Information: What is the Catholic Church's Stance on Abortion?

Most people are aware that the Catholic Church opposes abortion. If you were not aware of this, now you are! Let's get into some of what I found online concerning this topic. Please feel free to send along questions or to ask for clarification!

A popular internet program generated the following response:

The Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, viewing it as a grave moral evil. The Church teaches that human life is sacred from the moment of conception and that every human being has a right to life. The Church also teaches that abortion is a grave sin and that those who participate in it, whether directly or indirectly, are morally responsible for the death of the unborn child. The church also teaches that there are no circumstances that can justify an abortion, and it is a grave sin which incurs automatic excommunication. The Church also encourages alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and supports programs and organizations that provide assistance to pregnant women in need.

I would consider this to be an accurate representation of the Church's position. 

I went on to ask this system the Church's position on abortion in the case of rape. Here's what it had to say:

The Catholic Church teaches that every human life is sacred from the moment of conception and that abortion is always gravely immoral. However, the Church also recognizes that the circumstances surrounding a pregnancy, such as rape, can be very complex and difficult. In the case of rape, the Church teaches that the sin is committed by the rapist and not the victim. Therefore the victim of the rape cannot be held morally responsible for an unwanted pregnancy resulting from the rape.

The Church encourages compassion and pastoral care for victims of rape and their families, and recognizes that the decision to continue or end a pregnancy in such circumstances can be a difficult one. However, the Church also stresses that there are alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, that should be considered and supported. The Church also encourages all who have been involved in an abortion, whatever the circumstances, to seek forgiveness and healing through the sacrament of Reconciliation.

Again, not a bad response. I like how it adds many things about compassion and that the Church understands the situation is difficult. This is very true. The Catholic Church isn't just a law-giving entity, it's the Church established by Christ to give not only moral direction but also the Love of God to the Children of God.

One issue I had with the response was that there may be some level of confusion in the way that the answer is phrased that might make people think in the case of rape, the Church's position on abortion somehow changes, which it doesn't. It would be just as opposed.

One thing I often think about when it comes to abortion in the case of rape is that people often speak as though the abortion will somehow nullify the rape or erase its effects. The truth is the rape took place and it's horrendous and terrible, but whatever happens after that will not change the fact that it occurred and the woman must endure this. It's a very sad and difficult situation and having an abortion will not change that.

Something I also often say is that if you cannot justify killing a 1 year old for a particular reason, then you cannot justify killing an unborn child for that same reason. If both are human then the same considerations must apply. However, if the unborn child is not human then no justification is required.

Please attach any questions you may have!

Will Social Media Giants Shut Down Catholic Content?

I have written in this blog for many years, in fact starting over 15 years ago. There have been periods where I have written very little, but over the past several months, I have re-committed myself to adding content and updates to this website. A recent project of mine has been posting the daily Mass readings. I have missed a few days, but I will try to be fully consistent.

Over the last little while I have started to worry how far cancel culture will go. My blog is about Catholicism and my personal experience of being a Catholic. I don't just write things that are inflammatory on purpose. I seek to clarify and elaborate on Catholic teaching as it applies to many things. It could apply the teachings of the Church to society, media, technology, etc. and also provide my own opinion informed by my faith.

I am becoming rather concerned that this information will become more and more difficult to publish as more things which were once considered the norm are being considered attacks and hate messaging. Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and dozens of other media outlets are cracking down big time on people espousing traditional morality which happens to differ from "new moralities" that developed in the last 5 years. It's becoming a very crazy world.

As of right now, simply indicating that your content provides a Catholic point of view does not mean an automatic shut down of your content. However, if you overstep the ever-changing boundaries, it's very likely that your website or content will be shut down. However, I feel that will change very soon. The Catholic Church differs with the world on dozens of issues, and it's only a matter of time before social media giants decide that essentially anything related to Catholicism must be banned, especially if it touches on morality.

One of the main areas of disagreement between the Church and the world is on the topic of sexuality. The Church is very clear: sexuality is exclusively between a married man and woman. It's as simple as that. Anything outside of this is illicit. Well, this flies in the face of secular teaching on this subject. Previously, this would be treated as a difference of opinion which was allowable. No longer. Now, believing what the Church believes on these issues is to the world a hate crime. You are attacking other people simply by believing in a more restricted definition of marriage and sexuality. The allegation now is that words are violence. It's not a matter of differences of opinion anymore. Anyone not towing the party line are seen as violent word attackers who must be squelched. 

I think part of the problem is that the leftist secular world doesn't really have any good arguments, so instead of fighting words with words, they try to ban certain opinions and words.

I don't think anything should be taken for granted. You can't assume that just because you are part of the largest group of the largest religion in the world that your opinions will e allowed or even legal.

The main thing is we need courage. Christians have faced much worse than we currently face. But things could continue to get worse and worse. Already we are seeing in some places like Scotland it is becoming illegal to express certain viewpoints, to have certain opinions, even in your own home. A Canadian man was recently put in prison for calling his daughter his daughter. Things seem to be escalating each and every day.

My advice is to have a plan. Do you make a living online through a blog or through content of some sort? Do you write for a newspaper? Whatever the case may be, how will you survive if the mainstream is completely opposed to what you do? Think about these things now. Things might possibly get better, but you have to prepare for the worst.

I don't write this to be negative, I write it as a warning so people can prepare. God bless all the readers of this blog. For my part, I will perhaps be soon moving to my own domain name. I will keep you posted. Thank you for your continued support.

What does the Catholic Church mean by Unitive?

My friends and I were having our weekly catechism discussion and this past week concerned the 6th commandment against adultery. It was mentioned in our discussion that in order for a sexual act to be morally valid and licit, it would have to be three things:

• Procreative
• Unitive
• Marital

My friend would give examples of sexual expression and ask whether they met the three conditions listed above.

During this exercise, a question came up for me which was how does the Church define "unitive". I had assumed that unitive meant two married people uniting in the sacrament of marriage. Therefore, it would have to be open to life, non-contracepting, between a married couple.

It seems I was wrong.

I looked around and no one was really providing a good definition of what constituted "unitive". However, I eventually ran across an article written by theologian Ronald L. Conte Jr. In the article, he goes on to explain what constitutes unitive and basically answers objections to this line of reasoning.

I was surprised to find out that a sexual act can be unitive even if it involves contraception or even if it occurs outside of marriage. Of course, as mentioned, not one, but all three of the above conditions must be met in order for an act to be morally valid. However, just because some of the conditions are not met, does not automatically mean they aren't all met.

I guess logically this makes sense. If this were the case, there would not be three conditions, only one or two. In other words, unitive could just simply be an aspect of procreative if it was implied in the definition.

So what is the answer? Unitive simply means a sexual act involving a man and a woman. This could be between a married couple that is contracepting or between a man and a prostitute. To bolster this idea, Ronald L Conte Jr. quotes St. Paul in the Book of 1 Corinthians 6:15 when he says:

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.”

St. Paul is saying that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes on body with her, i.e. it is unitive. It doesn't make it right, but that one aspect is fulfilled.

In terms of married couples who contracept, this too would be considered unitive. To show how this is the case, Mr. Conte quotes from Humanae Vitae, which came after the Second Vatican Council, in 1968. I will also quote what Mr. Conte had to say about it:

The Vademecum for Confessors: “Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund.” [n. 13]

Here the Holy See calls contracepted marital sex “the unitive act”. It could not be called by that term if contraception deprived sex of its unitive meaning.

Mr. Conte explains it well. It would be illogical to call an act unitive if it wasn't. It's quite simple. And the act they are referring to is a contracepted marital act. Therefore, the Church would consider such an act to remain unitive.

However, are all sexual acts unitive? Of course not. Unitive sexual acts must involve a man and a woman engaging in intercourse. Homosexual acts are not unitive, nor is self-pollution (masturbation). The latter is obvious since an act involving one person obviously cannot be unitive. The former is not unitive, however the exact reason why not I am not sure. It could simply be because the real definition of sex is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. It's sufficient to say that homosexual acts fulfill none of the three criteria.

I hope this clarifies things for people. Please comment if you have any comments or questions.

What does Joe Biden's Presidency Mean for Catholics?

First we must get something straight. Catholic politicians cannot simply put aside their beliefs as a Catholic when entering into the political arena. That is simply not an option. For major moral issues that everyone agrees on, this is an obvious statement of fact. If a politician were to say "I'm personally opposed to killing innocent people for no reason, but I'm not going to try to pass a law outlawing it!" most people would be shocked and dismayed.

Yet when it comes to controversial issues, there seems to be confusion. This is because of several distortions, but basically our morality comes from God, and God established his one true Church which is the Catholic Church and therefore the moral law is complete within the Catholic Church. Purposely violating any of these moral laws is a sin. It doesn't matter if an issue is controversial or whether or not others agree with you. You either believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church and follow them no matter what your role or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose.

We must now look at Joe Biden and some of the things he has promised with regards to being president. We will see that his presidency will not be good for the Catholic Faith. On top of the commitments that Biden has already made, we can conjecture as to other paths this president may take. Remember, some people are accused of slippery slope thinking, but who would have thought a year ago that the actual president of the United States would be banned from virtually all forms of social media while still in office? Who would have thought that credit card companies would stop conservative groups from using their payment system? If anyone had predicted these things, they'd be termed a conspiracy theorist, and an extreme one at that. So to just simply notice where things are heading isn't some kind of reckless activity.

Now on to the specifics. Much of the information that I will use for this article comes from a great article written by Peter Wolfgang for the Catholic Herald, which can be found here. I highly encourage you to check it out. But, as a loyal fan of this blog (obviously!) I would love for you to keep reading!

In the linked article from Mr. Wolfgang, he says the following:

He moved heaven and earth to put three originalist judges on the U.S. Supreme Court in four years and appointed hundreds more to other federal courts. He allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood, he defunded the pro-abortion U.N. Population Fund, he restored and expanded the Mexico City policy, he protected groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor against oppressive Obamacare rules, and he supported the nuns in their Supreme Court fight. He implemented the Protect Life Rule, which prohibits federal funds from going to facilities that perform on-site abortions.

Those are positive actions taken by Mr. Trump during his presidency which Joe Biden will seek, to the best of his ability, to undo as soon as possible. Donald Trump was the most pro-life president the United States has ever had. How can I make such a bold statement? Well I think it's probably true since prior to the 1970s, practically everyone thought abortion was wrong anyway. So to say they were anti-abortion or pro-life prior to that would simply mean they were normal people with normal morality.

The difference with Donald Trump is that he was pro-life in an era when doing so is politically and socially dangerous. It's not a topic for which there is automatic agreement among the masses. If he wanted to advance his political career more, he could have been a more standard pro-life-by-default Republican. But he wasn't. He went out of his way to speak about life issues, to defend the innocent. He spoke, in person, at the March for Life - the first time ever for a president.

With Biden, this goes out the window. He is blatantly ignoring his Church's teachings and will seek to increase access to abortion, rather than limit it.

Biden says he will not allow an exception for the Little Sisters of the Poor in the case of paying for abortion and artificial contraception. Think about that for a minute. He will not let a group of nuns with a vow of poverty to not pay for something they are morally opposed to. I can't believe anyone thinks that's okay.

Biden is obviously looking to end the Mexico City Policy which is an American policy of not giving foreign aid to groups in other countries who perform abortion. Basically not funding abortion abroad. If you read the misleading critics, they will claim that by banning this funding you are doing all kinds of other harm. That's an invalid moral argument and meant to muddy the moral waters.

Trump has done innumerable good things when it comes to preventing or slowing down abortion. Biden seems set to abandon them all.

When it comes to free speech and freedom of religion, Trump was one of the best modern-day presidents. Biden, in line with Democrat policies, will crack down on speech he disagrees with and will be a major threat to religious freedom.

In virtually any area that a serious Catholic cares about, Biden is set to make things much worse.

Some people bring up the detention camps on the border and the overall policies concerning refugees as reasons why Catholics should favor Biden. There are many issues with this proposition. First of all, the camps on the border (that were set up by Obama) are not torture chambers, they are processing facilities for people illegally entering into the country without permission.

Think what you will about these facilities, it is not a specific Catholic moral issue. There is legitimate debate about immigration policy. Catholic teaching has things to say about it, but it's not a cut-and-dry case such as with abortion, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Some people seem to think unless the US allows anyone and everyone into the country without question, Catholics must oppose it. This is simply not the case which is affirmed by centuries of writings by saints and theologians.

We have no idea how bad things can get. The plans which have already been announced by Biden are frightening and it will only get worse from here. Catholics have good reason to not be welcoming to a Joe Biden administration.

Being Humble Can Be Tough but Rewarding

Full disclaimer: I'm no expert in humility. Anyone who's known me for more than 5 seconds knows this. However, it's something I have become interested in and wanted to just briefly discuss. How can humility be beneficial, how does it set one free?

I often think about things, I internalize things people say and events. I sometimes run things through my head many times over and over. I can become upset, angry, or other emotions when contemplating these events and situations. These feelings throw me off. I become focused on them and often try to resolve them in some way. If someone said something which made me uncomfortable, maybe I have to somehow talk to that person or let them know. Maybe I have to smooth things over. Maybe I have to doublecheck what they meant by what they said.

Many people can probably relate to this way of thinking. Another issue I sometimes face is embarrassment or awkwardness, which is related to the first thing mentioned. I don't want to say the wrong things or come across the wrong way. I don't want to leave a bad impression. Perhaps I don't want to look bad in front of fellow Catholics or I fear my reputation is being injured.

These thoughts often occupy the minds of many people in our world. We have fear, stress, anxiety, depression caused by these thoughts and fears. We feel the need to constantly defend ourselves and to appear well-adjusted, competent, and liked by those around us. Our egos are easily bruised and we are constantly on the defensive. We rarely listen to the advice of others as it will make us appear weak or pathetic.

Fortunately I have a cure. In a word: humility.

I know humility is often talked about by the saints but I think at some point I just realized the immensity of this powerful virtue. Most saints and theologians classify humility as the most important virtue as it counteracts the most dangerous: Pride.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux said the three most important virtues are: Humility, Humility, and Humility.

One of the insights I have had about humility is that it is very liberating. How? Well one way is to look at situations which could be potentially embarrassing, uncomfortable, etc, as opportunities to grow in humility. Humility is about understanding our place. God is so much greater than us, and we have sinned so often in the past, yet God in his greatest is willing to forgive us of our sins as much as we ask. Who are we to think we are great and important? God has given us everything in our lives. If he can give us everything, and Jesus Christ died for our sins, who are we to think we are so important.

In terms of the definition of humility, I offer the Catholic Encyclopedia entry:

The virtue of humility may be defined: "A quality by which a person considering his own defects has a lowly opinion of himself and willingly submits himself to God and to others for God's sake." St. Bernard defines it: "A virtue by which a man knowing himself as he truly is, abases himself." These definitions coincide with that given by St. Thomas: "The virtue of humility", he says, "Consists in keeping oneself within one's own bounds, not reaching out to things above one, but submitting to one's superior" (Summa Contra Gent., bk. IV, ch. lv, tr. Rickaby).

Without God we would be nothing, we would have nothing, we would not even exist. Our past sinful actions have merited us hell, yet God has lovingly rescued us. Who are we to puff out our chests and think we are something so important?

By being humble, we allow God to work through us. We can be lead in the ways God wishes us to be, we serve one another, and we are willing to be corrected. No one can exhibit more humility than Jesus Christ himself who although God, chose to become man and be subjected to our tortures and punishments. Jesus Christ died for our sins, we owe him everything.

On a practical level, I have found that when I do try to be humble it is extremely freeing. If you see situations as opportunities for humility or other virtues, then you don't worry so much about others' opinion of you, you take alleged insults or slights as constructive criticism. You ask yourself the person who said these things has a point. If they do not, you ignore it. If they do have a point, you try to implement what they've said.

Some saints have become known for their great humility. St. Thomas Aquinas, known as the Angelic Doctor, and probably the top theologian in the Church was so humble that in class, he rarely spoke and was labeled as the dumb ox. His brilliance was hardly known to those around him. He humbly let others speak before him. He did not try to build his reputation or appear to be qualified and competent.

St. Thomas spoke so little that his teacher assigned him a tutor as the teacher did not know if Thomas was even comprehending what was being taught. During the first lesson, when conversing with the tutor, the tutor recognized the towering intellect of St. Thomas to the point where he requested they reverse roles.

Another example of humility comes again from St. Thomas Aquinas, but this time it was his contemporary St. Bonaventure who showed this virtue. Here is the story (from http://www.catholickingdom.com/People/Dominique/Archive/inline/FF_17.html):

It was 1264 when Pope Urban IV instituted the Feast of Corpus Christi, (this title comes from the Latin, meaning the Body of Christ). The pope wanted a special Mass and office written especially for this new important feast of the Holy Eucharist. It was this difficult and essential task that was appointed to both Sts. Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas. The holy father reserved to himself the right of choosing which of these two great men’s writings would be used.

So on the appointed day, both Saints, each with his manuscript under his arm, came before the Vicar of Christ. St. Thomas was to go first, and kneeling before the pope, began to read what he had written. Both Pope Urban IV and St. Bonaventure listened with tears of emotion to the beautiful work of this Saint. And while St. Thomas was still reading, St. Bonaventure turned aside and tore his manuscript into small pieces. When St. Bonaventure's turn came, he admitted what he had done and told them that he was no longer in possession of his manuscript. St. Bonaventure explained that he considered St. Thomas’ work alone worthy to be used at the Most Holy Feast, therefore making it unnecessary to take his own poor work into account.

And for centuries now on the feast of Corpus Christi, within every Catholic church is heard that heavenly hymn written by the hand of St. Thomas Aquinas. And while no one will ever know what inspiring prayer St. Bonaventure wrote, we do know one thing. While God is greatly glorified and pleased with the great work of St. Thomas Aquinas, He is equally glorified and pleased with the great humility of St. Bonaventure.

So when you hear the "Tantum Ergo" or the "O Salutaris Hostia," (excerpts from what St. Thomas wrote for the feast of Corpus Christi), remember the humble act performed by St. Bonaventure who desired that this feast be the most beneficial to the Catholic Church and give the greatest glory to God. 

With humility we are focused on God's will, not our own. If someone hurts us, we focus more on the harm that does to our enemy than to ourselves. I feel like many saints had this point of view. Jesus himself, from what I can see, was far more concerned about the spiritual welfare of those around him than he was to any perceived slight. He let personal attacks slide, like a lamb led to the slaughter he did not even speak a word. Yet, when people were in spiritual danger to themselves, Christ spoke in the most unreserved and direct ways. Remember "Get behind me Satan". He did not mince words.

So let's keep humility in mind. Think of specific ways you can grow in humility. Over time you will realize how freeing it can be.

Choosing between two evils

A common idea when it comes to morality is choosing between two evils. Often times though, we just like to think there are only two choices when in fact there are more, and some do not involve evil at all.

I could be misquoting here, but I thought I heard somewhere that John Paul II said when choosing between two evils, choose neither. All too often, we incorrectly place a decision as being between two possible evils, but these circumstances are very rare.

I was just reading the biography of St. George who lived during the time of Diocletian. He belonged to a wealthy and noble Roman family.

Diocletian was one of the greatest opponents of Christianity and under his reign was the greatest persecution of Christians. He issued an edict saying that all soldiers must pay homage to the Roman gods. Of course, George, a Christian, refused.

Diocletian knew George and wanted him to worship these deities. The emperor did not want to punish George and offered him land, wealth, and power. All he needed from George was for him to worship these false gods. George refused and was subsequently tortured, and never abandoning his faith, was finally killed.

How many people in our modern day, perhaps sadly even including me, would see this as an option between two evils? One evil, being killed by the emperor and worshiping a false god. Then many would conclude that it's better to just worship this false god and live because then we can do other things like charitable work, etc.

But St. George chose not to participate in evil. That's the point. Evil may be done to him, but he will have nothing to do with it.

The amount of good St. George did because of his choice is incalculable. Many were converted at the time and today he is the patron saint of many countries. Legends have developed around him such as him slaying a dragon, which represents his triumph over evil.

Had he chose instead to do what the emperor wanted, he may have helped a couple of people a little here and there, but then he would have had a very tiny impact. It is doubtful anyone would know him today.

All too often, we put our own selfish desires above the truth. We justify our actions instead of choosing good.

Let's give everything to God.

Bad Argument Type #1: Practical or Pragmatic Considerations

I wanted to analyze some argument types that I find unappealing. Today I will focus on practical or pragmatic arguments. They are quite popular, but ultimately they are quite weak. Since this subject is rather abstract, I will attempt to use examples to help clarify.

Practical or pragmatic arguments typically ignore moral or ethical considerations and focus on more immediate considerations. But without a moral basis, the arguments are on shaky ground as new evidence could potentially remove their validity. In other words, the nature of the practical considerations could change to something favourable and thus eliminate it as an opposing factor.

As I said in the beginning, I think examples will be essential. A popular topic on this blog is abortion. I will show here how a practical or pragmatic approach to this question is a poor choice, even though at first it may seem appealing.

One approach to the abortion debate has been to show the harm it causes to women. Pro-life activists will say abortion causes emotional distress on women which can last for many years. They say the guilt can be very difficult to bear. On top of these emotional issues, they point out the physical ramifications, including the possibility of a "botched" abortion, or effects in the future such as increased cancer risk. While these may be true, I believe this approach may ultimately fail.

There are several reasons why this is not the best approach. First of all, abortion is very common. It is in fact the most common medical procedure out there, or something along those lines. A lot of people know women who have had abortions. Many of them do not experience physical or psychological issues after their abortion. I do not believe even the majority do. It could be as low as 10-20%. Therefore, by presenting those as arguments against abortion, someone would only have to be reassured that such effects are rare. The person would then be an advocate for abortion once again.

On top of this, as medical science advances, it would perhaps become possible that even fewer women would experience negative effects, thus weakening the arugment even further. Further, people who use this argument are in a precarious situation. I've heard people say that all women experience negative effects after an abortion. They say that those who claim not to are simply denying the truth, or being dishonest. But this position reeks of conspiracy theory. It cannot be disproven because those in the know are presumed to be lying.

Another weakness of this argument is that it makes women the absolute focus, without considering the baby. This is exactly where the pro-choice side wants people to be. Once the focus is exclusively on the women considering an abortion, the pro-life side cannot win. The focus must remain on the unborn child.

The best argument is a moral one from the point of view of the life of the child. There is a unique, individual child with all his DNA indicating his hair colour, personality, and other characteristics, etc. Often by the time women realize they are pregnant, the child is advanced in development including heart beat and brain waves. But most of all, there is a unique individual being considered. This fact cannot be lessened through medical science. Science will never find a way to reduce the personhood of this child through some objective means in the same way as the negative impacts on a woman can be.

The sanctity of life is a philosophical and theological argument that maintains its full force in any circumstance.

There are other areas as well where using practical or pragmatic arguments can be advantageous but often are unsustainable into the future.

A second example is pornography. I was reading some newspaper articles from the 1960s about pornography. Back then it was a VERY shady undertaking. It was thoroughly illegal and there was great public fear about it. At the same time, it was already a big business. One of the fears that came about was that if men were exposed to pornography, they would become violent, perhaps killers or rapists. Therefore, it was said, pornography must be stopped.

This again is a poor argument. It is in fact even used today, but some are claiming the opposite is true. They say that because of the availability of pornography, men who would ordinarily be rapists have instead fulfilled their illicit desires through pornography. Thus, violent sexual crime has decreased because of porn. If this is true, the original argument is completely destroyed. Does this now mean that pornography is neutral or even good? Well, according to the pragmatic approach, then yes. That's why it's a bad argument.

It may be more immediately impactful to say that porn will turn men into violent rapists, but in the long run, it is a rather ineffective argument. A better argument is again a philosophical one. Porn is bad because it strips the good of sex and instead of being used to unify spouses, it is used for personal gratification, thus rendering the user selfish. It also makes women into objects and men forget about reciprocal love. This selfishness then leads to a deterioration of intimacy and love. That argument cannot be eliminated because it remains true.

There are many more situations where we are tempted to use pragmatic or practical arguments when defending a truth, but it is very important to know the philosophical basis behind a viewpoint. This is not to say practical considerations should not be used. I think if the information is correct, then it can be quite valuable. However, I think it is always essential to know the basis behind a moral argument.

Top 6 reasons Quebec is wasting resources on IVF

Quebec's health care system is currently struggling. Important surgeries are sometimes postponed for months or years because of lack of funding. For example, in 1997, in a 4-3 decision in the province, the court ruled that making someone wait for a year for hip replacement violated the patient's rights. Because of this, private health care has been allowed in some cases.

The average wait time for medical procedures in the province of Quebec is around 18.7 weeks. That's about 4 months. People often wait in misery for these procedures, which in the United States could possibly take just a week on average.

Despite the constant strain on Quebec's medical system, they are now opting to provide a completely unnecessary medical procedure at taxpayers' expense. The Quebec government wants to start paying for in-vitro fertilization. This is a big mistake and here are six reasons why:

1. It is unnecessary
In-vitro fertilization procedures are ALWAYS optional. No one's life is going to be put at risk because they cannot have an embryo implanted in their womb. Therefore is it superfluous and unnecessary for people's health.

2. Those seeking IVF can afford it
The typical candidate for in-vitro fertilization are older women who have placed their priority for a career first and now that they are established are seeking to have a child to complete the picture. I'm not saying this is always the case, but it often is. Most of the people in this category can afford to pay for this procedure, and if it's going to be legal, it should be kept private like it already is.

3. Wasting Resources
The main point of my article is that resources are being wasted on this procedure. Money is being spent on IVF when it could be used to save lives through transplants, important surgeries, etc. The budget is already very thin, and with IVF being funded wait times will only increase for life-saving procedures. I heard that a single round of IVF costs at least $10,000. I'm not sure how many rounds the government of Quebec is planning on covering, but as you can see it is rather expensive.

4. It is immoral
There are many reasons why IVF is immoral. First of all, it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality. A child is no longer conceived in the loving embrace of his parents, but in a glass petri dish of a scientist's lab. On top of this, since gay marriage is recognized in Quebec, as is sperm and ovum donation, many gay people will be availing of IVF treatments to get pregnant and taxpayers will have to support it. We will be creating so many families where children are not raised by their real parents but by intruders.

Another big issue is that usually more embryos than necessary are created. These "unnecessary" embryos are then either destroyed or used for experimentation. Embryos are human lives and must be treated with respect, not killed or experimented on.

5. IVF is Risky
We know from research that IVF is far more risky than normal pregnancy. Think about it. A man ejaculates millions upon millions of sperm and only one reaches the egg and fertilizes it. There is a reason there are so many sperm. It is to make sure only the very best reaches the egg. But how can a scientist looking through his microscope determine which is the best? He cannot. Nature has perfected the procreative process and we do not know better. That is why there are more risks for medical issues associated with IVF babies than those in the general population.

6. Adoption is a better option
There are many kids out there without a home, including in Quebec. The government should be spending its money on increasing the efficiency of the adoption process so more of these children can find good homes.

Conclusion:
Many people are living in a me-me-me frame of mind. They create an image in their head of the ideal family and go to any length to achieve it. Maybe a better idea would be to ask what God's plan is in their life and go by that.

The following article gives some good insight into the moral dilemmas of In-Vitro Fertilization:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0059.html

Must we love Hitler?

Christ tells us to love our enemies. He said you have heard it said to love those who are your friends, however, Jesus points out that even evil people do this. We, as Christians, are held to a higher standard. But do we have to “love” Hitler, for example, or anyone who does evil? How is this possible?

Usually the answer people who ask this question receive is that we must love the sinner, but hate the sin. But what does this look like in real life? If a man kills someone close to us, how must we treat him? Do we say, “I really hate what you did, but as a person, I have much love toward you.” Must we be this person's friend? Should we visit him and send birthday cards? Isn't this what we do for people we love? How it is indeed even possible to love someone like this? Must we completely go against every instinct in our bodies in order to “love” someone even though in reality we dislike this person immensely? I do not think we do. I think the love Jesus was talking about was a particular type.

I believe the Christian message is that we must love one another, regardless of who the “other” is. But I think this is a specific type of love. In the Bible, there are three types of love. There is brotherly love, which we have for our siblings and relatives, there is eros, which is love between close people such as spouses, and then there is agape, the greatest type of love. This goes beyond feelings. This love means we hope for the ultimate salvation of someone. We pray that they will be united with God and be drawn close to him. But it does not entail a warm fuzzy feeling inside, necessarily. This is the issue I believe for most people when it comes to this issue. Let's use the Hitler example again. A proper type of love to display toward Hitler would be to hope for his eternal salvation with God, however we can still be extremely angry and upset about his actions. If he went to shake your hand, you can refuse, you do not need to smile at him, or talk to him. You can even seek to bring him to justice. We cannot however hope that he ends up in Hell or that he turns away from God and opposes him. We must still hope for his eternal salvation.

Is this difficult? Sometimes extremely, but Christ's message is rarely easy. I think the distinction being made here is a very important one. Of course we must love the sinner, and hate the sin, but we also do not need to be best friends with someone who does evil. We must help them if they accept help, we must practice Christian virtue with them as with everyone, and we must hope for their eternal salvation, but we needn't go with them to the baseball game.

Unusual Baptism Involving Lemon Cola (this is not an April Fool's Joke!)

In Norway, interesting news has emerged that a baby was baptized with lemon cola, instead of the obviously usual water. Apparently this was done because the water pipes had frozen and they could not get any water for the sacrament. I do not know what denomination this was, as the story does not indicate this. They only mention that there was a priest, named Paal Dale, who did the baptism.

It seems statistically probable that the priest is of the national Church of Norway, in which case he would not be Catholic. 83% of the population belong to the national church.

How does this action square with Catholic teaching on baptism? Well, surprisingly it could be valid given certain circumstances. First of all, no water could be available with which to perform the baptism. Secondly, the baby would have to be in some kind of proximate danger of death. A substance other than water in baptism should not be used if there is not a serious reason. Since I do not know the circumstances of this baptism, I cannot say if it followed to rules or not.

Another interesting piece of information is that although this was not done in a Catholic Church, if it was validly done and in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then it would be considered valid, and if the child was to later become Catholic, he would not have to be baptized again. If, however lemon cola was used and it was not necessary, they may opt to do a conditional baptism, which basically says we are not 100% certain that the baby was baptized, but if not, we will now. If he was baptized already, this "new" baptism will not have an additional effect, but if he was not correctly baptized the first time, this will bring him into the Body of Christ. If a priest is not available, anyone can validly baptize a baby and, in fact, should.

To get more detail on the use of liquids other than water for baptism, I went to Catholic.com, and found a Question and Answer which referenced the Code of Canon Law. It states the following:

The code of canon law explains that "true, clean, and natural water" is necessary for baptism (canon 849). Liquids can be assessed in three categories: Those that are certainly valid, those that are doubtfully valid, and those that are certainly invalid.

Certainly valid liquids include water as found in rivers, oceans, lakes, hot springs, melted ice or snow, mineral water, dew, slightly muddy water (as long as the water predominates), and slightly brackish water.

Doubtfully valid liquids are those that are a mixture of water and some other substance, such as beer, soda, light tea, thin soup or broth, and artificially scented water such as rose water.The last category is of liquids which are certainly invalid. It includes oil, urine, grease, phlegm, shoe polish, and milk.

The rule of thumb is that, in emergency situations, you should always try to baptize with certainly valid liquids, beginning with plain, clean water. If plain water isn't available, baptize with a doubtfully valid liquid using the formula, "If this water is valid, I baptize you in the name of the Father. . ." If the danger of death passes, the person should later be conditionally baptized with certainly valid water. Never attempt to baptize anyone with a certainly invalid liquid.

The link to this Catholic Answers Q&A can be found here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9211qq.asp

Here is the full Lemon Cola Baptism story from Reuters (on Yahoo):

Tue Mar 31, 2:22 PM

OSLO (Reuters) - A Norwegian church used lemon-flavored cola instead of water in a baptism ceremony after its taps were temporarily turned off because of freezing temperatures, daily Vaart Land said Tuesday.

Priest Paal Dale from the town of Stord, about 150 miles west of the capital Oslo, improvised during a recent cold-spell by dabbing the lemon fizzy water on a baby during a baptism ceremony, it said.

"It had gone flat," Dale was quoted as saying by the newspaper. "Only the lemon smell made this unusual."

Dale said the child's family were informed about the switch only after the ceremony because the priest "had a need to inform" them about the lingering lemon scent.

"They didn't say much, but I assumed they smelled the aroma as well," Dale told Vaart Land.
(Reporting by Wojciech Moskwa)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090331/odds/odd_us_baptism

Obama Nation? More like Abomination!

Every day we hear more news from the US concerning Obama's decisions. It seems like he sits down and asks how he can violate Catholic doctrine every move he makes. It almost seems too coincidental to be true. Here is a quick list of some of the stuff Obama has done:

1. Vowed to sign the Freedom Of Choice Act (or FOCA), which would make abortion a constitutional right which would be codified at the federal level. It would erase any good laws concerning abortion and any progress made by the pro-life movement in the past 35 years or so since Roe vs. Wade in the United States.

2. Obama will eliminate funding for sexual-abstinence-only programs. Instead he will promote sex before marriage, the use of contraception and abortafacients, abortion, etc. This programming of course will only lead to more STDs, infidelity, and abortion.

3. Obama has allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Now babies will be brought into existence to be used as medical research tools. Using human persons as medical research tools is very contrary to divine law. It makes a person a mere object to be used by those who are physically stronger.

4. Obama has said that his worst decision as a politician was to support Terri Schiavo in her struggle for life. Terri was mentally hanicapped. She only required food and water to survive. She was not brain dead, she was fully alive with disabilities. Her husband wanted to her to be left to die. Her family said they would take care of her and pay all her expenses, but the judge decided to side with Terri's husband and let her die. Terri died of starvation after all food was refused her. No, she did not die because a machine stopped pumping her heart or because her lungs were not being artifically inflated. She died of dehydration, just like anyone would if denied food and water for an extended period of time. The Rule of Threes states that people cannot generally survive more than 3 days without water. Most the time it can be a week or 11 days. Terri lived for 12 or 13 days after being denied all food and water. She was left to thirst to death.

The list goes on. Obama has heralded the culture of death like no President before him. He has taken a somewhat cowardly path. He chooses to destroy the lives of the defendless. Instead of slaughtering people who can fight for themselves, he goes after the weakest and most vulnerable.

Let us pray that like Bernard Nathanson, who started NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, Obama will see the errors of his ways and plot a new course for life. Although Nathanson performed thousands of abortions, he is now one of the top spokespeople against that industry and he promotes the cause of the Pro-life movement. Let us hope that Obama will see the light and work toward a society that cares about its most vulnerable.

The Seal Hunt and Catholic Thinking

Protests over animal rights have grown louder and louder in recent years. Many believe killing animals for any reason is immoral. Others believe using animals for fur goes too far. Some seem to be against only killing certain types of animals. Do any of these positions make sense, and should Catholics have any concern for animals, and to what degree?

Recently one of the main protests for animals has been over the seal hunt. The seal hunt takes place annually in Newfoundland and other parts of Canada. In Newfoundland there are around 500,000 people, but there are approximately 5.5 million seals. That means there are about 11 seals for every man, woman, and child in the province. Trying to imagine a herd of 5.5 million animals is very difficult. These seals are slaughtered, sometimes with gaffs, long sticks with a hook on them. According to DFO, this method kills the animals quickly and efficiently.

Why do people protest the seal hunt more than other animal killings? I believe there are several key reasons.

1) 99% of the world have nothing to do with seals. They are a foreign animal that have little relevance to people. Therefore, seeking to end the seal hunt will have no effect on most peoples' lives. Compare this to protests against eating chicken. Most people eat chicken, so people would then be forced to weigh their animal rights activism with their desired diet.

2) Seals can look very cute. "Baby" seals, who are basically balls of fluff which float around joyfully in the ocean create a very cute image. People personify these little pups and almost make them out to be human. People do not protest snakes being killed or manatees, but people find an affinity with seal pups. They are cute little muppet-like creatures. This of course is illogical. A seal is no more human than a rat, so to judge whether something ought to be killed or be protected based on looks is poor judgment.

3) The terms used evoke emotion. People have been saying "baby" seals so long, it has become common parlance. But think about it. How can we call any animal a "baby". A baby by definition is a human child. I believe it is wrong to call any animal a baby. This has been an effective way for animals rights activists to gain support for their cause. By personifying animals, they evoke clear emotions. You might not mind people culling sea-mammals, but you might well have a big problem with vicious blood-thirsty sealers "murdering defenseless baby seals".

We of course have a responsibility toward animals. God put us on this Earth to be guardians of it and its inhabitants. But we are also in charge of nature and it is here for our benefit. This is hard for many people to hear. I saw an episode of Kill of the Hill, and there was an environmentalist lady there who was praising environmental efforts, and she said it's almost as good as if humans had never existed. Although many people will not say this out loud, behind the scenes, this is what they are thinking. We cannot confuse our human love and compassion with the respect owed to animals. If we do, we do not value animals more, but rather we value humans less. From my own experience, some of the strongest animals rights activists are also very much for abortion. Ironic, isn't it.

Let's look at Catholic teaching on animals:

The Seventh Commandment, according to Catholic Tradition, is "Thou shall not steal". The Catechism puts our obligations towards animals in this category. It states the following:

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

Therefore, we ought to respect animals, but we should never value them more than humanity.

St. Thomas Aquinas felt the main problem with abusing animals was that it could carry over to our interactions with other people. Here he is rightly ordering our concerns for our fellow man vs. that of animals.

As long as the seal hunt is done in a way that minimizes animal suffering within reason, and is done sustainably, it should be continued for it provides clothing, food, and medicine to humanity.

You want the truth? The WORLD cannot handle the TRUTH!

Pope Benedict XVI made his first pontifical visit to Africa this week. During his visit, he made the comment that condoms are not the solution to Africa's AIDS problem. Of course he is right, and that is rather obvious. The Pope did many other things, of a spiritual nature, but of course the media only picked up on his comments about condoms. I believe people are bent on maintaining their sexual promiscuity and anyone who challenges their ability to do anything they want sexually will provoke their unbridled anger. Christ's message said a lot about sexual purity, and while many would like to be considered Christian, they refuse to accept the Church's teachings on sexuality.

The Pope is right about condom use not being the solution, but rather contributing to the problem. In Uganda, they did an experiment where they placed Abstinence as a top priority, followed by "Being faithful" and third if necessary use Condoms. It was called the ABC program. People soon stopped using condoms and focused on abstinence. The AIDS rate decreased dramatically. The Catholic Magazine "This Rock" did a great article on this. Instead of paraphrasing it, I will post it in its entirety here. Enjoy:

Uganda: The Real ABC’s of an Epidemic
The first documented case of HIV/AIDS in Uganda occurred in 1982. From that small but ominous beginning, the curse of AIDS soon engulfed the country of Uganda, much as it swept across the African continent through the 1980s and into the 1990s. For Uganda, the epidemic was especially tragic given the nation’s desperate efforts to recover from the dark years of the dictator Idi Amin from 1971 to 1979 and subsequent years of political instability. By the early 1990s, the infection rate in Uganda of HIV reached 30 percent, and there was widespread agreement that if action were not taken quickly, the very survival of the country would be jeopardized.

President Yoweri Museveni, who came to power in 1986, settled on an aggressive government-sponsored plan that involved posters, radio messages, training, education, and public rallies and that called on the support of community leaders, local churches, and general public. The message was said to be as simple as the "ABCs": "Abstinence, Be Faithful, and if necessary, use Condoms."

Character over Condoms
A funny thing happened in Uganda, however. While condoms were suggested for those who refused to abstain, the greater focus of the campaign was not on the "C" but on the "A" and the "B": abstinence and faithfulness. Ugandans, especially young Ugandans, were urged to wait until marriage before having sex, or to return to abstinence if they were not virgins. Wives and especially husbands were asked to remain faithful to their spouses. And when the "C" was stressed, it did not mean condoms but the embrace of the Catholic Church in Uganda and the suggestion that the proper meaning of "C" should be "character formation."

The mantra of changing behavior rather than perpetuating a condom culture resulted in startling developments. In the late 1980s, 50 percent of females 15 to 17 years old had engaged in sex; this was down to 34 percent by 2000. Uganda’s Demographic and Health Survey of 2000-2004 indicated that 93 percent of Ugandans had altered their sexual behavior to avoid HIV/AIDS.
The results were immediately apparent when Uganda’s infection rate began declining. Adult HIV rates dropped from about 30 percent in the early 1990s to 8 percent in 2002. Today, the infection rate hovers at 4.1 percent. President Museveni spoke at a World AIDS Conference in Bangkok in 2004 and declared forcefully that condoms should not be the definitive public health intervention against HIV/AIDS. He was joined in this call to reality by the Kenyan first lady Lucy Kibaki, who regularly teaches school girls that they should delay sex until after marriage and forget about condoms. (See "Why the ABC Message Worked," page 22.) Uganda’s success made it a model for other African countries and also played a major influence in the current AIDS relief program undertaken by the Bush administration.

Uganda’s progress against AIDS is a story of promoting the culture of life. Everywhere in Africa the Church’s stand on the real ABCs—abstinence, be faithful, and character formation rather than condoms—has been adopted, the HIV/AIDS rates are substantially lower. The 2003 World Factbook of the Central Intelligence Agency reported, for example, Burundi had a 62% Catholic population and a 6% AIDS infection rate; Angola had a 38% Roman Catholic population and a 3.9% AIDS rate; Ghana was 63% Christian with a Catholic population of 12% (in some regions it is as high as 33%) and a 3.1% AIDS rate. In stark contrast, those countries that have steadfastly clung to the myth of condom use as the primary means of preventing the epidemic also have the highest rates of HIV/AIDS. In Botswana, where only 5% of the population is Catholic, 37% of the overall population is infected with HIV/AIDS. In South Africa, with a 7% Catholic population, 22% of the total population is infected.

The UN’s Failure
Undeterred by the success of the Ugandan methods and enraged by an approach that challenges the assumptions of the Western sexual revolution, the UN and other nongovernmental organizations (including UNICEF, the UNFPA, the World Health Organization, and Centers for Disease Control) are placing pressure on Uganda and other countries to offer only condoms as a solution to their problem. In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan AIDS activist, denounced the obdurate position of the United Nations and its UNAIDS program, noting, "UNAIDS has no success story. UNAIDS cannot point at any country where they have given advice and that country has brought HIV down" (LifeSiteNews, October 25, 2007). The situation is an ironic one. The Martyrs of Uganda gave their lives by refusing to engage in lurid sexual activities and to surrender their faith. Uganda today is being offered a similar choice by the Western culture of death. Only this time, by adhering to the faith and doing what is right, the Ugandans, along with the rest of Africa, will actually be saving their lives. In both cases, moral courage remains the key to a future of hope.

Matthew E. Bunson is a contributing editor to This Rock and the author of We Have a Pope: Benedict XVI (Our Sunday Visitor, 2005) and more than 30 other books. He was a consultant for USA Today during the funeral of John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict. He is the general editor of Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Almanac, a senior fellow of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, and a moderator of EWTN’s online Church history forum.

Embryonic Stem Cell destruction and Euthanasia: Evil Sisters

A few days ago, United States President Barrack Hussein Obama announced that he would allow public funding to destroy embryos for research. This fruitless research, which has yielded no results, is the last frontier (or perhaps the beginning of the last frontier) for mad scientists bent on breaking all boundaries.

Human life is sacred. This is a truth that has been affirmed by almost all religions, especially those which are more than 100 years old. There are many instances of medical codes which forbid the destruction of human life, including embryos through abortion. Not surprisingly, none of these codes indicate abortion is alright.

An embryo has all the DNA it ever will. To put it crudely, just add water. In other words, with basic nutrition and water, a tiny embryo will grow to be an adult person. All the DNA is present at the moment of conception. We do not say that a small child is not human because it has not fully developed yet. Therefore, there is a beginning, and that beginning is fertilization.

For the sake of convenience, people started having abortions. The convenience came first, the explanations later. Now they have moved into a new frontier. The frontier of harvesting people in order to find cures. During the holocaust, people were used in experiments for the benefit of others. They were put through many tortures in order to ascertain scientific information. But this was morally reprehensible. The same arguments for this could be used to justify embryonic stem cell research. Many say the embryos will be destroyed anyway, so why not use them for something beneficial? Well, these people in the Nazi holocaust were going to be slaughtered anyway, so why not use them to advance scientific knowledge.

Well, that's what Josef Mengele did, who was known as the Angel of Death. He killed many innocent people to conduct his experiments.

Many will not worry that embryos are being sacrificed. They cannot be seen and they dont "look" human. But even if someone is cruel enough to say this, there is another evil sister to this whole mess. When human life is devalued at any stage, it is devalued in all stages. People are now trying to legalize euthanasia, and this is absolutely terrible.

Ask 1000 people this question: There is a man, 32 years old. He says he is in a lot of suffering. He lost his job, his wife left him, his children hate him. He is now homeless and addicted to alcohol. He says he wants to end his life. Would you give him a loaded gun if it was legal? How many would say yes? I would estimate 5 to 10 percent, and that would be a lot.

Now let's say this: A person is terminally ill. Their life is very sad. They can't see an end to their suffering. Their family does not want to take care of them because they are too much of a burden, and they do not feel loved. They would rather not live. They say you have no right to tell them they cannot die as they please. They ask for help in ending their own life. Would you help them or deny them their request? In a recent poll, 80% of Canadians said they would help in a situation similar to this one. That's shocking! These are the same situations. They just have slightly different circumstances.

Nobody is born with a desire to kill themselves. This develops because of things that happen to them throughout their lives. But when we stop valuing life, we start looking at life in a utilitarian way. We start to ask about people's utility, and not their worth as human beings. We start to ask what they can do for us. We become like animals or robots.

We must all try to elevate our being upward, not toward animal behavior. We must truly become more human. Jesus Christ is the only way to get there.

Nancy Pelosi misrepresenting Catholic teaching on abortion

Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house in the United States, 3rd in line for the presidency, if the president and vice-president died, misrepresented the Catholic Church a few days ago on the news. She claimed she is an ardent Catholic and that the Catholic Church has debated when life began over the centuries and haven't made a decision. She said only in the past 50 years or so has there been any real decision on these issues. However, this statement is completely wrong. The Church has never, in its 2000 year history been pro-choice. It has always been pro-life, and has defended the right to life to all persons from the moment of conception.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, who believed life began several weeks after conception, still believed that abortion at any time, even right after conception was totally wrong and immoral. Now that we know more about science and when life began, we are even more emphatic. No Church Father has ever held a pro-choice stance, and no official document has ever supported it.

To back up my claim, I will quote several Church Fathers on the subject:

The Didache


"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).



The Letter of Barnabas


"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).



The Apocalypse of Peter


"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).



Athenagoras


"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).



Tertullian


"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . .

"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).

"The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).



Minucius Felix


"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).



Hippolytus


"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).



Council of Ancyra


"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).



Basil the Great


"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).

"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).



John Chrysostom


"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).



Jerome


"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).



The Apostolic Constitutions


"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

Why are Christians (specifically Catholics) the only ones held responsible?

Last night I flicked on The Hour with George Stromboulopoulos. He had Sue Johanson as one of his guests last night and of course they were talking about sex. Sue's show runs in the United States now, where people call in for all their questions about sex, contraception, and everything along those lines. She doesn't care if they're gay, straight, bisexual; married, not married, extra-marital, etc. To her, sex is sex, and nothing else matters.

At one point, George asked how it's different in the U.S. compared to here, and Sue mentioned that she quivers at the thought. She derided the sex education system of the United States saying they only teach abstinence-only programming and that that's the fault of George W. Bush. They seem to easily be able to laugh about these "conservatives" who are afraid of sex and ask themselves rhetorically why they don't just accept it.

Sue at one point posited that "well, it's going to happen anyway, you might as well teach them about it", and that she's helping people to avoid pregnancy, which according to her is such a terrible thing. But let's look at what's really going on.

In 1968, when Humanae Vitae was published by Pope Paul VI, he said that the widespread use of contraception would cheapen sex, turn people into sex objects, increase promiscuity and infidelity, break up marriages and relationships, and have major negative impacts on the world in general. He was completely correct in these things. He didn't even mention however the increased incidents of STIs. The dire consequences of the increased use of contraception has been felt.

It also paved the way to abortion. Pregnancies were now something people had control over. We stopped asking God his plan, and started asking ourselves. We were in control. So when people became pregnant, dispite the availability of contraception, it didn't fit into their view of how things should go. They demanded FULL control, not partial control. Women, and their male partners, demanded the ability to end whatever was happening inside her womb. Since contraception, people tried to separate sex from childbirth, intimacy from procreation. Contraception doesn't decrease unwanted pregnancies, it increases them. It increases abortion also. In fact, it legitimized it. Once people demanded full and utter control over anything happening in their bodies, they realized there was an unintended side-effect of guilt, and horror at the realization of what they've done. No one ever questioned if what was in their womb was a child, but that denial was necessary to perform this act. Just as the Nazis declared Jews to be nonhuman, so too did the abortionists declare the unborn.

This brings my point full circle. As a Catholic, I am forced to offer an explanation for how I could kill so many innocent people during the Crusades, yet proponents of contraception and abortion would not even be asked to justify their own act. The Crusades ended over 500 years ago, was a defensive war to protect innocent civilians, was far less brutal than most people imagine. As well, the cowardly acts perpetrated by a few for their own bloodlust and greed were not authorized by the Catholic Church, and in fact were condemned by it. Yet, somehow I have to justify these people. I even have to justify outlaws, people who broke the commands of my religion, to whom I have no relation, no shared heritage.

Does Sue Johanson get blamed for reducing sex to an action between any two people with no consequences no different than a pat on the back. Do we blame her for the increase in infidelity, sexual addiction, lust, marriage breakups, infidelity, and abortion? No. If everyone practiced abstinence before marriage, which Sue and George laugh at, there would not be many of the things I mentioned above. Although people like Sue have a direct impact on the degredation of society and values, we do not blame her or anyone like her.

Why the double standard? In fact, it is not even a double standard, for this implies equality. I would argue that the Crusades were mostly a positive thing, which have little impact on our current lives, besides allowing us to be as free as we are today, especially to be Christians. However, the sexual "revolution", or sexual degredation as I call it, is having a devastating and unquestionably negative impact on our society.

Hippocratic Oath Not Alone in Condeming Abortion

The Hippocratic Oath, written in the 4th century BC by the Father of Medicine Hippocrates, is an oath that all Western doctors took until very recently. It tells how doctors should care for their patients. It says a physician should not abuse his patient, physically or sexually, he should not take too much money, he should keep his patients' information private, etc. For years this was practiced by doctors. One of the imperatives of the Oath was to not commit abortion.

But the Hippocratic Oath is one of several world-wide medical oaths taken by doctors and physicians. What was their stance on abortion?

The Seventeen Rules of Enjuin, a Japanese Oath from the 16th century states: "you should not give abortives to the people."

The Oath of Asaph, the oldest known Hebrew medical oath, dating to the 6th century, states: "Do not make a woman [who is] pregnant [as a result of] of whoring take a drink with a view to causing abortion"

After the world realized the atrocities of Nazism, the Declaration of Geneva was drafted in 1948. Part of this document stated: "I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

The International Code of Medical Ethics was put together the following year in 1949, and read: "A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception."

As you can see, Hippocrates was not unique in his statements against abortion.

"I'm personally against abortion, but I wouldn't enforce my beliefs on anyone else."

Have you ever heard this sentence? It is all too common. But its commonality does not give it veracity. If you ever hear someone say this, be thankful, because as a person of God, you can easily convert this person to the pro-life side. Here's why.

People who make this statement have often not considered its logical impossibility. Abortion is the only case where someone would make such a statement. For example, people do not say, I am against rape, but I would not enforce my belief on others. This is illogical.

The reason the assertion that someone is against abortion but will not tell others what to do is impossible is because there is a reason why someone is against abortion, namely because it is murder, and if you are against murder, you oppose it as a concept, the application of which you believe is universal.

People are not personally opposed to murder. Rather, they are opposed to anybody murdering anyone else. No one says, I wouldn't kill my grandmother, but if a thief broke into my home and murdered her, I would be ok with that. No one would even say they support a stranger's right to kill another stranger. When someone opposes murder, they oppose it in absolute and objective terms, not just for themselves personally.

If someone does not consider abortion murder, the question arises - why do they oppose it then? The only possibility is that they personally do not enjoy partaking in abortions themselves, in the same way as certain people dislike sushi. They do not like sushi, but they do not make a universal declaration that everyone must dislike it as well.

The question remains as to why they do not like partaking in abortions. Maybe they feel it's messy or they are afraid of blood. Perhaps they disagree with surgery in general. But if these were the case, these people would be against all surgery or operations. Rest assured, you could speak to a million people and not one person would be opposed to abortion for this reason.

The best way to get someone with this point of view to convert to a pro-life person is to ask them questions. Ask them what they specifically oppose. If they say they believe it's murder, tell them they must oppose it in general if they believe that. If they disagree, ask if it would be ok for someone to kill their neighbor without consequence. If they are being honest they would say no and they will realize their error.

Finally, they may say that abortionists do not consider abortion murder, even though they themselves do, and therefore, it is a matter of opinion. At this point suggest to them that Hitler did not consider the Jews to be human, therefore he was not committing murder in his opinion, therefore you would not consider what Hitler did to be wrong. In the same sense, if a psychopath considered all humans to be inferior to him and killing them to not be murder, then he should have the right to do this unabated.

No honest person would agree to this logic. Suggest they are using the same fallacy to justify their position, which hopefully they will see is completely untenable.

The possible enslavement of gambling

There are many things which can potentially enslave people, including alcohol, sex, drugs, and gambling. Many who gamble lose their cars, homes, and even livelihoods, and in the worst case scenarios lead to suicide by those who cannot cope with this. So, what does the Catholic Church have to say about all this? Don't Catholic Churches hold bingos and garden parties where gambling occurs? Yes. So, is this contradictory to its teaching, even hypocritical? The answer is no.

The Catholic Church does not ban all games of chance, only ones which can be harmful to those playing, or affect others in a negative way. Here's what the catechism officially states:

Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.

So, go ahead and have a little bit of fun, but be very cautious. Make sure you pre-set a limit of how much you plan on spending on these games before you start.

Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before the papal conclave gathered to elect a new pope, made a speech about the Catholic Church and the world. He said we as citizens must seek to avoid the "dictatorship of relativism". I have been reading a book called A Refutation of Moral Relativism, put together by Peter Kreeft. The following is a short essay of mine of why moral relativism is untenable.

Slavery is wrong, as is murder. Most people accept these. But, how do these people know these things are true? Someone told them, but who told the tellers? Eventually it comes from reason. Each person possesses reason; each has a conscience. How can an action be judged as right or wrong? We must appeal to an authority, and that authority is natural law.

Natural law is as strong and binding as physical laws such as gravity and energy. They do not depend on our interpretation or feelings, they exist independently. Murder is wrong regardless. It doesn’t matter how angry we are, how much higher our status is than the victim’s, it makes no difference how much the person “deserves” it, because it is inherently wrong. Sometimes however, this distinction is hard to make, and we cannot determine ourselves right from wrong.

Most people nowadays accept that slavery is wrong and an affront to each person’s dignity as a human being. It cannot be accepted. But what if you were to speak to someone from 300 years ago who owned slaves. You two could argue about whether or not owning a slave is right or wrong. But the truth cannot have it both ways, truth can only be one. Truth never has and never will change. Your opinion is not the truth, your status does not give you the truth, the truth is the truth, and exists independently. If morals are not based on an absolute truth, what are they based on? The only alternative is a relative truth. This, by definition, is a truth which one person accepts, but someone else may reject. It comes down to opinions. In one person’s opinion, slavery is right, in another’s, it is wrong. So who’s right? According to relative morality, either could be or simple is correct. This makes no sense. You have an opinion, but an opinion cannot be an opinion about an opinion, an opinion is an opinion about the truth. Therefore, you must discover the truth in order to determine if your opinion is right. Your opinion could be wrong.

You cannot simply say something is wrong, especially if you admit you do not know. You just have to sit back and watch things happen and hope they turn out for the best. The only model which you sanction is anarchy. You can accept your own opinions, but you must then also accept everyone else’s, no matter how much they offend you. Otherwise, you are saying that a relative morality applies to you, but that an absolute morality applies to everyone else’s. In other words, you have to accept that a person owns a slave, because in their opinion or their own “personal” morals, that is alright. If you say they should not own a slave, you are overriding their moral perspective, and appealing to a superseding value which surpasses this person’s belief. Therefore you are appealing to something greater than personal relative morality; you are appealing to an objective, transcendent morality. You have two options: you can admit there is an absolute morality, or you can maintain a relative morality, but by doing so you must accept everyone else’s behavior and morals. Law enforcement cannot stop them from doing something, because that would be saying your morals are more worthy than the other person’s morals. You could only do something personally to rectify the situation. Saying something is right or wrong would not be valid either, because you would have to admit that you did not know, and you could not impose your personal morals on anyone else. You could at most say, “I do not personally believe that is right”. Only when you admit that there is a natural law, one which is above personal opinion and beliefs, one which is unchanging, can you claim that an action is morally right or wrong.