Putting aside for a moment the theological and medical differences of opinion on the existential question of when life begins, there can be little doubt about the meaning of Jeremiah’s recounting how the word of the Lord came to him during his call to prophecy: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.”
In other words, Jeremiah acknowledged the ancient Hebrew belief that the child in the womb was known to God even amid different interpretations as to whether a fetus is a separate person or part of its mother’s body. Later, as evidence of Judaism’s respect for the life of the unborn, the renowned Twelfth Century Talmudic scholar Maimonides condemned abortion as a capital crime: “A descendant of Noah who kills any human being, even a fetus in its mother’s womb, is to be put to death.”
Moving forward, because The Catechism of the Catholic Church is unequivocal that human life begins at conception, it is worth quoting at some length:
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life…. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law…. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes…. Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense…. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
The clear, unmistakable teachings of The Catechism notwithstanding, under the direction of two putative Catholics—President Joseph Biden and Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HSS), Xavier Beccera—a proposed federal regulation aims to deprive the unborn the status and protection of personhood. Questions arise about Biden in particular because as President he sets the tone and direction on national policy-making. Biden’s position is all the more troubling because his own words and those of his office speaking on his behalf describe him as a devout Catholic. Not surprisingly, Archbishop Joseph Naumann, former Chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities, decried this characterization in light of Biden’s support for abortion and other positions inconsistent with his professed religious beliefs.
As an initial matter, John F. Kennedy’s statement, in his 1960 presidential campaign, that Catholics in public office owe no allegiance to the Vatican is instructive. Facing significant anti-Catholic bias, Kennedy not only sought to allay the concerns of his critics but also provided insight into the nature of the relationship between politicians and leaders in their faiths:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote…. Whatever issue may come before me as president -…. I will make my decision in accordance with … what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates.
Kennedy’s remark raises important, far-reaching implications about what the role and duty of Catholics, let alone other people of faith, should be in public office. While politicians must walk a fine line in balancing their private and public senses of morality, is it too much to ask for some consistency? This same issue re-emerged in the wake of then Governor Mario Cuomo of New York’s 1984 speech at the University of Notre Dame. Attempting to mimic Kennedy, without referencing the Vatican directly, Cuomo stressed that he would not allow his lifelong Catholic faith to prevent him from enforcing civil laws on such matters as divorce, birth control, and abortion despite the fact that his actions in doing so were inconsistent with Church teachings.
In what is paradoxical at best and hypocritical at worst, Cuomo expressed no qualms in refusing to oppose abortion, a practice, as noted, the Catholic Church has always and unequivocally condemned. At the same time, Cuomo had no difficulty imposing his personal beliefs in overriding the will of the people and their elected representatives when he vetoed efforts to reinstate the death penalty twelve times. Cuomo acted based solely on his personal conviction that it is wrong to impose the death penalty under any circumstances, including as punishment for those who committed heinous acts of barbarity against innocent victims, even though its use was not inconsistent with Church teachings at that time. (Pope Francis has since modified The Catechism to repudiate the use of the death penalty, which is another subject for another time.)
The key question, then, is the extent to which political leaders, especially Catholics, should follow the teachings of their religions, and presumably properly formed consciences, in their official duties when addressing matters of life and other moral questions. Alternatively, can these self-professed Catholics “check their values at the door” as they continue to bow to political expediency in acceding to the wishes of the pro-abortion movement by refusing the safeguard “the least among us,” in this context, the unborn?
On April 17, 2023, in one of the most egregious pro-abortion and anti-life actions ever planned by a Federal agency, the HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking under the guise of supporting reproductive health privacy in the form of access to abortion. The comments period is open until June 16, 2023, at which time HSS will presumably implement the change it is suggesting by refusing to recognize the unborn as persons.
In relevant part, the HHS maintains that this proposed rule is designed to be consistent with the definitions of “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual” in the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. The proposal specifies that when “when determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States,’ the words ‘person’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”
According to the proposed rule “[p]erson means a natural person (meaning a human being who is born alive), . . . ” The proposed rule adds that in light of HHS’ interpretation of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, its goal is to define “person” and “child” consistent with its understanding of those terms as they are used in other federal laws such as Social Security Act of 1935 and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, more commonly referred to as HIPPA, as well as its regulations. The upshot is that the proposed rule defines the terms “person,” “natural person,” and “individual” in a manner that excludes the unborn because its understanding “does not include a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus.”
In light of my earlier musings on the uneasy relationship between and among self-professed Catholic politicians, the bishops, and Church teachings, this essay considers briefly what role the private religious lives of politicians can or should play in their public actions. While readily conceding that politicians can often face difficult choices when seeking to balance their personal beliefs against the needs and wishes of their constituents, they must seek to remain true to their religious beliefs and principles, especially when they profess them publicly.
Accordingly, bishops and pastors should encourage individuals in public life to correct their errors by calling on them to live in a manner consistent with teachings of the Catholic Faith they claim to profess. If politicians refuse to comply with admonitions to follow Church teachings, these same leaders should consider disciplining them by, for instance, denying individuals access to the Eucharist or exercising their authority to excommunicate them as authorized in the Code of Canon Law.
A recent controversy involving another Catholic politician’s ongoing public support for abortion emerged when Archbishop Anthony Cordileone of San Francisco forbade then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a self-described “devout Catholic,” from receiving the Eucharist. When the Archbishop imposed this ban until such time as Pelosi renounces her staunch advocacy for abortion, she dismissively and defiantly retorted that “I figure that’s his problem, not mine.”
Pelosi’s intransigence aside, one can only hope that other Catholic leaders follow the example of Archbishop Cordileone and others such as Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas, who criticized President Biden for “aggressively denying his Catholic faith and denying the value of the life of an unborn child.” Strickland continued on to say that “Viciously murdering innocent children is not healthcare & abortion devastates women. We must care for them both.”
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s having repudiated Roe v. Wade’s legalization of abortion essentially on demand in Dobbs v. Jacksonville Women’s Health Organization, returning this controversial question to the States, it is incumbent on Church leaders and people of faith to speak out actively in opposition to such cynical ploys as the proposed new HHS regulation’s refusal to recognize the personhood of the unborn. To this end, members of the hierarchy, lay leaders, and the laity must step up and proactively defend the sanctity of the lives of the unborn by opposing the proposed regulation’s efforts to continue attacking the sanctity of life.
Catholics leaders and laity, joined by other people of faith, must act together to challenge, and to perhaps prevent, the ongoing callous attempts of the Federal government to deny protection of the lives of the innocent, defenseless unborn. If people of good will can act in unison, they may help to ensure that future generations of unborn Americans will be protected in their natural environments, the wombs of their mothers, so as to be able and to enjoy fully their “unalienable rights [including] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
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.
We read: “The upshot is that the proposed rule defines the terms ‘person,’ ‘natural person,’ and ‘individual’ in a manner that excludes the unborn because its understanding ‘does not include a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus’.”
AND, embedded in parts of the Church today, does such EXEMPTION-alism (!) invent a false and broader legitimacy in one of the four exploitable “principles” in Evangelium Gaudium (2013): “realities are more important than ideas”?
Just askin’…four points:
FIRST, proponents of the concrete over the so-called abstract ideas might argue that Veritatis Splendor (VS, 1993) is irrelevant, because today’s conundrum is more about complex and concrete cases than about any alleged ideas in VS (only refuting the Fundamental Option, or proportionalism, or consequentialism).
SECOND, so, Russo exposes the finesse of denying concreteness to the yet unnamed “fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus.” Butt, worse than this!
Those who correctly identify concrete “structural sin” would then also deny concrete personhood to a host of folks. Take for example all of the overlooked concrete/structural (!) causes of personal sexual confusion: absentee or abusive fathers, random sexual experimentation by adolescents and younger, a pornographic and permissive culture, possibly chemical disruptions to the fetus (endorphin disruptive chemicals, EDCs), and early sexual abuse. So…
THIRD, rather than evangelize against/above these relentless and concrete abuses, is the trajectory of grab-bag synodality to actually treat ensnared/victimized persons as something less than concretely human?…
That is, to roll with the individualized wreckage by now also aborting (!) universal, inborn, and concretely human sexual morality/moral absolutes—as affirmed in the Catechism and, yes, Veritatis Splendor. “LGBTQ” Exemption-alism?
FOURTH, will the Dicastery on the New Evangelization remain steadfast on all that is fully human…the transcendent dignity of each human person, and the Family? Rather than cutting-and-pasting “LGBTQ” politicized abstractions now in-sin-uated into synodality? And, with Russo’s critique of established Secularist religion (!), under the ultrasound the unborn child is also seen to be a concrete “person,” rather than only a politicized abstraction.
Together with Galileo and his telescope—in an equally unscientific (!) and politicized environment—”eppur si muove.”
At the instant of conception that which has been conceived begins to grow.
If it’s growing it’s ALIVE.
The term “person” is irrelevant. The only matter of importance is the genus and species of the unborn organism, and the only question to be asked is, “Do all human beings have human rights?”
Prior to scientific advances, people knew that a child in its mother’s womb was a human being and that killing that child was wrong. It’s amazing and disheartening when anyone who has received the gift of life finds some way to deny that same gift to another human being, born or unborn. Catholics and others who believe in life must make their voices heard to protect those who are unable to protect themselves . . . yet. Any politician or citizen who refuses to bring their beliefs into the public square has simply disintegrated. We elect politicians based on their positions on the issues that affect our lives. Voting for a Catholic should ensure voting for pro-life and other Catholic beliefs. John F. Kennedy was wrong to think that his personal beliefs didn’t belong in the public discourse. All of our beliefs belong in the public discourse by the guarantee of no government interference in our religious practices. The government, which is all of us, does not enjoy any freedom from our beliefs, despite the unconstitutional law proposed by Lyndon B. Johnson, and passed in 1954, that prohibits religions from endorsing or opposing specific candidates at the risk of losing their tax exempt status. That should be challenged and reversed by the Supreme Court, because of its opposition to the Constitutional guarantee of free expression.
Recommended reading: Studies in the Thought of John Paul II – Confronting the Language Empowering the Culture of Death
Sapientia Press 2008
I think it would be helpful if Catholics would stop voting for Democrats because they believe, incorrectly, that “even if the candidate is pro-abortion, he/she is helping the poor people, and the Republicans are just rich fat-cats who oppress the poor.”
Contrary to what many Catholics seem to believe, “their sainted parents, God rest their souls! will not rise up out of the grave and haunt their children because they choose to vote for those rich fat-cat Republicans!”
Fact: most Democrats are loaded financially (e.g., J.B. Pritzker, current very pro-abortion governor of Illinois), and if they don’t have their own personal wealth (e.g., Senator Bernie Sanders), they have plenty of rich supporters, especially in the entertainment field, who shower them with money and gifts.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is just one example a very rich woman who lives in a mansion while outside of her door, the homeless camp.
Yes, many Republicans are wealthy, too–very wealthy, and often because they come from old-wealth families who have been around since the Revolutionary War. But most Republicans (not all!) are pro-life and VOTE pro-life. Pro-Life is part of the current Republican Party Platform, while the Democrat Party Platform is blatantly and proudly PRO_ABORTION! Read it and weep!
If life-long die-hard Catholic Democrats would get their heads out of the holy water and take a closer look, many Republicans support (with their votes AND their own personal finances) policies that will help the poor to not only meet their daily needs, but eventually rise out of poverty.
And a reading of history will make it clear that it was the REPUBLICANS who opposed slavery and after the Civil War, worked to make sure that African American former slaves were not only given their civil rights (including education), but also were elected to the House and Senate. And it was the DEMOCRATS who supported with their money and sometimes, their participation, the evil Ku Klux Klan!!!! Eventually, the Democratic “Jim Crow” policies came to dominate most areas of the U.S., leading to lynchings and a struggle for Civil Rights that continues to this day.
The Evangelical Protestants, who are generally solidly pro-life in their votes, can’t do it all alone. C’mon, Catholics, THINK!! Read the platforms of the candidates and vote for the ones who are pro-life, even if they are those despised fat-cat Republicans!! Your parents will dance for joy in heaven, honest!
It would be good if the Republican party would move more to the center and present candidates with moral integrity and humility. Catholic teaching does not support using a compromised means to achieve a good end. Perhaps it’s time to create or support a third party which does not compromise. The platform of the American Solidarity Party is based solely on Catholic teaching and practice and could be a viable alternative if all Catholics, evangelicals and like minded people would support it.
The difference a live birth makes is the difference between murder and attempted murder.
In R v Sims (1601) the court said: “… for if it be dead born it is no murder for non constat [it does not necessarily follow] whether the child were living at the time of the batterie or not; or if the batterie was the cause of the death, but when it is born living, and the wounds appeare in his body, and then he dye, the batteror shall be arraigned of murder, for now it may be proved whether these wounds were the cause of the death or not , and for that if it be found, he shall be condemned.”
Where’s our Catholic consistency in being Pro-Life? We are loud and clear in standing against abortion of the unborn. Why are we Pro-Lifers silent about the continued killings of school children because of gun violence? Or why the total silence about the Catholic Florida Governor’s ongoing campaign to make it easier for his state to execute death row inmates in total violation of Catechism of the Catholic Church 2267. Why don’t we cry in rage and demand our bishops deny communion to Catholic politicians who stall new gun safety laws like assault weapons ban or those who politically hype their record on death penalty? Is our being Pro-Life only being Anti-Abortion?
So now Cdl. Cupich is posting comments under the name “Hildegard Aquinas”?
I was going to respond to HA but I couldn’t improve on your one-line post.
If one believes in Creator God then one is necessarily pro-life….only The Author of life has authority over life.
Today we are swamped with the vile ideas of anti-theists who ridicule even the possibility of God. They are convicted liars by their own illogic since they insist upon something they cannot possibly know.
The term ‘abortion’ is a linguistic lie used by the Father of Lies and his adherents or dupes to disguise the murder of Holy Innocents in the womb. The term ‘pro-choice’ is likewise a linguistic lie to pretend that one may ignore the Will of God. These terms should never be used by people who properly revere God because they empower the deceit of the demons.
Our common sense and all of science points to the existence of a mighty Creator God yet many fall for the duplicity that the magnificence of Creation simply popped into being from nothingness…a magnificent absurdity.
Recently science has intrigued us by a report of a flash of light at the moment of conception. This calls to mind the theory that a flash of light left the image of the Son of God on the Shroud of Turin….the most rigorously unexplained artifact in the history of mankind.
Where is Hildegard’s social justice concern for her neighbor? Suicide by firearm accounted for 56% of firearm deaths while homicides accounted for only 41%. Social justice warriors ought concern themselves with protecting their neighbors from killing themselves.
Also, Hildegard, perhaps you’d be willing to show by the numbers how the absolute number of deaths by homicide compare to the absolute number of deaths by abortion. Choose a year, any year, for which the stats in the US have been gathered.
You could also consider the absolute number of deaths of those **innocent** members of the human race compared to the **non innocent**.
When you return with the numbers, the truth may shock and humble. You, not the pro-life Catholic whose concern lies predominantly with the small, innocent, and vulnerable young lives snuffed out before they see the earth’s light. Then you may second-guess whether you should bloviate nonsense or other half-baked progressive illiberal socialist lies or points for spin.
FBI stats for 2019: 16,669 homicides (all ages); for 2020: 21,570.
Guttmacher Institute states for 2020: 930,160 abortions.
In the name of racial justice and equity, you may wish to consider whether more black and other non-white babies are aborted at higher rates than white babies.
Now put on your thinking cap and face the truth, Ms. Sir.
Good insights as usual, meiron, but of course in a saner and more honest world committed to even basic principles of universal natural law morality, abortions are also rightly recognized as homicides.
The most poignant word in the quote from Jeremiah is “Before”. Everyone – and everything – was already in God’s “mind” before it was formed. God willed it; therefore, the gravity of this sin is not only that we allow some among us to kill innocent human life, but that they are also cutting off what God has willed to exist.
Excellent article, compelling, beautifully expressed. Please write a follow-up article on exactly how “people of good will (can) act in unison” to negate implementation of the barbaric HHS ruling. Thank you.
What is de facto in the best interests of the Nation? If, as JFK presumed it’s the consensus of opinion, or common predilection of the people we draw a redline between the responsibilities of the presidential office and justice. Theoretically, inclusive of the Constitution the founding fathers of the nation didn’t form their views of government on the common opinion of the public inclusive of those in favor of independence from Britain. In point of fact, the acceptance of the Common Law of England [the Common Law, England’s uncodified historical cultural set of moral, legal standards inclusive of its Roman Catholic traditions, natural law, stare decisis] incorporated in King George’s imposition of the Royal Charted largely intended to suppress basic rights violation by New England theocracies, before the war of independence – was retained after by most states adopting the Common Law as their template for jurisprudence.
Killing of infants, abortion was the non written tradition of the Common Law evident in previous legal judgments although not codified as law. If America has a moral tradition it extends deep into its historical roots. It was understood that abortion was immoral, an evil commonly perceived as killing. A president has a duty that surpasses public opinion when it addresses justice, and the right to life. Taking a human life was long considered a legal issue not simply a religious concern.
Dr Russo’s rejection of the hypocrisy of Catholic politicians has legal as well as religious significance. Catholic morality in fact has its bedrock in the premier virtue, justice, what is right, what is due others. The right to life, human life, [which alludes to personhood] articulated by Chief Justice Rehnquist in Casey as inviolable.
At common law, the battery of a woman quick with child subsequently stillborn was a misdemeanor, but if born alive before death, then a felony.
R v Eastborough (1855) was the first case in which the law on criminal attempt was first mainstreamed in England – again, at common law, an attempt to commit either a misdemanor or a felony was itself a felony.
Luke 1:41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,
Psalm 127:3 Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.
Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
2 Kings 8:12 And Hazael said, “Why does my lord weep?” He answered, “Because I know the evil that you will do to the people of Israel. You will set on fire their fortresses, and you will kill their young men with the sword and dash in pieces their little ones and rip open their pregnant women.”
Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
Lord have mercy on us, are we any better with the attitudes we have today?
You may have heard it said “transwomen are women”
But I say to you “unborn humans are humans”
You may have heard it said “transrights are human rights”
But I say to you “unborn rights are human rights”
Clever and insightful, Gary.
Vote Catholic and pray that the Pope excommunicates the so called “devout” Catholics.
I believe that by their own actions they have already excommunicated themselves.
It’s up to the Pope – or their local Bishops – to make it official, but don’t hold your breath for either of those things to happen.
Of course they want to de-humanize an unborn child. The easier to call it a “clump of cells”, correct?? Biden himself has no moral compass. I blame his bold pro-abortion position on the fact that all too many Bishops and clergy are fearful of taking a pro-life stand. So they remain silent, a choice which will not stand them in good stead come judgement day.
Sorry to disagree with you HA but typical of progressives to try and link abortion with social justice causes especially to nullify the demonic murder of innocent unborn human beings…disagreementvover policy regarding guns, death penalty, environment etc. Is unfathomable…pro life is specific to abortion and linking to social justice is only a later tactic to obfuscate the evil of abortion….
“Human life begins at conception” is too vague. Does it begin at fertilization (in the fallopian tube) or at implantation (in the uterus?
Fertilization of a human ovum by sperm is the union of two gametes to create ONE INDIVIDUAL ZYGOTE. This zygote contains all the genetic material for the development of ONE HUMAN PERSON. The zygote is ONE UNIQUE, INDIVIDUAL, SPECIFIC HUMAN. Upon the union of the two gametes at fertilization, life has begun. Propelled by its animating principle (call it ‘soul’), in the first 30 hours following fertilization, the zygote grows and moves toward the supply of food and shelter appropriate to its further development. It life and development happen naturally, inherently, essentially by its own power and animating principle.
We wonder if all equalities are equal, but some equalities are more equal than others…
which is to say that medicine can miniaturize the 500-acre Auschwitz into a home medicine cabinet (the abortion pill), technology can miniaturize a room-size, first-generation vacuum-tube Univac computer into a tiny “chip,” but God is not permitted to miniaturize the human person into a unique and equally concrete, next-generation zygote.
Excellent point, Peter.
I don’t accept to “vague” categorization.
Human life is special and, around the time of inception including before it happens, it is delicate. So whether or not you know of it, utmost care and sensitivity about care, is demanded.
More special than that, see Rosemary above APRIL 30, 2023 AT 7:24 AM; human life is precious in the eyes of God, thus the standard to be met is set at that level and not in the vision of mere creatures.
To predicate on a human foetus ‘personhood’ with the intent to thus shield it from abortion is not irrefutable etymologically, given that the masking projection of a role lies at the root of the latin term, ‘persona’, whence the terms “person”, “personality”, “personhood”, etc. Impossible to attribute to a foetus, or to an unborn being any participation in the world as an ‘acting’ agent performing self-aware, intentionally. The entity aborted is not a person.
Upon birth an individual does not possess ‘persona’, rather, through his development and growth he develops ‘persona’, not only identifiable traits of character, but also an integrating and projective sense of self. This, a centripetal and centrifugal core within, has been known throughout the ages, and not only in Western culture. It was also common knowledge to the ‘Mexi’ (pronounced MEHshi the stressed syllable in capital letters), i.e., the Aztecs. In their poetry and religious lore, they spoke of a child as one « yet without heart and face » and of a mature individual as one « with heart and face ». In these instances, the Castilian translations of the sixteenth century used, appropriately, the term ‘rostro’, not ‘cara’: ‘countenance’ not merely ‘face’.
Abortion is not a libertine cause to cheer, totally the contrary, nor need one approve that any woman be forced to breed against her will, or if her physical constitution is such that it would probably cause her physical harm, or even her death, or marked psychological trauma. If choose one must, one should certainly favour the mother, for she is a person, whilst the foetus is not, nor is the six, or seven month, nor eight or nine month unborn child not yet a person. That is the cutting difference. Until a child is born, as long as it is in the maternal womb, it is nothing more than the possibility of being a person someday, upon birth. For to be a person, the infant must first struggle to live and affirm itself, in an unfamiliar environment exposed, breathing and crying out in “haec lacrimarum valle”.
If you are a woman and a citizen of the US you should be mindful that the legal right to reproductive health care severely curtailed by the Supreme Court less than a year ago was the handiwork of SCOTUS judges of Roman Catholic persuasion indubitably motivated by their confessional opposition to abortion. If you care not to have a repeat of further loss of right and liberty because of confessional incursion from any religious sector, be vigilant. Make your will known to your congressional representatives. Exercise your right to participate legally in the political life of these United States.
The word abortion means the ending of a human life. It always denoted deliberate criminal act. It doesn’t mean anything else. What you want it to mean is what you just concocted. The next guy or gal could just as easily concoct another frame-up for the elimination of babies and the forced obeisance and mandatory service to bad women and worse doctors. If you wanted to you could include something about the kitchen sink and even titanium suction pump and Mifepristone; only thing is, no Aztec word for such.
You went through all of that to say not to cheer abortion and libertinism? Why would that matter?
1. Nothing discredits the “renewed” Catholic Church (renewed by Vatican II Council) than the way the all the popes, and nearly all of the bishops, of this renewal era have been so exceedingly tolerant of and friendly toward politicians who promote and support the legal right to have or perform abortions.
2. This sort of tolerance would have UNTHINKABLE in the pre-Vatican II Church.
3. Pope John Paul II welcomed President Bill Clinton at the Vatican on June 2, 1994.
4. In 2022, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi met with Pope Francis at the Vatican and was seen receiving holy communion at a mass at the Vatican.
5. Pope Pius XII would have never met with an infamous promoter of the mass murder of unborn children unless and until such person publicly repented of this grave sin.
6. The first thing that is necessary is that we as a Church come out of the fog, somnolence, and weakness of this 1960s Camelot era “renewal” and return to the mindset of hard facts, hard truth, and the hard way of the cross.