Qui Locutus - Formerly The CathApol Blog - a Catholic Apologetics Blog
Defending the Faith and keeping Catholics Catholic!
Scott Windsor, MEd. - aka: CathApol
Well, the news caught many of us off-guard as we were not expecting the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the Roe v. Wade case from 1973. For nearly 50 years the mother's womb was one of the most dangerous places for a newly conceived child. From 1973 to the present there have been well over 600,000 abortions per year in the United States alone, and from 1977-1997, in that period it was well over 1 million abortions per year (1).
Now, does the decision by the Supreme Court mean that abortion is over? No, not by a long shot! All this decision has done is returned the authority back to the states for abortion. Some states already had laws on the books which became in effect as soon as the court presented its decision. Other states have said they will not prevent abortion at all, and welcome people from other states to come to them for the procedure.
So, while abortions will not end immediately with this decision, they were already on the decline, along with pregnancy rates. The problem with this is that many pregnancies are terminated through artificial birth control (ABC) - and most of those treatments are, in reality, early abortions that do not "count" as abortions. Most forms of ABC do not prevent conception - but they affect the vaginal lining so that newly conceived babies cannot attach to their mother's womb - and thus die shortly after conception. Once sperm and egg unite, a new life has begun and if one artificially interferes with the process so that this new life terminates, regardless of how early this happens, it is still an abortion.
This has, indeed, been a glorious decision by the Supreme Court - but the Pro-Life fight is not over. So long as any states approve abortions AND so long as abortifacient forms of ABC continue - innocent lives are being destroyed.
That said, I support pro-choice! You have the right to choose NOT to have sex outside of marriage. Even within marriage, you have the right to choose WHEN to have sex, so long as you are accepting of God's Will that if you do become pregnant, you will be the parent of that child and not kill it. Your "choice" comes BEFORE pregnancy - once there is a child you cannot morally "choose" to kill it.
Not an original work from me but so important that I felt the need to post anyway.
Some issues
allow for a diversity of opinion, and Catholics are permitted leeway in endorsing
or opposing particular policies.This is
the case with the questions of when to go to war and when to apply the death
penalty.Though the Church urges caution
regarding both of these issues, it acknowledges that the state has the right to
employ them in some circumstances (CCC 2309, 2267).
Pope
Benedict XVI, when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, spoke of this in a
document dealing with when Catholics may receive Communion:
“Not all moral issues
have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds
with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the
decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to
present himself to receive Holy Communion.While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and
to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may
still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse
to capital punishment.There may be a
legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and
applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and
euthanasia” (WRHC 3).
The same is
true of many other issues that are the subject of political debate: the best
way to help the poor, to manage the economy, to protect the environment, to
handle immigration, and to provide education, health care and retirement
security.Catholics may legitimately
take different approaches to these issues while the same cannot be said for
euthanasia and abortion, two actions which are always wrong no matter the
circumstances.The protection of innocent
life always takes precedence to all other issues.What good are all other rights if one does
not have the right to life?
This past Sunday was
Mercy Sunday. Our priest gave a great homily on the necessity of the
Mercy of God through the Sacrament of Confession but also for us, being members
of the Body of Christ, our necessity of doing His work. Works like feeding
the hungry, clothing the poor, burying the dead and so on.
I was incredibly moved
by his homily because when he began speaking on the need of protecting the
defenseless I couldn't help but picture a young person in the womb whose heart
is being stopped intentionally through abortion. Who is more defenseless
than a baby not yet born? And what are
we doing to defend him or her? You see, a 6 week-old embryo is just that,
a baby. A young one but a baby
nonetheless.
This young one, this
person who was conceived into this world only six weeks prior already has a
beating heart.This living organism is
growing, therefore is alive. Its parents are human beings therefore IT is
a human being. A living human being growing in the womb with its own
distinct DNA, different from either of its parents.
Our call as Christians
is to have mercy on those who need it. This entails us to DO something to
those who need our support and protection. How much have we done to help
these defenseless human beings from dying horribly?
These babies not only
have a beating heart at 6 weeks gestation, they also develop earlobes, fingers,
have a brain and can even move their limbs.These babies even have fingernails by the end of the twelfth week of
gestation which is the end of the first trimester when most abortions occur.
Let us not neglect our Christian
duty by ignoring this holocaust.It is
indeed a holocaust of massive proportions. Around 6 million Jews died
during those years while there are about 1.5 million abortions A YEAR in this
country alone. That comes to about 55 million dead babies since Roe v.
Wade passed in 1973.
Let’s stand up and be
counted. Let’s do whatever we can to reduce the number of abortions a
year by voting for those who have pro-life stands into office that they may
institute pro-life laws.
The Epiphany
of Our Lord is the Christian feast observed on Jan. 6. An “epiphany” is an appearance. In today’s
readings, with their rising stars, splendorous lights and mysteries revealed,
the face of the child born on Christmas day appears.
In honor of
this day, I thought I’d bring you a little exchange of the pro-life position to
a pro-choice individual using what science has made known to us on when human
life actually makes its appearance in this world, ie when life begins…
Pro-lifer:
What do you think about abortion?
Pro-choicer:
I don’t know. I mean, if a woman already has three kids and can barely feed
them, I don’t see why she has to be forced to bring another child into the
world.
PL: I agree
it would be really tough to not know how you are going to provide for your
children. I don’t know how I’d handle that situation. But can I ask you a
question?
PC: Sure.
PL: Let’s say
this woman knows she can take care of three children and she actually wants a
newborn. Should she be allowed to kill one of her other children, such as her
two-year-old, so that she can make ends meet?
PC: No! I
mean, she could always adopt that one out.
PL: Yeah, but
what if she doesn’t want to worry about what will happen to that child after
she adopts him out? Maybe she’s worried about him being abused by a stranger.
Why would you say she shouldn’t be allowed to kill her two-year-old?
PC: Because
the two-year-old is a living, born human being. It’s completely different! Are
you saying that a woman should be forced to drop out of school or lose her job
just because she’s pregnant?
PL: I don’t
think women should be fired just because they are pregnant—that’s definitely
unfair. But let’s say a woman gives birth and finds that she can’t finish
school or keep her job because her baby demands too much of her. In fact, most
moms I know find born babies to be harder to handle than unborn babies. Should
women be allowed to kill their newborns if that will help their education or
career?
PC: Of course
not, but you’re confusing the issue.
PL: How am I
doing that?
PC: You’re
talking about killing babies, and I’m just talking about women’s choice.
PL: A choice
to do what exactly?
PC: To not be
a mother if they don’t want to be one.
PL: I agree
with you that no woman should be forced to become a mother.
PC: You do?
PL: Of
course. We also agree that it’s okay to force a woman to stay a mother by
forbidding her from killing her born children. She can put them up for adoption
and give up being their legal mother, but she’ll always be a biological mother
as long as the children are alive.
PC: But
that’s because you can’t kill people.
PL: Ah! So
that’s the issue. It’s not really about poverty or choice, since you and I
agree those reasons wouldn’t justify killing born people like two-year-olds.
But if the unborn are just as human as a two-year-old, then why not treat them
like we treat two-year-olds and make it illegal to kill them just because they
are unwanted?
(exchange
found in Trent Horn’s book “Persuasive Pro-Life” in the chapter named “The
Pragmatists”)
Today I would like to show how one can debate, argue, on the merits of being pro-life without using religious texts for support.
Using only science and our own Declaration of Independence we can make a solid argument against any and all abortions.First we need to understand that a person is a living human being.The online dictionary Merriam-Webster defines ‘person’ as “a human being.”Second, our Declaration of Independence tells us that all human beings have an unalienable right to life.And thirdly, we can know that a new human being begins its life at the moment of fertilization.As the same online dictionary defines‘fertilization’ as: the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.
There you have it.Everything you need to successfully explain your pro-life position as being well supported by science by applying the fundamental right to life for all human beings from the beginning of its life (at fertilization) to its natural end.
There’s no other conclusion possible.You see, the only objections to my position of pro-life is to argue that size, level of development, Environment or degree of dependency are points allowing for the destruction of what is growing in the womb, which science tells us that it’s a living human being.
Let’s look at these different objections to see how weak their position really is.Does size determine if someone has a right to life?No, of course not.A baby is much smaller than a teenager but that doesn’t mean that the baby doesn’t have a right to life simply because it’s smaller in size.The same goes for a newly formed human being, the zygote.It may be extremely small but it is indeed a human being and alive and therefore it has a right to life just as a baby or a teenager does.Size does not determine if one has rights.
Does the level of development determine if one has the right to life?Of course not.An adult human being is much more developed than a toddler, does that mean that the adult has a greater degree of this right to life than the toddler does?Just because the level of development might prevent a human being from ‘thinking’ or ‘feeling’ doesn’t mean that our value is basedon our abilities.Some individuals , like Gabby Gingras, can’t feel pain at all but that doesn’t mean that she has no right to life.
Does ones location determine if one has a right to life?No. Just because they are living in the womb at the moment, which is in its proper location for its age, doesn’t change ones nature that they are indeed a human being and the fact that they are growing means that they are alive.All living human beings have a right to life no matter where they may be at a certain time in their lives.I have as much a right to life whether I’m in bed or at work; the same applies to the individual whether she is in the womb or in her mother’s arms.
And lastly, the level of dependency.The fact that the individual who is completely dependent on the mother for survival does not determine whether he has a right to life.If that were the case then a newborn would not have a right to life either since it is completely dependent on someone else, usually the mother for its survival.If level of dependency on another for survival determines if one has a right to life means that the killing of newborns would be morally acceptable.No rational individual would support the killing of newborns.
Again, we can plainly see that if it can be ascertained with a great amount of certainty that a new human being begins its existence at the moment of fertilization, then by virtue of believing in the right to life for all supercedes any ‘rights’ the mother may feel she has to an abortion for whatever reason.Science has determined with certainty that a human being does indeed begin its life at the moment of conception which means that a mothers ‘right’ to choose to deliberately kill her developing human being should not be allowed by law.
The right to life is to be afforded to all living human beings simply by virtue of them being human beings. And that right to life cannot be taken away because of their size, level of development, environment or dependency.They deserve this right because we believe that the founders had it right; that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights[that cannot be taken away or denied], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Dr. Scott Hahn posted to Facebook this Open Letter to Richard Dawkins and encouraged sharing it... I agree and am sharing... please feel free to do the same. I'll have a final comment after the letter....
Dear Dr. Dawkins,
Earlier this week, on Twitter, you drew attention to a troubling fact unknown to most people. You pointed out that in the United States and Europe, most children conceived with Down syndrome are aborted. You’re right. Some experts put the number as high as 90 percent. Others suggest that only 65 percent, or 70 percent, or 80 percent of children with Down syndrome are aborted. The actual number is probably very difficult to determine. You have a platform, Dr. Dawkins, an audience, and in some real way I’m very grateful that you drew attention to the pre-natal eradication of people with Down syndrome.
But you made your point about the ubiquity of Down syndrome abortion in order to defend a terrible assertion. You suggested on Twitter, Dr. Dawkins, a moral imperative to abort children conceived with Down Syndrome. You said that if a woman had the choice to abort such a child, and she failed to so, she would have acted immorally. I’m troubled by that, and, very honestly, I’m confused.
You’ve traditionally held a position of moral neutrality regarding abortion. You’ve asserted that killing animals, with the capacity to experience pain, fear, and suffering, is of greater moral significance than killing fetuses: nascently human, you assert, but without the kind of sentience that gives them moral significance. You’ve suggested that no carnivore can reasonably hold a position in opposition to abortion. You’re not alone in that position, it’s become de rigueur among most contemporary analytic ethicists. I disagree with your position. I’ve long ago concluded that the fetus, the embryo, and in fact, the zygote are human beings—undeveloped, certainly, but possessing the dignity and the rights of sentient adults.
Despite my disagreement, I recognize that you’ve tried to apply your viewpoint with consistency across a variety of ethical situations.
Until this week. This week, you moved from presenting abortion as a morally neutral act to asserting that the abortion of some people—genetically disabled people—is a moral good. A moral imperative, in fact. You haven’t asserted a basis for this position. I suspect you believe that people with Down syndrome suffer, needlessly, and cause undue suffering to their friends and relatives. And, as a general principle, I believe you’re inclined to obviate as much human suffering as possible.
You’ve often said that people who disagree with you should “go away, and learn how to think.” I’ve tried to learn to think, over the years, but perhaps I am naive in some ways. But one of things I’ve concluded is that ethical philosophy can’t be done in a sterile environment—that our humanity, our intuition, our empathy, in fact, must be recognized as a source of ethical insight if we want to think well. Perhaps you believe that your position on abortion and down syndrome is logically valid. But I wonder if you’re kept awake at night by the revulsion that comes with being the champion of killing.
Suffering is not a moral evil to be avoided. Suffering can have meaning and value. Ask Victor Frankl. Or Mohandas Gandhi. Or Martin Luther King, Jr. Or, if you’re willing, ask my children. I have two children with Down syndrome. They’re adopted. Their birth-parents faced the choice to abort them, and didn’t. Instead the children came to live with us. They’re delightful children. They’re beautiful. They’re happy. One is a cancer survivor, twice-over. I found that in the hospital, as she underwent chemotherapy and we suffered through agony and exhaustion, our daughter Pia was more focused on befriending nurses and stealing stethoscopes. They suffer, my children, but in the context of irrepressible joy.
I wonder, if you spent some time with them, whether you’d feel the same way about suffering, about happiness, about personal dignity. I wonder, if you danced with them in the kitchen, whether you’d think abortion was in their best interest. I wonder, if you played games with them, or shared a joke with them, whether you’d find some worth in their existence.
And so, Dr. Dawkins, I’d like to invite you to dinner. Come spend time with my children. Share a meal with them. Before you advocate their deaths, come find out what’s worthwhile in their lives. Find out if the suffering is worth the joy.
I don’t want you to come over for a debate. I don’t want to condemn you. I want you to experience the joy of children with Down syndrome. I want your heart to be moved to joy as well.
Any day next week is good for us except for Wednesday.
Sincerely yours,
JD Flynn JD Flynn writes from Lincoln, Nebraska.
For many years I taught gymnastics - and in that previous life one of my specialties was working with the Special Needs community. Many of these children had Downs Syndrome, and each one - in their own special way - was a true gift and joy to work with. Certainly sometimes challenging, but the rewards were always worth it. I had the honor to coach the Special Olympics gymnastics champion for several of those years.
I hope Dr. Dawkins accepts JD Flynn's invitation. There is no way one can spend time with one of these special children without seeing the gift they bring to all around them.
The Committee Against Torture (CAT) has accused the Catholic Church's stand on abortion as "torture!" In a statement I heard on the radio this morning (Phoenix, KFYI) the CAT says that the Church's position on abortion amounts to torture in countries where abortion is completely illegal because it forces young girls and women to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, even those due to rape or incest. The Washington Examiner reports the CAT as saying the Church position "amounts to torture" and that it also leads women to seek out "unsafe abortions" reports Ashley E. McGuire of the group Catholic Voices USA (ibid), McGuire continues: "The church doesn’t believe there is anything as a safe abortion."
What is really taking place here is a coordinated effort by the CAT, and others who share the pro-abortion and anti-Catholic bigotry, to get the Vatican removed from the United Nations. The irony of their position is they are allegedly against torture and yet abortion is one of the cruelest forms of torture which can be forced upon an innocent life, and they don't even consider the psychological affects abortion has on the would-have-been mothers when they come to realize they murdered their own child (or children, in cases of multiple abortions). Being Pro-Life is what a committee like the CAT should be all about supporting! No, what is really going on here is anti-Catholic bigotry - but will anyone (besides Catholics) stand up to the bullying bigots?
Addendum, May 12, 2014: I was accused of "hyperbole" because I posted this article, so let me demonstrate that it was not merely me seeking some sort of sensationalism...
(CNSNews.com) - The Center for Reproductive Rights, a non-governmental organization that advocates for legalized abortion, is urging the United Nations Committee Against Torture to tell the Catholic Church that “the freedom of speech and of religion” do not give the church the right to advocate against abortion. When the committee met in Geneva on Monday for a hearing on the Vatican’s compliance with the Convention Against Torture, Vice Chairperson Felice Gaer, an American, said in her opening statement that laws that ban all abortion—which is the position of the Catholic Church--may violate the convention.
Lifenews.com - Vatican officials are blasting the Untied Nations after a UN panel made wild-eyed claims that the Catholic Church’s pro-life teachings “promote torture.” The UN panel is expected to release its report on the Catholic Church at the end of the month. NCR: GENEVA — The Holy See’s representative to the United Nations in Geneva is hoping for a “sense of moderation and respect” in the final conclusions of a U.N. committee after it questioned the Holy See May 5-6 on clerical sex abuse in the context of torture.
Wall Street Journal: The United Nations committee that monitors compliance with the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment is being urged by several influential nongovernmental organizations to condemn the Vatican when the committee meets this week in Geneva. These groups, including the Center for Constitutional Rights, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, and the Center for Reproductive Rights, claim that the Catholic Church's handling of child-sexual-abuse accusations against priests and the church's stand on birth control and abortion amount to violations of the Convention Against Torture.
If the U.N. committee were to grant the groups' request and conclude that the Vatican has violated the Convention Against Torture, this would represent a legally insupportable and perverse interpretation of the treaty, actually weakening its effectiveness. It would also represent a blatant attack on religious freedom.
Steve Hays responded to my article on Onanism v. Homosexuality, and since a combox reply would not be practical, I am responding to him with a new article. Steve's comments are in yellow, where he has quoted me is in blue.
I'm going to comment on a few recently claims by Catholic apologist Scott Windsor.
I found the article interesting, and even almost Catholic in many places, however... you knew that was coming :-) ... when it comes to Onan's sin - the writer makes a very definitive statement that Onan was not slain for spilling his seed, but in reality - it is precisely for what Onan DID (spilling his seed) and not his MOTIVE (not wanting to produce children for his brother).
i) Evangelical converts to Catholicism like Windsor and Dave Armstrong resort to traditional prooftexting. A more sophisticated Catholic apologist would skip the fanciful prooftexting and justify his denomination's teaching by appealing to the theory of development as well as attempting to mount a natural law argument.
a) Hmmm, why bring up Dave Armstrong? Are you trying to draw him into this discussion?
b) Then you go straight into ad hominem as if whether or not I am a “sophisticated Catholic apologist” or not has any bearing on the points made!
c) Catholicism is not a “denomination” - it is Protestantism which has denominated itself to be apart from Catholicism. Catholic simply means “universal” - whereas “Baptist” or “Lutheran” or “Methodist” are given names to distinguish themselves from the Universal Church which Jesus Christ built… but I digress (squirrel!).
d) Hays ignores my thesis and jumps to supporting arguments I made. which are tangential.
ii) As is typical of evangelical converts to Rome, Windsor is out of touch with Catholic scholarship on his locus classicus. This, again, betrays the fact that apologists like Windsor and Armstrong remain outsiders to their adopted denomination. But here's some examples of modern Catholic scholarship on the issue at hand:
Onan is commissioned to raise seed to his brother's wife, according to the levirate law; cf.Deut 25:5-10. Oanan's offense is obvious: he selfishly refuses the responsibility of fulfilling his duty to his brother, as the law provided. That is the point of his offense. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice Hall 1990), 38.
Moreover, from the biblical author’s point of view, Onan’s sin was his refusal to fulfill the important responsibility involved in the levirate law (cf.Dt 25:5-10). New Catholic Encyclopedia (CUA, 2nd ed., 2003), 9:315b.
In common usage often taken to mean improperly completed intercourse or even masturbation. The word is taken from the story of Onan in the Book of Genesis...This was in accordance with the custom of Levirate marriage...Popular usage of the term onanism is based on the assumption that the evil for which the Lord took Onan’s life was his unchastity. This, however, is by no means clear from the text, in which his refusal to conform to the prescribed marriage custom can be seen as the wickedness that brought vengeance upon him. Consequently, no certain argument can be based upon this text to prove the sinful character of either improperly completed intercourse or masturbation. Evidence for this must be sought elsewhere. Ibid. 10:600a.
e) Again, ad hominem as "typical evangelical converts to Rome…” is unnecessary, irrelevant and
invalid argumentation.
f) Again, naming Armstrong in this discussion - who was not a party to the original discussion.
g) Irony: Hays refers to “locus classicus,” as if I am ignorant of it, and then cites a MODERN source! How about going to a “classic” source instead of the modernist commentary in the New Jerusalem Bible or the “New” Catholic Encyclopedia? I reject Mr. Hays attempt to prove “locus classicus” from “modern” commentaries (neither of which he cites has any authority). Would he like me to admit there have been some revisionists in the Catholic Church? Fine, I will admit to that, but that, however, does not change my point in the least.
h) Hays then argues that it “is by no means clear from the text” that Onan was punished for what he did and argues (as the two other respondents did) that it had more to do with his motive than what he did. I refer the reader (again) back to what the actual Scripture says Gen. 38:10 -
10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.
So back to my point, the Lord slew him, because of what he DID, not for WHY he did it. To say it was due to Onan’s motives that he was slain imputes something to the text which is simply not there. My opponents here are rationalizing that because the text also mentions the motive, that it was his motive that was the reason for his punishment - but again, the text does not say it was due to WHY he did the “detestable thing” but that he DID the “detestable thing.” My point remains unassailed. I ask the objective reader - what did Onan DO which the Lord found detestable? Don’t rationalize WHY he did it, just tell me what he DID - OK?
iii) Windsor shortsightedly excludes Onan's motivation. Yet that runs contrary to Catholic teaching on contraception, where intent is a key consideration. Conjugal relations should always be open to the possibility of conception:
2366 it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.
i) It is not “shortsighted” at all, but that being said - I do not “exclude” Onan’s motivation, in fact I agree 100% with them that this is WHY he DID what he DID - but I remind Mr. Hays, but moreso the objective reader of this discourse, that verse 10 does not say that God punished Onan because of his motive, but because of his ACT. And this is a FACT which Mr. Hays cannot get around, no matter how hard he tries.
Continuing with Windsor:
It was here that for the first time a major Protestant communion opted for some limited use of contraception, so long as the motives were not selfish, based in luxury or mere convenience. Now, honestly ask yourself, for what other reason, outside of a personal health issue, would have been considered acceptable by such limitations? Not many, if any! Yet less than 100 years later it is precisely for selfish, luxury or mere convenience reasons that contraception is practiced! Today's practices by most who participate in contraception would be condemned by the 1930 Lambeth Conference! It should be noted as well, than more than a third of the voting members of this conference voted against acceptance of the resolution.
The church of Roman supports "limited use of contraception." It simply draws a makeshift distinction between "artificial" contraception and "natural" methods of birth control.
j) Nice attempt at the Red Herring argument, Mr. Hays. How about dealing with what you quoted instead of going off on a tangent which Begs the Question? (Two invalid arguments in one statement there, Mr. Hays!). To make it easier, I’ll summarize the point Mr. Hays SHOULD have responded to… The 1930 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church was THE FIRST TIME even among Protestants that a LIMITED use of ABC (Artificial Birth Control) methods MIGHT be used IF done for the right reasons (which the conference conveniently does not define). What the Lambeth Conference DOES define are reasons NOT to partake in ABC methods - which are “selfish, luxury or mere convenience” - which are PRECISELY why MOST people participate in ABC methods today! Thus - by the standard of 1930, most who partake in ABC methods are in the wrong. How about dealing with the ACTUAL POINT, Mr. Hays?
Well, as an article inSalon puts forth, the anti-contraception movement (primarily Catholic) had not caught hold among Evangelicals, but that all changed in 2011. The "HHS Mandate" was passed on July 19, 2011 and according to Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, on July 20 said: “HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has recommended mandatory coverage for ‘emergency contraception,’ which is a euphemism for the morning-after pill, which often kills a newly conceived child by not allowing the embryo to implant on the wall of the mother’s womb.” In September of 2012 the founder of Hobby Lobby sued Kathleen Sebelius and based on the fact that his company was founded upon Christian principles, they should be exempted from the mandate.
Passage of Obamacare was made possible by support from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, colluding with Catholic politicians like Bart Stupak and Nancy Pelosi. Sebelius is another Catholic official.
k) Again, missing the point, the point is that FINALLY “Evangelicals” are coming around and re-joining Catholics in opposing ABC methods of ALL kinds.
l) To be honest, those “Catholics” you named may have a LOT to answer for when they stand before the Judgment Seat. I would not want to be in their shoes! But again, what these “Catholics” (whom I personally would consider to be CINOs, Catholic In Name Only) have done is irrelevant to the point of how “Evangelicals” are coming around on this issue. Ignoring the points does not make them go away, Mr. Hays.
While recognizing the abhorrent sins here, the Catholic Church has recognized, perhaps moreso recently than previously, that we must recognize the sinner and the sin are not the same. While the Church has more openly embraced sinners - she has not changed her position on the sinful acts and/or lifestyles. While the cliche may be a bit overused, it does ring true - "Love the sinner; hate the sin." Pope Francis relates the Church to a "field hospital," and you really can't treat those who need you if you don't first bring them into the hospital!
Well, you can read the exchange yourself and see - but essentially, I can only assume here, that those respondents are supporters of ABC and/or participants in it - and thus have a vested interest in arguing for such methods, but do they realize they are so, so much in the minority of the historic Christian viewpoint? Even among their own fore-fathers (for which they can only go back about 500 years, at best) ABC was by and large condemned. In their relatively short history, only the last (less than) 20% of their existence as protesting (Protestant) Christians can be seen as supportive of the modern (or Modernist) views on ABC. One would think this SHOULD cause them at least SOME concern!
To the contrary, Rome used to take a very different position on the nature of conception. Based on Aristotelian embryology, abortion before ensoulment wasn't deemed to be homicide. That's documented in John Noonan's classic monograph on Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (Belknap Press, enlarged edition, 1986).
By Windsor's nostalgic logic, we should return to the good old days when abortion in the first trimester wasn't classified as homicide by Rome's leading theologians and canon lawyers.
m) Mr. Hays, simply making reference to a secondary source which allegedly argues for “Rome” having a “very different position” is not valid documentation and would not be acceptable in any sort of debate forum. If you wish to challenge what I have to say, please, at least do so validly. If you have a primary source for me to consider, please present it. If the secondary source you cited is worth anything, it quoted and cited its primary sources - go to those and present them and they will be given the consideration they deserve. You entitled your response "Ensoulment" - yet your only reference to that is in this invalid citation. I repeat, if you wish to make a valid case for the Catholic position on "Ensoulment" - please begin with valid documentation.
n) While what Mr. Hays "responds" to here was a tangential point, the REAL point is that Protestantism has changed its stance on ABC methods and that even in their own (less than) 500 year history, less than 20% of that has taught ABC methods in a favorable light.
o) The response Mr. Hays quoted from me just above (in blue) also was actually getting back to the original thesis of the original article... "squirrel!"
p) I will say, the main thesis I began with "Onanism v. Homosexuality" was a bit "lost" in my responses to "rockingwithhawking" and "ANNOYED PINOY" - and I take responsibility for that "squirrel" on my part. The point there was, and was actually in agreement with "ANNOYED PINOY's" response - that homosexuality is the epitome of "spilled seed" as conception cannot occur. Both homosexuality and "Onanism" are condemned by the Lord.
q) In conclusion, I am disappointed in your response, Mr. Hays. Typically you do a lot better work, but in this “response” you have skipped over several points and when you have quoted my words, your arguments have not dealt with the topic at hand. I really had come to expect better scholarship from you.
After a bit of a discussion on Triablogue, (TB), the comparison of Onanism (Gen. 38:8-10) to homosexuality (Lev. 18:22) came up. The original presenter of the article (Steve Hays, who remained silent during the comments, at least thus far) presented a link to a PDF, which for the most part the Catholic could agree to - however, when it came to points of artificial birth control (ABC) the author left objectivity behind and took a stance which has only been made somewhat popular (in non-Catholic sects) for less than 100 years - and really didn't pick up much popularity amongst such groups until the last 50 years or so. There have been a couple more responses on TB since I started writing this article, but they (like I) are just repeating themselves which is why I decided to make a fuller response here with more detail and documentation. Prior to the Anglicans relaxing SOME restrictions on ABC methods (1930) one would be hard pressed to find ANY Christian resources supporting ABC. It would not be until the 1960's and 1970's during what is commonly called "The Sexual Revolution" - that ABC methods would become widely accepted in non-Catholic circles (and even some dissident Catholic circles too). So what happened in 1930?
Lambeth Conference of 1930 - Resolution 15 The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood,
the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and
obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be
necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of
the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly
felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a
morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference
agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the
light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong
condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives
of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. Voting: For 193; Against 67.
It was here that for the first time a major Protestant communion opted for some limited use of contraception, so long as the motives were not selfish, based in luxury or mere convenience. Now, honestly ask yourself, for what other reason, outside of a personal health issue, would have been considered acceptable by such limitations? Not many, if any! Yet less than 100 years later it is precisely for selfish, luxury or mere convenience reasons that contraception is practiced! Today's practices by most who participate in contraception would be condemned by the 1930 Lambeth Conference! It should be noted as well, than more than a third of the voting members of this conference voted against acceptance of the resolution. So what happened in the 1960's and 1970's? To be clear, the 1960's and 1970's didn't just pop out of a vacuum! Ever since the 1930's the use of ABC's amongst Anglicans increased so that by the 1958 Lambeth Conference, most Anglicans were using various forms of ABC. In less than 30 years the practice went from outright condemnation to commonplace. And so that you don't think I'm just putting my Catholic bias on this, the following comes from "thechurchofengland.org" - an official Anglican website:
By the time of the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was a
way of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to
the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and
frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of
parents 'in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife'.http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/medical-ethics-health-social-care-policy/contraception.aspx
If this weren't the reality, an objective reader might think I was using a slippery slope argument, but this IS the reality! By the time of the 1960's and 1970's the rest of Protestantism was catching up to Anglicanism and the age of "free love" was born and songs like "Don't Let Me Be Lonely Tonight" by James Taylor (1972), and "We've Got Tonight" by Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band (1978), just to name a couple, were climbing the charts and promoting sexual relationships without the committed relationship of marriage. Now, while sexual promiscuity was in epidemic proportions and use of contraception was widely accepted, not everyone used contraception and even when they did, it was not always successful, so another phenomena was developing - more and more children were being born out of wedlock. To prevent this, the crime of contraception turned even more sinister - abortion. In 1973 the landmark case of Roe V. Wade decided that it was okay to kill the innocent victim of the sexual choices of the "parents" and made it, what we Catholics consider to be murder, just another "choice" in "planned parenthood" decisions. What are many Evangelical Christians doing now? Well, as an article in Salon puts forth, the anti-contraception movement (primarily Catholic) had not caught hold among Evangelicals, but that all changed in 2011. The "HHS Mandate" was passed on July 19, 2011 and according to Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, on July 20 said: “HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has recommended mandatory coverage for ‘emergency contraception,’ which is a euphemism for the morning-after pill, which often kills a newly conceived child by not allowing the embryo to implant on the wall of the mother’s womb.” In September of 2012 the founder of Hobby Lobby sued Kathleen Sebelius and based on the fact that his company was founded upon Christian principles, they should be exempted from the mandate. The New York Times echoes the story that where once, 50 years ago, Catholics were essentially alone in the anti-contraception movement, today more and more Evangelicals are joining in. Adding to that Kathryn Joyce of the Quiverfull movement argues that Christians who forgo contraception "add children to the Lord’s army." It seems that many Evangelicals are starting to realize the error of the slippery slope which Anglicanism began (officially) in 1930 (again, not in a vacuum, as the movement was gaining steam in the 1920's among Anglicans). Which Church has officially not changed its stance on this matter? While recognizing the abhorrent sins here, the Catholic Church has recognized, perhaps moreso recently than previously, that we must recognize the sinner and the sin are not the same. While the Church has more openly embraced sinners - she has not changed her position on the sinful acts and/or lifestyles. While the cliche may be a bit overused, it does ring true - "Love the sinner; hate the sin." Pope Francis relates the Church to a "field hospital," and you really can't treat those who need you if you don't first bring them into the hospital! So what happened on Triablogue? Well, you can read the exchange yourself and see - but essentially, I can only assume here, that those respondents are supporters of ABC and/or participants in it - and thus have a vested interest in arguing for such methods, but do they realize they are so, so much in the minority of the historic Christian viewpoint? Even among their own fore-fathers (for which they can only go back about 500 years, at best) ABC was by and large condemned. In their relatively short history, only the last (less than) 20% of their existence as protesting (Protestant) Christians can be seen as supportive of the modern (or Modernist) views on ABC. One would think this SHOULD cause them at least SOME concern! Again, while this pro-contraception movement has only been part of Protestantism for the last (less than) 100 years of their (less than) 500 year existence - even there, the pendulum is beginning to swing back in the other direction. More and more Evangelicals are coming back to the position that contraception is wrong and, like Quiverfull founder says, "children add to the Lord's army."
Currently there is no decision in the case of Marlise Munoz and her unborn child. A judge has ruled that Munoz be removed from life support by 5pm Monday (tomorrow, as of this writing) but the hospital has made no decision to actually do so... yet. They are citing the precedent that since there is no written advanced directives that they are not permitted to remove life support when there is an unborn child involved.
Another report is citing evidence that the child is "abnormal" and that it has hydrocephalus (water on the brain), putting into question the health of the child.
From a Catholic perspective, whether or not the child MAY be born with "abnormalities" is not really to be part of the equation. However, it may also be argued, not taking the child into consideration, that "heroic" efforts to preserve "life" in Marlise Munoz are NOT required, from a Catholic perspective. Now, especially since "life" has apparently left Mrs. Munoz, there can be grounds for them to remove life support from her. Again, those who are supporting removal of life support due to the "distinct abnomality" of the child, are not gaining any ground - from a Catholic perspective. If the life of the child is being brought into the equation, then support must be maintained.
Life begins at conception, and this short video - just over 4 minutes long - takes us from conception to birth. It is absolutely undeniable that once conceived, there is LIFE!
How anyone could watch something like this and still consider abortion as an "alternative" is just beyond comprehension!
How About Artificial Birth Control?
Most probably don't realize it, but most forms of artificial birth control (ABC) are actually abortifacients. Why? Because most do not prevent conception! Sperm and egg still "get together" and the ABC prevents implantation in the uterine wall either chemically or by "tricking" the body into thinking it is not a fertile time, and thus this newly conceived LIFE is artificially prohibited from its NATURAL process - and it DIES.
How About Cases of Rape or Incest?
In God's timing, when we are blessed with conception - it is absolutely wrong (evil) to try to overrule what has begun. God has given to you a LIFE to love and care for! Regardless of the circumstances of how that LIFE has begun - it is not the child's fault he/she has began their existence. It is wrong (evil) to kill that child for something they are not guilty of.
[Note: This blog is directed to those who believe themselves to be good Catholics]
We learned in last week’s leaflet that Jesus instituted a
Church with authority (Mat 18:15-18).Now are we free to ignore this Church, preferring our own particular
ideas, our own preferences?In a strict
sense we are free to do as we wish BUT for those of us who are Christians, we
are most free when we follow God.
As Christians we are to follow God as Jesus taught us.We put our trust in His message and
teachings.As a famous 20th
century philosopher once said: “To trust
Him means, of course, trying to do all that He says.There would be no sense in saying you trusted
a person if you would not take his advice.”(C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)
Jesus advised us to listen to His Church when He told us to
bring our disagreements to it in Mat 18.Specifically, He told the apostles to tell it to the Church and if they
will not listen to the Church then we are to treat them as though they are
lost.Jesus said: “tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church,
treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.Truly I tell
you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose
on earth will beloosed in heaven.”
And so we see that Jesus’ advice in determining the truth is
to go to His Church.On matters of faith
and morals we also know that whatever the Church proclaims to be true is
infallibly known to be true since Jesus said that whatever the Church binds on
earth will be bound in heaven.Since
nothing untrue can be bound in heaven means that whatever the Church binds on
earth must also be true.
Now, if you are aware of a Church teaching defined as true
and binding but reject it anyway then you are freely going against the advice
of Jesus as well as rejecting the authority of His Church.If all these conditions are met, that is
first, that you are aware of the binding authority of His Church and secondly
freely reject it, which is a very grave matter, then you are rejecting the rightful
authority given to His Church by God Himself.You are perpetrating a mortal sin.
Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches in the
necessity of keeping the Sabbath day Holy by going to Mass on Sunday?If you are aware of this and freely neglect
to go without good reason then you are committing a mortal sin.
Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches on the
grave matter of artificial contraception usage to be against the moral
law?If you are aware of this teaching
of the Church and yet freely use artificial contraception anyway then you are
committing a mortal sin.
Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches that
human life is sacred and to be protected?If you were aware of this and also aware of the extreme abortion views of
one political candidate while the only other candidate opposing him clearly had
a better life-affirming stand but voted for the one with the extreme abortion
proponent anyway then you committed a mortal sin.
Please, examine your conscience before receiving our Lord in
the Eucharist.Are you guilty of mortal
sin?If you are then I urge you to go to
confession before receiving the Eucharist since you would be “guilty of sinning against the body and blood
of the Lord.” (1 Cor 1:27)
