Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, speaks from the floor during a Nov. 17, 2021, session of the bishops' fall general assembly in Baltimore. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is the first in-person bishops' meeting since 2019. (CNS photo/Bob Roller)
St. Louis, Mo., Jul 18, 2022 / 14:25 pm (CNA).
Responding to claims that Kansas Catholics are seeking to impose their religion on their neighbors by voting to exclude a right to abortion from the state’s constitution, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas says “reason alone is sufficient to know that it is wrong to destroy an innocent human life.”
Kansas is set to become the first state to place abortion policy on the ballot after the Supreme Court’s June 24 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. Currently, Kansas restricts abortion after 22 weeks, but Kansas state lawmakers are generally prohibited from passing any type of new abortion restriction because of a 2019 state Supreme Court ruling which found that the state’s constitution protects a woman’s “right” to abortion.
The “Value Them Both” amendment, if approved by voters on Aug. 2, would enable state lawmakers to pass legislation to regulate or restrict abortion. The amendment would not itself change the legality of abortion in the state, but would, among other things, ensure a ban on state taxpayer-funded abortion.
Writing in the Wichita Eagle July 8, Naumann responded to claims made in a recent op-ed by a Kansas rabbi, Mark Levin, who argued that the amendment amounted to an effort to enshrine Catholic doctrine into Kansas law. Levin wrote that Catholics encouraging their neighbors to vote for the amendment are seeking to “compel all Kansans to conform to their religious idea of the origin of individual lives [conception], and to enshrine that belief in law.”
“Our neighbors have, sadly and tragically, declared a quiet and cold war against our religions, attempting to coerce the behavior of all other Kansans according to their personal religious faith, through minority rule,” Levin argued.
Naumann took issue with Levin’s characterization of opposition to abortion as solely a religious issue.
“From a Catholic perspective, abortion is not primarily a religious issue but a fundamental human rights issue,” he wrote. “Our faith helps us understand the dignity of every human life created in the divine image as taught in the Hebrew scriptures, but reason alone is sufficient to know that it is wrong to destroy an innocent human life.”
Moreover, “The mere fact that a law coincides with religious beliefs does not mean it is an impermissible imposition of religion,” Naumann pointed out.
“Value Them Both is not a Catholic issue. Preserving current laws and reclaiming the authority of the people of Kansas to determine public policy on such an important societal issue is something every Kansan should be eager to support,” the archbishop concluded.
Naumann also related the story of former abortion doctor Bernard Nathanson, an ethnically Jewish man who identified as an atheist. Nathanson personally performed thousands of abortions and was politically active in pushing for the legal protection of abortion. However, Nathanson’s reverence for science eventually helped to change his heart, as he eventually recognized the humanity of unborn children when he saw them using ultrasound technology. Nathanson became a pro-life advocate and later admitted that when he had advocated for abortion he used a strategy of appealing to anti-Catholicism and promoting the views of pro-abortion Catholics.
Naumann asserted that Levin had used similar tactics in his op-ed.
“The rabbi accuses me of trying to deprive Kansans of personal choice regarding their destinies. Yet, this is exactly what the Kansas Supreme Court did by making the outlandish claim that a right to abortion exists in the Kansas Constitution, taking abortion policy out of the hands of the people and their duly elected representatives and putting it in the hands of the court,” Naumann wrote.
“Several months ago, I made an appeal to every Catholic in the archdiocese to donate to a special Respect Life Fund to provide additional support for abortion alternatives, post-abortion healing ministry, the expansion of our efforts to help children in foster care, and support for the Value Them Both amendment. I am proud of the generous response of our Catholic people,” Naumann continued.
“I am also very proud that the Value Them Both coalition includes many other faith-based and secular leaders and organizations, including the Lutheran Missouri Synod, the Kansas-Nebraska Convention of Southern Baptists, James Dobson, the Family Research Council, Democrats for Life, 200-plus Kansas medical and mental health professionals, Concerned Women for America of Kansas and Kansas Family Voice,” the archbishop added.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Washington D.C., Aug 21, 2018 / 01:14 pm (CNA).- The FDA has approved a fertility-tracking app that boasts a lower unintended pregnancy rate than the pill, without the side effects of hormonal contraception.
Denver, Colo., Apr 17, 2019 / 04:17 pm (CNA).- Many years before she entered religious life, Sister Mary Gianna Thornby was an ordinary high school sophomore at Columbine High School in the suburbs of Denver.
Like many high schoolers, she occasionally struggled with her identity, had experienced some bullying in middle school, and ultimately just wanted to fit in. She wasn’t raised in a Christian home; at that time, God, faith – and certainly the Catholic Church – didn’t register on her radar.
“Growing up, I didn’t really know if God existed or not, or that He had a plan,” Mary Gianna told CNA.
All that changed 20 years ago on April 20, 1999.
Mary Gianna had a habit, she said, of going to the library to study every single day during lunch period her freshman and sophomore years. During her sophomore year, she and a friend even changed their schedules so they would have two hours off during lunch to study together in the library.
That April morning, sitting in art class right before the lunch hour, Mary Gianna said she felt an overwhelming urge to leave school. She says she remembers thinking: “I’m going to go home, and no one’s going to talk me out of not leaving.”
Her friend was confused, and asked Mary Gianna why they weren’t going to the library like they always did. She suggested they go and study for an upcoming test at a restaurant instead, so they walked out of the school and hopped into Mary Gianna’s car, which her dad had only just bought her the week before.
As they were driving away, she looked in her rearview mirror and saw hundreds of her schoolmates running out of the school building.
With no idea what was going on, Mary and her friend simply continued on and arrived at a bagel shop. It was there that they heard what had happened.
On that morning, two students – 17 and 18 years old – began shooting people outside the high school, ultimately killing 13 and wounding more than 20 others before taking their own lives as well.
The violence perpetrated at Columbine would remain the most deadly shooting at a U.S. high school until February 2018, when 17 students died at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High in Florida.
Mary Gianna soon learned that most of the killings took place in the library – the place where, on any other day, she would have surely been during that exact time.
“And so I wondered: why wasn’t I there?” she mused. “Every other day I was there, but that one day – what gave me that urge to leave?”
She remembers being told by someone: “God must have a plan for your life.”
“I realized God existed, and He had a plan, but at the time I didn’t know who God was. And at the time, people were questioning how could God allow something like this to happen,” Mary Gianna said.
Every day, the next school year, she would walk by the spot where the library used to be – since so many of the killings took place there, it was demolished and eventually rebuilt in a different spot – wondering why she had been spared. At that time, she had the stirrings of faith, but still no clear answers.
She said she started drinking, going to parties, looking for other things to offer fulfillment – but she knew in her heart it wasn’t where she was supposed to be. Her senior year, she said, she felt like she had finally reached “rock-bottom” and lost all hope.
“It was in those moments that I felt like I just couldn’t go on in life that one of my friends invited me to the Catholic Church at St. Francis Cabrini in Littleton, Colorado,” she said.
Immediately upon walking in, she met a representative of Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, who encouraged her to consider going there for college. She also met a youth minister named Kate.
“She started telling me about a God that passionately loved me,” Mary Gianna recalled.
Kate started taking her out for coffee and telling her about God’s love – that He does have a plan, that Mary Gianna was made in his image and likeness. Growing up, she had no direction in life, Mary Gianna said, and God’s love was that thing that she had been missing.
“Not only did God lead me out of Columbine that day – he was leading me home on that day. He was leading me to Himself,” Mary Gianna said.
“And I wanted to say ‘yes’ with all my heart to God’s plan. I realized that He had a plan, and I wanted to say ‘yes’ to that plan.”
She ended up enrolling at Franciscan University, even though at first her father had misgivings about the cost. Later on, however, it seemed his heart had been changed. Mary Gianna said her parents were very supportive of her faith and the direction her life took after her conversion.
She went through RCIA her freshman year at Franciscan, and at the Easter vigil Mass on March 30, 2002 at the age of 19, she was received into the Catholic Church.
Mary Gianna experienced the call to religious life in 2008, when she went to the Cathedral of St. Paul in St. Paul, Minnesota and prayed that she would be able to enter into the Mass in a way she had never experienced before.
It was through Mass that she felt God’s presence before her. She walked out of the chapel changed; all she wanted was religious life.
She chose a charismatic, Franciscan, contemplative, and missionary order called the Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, which brought her to Prayer Town, Texas, northwest of Amarillo. She pronounced her final vows on August 4, 2018.
Twenty years on from the Columbine tragedy, Mary Gianna said she thinks more of her former classmates are finding the strength to talk about what happened that day. She said she keeps in touch with some of her classmates, teachers, and the former principal of the school, especially her friend who left the school with her that day. They’ve talked about the experience since.
“I often think of the greatest tragedy of Jesus being put to death on the cross, and how it led to our salvation, and that even in the midst of the tragedy at Columbine, God can bring good,” she reflected.
“That He would bring life out of death. And I think we’ve seen that in a lot of ways.”
She mentioned the widely-known story of Rachel Joy Scott, a passionately Christian teenager who was one of the first Columbine students killed during the massacre. Rachel reportedly told her teacher shortly before her death that she thought she was going to have a “major impact in the world,” and she always took care to reach out to the “new kid” in school and those who had been bullied or had no one to sit with at lunch.
Witnesses said the gunmen asked another student if she believed in God, and she answered yes. Then they shot her.
“I was amazed that: here was a girl from my high school who was so passionate about her faith that she was willing to say ‘yes’ and die for Christ,” Mary Gianna reflected.
“And I thought: what would I have said? I could have easily been there that day. I didn’t have faith. But then I realized: God knew this is where I would be. That if she was able to say ‘yes’ and die for Christ, I can say ‘yes’ and live for him. And that’s what truly inspired me to really say ‘yes,’ to live for Him.”
The religious sister says the Lord took her from a life of despair and hopelessness to a place of great joy for life, and a desire to share the “fullness of life” with others.
“I really feel like the sufferings I’ve had in this life; I think it’s kept me close to the Lord. And I think it’s the call to trust God, that He never allows a tragedy or a heartbreak to happen unless He can bring a greater good out of it,” she said.
Pope Benedict XVI announced his intention to resign the papacy during a meeting of cardinals Feb. 11, 2013. The surprise announcement, which he made in Latin, took place in the Hall of the Consistory in the Vatican’s apostolic palace. / Vatican Media
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jan 2, 2023 / 06:00 am (CNA).
On Feb. 11, 2013, before a gathering of cardinals who had come to the Vatican expecting to hear the announcement of upcoming canonizations, Pope Benedict XVI dropped a bombshell.
After a few announcements about Church business at the conclusion of the meeting, the pope took out two sheets of paper and read a prepared statement in Latin.
“I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry,” the then 85-year-old pontiff told the gathering of the Catholic Church’s highest-ranking clergymen.
Because he spoke in Latin, the language used for official Vatican proclamations, reporters present did not at first realize that the pope had just stepped down.
‘Total surprise, total shock’
The assembled cardinals, on the other hand, who knew their Latin, reacted with stunned silence.
American Cardinal James Stafford later told CNA that the pope’s statement was received with “total surprise, total shock.”
“A cardinal who was sitting next to me said, ‘Did he resign?’ I said, ‘Yes, that’s what he did. He resigned.’ And we just all stood at our places.”
Cardinals react to Pope Benedict XVI’s announcement of his intention to resign the papacy Feb. 11, 2013. The surprise announcement, which Benedict made in Latin, took place in the Hall of the Consistory in the Vatican’s apostolic palace. Vatican Media
Nigeria’s Cardinal Francis Arinze, who was present that morning, said the announcement was a “surprise, like thunder that gives no notice that it’s coming,” reported The Catholic Telegraph.
In renouncing the papacy, Benedict became only the second pope in almost 600 years to voluntarily step down. In 1294, Pietro da Morrone, an elderly hermit, was crowned Pope Celestine V, but finding the demands of the job too much for him, he resigned after only five months.
In 1415, Pope Gregory XII also resigned, but under very different circumstances — he stepped down in order to end a crisis within the Church known as the Great Western Schism.
Title, white clothes, and papal coat of arms
What happened next with Benedict XVI was no less surprising to those who expected him to live as a retired cardinal.
In his last official statement as pope, before a general audience on Feb. 27, 2013, Pope Benedict assured the tens of thousands of people gathered to hear him speak as pope for the last time that even though he was stepping back from official duties, he would remain, in essence, pope.
“The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’ — there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this,” Benedict said.
“I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord,” he told the crowd.
A day earlier, on Feb. 26, 2013, the director of the Vatican Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi, had silenced speculation over what Benedict would be called and what he would wear. He would, Lombardi said, retain the trappings of the papacy — most significantly, his title and dress.
“He will still be called His Holiness Benedict XVI,” Lombardi said. “But he will also be called Pope Emeritus or Roman Pontiff Emeritus.”
Lombardi said Benedict would continue to wear a white cassock but without the mozzetta, the short cape that covers the shoulders. The pope’s fisherman’s ring would be replaced by a ring from his time as cardinal. The red shoes would go as well, Lombardi said, and be replaced by a pair of brown ones.
“The city of León is known for beautiful shoes, and very comfortable shoes. And when the pope was asked what he wanted to wear he said, ‘I want the shoes from León in Mexico,’” Lombardi said at the press conference.
On May 2, the cardinal who designed Benedict’s coat of arms in 2005 told CNA that he had written the pope emeritus suggesting that his coat of arms would need to be redesigned to reflect his new status. Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo proposed making the keys of St. Peter smaller and less prominent.
“That shows that he had a historic possession but not a current jurisdiction,” said the cardinal at the time.
Benedict, however, it seems, politely declined a new coat of arms. La Stampa reported the following year that the Vatican Publishing House’s manual of ecclesiastical heraldry in the Catholic Church contained the following note:
“Expressing deep appreciation and heartfelt gratitude to the author for the interesting study sent to him, [Benedict] made it known that he prefers not to adopt an expressive heraldic emblem of the new situation created with his renouncing of the Petrine Ministry.”
By his decision to continue to dress in white like the pope, retain the title of pope, and keep the coat of arms of his papacy, Benedict revealed that in giving up the “active exercise of the ministry,” he was not forsaking the role of pope altogether.
Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI pray together at the papal residence in Castel Gandolfo March 23, 2013, their first meeting after Francis’ election. Vatican Media
An expanded Petrine ministry
In his 2013 announcement, Benedict clearly expressed his intention to step aside, even determining the date and time of his official departure. Nonetheless, his decision to keep the title of pope and maintain the ceremonial protocol that goes along with the papacy led some to speculate whether there were not actually “two popes.”
Benedict’s personal secretary and closest confidante, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, sought to clear up any confusion in 2016.
In a speech at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome on May 20, 2016, Gänswein said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another but represent one “expanded” Petrine office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
Parsing Benedict’s speech, Gänswein explained that in stepping down, Benedict was not giving up his ministry.
“The key word in that statement is ‘munus petrinum,’ translated — as happens most of the time — with ‘Petrine ministry.’ And yet, ‘munus,’ in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: It can mean service, duty, guide, or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry [munus],’” Gänswein said.
“He left the papal throne and yet, with the step he took on Feb. 11, 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, saying the latter scenario was something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”
Benedict himself later made clear in an interview with his biographer Peter Seewald that he saw himself as continuing in his ministry. He said that a pope who steps down is like a father whose role changes, but always remains a father.
“Of course a father does not stop being father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such. It was also this way for bishops,” Benedict said.
“I think it is also clear that the pope is no superman and his mere existence is not sufficient to conduct his role, rather he likewise exercises a function.
“If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function. In this respect one comes to understand that the office of the pope has lost none of its greatness, even if the humanity of the office is perhaps becoming more clearly evident,” Benedict said.
Benedict’s decision “not to abandon his ministry” inspired a cottage industry of conspiracy theories, with some questioning whether the pope emeritus truly stepped down because of his age and frailty.
George Weigel, author of the definitive biography of St. John Paul II, “Witness to Hope,” dismissed such speculation in an interview with CNA.
“I have no reason to think that there was anything more to Pope Benedict’s resignation than what he said was its cause: his conviction that he no longer had the strength, physical and intellectual, to give the Church what it needed from a pope,” he said.
“Everything else written about this is sheer speculation. Let’s take Benedict at his word,” Weigel said.
A life of prayer
In retiring to live in the Mater Ecclesiae Monastery in the Vatican Gardens, Benedict did not completely withdraw from the world. He attended public events in his new capacity as pope emeritus, received visitors, and pursued a life of fruitful study, writing, and prayer.
Pope Francis visits Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery in Vatican City to exchange Christmas greetings Dec. 23, 2013. Vatican Media
Matthew Bunson, Catholic historian, author, and executive editor of EWTN News, told CNA that Benedict was determined not to exercise authority in his new role.
“He really embraced what it means to be pope emeritus, and refrained from making public comments, to instead live a life of prayer and reflection,” Bunson said.
“Benedict really was on retreat, and in prayer,” he said, “and that means we have his prayer for us as a Church.”
While becoming increasingly frail, Benedict continued to celebrate Mass daily with the other residents of the monastery and was known to enjoy spending time in the Vatican Gardens praying his daily rosary.
In the fall of 2021, more than eight years after Benedict stepped down, his private secretary, Gänswein, told Domradio in Cologne, Germany, that Benedict was “stable in his frailty.”
He described the pope emeritus as very weak physically but still clear in mind. Gänswein said he had not lost his “typical Bavarian humor.”
The meaning of Benedict’s renunciation for future popes
In 2013, after Benedict announced that he would step down as pope, Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, a Jesuit theologian and canonist chosen by Pope Francis to be a cardinal, wrote an essay on what should happen when a pope steps down.
In the article, published in Civiltà Cattolica, Ghirlanda suggested the retiring Benedict take the title bishop emeritus of Rome.
“It is evident that the pope who has resigned is no longer pope; therefore he no longer has any power in the Church and cannot interfere in any government affair. One may wonder what title Benedict XVI will retain. We think that he should be given the title of bishop emeritus of Rome, like any other diocesan bishop who ceases,” he said.
In December 2021, at a congress on papal resignations, Ghirlanda took up the theme again.
“Having two people with the title of ‘pope,’ even if one added ’emeritus,’ it cannot be said that this might not generate confusion in public opinion,” he said.
To make clear that the pope who resigns is no longer pope, he said, he should perhaps be called “former Roman pontiff” or “former supreme pontiff.”
Pope Francis in July 2022 told reporters that if he were to retire from the papacy he would do things differently from his predecessor.
“The first experience went very well,” Pope Francis said, because Benedict XVI “is a holy and discreet man.”
In the future, however, “it would be better to define things or explain them better,” the pontiff added.
“I am the bishop of Rome. In that case I would be the bishop emeritus of Rome,” he said, and then suggested he would live in St. John Lateran Palace rather than at the Vatican.
Natural rights to life, liberty, and access to the means of acquiring and possessing private property are, and have always been, a human rights issue. Within the traditional Aristotelian framework, natural law is a religious issue only in regards to the source of natural law itself — an issue that is of no concern to civil authorities except as private persons or in their official capacity in guaranteeing freedom of conscience. As far as human positive law is concerned, all human beings have these rights and they cannot be taken away except for just cause and after due process. For civil authorities or anyone else to assert that a natural law is not binding because it is a religious issue is not merely bad jurisprudence, it is bad logic and contrary to reason. The first principle of reason is the law or principle of (non) contradiction: nothing can both “be” and “not be” at the same time under the same conditions. A claim or argument that contradicts reason is automatically invalid and if used as the basis for law is invalid as it posits an impossibility, such as holding a person guilty until he proves himself innocent. Proving a negative is logically impossible; you cannot, as Fulton Sheen commented more than once, prove the existence of non-existence. To assert, therefore, that the natural right to life is invalid because it is religious contradicts the definition of natural law itself and subverts the purpose of human positive law. Claiming a constitutional basis for a right to an abortion contradicts any constitution that has a natural law basis, and automatically invalidates any interpretation of a constitution or amendment that makes such a claim.
It seems to me that anyone who believes in God must be opposed to the murder of Holy Innocents in the womb. It must be admitted that the creature in the womb is a Being. It is human. Thus a human being. One may argue that perhaps this human being in the womb has not yet a soul and thus is expendable but no one may rationally say they have certain knowledge that this is so. So they must take upon themselves the authority of God over Life or simply dismiss God as a factor. This is Materialism of the sort equivalent to all the massive human massacres committed by totalitarian governments all over the world. If it is the Will of God that creates Life then it is patently obvious that anti-life is demonic and many are caught in its thrall.
“Reason alone is sufficient to know that it is wrong to destroy an innocent human life” (Archbishop Joseph Naumann). This, as has been my position, that abortion is first a Justice issue, not a religious issue. The reason as suggested by Naumann is reason, that is, right reason consistent with the Natural Law Within that reveals this to us. Innocent life, its inviolability, is a long standing principle of justice going back to the Common Law, in America’s instance the Common Law of England adopted by most states post War of Independence.
It is a justice precept with long tradition in our culture wrongly adjudicated in Roe on false principle, one being privacy, and the falsehood of the justices’ claim, the inability to define a human person. It’s this pretense of lack of knowledge that now has become standard self deception in a culture that will continue to destroy itself within by removing all just definitions of what a human, what a man, and what a woman is.
Catholicism at this moment stands as the bulwark of reason and justice, except the Vatican is actually undermining this, not by actual repudiation in formal pronouncement, rather by suggestion and acts appointments.
“An unborn baby designated a ‘rodef’ is ‘pursuing’ her mother and can be killed up until birth,” so says the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72b. Modern feminists have called the baby a “parasite.” It boils down to the same idea. Abortion is a fundamentally religious issue, where Catholic defend the right to life and Talmudic Jews (who could be classified as modern-day Pharisees) make exceptions. Certainly, such Jews have dominated the leadership of the abortion movement, according to Bernard Nathanson, who helped found NARAL and admitted to setting up Catholics as the bad guys in controversy. Recall how Sen. Diane Feinstein grilled Supreme Court candidate Amy Comey Barrett over abortion, saying that ‘dogma lives in her,’ as if no dogma lived in Feinstein. Biology, physics and other sciences have nothing to say about Human Rights, but religion does. Catholics believe in God-given human rights.
When we view the matter as God does, we will choose life.
Genesis 9:5-6 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.
Psalm 139:13-16 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
Proverbs 24:11-12 Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?
Matthew 18:14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
Though obedience is always better, repentance restores the sinner.
Natural rights to life, liberty, and access to the means of acquiring and possessing private property are, and have always been, a human rights issue. Within the traditional Aristotelian framework, natural law is a religious issue only in regards to the source of natural law itself — an issue that is of no concern to civil authorities except as private persons or in their official capacity in guaranteeing freedom of conscience. As far as human positive law is concerned, all human beings have these rights and they cannot be taken away except for just cause and after due process. For civil authorities or anyone else to assert that a natural law is not binding because it is a religious issue is not merely bad jurisprudence, it is bad logic and contrary to reason. The first principle of reason is the law or principle of (non) contradiction: nothing can both “be” and “not be” at the same time under the same conditions. A claim or argument that contradicts reason is automatically invalid and if used as the basis for law is invalid as it posits an impossibility, such as holding a person guilty until he proves himself innocent. Proving a negative is logically impossible; you cannot, as Fulton Sheen commented more than once, prove the existence of non-existence. To assert, therefore, that the natural right to life is invalid because it is religious contradicts the definition of natural law itself and subverts the purpose of human positive law. Claiming a constitutional basis for a right to an abortion contradicts any constitution that has a natural law basis, and automatically invalidates any interpretation of a constitution or amendment that makes such a claim.
It seems to me that anyone who believes in God must be opposed to the murder of Holy Innocents in the womb. It must be admitted that the creature in the womb is a Being. It is human. Thus a human being. One may argue that perhaps this human being in the womb has not yet a soul and thus is expendable but no one may rationally say they have certain knowledge that this is so. So they must take upon themselves the authority of God over Life or simply dismiss God as a factor. This is Materialism of the sort equivalent to all the massive human massacres committed by totalitarian governments all over the world. If it is the Will of God that creates Life then it is patently obvious that anti-life is demonic and many are caught in its thrall.
“Reason alone is sufficient to know that it is wrong to destroy an innocent human life” (Archbishop Joseph Naumann). This, as has been my position, that abortion is first a Justice issue, not a religious issue. The reason as suggested by Naumann is reason, that is, right reason consistent with the Natural Law Within that reveals this to us. Innocent life, its inviolability, is a long standing principle of justice going back to the Common Law, in America’s instance the Common Law of England adopted by most states post War of Independence.
It is a justice precept with long tradition in our culture wrongly adjudicated in Roe on false principle, one being privacy, and the falsehood of the justices’ claim, the inability to define a human person. It’s this pretense of lack of knowledge that now has become standard self deception in a culture that will continue to destroy itself within by removing all just definitions of what a human, what a man, and what a woman is.
Catholicism at this moment stands as the bulwark of reason and justice, except the Vatican is actually undermining this, not by actual repudiation in formal pronouncement, rather by suggestion and acts appointments.
“An unborn baby designated a ‘rodef’ is ‘pursuing’ her mother and can be killed up until birth,” so says the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72b. Modern feminists have called the baby a “parasite.” It boils down to the same idea. Abortion is a fundamentally religious issue, where Catholic defend the right to life and Talmudic Jews (who could be classified as modern-day Pharisees) make exceptions. Certainly, such Jews have dominated the leadership of the abortion movement, according to Bernard Nathanson, who helped found NARAL and admitted to setting up Catholics as the bad guys in controversy. Recall how Sen. Diane Feinstein grilled Supreme Court candidate Amy Comey Barrett over abortion, saying that ‘dogma lives in her,’ as if no dogma lived in Feinstein. Biology, physics and other sciences have nothing to say about Human Rights, but religion does. Catholics believe in God-given human rights.
When we view the matter as God does, we will choose life.
Genesis 9:5-6 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.
Psalm 139:13-16 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
Proverbs 24:11-12 Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?
Matthew 18:14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
Though obedience is always better, repentance restores the sinner.
Abortion is not an ‘either-or’ issue – it is a BOTH issue.