznych i dla wygody, ale w celu ratowania pewnych ważnych dóbr, takich jak własne zdrowie albo godziwy poziom życia innych członków rodziny. Czasem zachodzi obawa, że poczęte dziecko będzie musiało żyć w tak złych warunkach, iż lepiej się stanie, jeśli się nie narodzi. Jednakże wszystkie te i tym podobne racje, jakkolwiek poważne i dramatyczne, nigdy nie mogą usprawiedliwić umyślnego pozbawienia życia niewinnej istoty ludzkiej” (encyklika Evangelium vitae, nr 58).

Gdy chodzi o problem pewnych terapii mających na celu zachowanie zdrowia matki, to trzeba dobrze rozróżnić między dwoma odmiennymi przypadkami: z jednej strony zabiegiem powodującym bezpośrednio śmierć płodu, zwanym czasem niewłaściwie aborcją „terapeutyczną”, który nigdy nie może być dozwolony, gdyż jest bezpośrednim zabójstwem niewinnej istoty ludzkiej, a z drugiej strony zabiegiem, który sam w sobie nie jest aborcją, choć może wywołać jako uboczny skutek śmierć dziecka: „Jeśli na przykład ratowanie życia przyszłej matki, niezależnie od tego, że jest ona w stanie ciąży, wymagałoby pilnie operacji chirurgicznej czy innego zabiegu terapeutycznego, który miałby jako uboczny skutek, bynajmniej nie chciany ani nie zamierzony, jednak nieunikniony, śmierć płodu, to takiego aktu nie można by nazwać bezpośrednim zamachem na niewinne życie. W takich warunkach operację można uznać za dozwoloną, tak jak inne podobne zabiegi medyczne, zawsze pod warunkiem, że chodzi o dobro wysokiej wartości, jakim jest życie, i że niemożliwe jest przesunięcie jej po urodzeniu dziecka ani zastosowanie innego skutecznego środka” (Pius XII, przemówienie do „Frontu Rodziny” i Stowarzyszenia Rodzin Wielodzietnych, 27 listopada 1951 r.).

Gdy chodzi o odpowiedzialność pracowników służby zdrowia, trzeba przypomnieć słowa Papieża Jana Pawła II: „Ich zawód każe im strzec ludzkiego życia i służyć mu. W dzisiejszym kontekście kulturowym i społecznym, w którym nauka i sztuka medyczna zdają się tracić swój wrodzony wymiar etyczny, mogą doznawać oni często silnej pokusy manipulowania życiem, z czasem wręcz powodowania śmierci. Wobec istnienia takiej pokusy wzrasta niezmiernie ich odpowiedzialność, która znajduje najgłębszą inspirację i najmocniejsze oparcie właśnie we wrodzonym i niezbywalnym wymiarze etycznym zawodu lekarskiego, o czym świadczy już starożytna, ale zawsze aktualna przysięga Hipokratesa, według której każdy lekarz jest zobowiązany okazywać najwyższy szacunek życiu ludzkiemu i jego świętości” (encyklika Evangelium vitae, nr 89).

ak/ rv
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org

The full post is in Rorate Caeli. Here are some excerpts:

Since the first century, the Church has declared the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed. It remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is, willed as an end or as a means, is gravely opposed to the moral law: “Thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born” (Didache, 2,2). “For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave sin. The Church punishes this crime against human life with a canonical penalty of excommunication: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication” (CIC, can. 1398), “for the very fact [ipso facto] of having committed the delict” (CIC, can 1314) and under the conditions foreseen by the law (cfr. CIC, canons 1323-1324). The Church does not intend to limit the domain of mercy in this manner. This puts in evidence the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable damage caused to the murdered innocent, to his parents, and to all society.

…

n the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed this doctrine with his authority of Supreme Pastor of the Church: “By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (n. 62).

Regarding procured abortion in some difficult and complex situations, the clear and precise teaching of Pope John Paul II stands: “”It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being” (Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, n. 58).

As for the problem of certain medical treatments with the end of preserving the health of the mother, two different cases should be distinguished: on one hand, a procedure which directly causes the death of the fetus, often called inappropriately a “therapeutic” abortion, cannot be any more licit than the direct murder of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure which is not itself abortive may have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: “If, for instance, saving the life of the future mother, regardless of her state of pregnancy, would urgently demand a surgical procedure, or other therapeutic measure, which could have, as an accessory consequence, in no way willed by itself, but unavoidably, the death of the fetus, such act could not be called a direct attack against innocent life. In such conditions, the procedure may be considered licit, as other similar medical interventions, as long as a good of great worth, such as life, is involved, and it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, nor to resort to another efficacious remedy” (Pius XII, Address to the “Fronte alla Famiglia” and the Associazione Famiglie Numerose, November 27, 1951).

Regarding the responsibility of health-care personnel, the words of Pope John Paul II should be recalled: “Their profession calls for them to be guardians and servants of human life. In today’s cultural and social context, in which science and the practice of medicine risk losing sight of their inherent ethical dimension, health-care professionals can be strongly tempted at times to become manipulators of life, or even agents of death. In the face of this temptation their responsibility today is greatly increased. Its deepest inspiration and strongest support lie in the intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension of the health-care profession, something already recognized by the ancient and still relevant Hippocratic Oath, which requires every doctor to commit himself to absolute respect for human life and its sacredness” (Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, n. 89).

Hattip to Opinionated Catholic.  Abortion Recovery International, a group dedicated to helping women heal from the trauma of abortion has proclaimed April as Abortion Recovery Awareness Month.  Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, has issued a proclamation, as has Governor Rick Perry of Texas.  Bravo to the Governors!  Hey Jenkins, if Notre Dame really needs to honor a politician, you need look no farther than Catholic convert Bobby Jindal!

The words of John Paul II in Evangelium vitae ring forth in regard to women recovering from the bitter emotional and spiritual consequences of abortion:

“I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child. With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone’s right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life.”

Project Rachel is a great resource for women seeking healing from abortion.

In 1994 at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta ended her speech with the following words:

“If we remember that God loves us, and that we can love others as He loves us, then America can become a sign of peace for the world. From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak – the unborn child – must go out to the world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. God bless you! “

Amen.

I am not easily shocked after participating in the struggle against abortion since 1973, but this article did shock me.  Taking pride in the deaths of millions of innocents each year?    Jesus wept.  The fight against abortion is the preeminent moral struggle of our time, first to save the lives of the most innocent among us, but second because of the damage that legal abortion does to our moral sense.  If we take pride in abortion, is there any crime that we cannot, and will not, take pride in?

In my years working in the pro-life movement I have often encountered women who have had abortions.  I believe most of them would regard the phrase “abortion pride movement” with a bitter laugh.  We must never forget the vast number of women who have had abortions and who look back in despair at that moment.  For those women let us recall the words of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae:

“I would like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly.”

“If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitely lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.”

“With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone’s right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life.”

Project Rachel is a good resource for women seeking spiritual healing after abortion.

In regard to abortion we must be unceasing in our fight against it.  We fight not only for the unborn but also for all of us if we are to live in a society where the strong are prevented from slaying the weak .  We are far down a path that has a very bad end.  John Paul II saw it clearly in Evangelium Vitae:  “The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Is 5:20).

Conceptual sketch of “Our Lady of Guadalupe Respect Life Memorial Garden” St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church

Our last post gave reflections by John Paul II on his “Gospel of Life” Encyclical, 5 years after its issuance. Here are more of those reflections, taken from the second half of his discourse. John Paul II called for an APOSTOLATE OF LIFE:

“An authentic apostolate of life cannot be simply delegated to specific movements, however praiseworthy, that work in the sociopolitical field. It must be an integral part of the Church’s pastoral ministry, whose task is to proclaim the ‘Gospel of Life’. For this to be effective, it is important to set up educational programs, as well as services and special structures for guidance and support.”

“…it should be given practical expression by offering services that will enable anyone in trouble to find the necessary help.”

“…efforts should be made so that these services become a ‘sign’ and a message.”

“Just as the community needs places of worship, it should sense the need to organize, especially at the diocesan level, educational and operational services to support human life, services that will be the fruit of charity and a sign of vitality.”

“…accompanied by the changing of mentalities and morals on a vast scale, in an extensive and visible way. In this area the Church will spare no effort nor can she accept negligence or guilty silence.”

“I turn in particular to those young people…may they be the first agents and beneficiaries of the work that will be done in the context of the apostolate of life.”

“May every person of good will feel called to play an active part in this great cause. May he be sustained by the conviction that every step taken in defending the right to life and its concrete advancement is a step towards peace and civilization.”

UNBORNWORDoftheday Comments on John Paul II’s reflections: John Paul called for “an authentic apostolate of life” that he said “must be an integral part of the Church’s pastoral ministry”. He describes this apostolate of life in terms of education, services and structures that will present a sign and deliver a message borne of charity, all “in defending the right to life and its concrete advancement”. It seems to us that the Pope was envisioning a New form of comprehensive Pastoral Outreach for the 21^st century. A New pastoral ministry combining education and services “especially at the diocesan level” which would “support human life”. This seems to be a radical challenge from John Paul the Great to “every person of good will”. Are we up to it? Are we willing? Remember his sobering warning: “…the Church will spare no effort nor can she accept negligence or guilty silence”.

At a Vatican symposium in early 2000 commemorating the 5^th anniversary of his prophetic “Gospel of Life” Encyclical Letter , John Paul made some interesting comments about the document (Latin title is: Evangelium Vitae). Here are two of those comments.

“I started from a vision of hope for humanity’s future.”

“…a document which I consider central to the whole Magisterium of my Pontificate and in thematic continuity with the Encyclical Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI of venerable memory.”

John Paul also gives the following two facts about the Gospel of Life:

1. “The persistent difficulty which this message encounters in a world marked by serious signs of violence and decadence.”
2. “The unchanging validity of this message and also the possibility of it being accepted in a society where the community of believers, with the concerned involvement of people of good will, courageously and unitedly express its commitment.”

John Paul then called the Encyclical’s message: “a reference point for civil salvation”.

In our next post we will present Part II of this reflection & John Paul’s expectation for ACTION by all of us!

Simeon Holding the Christ Child

When the baby Jesus was still a newborn Mary and Joseph presented Him to the Lord according to Jewish custom. As they left the Temple they met a holy man named Simeon (Lk 2:25-35). He prayed to God and made a prophecy about the baby Jesus. In part, he said: “…this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against…” Other translations say “as a sign of contradiction” or a sign that will be “opposed”.

Yes Christ is “A Sign”. First He is a Person! A Divine Person! But He is also “A Sign of Contradiction”. Likewise – thanks be to God – The Unborn Christ Child is a Sign of Contradiction!

We learn from a Prophetic Sign! And if we study the life of Unborn Jesus we have lots of uplifting, beautiful, edifying and hopeful lessons to learn there!

But there is also this: Unborn Jesus is a sign of contradiction to the culture of death that is encroaching day-by-day into our culture and society. Thanks be to God, Unborn Jesus is at the spiritual heart of the Culture of Life that the Church is committed to.

Here are two examples: “…as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.” (Mt 18:5). Mother Teresa of Calcutta, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all commented on these words of Jesus in relation to unborn children. When your local abortion facility aborts a baby, it is aborting Christ. And when your local Pregnancy Counseling Center helps a pregnant woman carry her child to term, they are also helping Christ be born in Bethlehem!

There is an intersection between time and eternity, earth and heaven, the worldly powers and the Kingdom of God, the physical life and the spiritual realm, evil and Good, death and Life – and the newly conceived Christ Child at the one cell stage is at that very point of intersection! So is Christ Crucified & the Resurrected Christ! When Life meets death Christ is there! When adults kill babies Christ is there (with the babies)!

Thanks be to God, the Unborn Christ is Victor when He collides with this pathetic culture of death. We as Christians must be united with Him, in solidarity with all unborn children. To quote George Weigel, we must be busy about building “a culture-forming counterculture”. Two of its distinguishing marks will be: it is Christ-centered and Life-affirming!

To quote John Paul II: “…we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the ‘culture of death’ and the ‘culture of life’. We find ourselves not only ‘faced with’ but necessarily ‘in the midst of’ this conflict: we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro – life.” (Evangelium Vitae #28).

Cari fedeli,
sento il dovere di inviarvi alcune riflessioni che possano guidarvi in questi giorni, dopo la tragica fine di Eluana Englaro. È come se sentissi voi tutti rivolgermi la domanda del profeta: «Sentinella, quanto resta della notte? (Is 21,11)». Oso pensare e sperare che queste mie riflessioni raggiungano anche uomini e donne non credenti, e pensosi del destino del nostro popolo.

1. La prima cosa da fare è di chiamare cose ed avvenimenti col loro nome: fare chiarezza è la prima necessità nel percorso della vita.
È stata uccisa una persona umana innocente, e per giunta con l’autorizzazione di un tribunale umano. Risuonano tragicamente solenni le parole del servo di Dio Giovanni Paolo II: «Niente e nessuno può autorizzare l’uccisione di un essere umano innocente, feto o embrione che sia, bambino o adulto, vecchio, ammalato o agonizzante. Nessuno, inoltre, può richiedere per se stesso o per un altro affidato alle sue responsabilità questo gesto omicida, né può acconsentirvi esplicitamente o implicitamente. Nessuna autorità può legittimamente imporlo, né permetterlo» [Lett. Enc. Evangelium Vitae 57, 5].
Non è la prima volta nella storia che un tribunale dà questa autorizzazione. Ma le sentenze dei tribunali non cambiano la realtà. Né lasciamoci confondere dalle pur legittime discussioni sulla Costituzione, sulle competenze degli organi costituzionali, e da cose di questo genere. Prima che cittadini di uno Stato, siamo uomini e donne partecipi della stessa umanità. Prima della legge scritta sulle Carte costituzionali e nei Codici, c’è la legge scritta nel cuore umano. Essa insegna che l’uccisione diretta e volontaria di un essere umano innocente è sempre gravemente immorale; lo è anche quando la morte fosse causata da semplice omissione di un atto che invece avrebbe potuto tenerlo in vita .

2. Ma è accaduto anche un altro fatto sul quale vorrei che riflettessimo profondamente: è stato messo in essere il primo tentativo di delegittimare nella coscienza del nostro popolo la pietas e l’operosità della carità cristiana, di offuscarne la splendente bellezza.
Se infatti si afferma il principio che esistono uomini e donne la cui “qualità di vita” rende la loro esistenza indegna di essere vissuta, che senso ha stare loro vicini con l’amore che se ne prende cura, con la tenerezza che condivide la loro umanità devastata? Ci sono dei gesti che hanno una portata simbolica che va molto oltre a chi li compie, ed il cui significato obiettivo si insedia dentro al vissuto umano, devastandolo. Notte tragica quella in cui Eluana Englaro fu tolta alle Suore Misericordine! L’essere umano fragile è stato tolto alla carità cristiana per consegnarlo nella sua impotenza all’arbitrio della decisione di altri.
Ed allora le vere eroine in questa vicenda sono state loro, le Suore Misericordine. Sono le suore che nelle nostre Case della carità continuano ad affermare non colle parole, ma con la vita, l’unica vera libertà: la libertà di amare, la libertà di donare. E con loro vedo tutte le nostre religiose, e tutte le altre persone, famiglie ed aggregazioni dedite ai più diseredati: a chi “non ha più senso che viva”.

3. Di fronte al mistero della sofferenza e del male, alla ragione che non sa rispondere alla domanda: “perché?”, non resta che riconoscere umilmente che il mistero, senza negare la ragione, la trascende. Non c’è altra possibilità di salvezza per una ragione che non voglia dissolversi nell’assurdo.
Cari fedeli, a questo punto forse mi chiederete: ed allora che fare? A voi rispondo che c’è una cosa sola che ci salva dalla perdizione totale: radicarci in Cristo, vivendo un’intensa esperienza di fede nella Chiesa.
È da comunità di uomini e donne che in Cristo hanno trovato la perla preziosa che dà senso alla vita, che nasce quel nuovo modo di pensare e di vivere, di giudicare ed introdurci nella realtà che afferma il valore infinito di ogni persona umana. In una parola: solo una fede profondamente pensata e vissuta genera una cultura vera; solo una fede quotidianamente praticata potrà tenere viva nella nostra società quella grande tradizione umanistico–cristiana, la cui necessità è riconosciuta anche da non credenti.
È il grande impegno educativo: la rigenerazione di tutto l’umano in Cristo; è la via che la nostra Chiesa vuole percorrere.
A Maria affidiamo la causa dell’uomo: perché «in Lei si raccese l’amore».

Exodus is a good book of the Bible for spiritual reading during Lent.

Here is the opening sequence of a t.v. movie called “The Bible: Moses.” It was broadcast in the 90’s. It has a star-studded cast: Ben Kingsley, Frank Longella, Christopher Lee, David Suchet.

You can actually watch the whole thing on YouTube.

Pope John Paul II referred to the opening passage of Exodus in his encyclical on the Gospel of Life.

The Pharaoh of old, haunted by the presence and increase of the children of Israel, submitted them to every kind of oppression and ordered that every male child born of the Hebrew women was to be killed (cf. Ex 1:7-22).

Today not a few of the powerful of the earth act in the same way.

They too are haunted by the current demographic growth, and fear that the most prolific and poorest peoples represent a threat for the well-being and peace of their own countries.

Consequently, rather than wishing to face and solve these serious problems with respect for the dignity of individuals and families and for every person’s inviolable right to life, they prefer to promote and impose by whatever means a massive program of birth control.

Even the economic help which they would be ready to give is unjustly made conditional on the acceptance of an anti-birth policy. (Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 16)

Georgetown may have had the most disappointing season in recent memory. They may have been a hair’s breadth from giving yesterday’s game away.

But when the Hoyas beat Villanova, everything is right with the world!

Today we are amidst the battle between the forces of Life and and of Death.  This battle is fought not against “flesh  and blood ; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places” (Eph 6:12).  To know whom we in the Pro-Life Movement are fighting against, read this book:

Conspiracy Against Life: Evangelium Vitae’s Conclusive Evidence (Two Hearts Media Organization, 1996). (Amazon, Bookmooch)

SOURCES (from the Foreword):

1. Pope John Paul II.  He wrote the longes encyclical letter ever published—the Evangelium Vitae.  The gravity of its message was strongly underscored during the 3d Pro-Life Conference in Rome which called to attention all Bishops and Catholics who are compr[om]ising in their morals and are firm advocates of the contraceptive lifestyle.  Bishops and Catolics who maintain this anti-life belief can be penalized by Rome if they do not conform to the Church’s teachings.  In the past, almost fifty percent of American and European Bishops went against Pope Paul VI because of his encyclical, Humanae Vitae.
2. There exists in the United States a confidential document, as revealed by the Pontifical Council on Family Life, known as the National Social Security Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200).  This classified document specifically mentions the concern of the U.S. over the growing depletion of natural resources and the subsequent increase in population growth, that if left uncontrolled this phenomenon will cause major security problems for the United States (NSSM 200, p. 44).  It mentions the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Bangladesh as America’s target for its depopulation program (NSSM 200, 1974, p. 101).  And they will do this using US AID.
3. There are other materials which were provided by known authorities of New World Order from Canada and the United Staes, like Gilles Grondin who holds a copy of the Rockefeller File which exposes how the Freemasons control the U.S. government, especially its Treasury, the State Department, and the United Nations.
4. Malachi Martin.  He is a noted relgious writer with Vatican connections, holds another explosive material, NSSM 400.  He shares materials with our research center staff in U.S.A. and Canada.  He wrote The Keys of this Blood, a powerful book on the conspiracy against the weak.
5. En Route to Global Occupation by Gary Kah; Committee of 300, Conspirators by Dr. John Coleman; Unveiling the Mystery of Freemasonry, by the Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez; U.N. Rule the World; the Lords of Poverty, by Graham Hancock; New World Order; Iron Mountain; Beyond Freemasonry by William Schoenbelen; the Morals and Dogma of Freemasonry by Albert Pike; CBCP Decision on Freemasonry–March 14, 1990; The New American Magazine, Bimonthly Magazine.
6. All documents from the United Nations Conferences which we collated from 1992 to 1996: the Rio de Janiero World Summit on Human Environment, 1992; U.N. World Summit on Human Rights, 1993-Vienna; U.N. International Conference on Population Development, 1994-Cairo; U.N. World Summit on Social Development, 1995-Copenhagen; U.N. 4th Women World Conference, 1995-Beijing; U.N. Habitat II Preparatory Meeting, 1996-New York

CONTENTS:

Foreword
Reader’s Guide

I.  A Global Conspiracy

The Plot, Hidden Agenda, Main Target, Totalitarianism, Apparent Culprit, Global Control

II. The Conspirators’s Front

The NSSM 200 (Kissinger Report), New World Order, Committee of 300, C-300’s Tightly Guarded Secrets

III. The United Nations

The Conspirator’s Killing Machine, International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF), One World Citizenship, UN Declaration on its 50th Anniversary, UN Conference on Environmental Development (UNCED), UN World Conference on Human Rights, UN Int’l Conference on Population and Development, UN World Summit on Human Development, UN 4th World Conference on Women, Habitat II: UN Conference on Human Settlements

IV. Freemasons: The Real Conspirators Against Life

Origin of Freemasonry, The Goal of Masonry, Sources of Authoritative Literature of Masonry, Kabbalism, Gnosticism, Knights Templars, Roscrusians, Illuminati, the Palladium Rite, New World Order and Freemasonry, Globalists and Piggy Globalists, old Internationale and Freemasonry, Ren Internationale and Freemasonry, Roman Catholic Church and Freemasonry, the Roman Catholic Church’s Stand on Freemasonry

V. Spiritual Warfare

By their Fruits You Will Know Them, The Real Enemy: the Devil and His Weapons, Solution

VI. Bitter Truth

Mass Media Control, Information, Education and Communication (IEC), Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Six Principles of Deception, Lie Against Women, Breakdown of the Family, Corruption of Youth, Attack Against the Clergy

VII. Evangelium Vitae and the Alliance of the Two Hearts

Evangelium Vitae, Communion of Reparation, Consecration of the Family to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary, House-toHouse Evangelism, Reading of the Word of God, FamilyReconciliation, Family Rosary, Blessing of the Home, Imposition of the Scapular, Home Study Program, Promise of Virginity, Pledge of Conjugal Chastity

Supplementary Materials

Feminism: the Six Frauds, RU 486: the Rest of the Story, A Woman’s Right to Choose—Woman and the Problem of Pregnancy, Had an Abortion? Feeling Bad? A Guide to Fertility, To Deceive a Nation: AIDS Update 1993, Planned Parenthood: It’s Not What You Think, Blessed are the Pure in Heart, What is Worth? Evolution, Secularism and the Attack of the Church, Good Priests Need Your Support, Censorship in a Pluralistic Society, Television’s Double-Edged Impact on Family Life

Li na Zenit. Segundo a Dra. Lenise Garcia, professora da Uiversidade de Brasília (UnB) e presidente do Movimento Brasil Sem Aborto, o fato de duas comissões da Câmara dos Deputados terem rejeitado, em 2008, o PL 1135/91, não significa que a luta contra o aborto esteja vencida, e nem que os grupos pró-aborto tenham se enfraquecido. Ela afirma que a ONU e várias ONGs financiadas por capital externo continuam fazendo pressão para que o aborto legal se torne uma realidade no Brasil.

A professora considera que a rejeição do projeto de lei nas duas comissões se deu, principalmente, pela mobilização dos cidadãos eleitores que se manifestaram contra o projeto de lei por carta, telefone, e-mail ou visitas pessoais aos deputados. Segundo a professora, os eleitores devem verificar a postura de seus candidatos em “questões importantes” como o tema da defesa da vida. “A consciência das pessoas está crescendo, e também os meios para informar-nos sobre os possíveis candidatos ao nosso voto”.

Além disso, a Dra. Lenise fala sobre a importância de que os fiéis católicos busquem formação e conhecimento da Doutrina da Igreja sobre questões como reprodução assistida, aborto (inclusive nos casos em que alguns pretendem abrir exceções), uso de células-tronco, etc., e sugere dois importantes documentos da Igreja para os fiéis: a encíclica Evangelium Vitae, do Papa João Paulo II; e o documento Donum Vitae, da Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé.

«O leigo precisa compreender que não fala “em nome da Igreja”, mas que deve ser coerente com sua fé em todas as suas atuações sociais, políticas, econômicas…»

Mas a cereja do bolo foi a Dra. Lenise ter afirmado que a oposição ao aborto também passa pela família. Concordo absolutamente com ela quando ela diz que é preciso elaborar políticas públicas que reconheçam o papel da família na estruturação da sociedade.

«É importante que a legislação e as ações administrativas sejam feitas tendo-se em vista a proteção à família, ao casamento, à maternidade (incluída a gestação), à infância, à adolescência e à velhice».

Claro como água límpida! Famílias estruturadas afugentam o mal do aborto. É preciso que as leis reconheçam que investir na família, célula mater da sociedade, é investir no futuro da nação, nos direitos humanos, na educação, na saúde, etc. Tudo passa pela família!

Que Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo e Sua Mãe Santíssima conservem esta mulher maravilhosa, que dedica o dom do conhecimento que o Senhor lhe concedeu à promoção da Vida e da Família.

«A oração é o nosso sustentáculo. (…) Todos os cristãos podem contribuir com as suas orações a Deus para que se preserve no mundo a cultura da vida.»

– Dra. Lenise Garcia

Paz e Bem!

“Catholic Answers: Two books for voters who take their faith seriously”- Doug Kmiec, who has lately become something of a poster-boy and spokesman for ‘Catholics for Obama’, reviews Archbishop Chaput’s Render unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life (Doubleday, 2008) and A Nation for All How the Catholic Vision of the Common Good Can Save America from the Politics of Division , by Chris Korzen and Alexia Kelley.

As to be expected, Kmiec finds a sympathetic ear in Korzen & Kelley, given their assertion that Catholics have become ‘preoccupied’ with abortion to the subordination of peace, the environment and welfare:

In a thoughtful chapter on issues of church and state, Korzen and Kelley demonstrate how emphasizing anti-Roe strategies alone sits uneasily with the church’s promise of religious freedom to all in Vatican II’s Dignitatis humanae (1965). Catholic social doctrine, they write, quoting Benedict XVI’s Deus caritas est, “has no intention of giving the church power over the state. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith.” And quoting John Paul II’s Evangelium vitae, Korzen and Kelley note that “when it is impossible to overturn or repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force…an elected official…[may] support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law.” To reduce abortion they suggest providing health care and economic assistance to women and families, robust alternatives such as support for adoption and appropriate and effective sex education for young people, and a host of other policy measures that have proved capable of reducing the abortion rate in the United States and around the world. Thanks to the efforts of Sen. Obama, much of that language is now in the Democratic Party platform.

As I’ve contended elsewhere, I think it is a mistake on the part of Korzen and Kelly to frame the abortion debate as a chiefly “religious” issue — and Roe v. Wade as involving one’s “religious freedom.” As Dr. Robert P. George observed, this is a fairly commmon tactic among those who advocate unrestricted access to abortion:

It was Justice Harry Blackmun who claimed in his opinion for the Court legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973) that “at this point in man’s knowledge” the scientific evidence was inconclusive and therefore cold not determine the outcome of the case. And twenty years later, the influential pro-choice writer Ronald Dworkin went on record claiming that the question of abortion is inherently “religious.” (See Ronald Dworkin, Life’s Dominion(Alfred A. Knopf, 1993).) It is pro-choice advocates, such as Dworkin, who want to distinguish between when a human being comes into existence “in the biological sense” and when a human being comes into existence “in the moral sense.” It is they who want to distinguish a class of human beings “with rights” from pre-(or post-) conscious human beings who “don’t have rights.” And the reason for this, I submit, is that, short of defending abortion as “justifiable homicide,” the pro-choice position collapses if the issue is to be settled purely on the basis of scientific inquiry into the question of when a new member of homo sapiens comes into existence as a self-integrating organism whose unity, distinctiveness, and identity remain intact as it develops without substantial change from the point of its beginning through the various stages of its development and into adulthood.

As Catholics we believe in the sanctity of human life — but this is not to say that the proposition that innocent human beings deserve protection under the law, particularly those in the womb unable to defend themselves can be seriously engaged by anybody.

Catholic conservatives would readily concur that we should — beyond the prohibition of abortion and the legal recognition of the unborn — strive to reduce abortion by other socio-economic means. However, in appealing to Evangelium Vitae in defense of the Democratic Party’s platform, they skip over the Holy Father’s admonition that:

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection

In fact, one would be hard-pressed to square Catholic support for Obama on this matter given his stated intention to pass The Freedom of Choice Act, which — as Cardinal Rigali recently warned — “if enacted, would obliterate virtually all the gains of the past 35 years and cause the abortion rate to skyrocket.”

Chaput asserts that in order for Catholics may vote for a pro-choice candidate, they must have a reason of such gravity that “with an honest heart, expect unborn victims of abortion to accept when we meet them and need to explain our actions-as we someday will.” Kmiec laments:

That is indeed a high threshold; unfortunately Chaput applies it only to the cultural methods of promoting life usually favored by Democrats. Of course, voting for a “prolife” candidate does not guarantee that he will appoint Supreme Court justices who accept the church’s natural-law arguments against abortion. Nor does it mean that anti-Roe appointees will be approved by what is sure to be a Democratic Congress. Is a Catholic voter supposed to overlook how the Republican Party has failed to deliver Roe’s reversal in thirty-five years? Given that political reality, how could “voting prolife” in that narrow and unsuccessful sense be a sufficient explanation to the victims of abortion?

Several points of criticism here:

• I agree there is no concrete guarantee that a “pro life” candidate will successfully appoint Supreme Court Justices who, provided they are approved by a Democratic Congress, will go on to reject Roe v. Wade should the opportunity present itself. Yet one must admit that the remote possibility exists, and I would maintain that this possibility is preferable to supporting a Democratic candidate who boasts a “100% voting record with NARAL” and who, in proclaiming his fidelity to “a women’s fundamental right to choose” most enthusiastically assures us on the very anniversary of Roe v. Wade that he will appoint judges with that interest in mind.
• In proclaiming the failure of the Republican Party to “deliver on Roe’s reversal”, I think Kmiec omits a considerable amount of legislative pro-life accomplishments that (largely Republicans) has passed, in the face of stubborn Democratic opposition, in that time.Despite Obama’s promises to work with conservatives in reducing abortion, we can likely assume that once in office, he will more than likely reverse the Mexico City Policy (requiring all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries); appoint judges to the courts who oppose pro-life legislative efforts; and cut off federal funding of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (the latter a topic Kmiec has dodged). And once again: given his professed desire to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, one must inquire how can one work with a President whose states goal is to remove, at every level, any and every restriction on abortion? — Neither Obama nor Kmiec has actually explained how Obama’s assurances to pro-lifers can be reconciled with his support of FOCA and what it would bring about, were it actually passed.

Despite Kmiec’s appreciation for Chaput’s “well-constructed, thoughtful, and accessible arguments” and “impressive command of church documents and literature,” he is disappointed by the fact that “apart from the issue of abortion and related sexual matters, most of the social gospel that dominates Korzen and Kelley’s book is absent from Chaput’s.”

Korzen and Kelley argue that the GOP’s claim that voting for anti-Roe candidates is the way to vote Catholic has hampered a fuller presentation of the church’s social teaching. Does Chaput make their point for them?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I think if you asked Chaput directly, he would counter:

“Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit—but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.”

I would be remiss if I didn’t end this without mentioning Amy Welborn’s magnificent demolishing of the “You know, the anti-abortion movement just has to get over its fixation with overturning Roe and put its effort into reducing abortion”criticism . . . which just so happens to be Kmiec’s, Korzen’s and Kelly’s. If you haven’t already, I greatly recommend it.

The Song of the Virgin Mary (The Magnificat)

The following explains St. Juliana’s devotion of praying the Magnificat nine times a day to honor the nine months that Christ spent in the womb:

“In honor of the nine months for which the singular Virgin bore the author of our salvation, the only begotten Son of God, in her womb, (Juliana) was accustomed to say the (Magnificat) nine times every day. She admonished persons familiar to and loved by her, that, with their other prayers, they should recite it as many times every day. For she said that it did not seem possible to her that anyone established in the state of grace would not be answered by the intercession of the glorious Virgin, regarding any request pertaining to the salvation of his soul, who, when brought forth in a voice of exultation the words, Magnificat anima mea Dominum and what follows, renewed to the same Virgin the joy she then had, as many times daily as she carried the Son of God in her happy womb.”

From Acta Sanctorum (April, Volume I)

“Acta Sanctorum (Acts of the Saints) is an encyclopedic text in 68 folio volumes of documents examining the lives of Christian saints, in essence a critical hagiography, which is organized according to each saint’s feast day. It begins with two January volumes, published in 1643, and ended with the Propylaeum to December published in 1940.”