Kansas City Bishop to pro-lifers: 'We are at war!'

Apr. 28, 2009
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friendPDF versionPDF version

Editor’s note: Robert W. Finn, bishop of the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese, delivered the keynote address, "Warriors for the Victory of Life,” at the 2009 Gospel of Life Convention held at St. Thomas Aquinas High School in Overland Park, Kan., earlier this month. He called the “church militant” — the church on earth — into a battle for human souls in defense of the sacredness and dignity of human life. His complete address follows:

Thank you for coming together for this second annual Gospel of Life Convention, cosponsored by the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph. It is a privilege to welcome you and greet you this morning. I am grateful for the encouragement of your presence and – as a Bishop it is my solemn and joyful duty to do all I can to fortify you in your own faith.

But as I speak a word of encouragement today I also want to tell you soberly, dear friends, “We are at war!”

We are at war.

Harsh as this may sound it is true – but it is not new. This war to which I refer did not begin in just the last several months, although new battles are underway – and they bring an intensity and urgency to our efforts that may rival any time in the past.

But it is correct to acknowledge that you and I are warriors - members of the Church on earth – often called the Church Militant. Those who have gone ahead of us have already completed their earthly battles. Some make up the Church Triumphant – Saints in heaven who surround and support us still – tremendous allies in the battle for our eternal salvation; and the Church Suffering (souls in purgatory who depend on our prayers and meritorious works and suffrages).

But we are the Church on Earth – The Church Militant. We are engaged in a constant warfare with Satan, with the glamour of evil, and the lure of false truths and empty promises. If we fail to realize how constantly these forces work against us, we are more likely to fall, and even chance forfeiting God’s gift of eternal life. The ultimate promise of the Gospel.

Before I go any further I must proclaim a most important truth – a truth that we have just been celebrating throughout the last week: Jesus Christ, in His life, death, and Resurrection, has already won the war: definitively and once for all. He has conquered sin and death and has won the prize of life on high in heaven forever.

We know the final outcome, but the battle for eternal life is now played out in each human heart with a free will to love or not, to be faithful or to walk away from the life which has been offered as God’s most wonderful gift. Every day the choice is before us: right or wrong; good or bad; the blessing or the curse; life or death. Our whole life must be oriented toward choosing right, the good, the blessing; choosing life.

If you and I fail to realize the meaning and finality behind our choices, and the intensity of the constant warfare that confronts us, it is likely that we will drop our guard, be easily and repeatedly deceived, and even lose the life of our eternal soul.

Bishop Robert W. Finn (CNS photo)Bishop Robert W. Finn (CNS photo)As bishop I have a weighty responsibility to tell you this over and over again. This obligation is not always easy, and constantly I am tempted to say and do less, rather than more. Almost everyday I am confronted with the persuasion of other people who want me to be silent. But – with God’s grace – you and I will not be silent.

This work of speaking about the spiritual challenges before us is not just the responsibility of the Bishop. I am not the only one entrusted with the work of faith, hope and charity. You are baptized into this Church militant. You are also entrusted with the mission of righteousness. You have the fortification of the sacraments, and the mandate to love as Jesus loved you. You share in the apostolic mission and work of the Church.

What can we say about this constant warfare?

Our battle is ultimately a spiritual battle for the eternal salvation of souls – our own and those of other people. We are not engaged in physical battles in the same way military soldiers defend with material weapons. We need not – we must not – initiate violence against other persons to accomplish something good, even something as significant as the protection of human life.

But it is true that we might have to endure physical suffering to prosper the victory of Jesus Christ. He carried the Cross. He promised us that – if we were to follow Him – we also would share the Cross. We must not expect anything less. When you stand up for what is right – you will be opposed. The temptation will be to avoid these attacks. But through our responses we must see what kind of soldiers we are.

Who is our enemy in this battle of the Church Militant?

Our enemy is the deceiver, the liar, Satan. Because of his spiritual powers he can turn the minds and hearts of men. He is our spiritual or supernatural enemy when he works to tempt us, and he becomes a kind of natural enemy as he works in the hearts of other people to twist and confound God’s will. In our human experience people deceived by Satan’s distortions and lies may appear as our “human enemies.”

But, in his Letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul makes, for us, a very important distinction. “Draw strength from the Lord and from His mighty power,” He tells them and us. “Put on the armor of God, in order that you can stand firm against the tactics of the devil.” “For, our struggle,” St. Paul tells us, “is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the rulers of this darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.” (Eph 6:10-12).

So let’s be clear: Human beings are not Satan, but certainly they can come under his power, even without their fully realizing it. When we, in our sinfulness, put something in the place of God: pleasure and convenience; material success; political power and prestige, we open a door for the principalities and contrary spirits who war against God. They want you and me for their prize. When we forsake God and outwardly reject His law and what we know to be His will, we make an easy victory for our supernatural enemies. We fall right into their hands.

But what about the so-called human enemies? What about the persons who wish to establish a path of living which contravenes God’s law: promoting abortion; unnatural substitutes for marriage, and all such distortions of true freedom? Here Jesus is clear: “But I say to you, love your enemies: and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matt 5:44)

We cannot hate these human enemies, and we must find a way to love them. But we need not show them any sign of agreement. We pray for them. We do not lie to them – and we seek that which pertains to their conversion – not to their worldly comforts, but to their eternal salvation. To ignore their destructive errors, particularly those that cost the lives of others, is to shirk our responsibility to attend to their eternal salvation.

There are people who make themselves the public enemies of the Church. They openly attack belief in Christ, or the Church’s right to exist. Quite honestly such groups or individuals are less prevalent than they might have been in prior moments of history. In some ways they are not the most dangerous opponents in our spiritual warfare, because they show themselves and their intentions more forthrightly.

The more dangerous “human enemies” in our battle are those who in this age of pluralism and political propriety seek ways to convince us of their sincerity and good will. With malice or with ignorance, or perhaps with an intention of advancing some other personal goal, they are willing to undermine and push aside the values and the institutions that stand in their way.

They may propose “tolerance” and seem to have a “live and let live” approach to all human choices – even if the choice is not to “let live,” but actually to “let die,” or “let life be destroyed.” These more subtle enemies are of all backgrounds. They may be atheists or agnostics, or of any religion, including Christian or Catholic.

This dissension in our own ranks should not surprise us because we all experience some dissension against God’s law of love within our own heart. But the “battle between believers,” who claim a certain “common ground” with us, while at the same time, they attack the most fundamental tenets of the Church’s teachings, or disavow the natural law – this opposition is one of the most discouraging, confusing, and dangerous.

In my first U.S. Bishops’ Conference meeting – June of 2004 – the bishops passed what seemed to me to be a compromise statement as a result of our lengthy debate on politicians and Communion. There we stated that pro-choice leaders (and specifically, Catholic leaders were mentioned) should not be given public platforms or honors. As we all know, the eminent American Catholic University Notre Dame is poised to bestow such an opportunity and honor on President Obama, who is, of course, not Catholic. But it doesn’t take another Bishops’ Conference statement to know this is wrong: scandalous, discouraging and confusing to many Catholics.

God knows what all motivates such a decision. I suspect that, since Notre Dame will need a scapegoat for this debacle, and Fr. Jenkins will probably lose his job, at this point perhaps he ought to determine to lose it for doing something right instead of something wrong. He ought to disinvite the President, who I believe would graciously accept the decision. Notre Dame, instead, ought to give the honorary degree to Bishop John D’Arcy of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, who has supported and tried to guide the University, despite their too frequent waywardness, faithfully for 25 years.

In my remaining time this morning I want to talk principally about three things: 1) I want to comment briefly on some of the particular battles we face in the cause of the protection of the life of human beings. 2) I want to reflect on some of the costs of doing battle; and 3) I will suggest some ways we can fortify ourselves to go forth in this mission. First – the battle for Human Life.

The battle we face for the salvation of our souls is the most important one we face – bar none. Where I spend all eternity; where you spend eternity – in bliss or in damnation – is important beyond any individual choice I make. But the individual human choices I make – even one grave choice in which we remain unrepentant – can determine the direction of my salvation.

To deliberately destroy a human person, and without any justification of self-defense, is to preempt without an equal and sufficient cause, the right to life bestowed by God alone. Life is a gift which we have from God, not from man. This right cannot be taken away by means of a human law. It ought to be protected and assured by human law.

The constant magnitude of this crime against humanity is staggering. We must never get used to it. In the United States there are 4000 abortions every day. Compare that to the tragedy of September 11, or to any other war, or even to the genocidal Holocaust of 6 million Jews and many others under the Nazi regime.

The count of abortions over the 36 years, since its legalization in January, 1973, is beyond 50 million human lives. These are just the reported abortions. There are more. There are many, many more worldwide. But keep reflecting on 4,000 killings a day of innocent babies. Recently someone told me the number of abortions had gone down. I don’t believe it, but if you wish, you can think of 3,500 killings a day or even 3,000 per day.

Thousands of human lives every day: If we keep saying this – first of all – some people will get very upset with us. They will want us to stop. They may quote other statistics about the tragedies of poverty and war. We must truly share their horror at these things too. However, in the end the measure of our society is in how we treat the most vulnerable in our midst. The unifying thread is “the value of human life and the dignity of the human person.”

4,000 abortions each day in the United States. This is the tally of the enemy. Are we in a war? Absolutely. Are we winning? Are we even battling to win? Or do we consider this someone else’s war?

We can hardly know how many human embryos have been destroyed in pursuing in vitro fertilization, and other experimentation, or through abortifacient contraceptives. Our President has just signed a law providing government funding – your tax money and mine – for the funding of these human embryonic stem cell experiments. Are we at war? Absolutely. Are we winning? Missouri lost a valiant battle to constitutionally outlaw human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research. We haven’t given up, but it requires a constant effort. We won many people over through good instruction in the truth. We were outspent 30 to 1.

Assisted Suicide is now legal in Oregon and Washington State. There are more efforts underway and polls, sadly, show a steady decline in the numbers of people opposing such referenda. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that matters concerning the regulation of medicine and other health issues are up to the states. Several state supreme courts have already ruled that assisted suicide would not be unconstitutional.

Are we at war? Absolutely. Are we winning? Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that people are losing their sense of the moral evil of assisted suicide. But we cannot give up.

The fight for life is a constant warfare. Those who vied for the leadership of our country last November offered Americans a clear choice in this regard. The President is keeping his promises – one by one. We are getting what we chose. Is the war over? Never. Is the battle over? We must not give up. Remember: we already know the final outcome. The battle now is about our readiness to remain faithful – our readiness to suffer while we peacefully, legally, and prayerfully seek the victory of life.

We must defend life, but also build.

In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, on the Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II said that we must oppose the culture of death, and he said we must construct a civilization of life and love. So, we must defend the right to life, but even beyond that we must take action for the promotion of what is good. We must build a civilization that proclaims the Gospel of Life.

Occasionally we still hear an elected official speak of his or her personal opposition to abortion, while they support the legal right to an abortion. We should be very clear: Such a person places him or herself completely OUTSIDE the moral framework, the moral imperative of Evangelium Vitae and other Church teaching on these issues. They are NEITHER defending human life against the forces of death, NOR or they taking steps to build a culture of life. They have abandoned their place in the citizenship of the Church. Quite simply they have become warriors for death rather than life.

Such a person who makes a public stand – and acts directly – in defense of the right to kill endangers their eternal salvation. If you and I support such a person who has so flatly told us of their intentions to protect a fraudulent Right to Death, a Right to an Abortion, we make ourselves participants in their attack on life. We risk our salvation, and we better change. Why? – because Bishop Finn is going to condemn you? No, I must say what the Church says, but I will not finally judge any human soul.

I know Catholics in our country are looking to their bishops for leadership in this. Four out of five letters I receive on these issues urges me to do more, not less. I was not able to attend the installation of Archbishop Timothy Dolan in New York this week, but I watched part of the Mass on EWTN.

I heard the homily and saw how well the new Archbishop was received. But there was one place in the homily that was particularly dramatic. When Archbishop Dolan mentioned the defense of human life, all St. Patrick Cathedral thundered with spontaneous applause and rose to its feet. At no other spot in the homily did any such thing happen.

Please note: This is NOT partisan politics on the part of bishops or their flock. This is zeal for life, pure and powerful. This is care for truth, and attention to the salvation of souls. It cannot and must not be neglected, even if it means we might get scolded at times by those who want us to speak less. We bishops should note it carefully – how our people are starving for more leadership – more unanimity – more courage in this regard.

Every believer is called to be a warrior for righteousness – a soldier in support of human life. Are we at War? It is clear we are, and we will each stand before Jesus Christ, the Lord of Life.

Dr. Scott Hahn makes an interesting observation about a well-known passage from Matthew’s Gospel. St. Peter is entrusted with the leadership of the Church; he is handed the “keys” to the Kingdom. “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” (Matt 16:18). Hahn points out that it is not just the work of the Church to hold strong against the powers of hell. Rather: in the battle, the Church must beat upon the gates of hell. We must not give up until those sorry gates fall off their hinges and the victory of Jesus Christ is made full and complete and final. Bishops are called to teach, lead and sanctify. These are not defensive postures – but elements of a powerful offensive designed to promote and extend the Kingdom of God.

It is not enough for us to defend against the assaults of Satan. It is not enough for us even to defend innocent human life. Of course, if we fail to do this, we fail in our most urgent task. But by good deeds of love and charity, we must build this active culture of life that is ready and capable of turning back hell itself.

If we won’t put the abortionist out of business we are pitiable souls. If we don’t enact laws and work tirelessly to change human hearts so that life is forever reverenced and protected, we have not fought the good fight which is our charge as the Church Militant. As warriors we must first beat back the enemy. But then let us not forget that we are warriors for the victory of life!

How do we arm ourselves for what is first and foremost a supernatural war? First: Unless we are living in God’s life we should not go near this battle. I don’t care if you are the strongest and most brilliant and clever person on the planet. The devil – as he has shown over and over again – will turn you inside out. If you are not fortified by the sacraments – frequent confession and worthy Holy Communion – you cannot succeed in an ultimately supernatural battle. We must live – no longer ourselves – but Christ in us. Be always in the state of grace.

Pray. Be a prayer warrior. One modern-day saint said when you are going out to try to change someone’s heart determine to make your effort 80 percent prayer and 20 percent words or actions.

Prayer defeats the devil. Prayer aligns us with Christ. Pray for the abortionist. Pray for the legislator. Pray for the mother (and father and other family members). Pray for the child in the womb. Pray for yourself and allow God to guide you. Pray that you will be a warrior of faithfulness and love and mercy. Remember that God often chooses the foolish to shame those who are clever.

Use the symbols and instruments of our devotion. Arm yourself with the rosary. Protect yourself with the scapular or a blessed medal. Ask for a blessing as a sign of unity in the Church in what we do: unity with the Holy Father, with your bishop, with your pastor. What I am supposed to do as bishop (teach and lead, and sanctify) I must, in turn, delegate in proper measure to my pastors. They, in turn, need you as soldiers.

Don’t worry very much about numbers. If you read the accounts of the Old Testament battles, over and over again God used a tiny misfit army to overthrow a legion 1,000 times its size. In this way it is so much clearer that God is fighting the battle. We are only His instruments. What will happen to us if we take up this war in faithfulness?

Do you really want to know? You will be hated by some powerful people. You may be rejected by those whose approval you most desire. You will be loved and supported by some and this will be a wonderful encouragement. You will be misunderstood by many – and this can be very painful. After you have suffered a little in your battle, some will tell you that you have done nothing – or that you have done it the wrong way.

Yes, if you push – others will “push back.” We should always be very careful to obey the law. But, regardless, some will threaten you with legal action, and law suits cost money and you may suffer that difficult hardship. In the end, dear friends, if we err let it be on the side of life. Life! 4,000 human lives a day!

What if I suffer greatly trying to change this tragic trajectory – through prayerful, legal, peaceful means? It is in God’s hands, and you and I are warriors for the victory of life. The stakes in terms of human life are high. The stakes in terms of human souls are even higher.

A final word

There is much more we might say, and I know that today’s many presentations will be of great value to you all. Years ago I first heard Dr. Janet Smith teach so eloquently about the dangers of contraception: to our souls, on marriages, on our culture, as a preamble to abortion and as a degrading stain on human love. I am so pleased she has joined us to teach this truth so much at the foundation of the sad culture of discarded life and love.

I wish to thank Adrienne Doring and Ron Kelsey who, with much assistance from so many of you, coordinated this event. To my brother and co-worker Archbishop Joseph Naumann, whose leadership in pro-life is so well known throughout our country, I express my thanks and admiration.

May the Peace of the Risen Lord Jesus – the glory of His Easter triumph– the hope and promise of undying love and the power of Life sustain you all in your high calling as Warriors for the Victory of life.

Right on Bishop! Christ is

Right on Bishop! Christ is Risen! Alleluia! Alleluia!

It's hard to imagine, 4000

It's hard to imagine, 4000 lives/day!!! When will the killing stop?!?

Dear Snowdrop, i have some

Dear Snowdrop,

i have some questions for Bishop Finn that should be answered before we could accept all his views as anything other than hubris.

Some questions for Bishop Finn:

1. Does not the 4,000 abortions that he quotes per day include what physicians have always called spontaneous abortions and what the Church used to call miscarriages? If so then this quote is very misleading.

2. Prior to RvW, how many illegal abortions were done under less than sterile conditions causing loss of life to both mother and fetus? If you subtract the miscarriages and adjust the numbers for population, how much has the abortion rate really increased since RvW?

3. Is Bishop Finn ready to accept the scientific fact that 60 to 80% of all naturally occurring blastocysts never implant? If he accepts this scientific fact, then how can he say that each blastocyst is equivalent to a person with a mind and a soul? If he accepts the observations of science, how can he say that a side effect of certain birth control pills cause abortions. If he will not accept the recognized science concerning blastocysts, why not? Can Bishop Finn understand the difference between a seed and a tree. A blastocyst is a structure much like a seed, that needs a nutrient medium to germinate, grow and develop. In nature most seeds like most blastocysts never make it, they never form trees as most blastocysts never form human beings. What explanations does Bishop Finn have for not accepting the confirmed scientific observations by scientists working in the field of embryology? Is Bishop Finn himself a competent judge to even understand science and what competent scientists are observing? We rightfully might make a comparison to an earlier time in history when the bishops refused to accept the Copernican observations and the condemnation of a scientist as great as Galileo. To say that scientists are killing human beings when doing stem cell research with blastocysts is not congruent with scientific observation and is nothing more than delusional thinking. The problem here is not secularism. The problem is clericalism that will not listen to scientists working in the field as well as the 2 Ecumenical Council commissions (composed of the Churches best theologians, scientists and philosophers) that recommended that the church reverse its teaching on Birth Control pills. Finally it hardly seems that the Bishops are supporting life when they stubbornly refuse to accept stem cell research that would eventually find treatments for many diseases and much suffering. It is interesting to note that there are recent reports by scientists that they can now make pluri potent stem cells without the use of gametes. Of course, if these scientists are correct, then these pluri potent cells stimulated to form by men could also form blastocyst and fetuses. Can men make minds and souls? Does not God intervene at His own time that we just do not know exactly when?

4. Finally is Bishop Finn able to admit that many of the early fathers taught that the soul was not present until quickening. (About 12 weeks gestation and the time of first fetal movement) Pesonhood could not take place without a mind that could learn from experience. There is no semblance of a sensuous brain until 12 weeks gestation when the rudimentary senses of smell and taste begin. Of course a sensuous brain is not yet composed of a mind that can learn from experience. Since mind is a subset of soul, when can there be soul?

There are many physicians and scientists, as well as theologians and philosophers that were well educated in Catholic institutions that understand how far afield the Bishops (in this case Bishop Finn) are in their understanding and their definitions of the time that life as a human person with a functioning body and soul could exist. We all wish to do what is good for humanity and our souls, but we can not blindly follow Bishops that are either very stubborn refusing to understand the science behind embryology or down right delusional in their own beliefs and definition. Let us sit down without so many preconceptions and attempt to understand what is truly known by all our scientist and theologians especially the theologians that do not always agree with the Bishops, the very ones that they chastise for they may well be the ones that could help the Bishops the most! I think that if this were once again done, there would be another commission that could not in conscience or scientific observation agree with Bishop Finn and several other of our Bishops in their definitions of when life, personhood and soul could begin.

Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD

Denny, Celebrate life from

Denny, Celebrate life from conception to natural death! For Christ is Risen! Alleluia! Alleluia!

Snowie, I have heard your

Snowie, I have heard your words before.

My sister-in-law had to make the painful decision to lose her baby, for true emminent danger to her health. After making the decision, she said "For Christ is Risen! Alleluia! Alleluia!"

When talking about it with her family, we prayed, and then said "For Christ is Risen! Alleluia! Alleluia!"

For we all knew the excrutiating choice was a right one, and we all are welcomed into Jesus' loving arms. For Christ is Risen! Alleluia! Alleluia!

He is risen indeed!

He is risen indeed! Alleluia! Alleluia!

Those are great points Doctor

Those are great points Doctor Porch. What I would like to know is where this bishop on the legislation to help pregnant women, children and health insurance. These are the ways to greatly reduce abortion instead of passing laws that will just make it illegal. He can talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, he is missing in action.

Excuse me for butting in, but

Excuse me for butting in, but it just occurred to me why it is you and I, Dr. Porch, cannot come to an understanding about the subject of embryos/blastocysts.

You have frequently used the analogy of the seed not being a tree and the blastocyst not being a person. That works to a degree. However, what is missing is that God is the tree farmer who is pleased when the seed sprouts and who hopes that the seed will find the proper medium in which to grow and the appropriate nutrients to thrive.

If the other trees on the farm send out poison from their roots, or otherwise interfere with the ability of the seedling trees to reach harvest stage, the farmer finds this disagreeable.

Wise trees, out of respect for the farmer's attitude toward them and his efforts on their behalf, choose, if they can, to assist the seedlings, but even if they cannot, they do not interfere with the farmer's intentions lest he come to consider them weeds.

Popes, philosophers, and

Popes, philosophers, and saints did not consider abortion homicide until the latter half of the 19th Century; so all this about the Catholic Church always teaching it to be homicide is nonsense. People have heard this so often from priests and bishops who don't know any better they have come to accept it as fact. For Aristotle and Augustine, animation (personhood) takes place at about 40 days for males and 80 to 90 days for females, and Aquinas believed the soul began in a vegetative state, moved into an animal state, before becoming human. The possibility of identical twins developing after conception is offered as proof a unique person is not formed at conception. Natural law, by the way, has its basis in pre-Christian, Stoic (pagan) philosophy. In its classical formulations it is largely discredited today because its conclusions about human nature were based on very primitive, unscientific observations of lower forms of fauna and on a static view of humanity. Before criticizing Dr. Porch further, may I suggest study up on this fascinating subject.

Perhaps we all need to study

Perhaps we all need to study up...

What you say is simply not true about "Popes, Philosphers, and Saints" not considering abortion homicide until the latter half of the 19th century.

Tertullian, Hippolytus, Basil the Great, all speak about abortion as a sin. Consider this quote from John Chrysostom in one of his homilies to the Romans

""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."

Dr. Porch, With regard to

Dr. Porch,
With regard to your thoughtful questions:

1) The 4000/day figure may need some adjustment, but its scale is not off base. Using the figure of 1,000,000 - 1,200,000 abortions per year, regularly cited in mainstream media, you derive 2,740 to 3,290 abortions per day. However, given that the abortion rate peaked in this country in the early 1980s, they may be simply dividing total abortions since Roe by total days since Roe; using the oft cited figures of 40,000,000 to 50,000,000 procured abortions since Roe, you get 3,650 to 4,560 abortions per day. Given the frequency of miscarriage, it would seem the 4,000/day figure would be too low to reflect miscarriages. The figure may be attempting to incorporate the abortofacient effects of certain birth control. (I realize "abortion" is defined as "the end of pregnancy", i.e. after implantation, but choice proponents also know that abortion opponents are against the termination of life after fertilization, meaning one side is using the technically strict definition that suits it, and the other has not developed adequately precise vocabulary.) Yes, the figure may require some revision, but 2,700 future workers and citizens gone per day versus 4,000 per day offers cold comfort at best. More on that later.
2) Again, mainstream media has cited an abortion rate that rose in the 1970s, peaked in the early 1980s, and slid since, so the abortion rate had, indeed, risen after Roe vs Wade. (I realize citing particular publications would be helpful, but it's late, so I will have to leave that detailed citation to another time. The CDC has an "Abortion Surveillance" section that presents a number of useful statistics.) As to illegal abortions beforehand, we probably have little solid data to go on, because it was, well, illegal. I have heard that Dr. Bernard Nathanson admitted to making figures up on the number of procured abortions per year before Roe vs Wade.
3) The argument about blastocysts suffers on multiple accounts:

- The fact that blastocysts often do not achieve the next stage of human life means that, via the natural process designed by God, they simply did not make it, i.e. it was God's "choice". Where we humans so often get in trouble is when we adopt God's perogatives as our own. Since people die of heart attacks all the time, does that mean that shooting them is morally equivalent?
- The comparison of seed-tree to blastocyst-adult is a risky one. After all, we cut down fully grown trees all the time, so does the analogy extend that far? Or are humans a special creation, making comparisons to other life forms limited at best?
- You suggestion that Bishop Finn is ignoring scientific observation is a continuation of the popular strawman, the "war between religion and science". The bishop is not questioning the observations of scientists, nor the scientific method, nor other basic aspects of science. We do not have a war between science and faith - we have a battle over what constitutes ethical science. Would experimentation on two year-old children be considered acceptable as long as it adheres to the scientific method? Of course not. One can quite easily argue that, since a fertilized egg (or cloned embryo) is a self-contained (i.e. not a component of a larger organism), living entity composed of human genetic material, we can use that definition of "human life" without any recourse to religious text at all.
- Can men make minds and souls? Pro-life advocates say "we cannot know absolutely, so in the interest of not taking chances with humanity, let us treat the fetus as being ensouled". Choice advocates say "we cannot know absolutely, so let's assume a fetus does not have a soul, crafting other utilitarian criteria for when life warrants protection". Is a cloned embryo completely manmade? What about an in vitro embryo? What about an embryo produced the normal way, but with no intent by the parents to care for him/her? By pegging the value of human life to external circumstance, rather than what an embryo actually is by its self-contained, human genetic nature, choice advocates build a position on shifting sands.
4) Many (which is not necessarily most) Church fathers may have claimed that personhood begins at different times. However, the unsupported extention your argument seeks to make is that they, therefore, had no problem with abortion; I believe the Church has always opposed abortion, even when it debated human nature. Anti-abortion advocates are not under the illusion that a zygote is "the same" as an infant, any more than one might think an infant is "the same" as a 20 year-old. They simply believe that all of them are above the critical ethical threshold warranting protection.
If the soul requires a mind as evidence, then we may be in trouble indeed. When did your "mind" develop? Were you able to learn from experience one day out of the womb? How about one week or one month? Does this criteria now leave infants unprotected? Shades of Dr. Peter Singer...

Choice advocates, by constantly defining abortion as a question of private morality, have distracted themselves from the larger trends. We currently eliminate roughly one in five of our future workers and citizens every year, with only immigration bailing us out. This phenomena will have much larger implications for us than the current economic crisis or the Iraq War; were the cause anything other than sexual license, we would have long ago consider this trend a national disaster. Furthermore, abortion rates tend to be higher in more liberal states, especially the Northeast; little surprise, then, that these liberal states are projected to lose House seats, electoral votes, and federal funding after the next census. In the face of these trends, it may be the denigration of abortion opposition as "backwards", "unprogressive", etc. that constitutes true hubris.

God bless,

Bryan Kirchoff
St. Louis

Dear Brian, You bring up

Dear Brian,

You bring up several points. Many of them seemed weakened by conjecture, but I do not question your sincerity to write only your use of science and scientific data. First of all I do not know where the Bishops get the 4,000 per day figure. It seems to be a very high guess used to exaggerate the actual facts. You appropriately in your discussion understand that spontaneous abortion, or miscarriages, does not belong in this figure.

I have been against elective abortion and have never participated or recommended one. One the other hand, I think it important to keep in mind that there are ramifications that must be understood. Should a nine-year-old Brazilian girl, her mother and her doctors be excommunicated for aborting twins that were the product of a rape by her own father? Should abortion under any circumstances always be illegal? Should any form of killing under any circumstances always be illegal? Should the Brazilian Bishops have been more pastoral toward this innocent little girl? After all the rapist father was not excommunicated for his crime. I am afraid that concrete, black and white thinking cannot lead us to enough loving understanding when it comes to this issue.

The medical definition of abortion is the disrupting and disguarding of an embryo that has IMPLANTED in the uterus. To say simply that abortion opponents are against the termination of life after fertilization is not in fact true to any enduring definition of abortion. There were several popes that felt termination of a pregnancy while perhaps sinful was not the ending of human life unless the baby had reached quickening. Most stillbirths and miscarriages were not baptized or given a religious burial because these products of conception were thought to have no soul. There are many other historical occurrences but my time does not permit more detail.

I personally would not want to participate in an elective medical abortion because implantation is a time that most embryos are usually able to continue into the development of a human. However, I do not see how termination at an early time such as before 12 weeks could constitute murder. Most spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, occur at this time. I have on the other hand seen Priests and Bishops attempting to interfere with emergency medical care for a women that are bleeding severely and spontaneously aborting a fetus. Besides the medical emergency, there often seems to be no understanding of the severe psychological trauma that a woman in this position is undergoing. Most women are extremely depressed at the time of a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage.) Where is the sense to include this occurrence as an incident that we simply should feel sorry for?

The fact that our great God in nature allows 60 to 80 % of all blastocysts to never implant does have profound meaning. We can call a fertilized zygote or blastocyst human life just as we can call an ovum, sperm, brain cell, liver cell or all the other living cells of the body a form of human life. But they are not people; they have no personhood, no mind and no soul. You say it is simply God's choice that these structures often do not implant. Well again it is also God's choice that most seeds or components of a fertilized plant or tree never are able to grow in a fertile soil. God allows an over abundance so a few will make it. But to say that a seed is the same as the magnificence of a tree or that a blastocyst is the same as a living and mindful human being is quite something else. I think this analogy stands because both a seed and a blastocyst are structures that must attach to a nutrient medium in order to survive.

You are mistaken Brian, there does come a time when a fetus in the womb beginns to learn from experience and does constitute a working rudimentary mind. The idea that this must occur sometime into advanced childhood is not at all consistent with the observations of science. The idea that at 12 weeks a fetus has only an extremely rudimentary brain because it is just at this time that it begins to have the sense of smell and taste is sound. A rudimentary brain does not constitute the ability to learn from experience that a fetus of about 22 or 24 weeks has. I along with any scientist, Bishop or Pope can not define when personhood or the development of soul takes place, but it is certainly some time after 12 weeks that God in His own time allows for this. The further along a fetus gets the more serious the destruction of that life is. When would taking of life constitute murder? This is a question for civil law and not fundamentalist religious opinion!

You say, "One can quite easily argue that, since a fertilized egg (or cloned embryo) is a self-contained (i.e. not a component of a larger organism), living entity composed of human genetic material, we can use that definition of "human life" without any recourse to religious text at all."

You are incorrect because every cell in the body is a living part of humanity and except for an ovum or sperm (which contains 1/2 the number of chromosomes) contain the entire DNA that is human. I have not yet heard people complain that an appendectomy or even male masturbation is equivalent to murder. So your point is not well made. Again I ask you, is Bishop Finn ready to accept the scientific fact that 60 to 80% of all naturally occurring blastocysts never implant? If he accepts this scientific fact, then how can he say that each blastocyst is equivalent to a person with a mind and a soul? If he accepts the observations of science, how can he say that a side effect of certain birth control pills cause abortions? Neither you nor Bishop Finn answers these questions. Why not? It seems that you are not listening to the observations of scientists that are diligently working in the field or you are too proud to examine scientific observation rather depending on your own unreliable definitions. Perhaps both you and so many of the Bishops simply do not have the scientific background to understand as the Bishops lacked the background to understand Copernicus. There is a very real problem when Bishops make definitions without the proper understanding. I guess we could all continue to think that the world is flat and that the earth is the center of the universe just because a number of Bishops say so, but the world is just too sophisticated to do that any more. When the Bishops are not careful enough to attempt better definitions, they cause a lot of trouble, they now are using the term pro life to stand in the way of investigation, treatment and possible cure for any number of maladies. This points to megalomania that is part of a rather sick episcopacy.

You know Brian many of us Catholic educated scientists are not pro choice. We work against abortion, we want it to be rare, but we will not agree with the fundamentalists who believe that criminalization is the answer to this usually sinful procedure. We will never agree that the loss of a blastocyst is in fact an abortion. This simply is not congruent with scientific observation.

Peace and more understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD

Dear Brian, Pardon me but as

Dear Brian,

Pardon me but as a student of embryology neurological development, it has been shown that the fetus begins to learn from experience somewhere in the late second trimester. This is a step that precedes thought, and the good doctor is wise to have recognized that. With thought we seem to need language, or could it be that a fetus understands because of behavior and the way words are used, the tone of voice more than we have ever believed it could. This much we certainly know, newborn infants are very smart. It is during the first eight months of life that they learn more at one time than they ever will learn again. To think that this does not begin intrauterine would not be paying attention as the doctor puts it to the observations of science.

I see lots of hubris in what the Bishops are teaching when it comes to the fetus and to sexual morality. They really should rethink what they are saying because it is inconsistent with reality. Especially the actions of the Bishops are inconsistent with morality. Read below the note by Sister Maureen.

"I know Catholics in our

"I know Catholics in our country are looking to their bishops for leadership in this."

This Bishop must be dreaming and not have seen these two pictures:

http://www.all-about-renaissance-faires.com/ren_artists/bruegel/p7hg_img...

http://www.artnotoil.org.uk/gallery/d/348-4/TheBlindLeadingTheBlind---T.jpg

God save Kansas

Pieter Bruegel

"I know Catholics in our

"I know Catholics in our country are looking to their bishops for leadership in this."
In their failure to protect the children entrusted to them for education and spiritual development, and to remove and seek help for their brothers in Christ who are pedophiles, the bishops have abdicated their role and claim of moral and spiritual leadership.

This is getting more than

This is getting more than annoying! If there isn't some recognition of the fact that abortion is the direct result of the prohibition of effective birth control methods being condemned by the church, thinking Catholics will continue to ignore the "war cries". Pro Life before conception and Pro-Choice after! As with celibacy and the shortage of priests, why are we being presented with "puzzles" that have very ethical and logical answers?

Amen to that Randy!

Amen to that Randy!

How does that work? With the

How does that work? With the pervasiveness of contraception in our culture, and the shameful number of Catholics who ignore the teaching, It seems that abortion is used AS birth control rather than for lack of it.

I wish Archbishop Finn and

I wish Archbishop Finn and his militant soldiers would join up with Mel Gibson's "orthodox" crowd plus the Relevant Radio/Dominos' pizza bunch. They could have a contest to see who is the most "faithful" and leave the rest of us alone. Enough with the holier than thou hectoring!
Get a life folks - do some good in the world. Work with the poor and sick and despised instead of trying to cause a split in the Church.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/11/19/14369/238

I'm glad bishops are not

I'm glad bishops are not infallible.

I also wish that Bishop Finn

I also wish that Bishop Finn would chose his words more carefully. Jesus was not about violence and using terms like war, warrior, and militant cloud up the teachings of Jesus.

I am not pro abortion, but I am also not anti choice. If the "pro livers" had their way, they would have executed Adam and Eve for eating the "trick" apple.

One reason that I am not against abortion is because my wife and I are too old to have more children. When we did pro create we had the means to raise our children.

If the bishop and his "Army" wants to be pro life, let them make available the funds that every parent would need to provide for their offspring.
They also should do what ever they can to prevent nations from going to war or execute law breakers.

Wasn't Jesus tortured and killed for breaking some man made laws? Was Jesus treated with the respect of a sacrificial offering. Was Jesus handled the way that he taught his followers to treat others?

Can't we stop using the execution of Jesus as a reason why we don't follow Jesus' teachings? Jesus didn't die so that we could lie, cheat and commit crimes that are against the spirit of Jesus' teachings because Jesus died so that we are not responsible.

St.Jerome wrote: "The seed

St.Jerome wrote: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs ("Epistle" (121, 4))"

Neither were early church organizational meetings unanimous. The Synods of Elvira and Ancyra (306 ACE, 314 ACE) explicitly called abortion a sin, while the Apostolic Constitutions (380 ACE) disallowed it only after the fetus took on a "human shape."

Although eastern Christianity vectored toward an absolutist stand, the western church did not. St. Augustine refocused the church on the Aristotelan delayed ensoulment model ("On Exodus", (21, 80)), and by this time the church was a much more defined hierarchy, leaving less room for disagreement.

In the early 7th Century, the Church began codifying what it considered sexual sins and abortion made the list, but was well behind the "sins" of birth control, oral sex, and anal sex. In fact, the punishment for oral sex was at least 7 years of penance, while the punishment for abortion was a mere 120 days.

In the centuries that followed, Popes came on the scene with widely varying viewpoints - changing and re-changing the rules as the mitre passed on. Significantly, Pope Innocent III in the early 1200s ruled that the fetus had no soul until it was "animated" (the "quickening" - when the mother can feel the fetus' movements, usually around the 24th week). In his ruling - and this is significant -- a monk was found not guilty of homicide for aborting his lover's unborn child under this argument. Pope Sixtus V in 1588 made all abortions illegal, but was reversed again by Pope Gregory XIV, codifying abortions at up to 16 ½ weeks as not equivalent to the killing of a human being, as no soul was present.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas himself - arguably the most influential theologian in Roman Catholic Christianity, did not consider a fetus human until the quickening.

This was the way it was for the most part until - and are you sitting down for this? - 1869. That's when Pope Pius IX declared all abortion to be homicide. That's right, for nearly the entire history of Christianity, the Catholic Church was officially tolerant of first trimester abortion. The change was well after the Enlightenment, after the Civil War, and into the modern scientific era. In fact, it was only as recently as 1983 that all vestiges of the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" were quietly purged from Canon Law. (Yes, that was 1983... only 23 years ago)

The next time you hear a politically conservative Catholic saying that anyone suggesting that abortion may be permissible publicly should be denied Communion, ask them if that would include Saints Jerome, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

http://greenmountaindaily.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=459

Cardinal Bellarmine, The

Cardinal Bellarmine, The reason the monk was found not guilty of homicide is that at that time no one knew when life begins. The Church was rightly reluctant to punish someone for something he/she might not have done. The same was true regarding Augustine, Aquinas and Church leaders in general. In 1869 Pope Pius IX decided (as did the leaders of the medical profession in the U.S. around the same time) that there was now sufficient scientific evidence to declare fertilization as the starting point of new life. He therefore declared all abortion to be homicide. The all-important point here is that the Church has always been at pains to protect life from its beginning to its natural end. I must say with all due respect your treatment of the Church's record vis a vis abortion is deceitful and manipulative. No one can doubt that if St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine knew what modern science has shown us, they would both treat abortion as homicide from fertilization on.

There is still NOTHING in

There is still NOTHING in modern science to tell us when life begins. Trust women to make these very difficult decisions. No man -- least of all celibate church-males -- should dictate to women how they must or must not regard a pregnancy. As much as this "bishop" -- and the hierarchy in general -- would like us to believe their answers are right, true, and the only possible ones, they are not. The bishop whose talk is here quoted sounds like a refugee from the crusader days of the church. His "evidence" is metaphor and his "solution" is hate-filled prayer.

Christa, "Trust women to make

Christa,

"Trust women to make these very difficult decisions. No man -- least of all celibate church-males -- should dictate to women how they must or must not regard a pregnancy. " This is a very sexist remark. It suggests that my masculine sexuality keeps me from rationally understanding the abortion issue as it affects women.

"As much as this "bishop" -- and the hierarchy in general -- would like us to believe their answers are right, true, and the only possible ones, they are not." The bishop is simply speaking the mind of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ himself and hence infallible in matters of faith and morals.

John Bequette, Until you can

John Bequette,

Until you can conceive and have a baby---no you cannot understand the abortion issue. Because it isn't just a "rational" decision---it is not
just about "theory" and "law" but some very practical issues like---where
to live, how to feed, clothe, provide medical help, educate children---and this is just for starters. And this bishop, along with many others, needs to realize that for all of their preaching---nothing is going to improve in the lives of women unless there is something practical done for them. This military blather coming from the bishop----means nothing.

And secondly, the concept of infallibility just began with Vatican Council (1869-70). There had been much in the Church that was far from infallible---after all, as Vatican II pointed out---this is a Church of consisting of humans. But the humans need to work out a practical, workable plan that will begin to decrease the number of abortions.

Christa, So "practical

Christa,

So "practical issues" are exempt from the purview of reason? You seem to suggest that the special circumstances of a woman in a pregnancy take her and her unborn child outside the jurisdiction of the Natural Law. This is the feminist ideology at its worst. And I'm sorry, but it IS sexist. It is deprecating to males to say that we cannot understand the issue. Reason is our natural tool for understanding. Your saying that my sex clouds my reason. This is sexist.

As for infallibility, papal infallibilty was defined as dogam in the First Vatican Council, but belief in the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium is an ancient Catholic belief. Read the Church Fathers. Yes, this is a Church of humans, but Christ promised to remain with the Church until the end of time. He promised the Holy Spirit would teach the Church all things.

The abortion issue is not fundamentally about decreasing the numbers of abortions. It is a about basic human justice for the unborn, which includes the recognition of equality before the law, hence obligation to provide them legal protection from those who would kill them.

Dear John as a male, I do not

Dear John as a male, I do not see Christa's comments at all as sexist, but I see yours as supporting a rather Patriarchal and authoritarian Episcopacy- one that can not even understand that they can and have done a lot of harm in the sexual and economic crises that the Church now faces. We have somehow evolved a group of very poor leaders. This must now be corrected by the People of God or they become complacent in all the extremely poor decisions that this current group is making. They have rejected the breath of fresh air from the Spirit and slammed shut the windows of out church with the use of man made Canon law. The problem is that there are too many of the People of God that continue to open the window and cause severe over reaction by this fearful group of men. Please see my comments above about Pius IX and Vatican I elsewhere on this blog.

Peace and understanding,

R. Dennis Porch, MD, PhD

Dr. Porch, Christa's comments

Dr. Porch,

Christa's comments assume that my sex impedes by reason from understanding the abortion issue. This is sexism, plain and simple. If you cannot see that, then I cannot help you here.

As for your criticism of a "Patriarchal and authoritarian Episcopacy," I think maybe you lack a basic understanding of what a bishop is. The word "patriarchal" is derived from the Latin "pater," meaning "father." That that is exactly what a bishop is: a father to the faithful in his diocese. The reason the father analogy is used is because it best expresses the role of the bishop as teacher and protector. He is to teach the faith and protect his diocesan family from dangerous incursions, such as heresy. In order to do this effectivey, he is endowed with authority. And so naturally there is an "autoritarian" dimension to his office. Without this authority, his teaching and protecting would be ineffective. And did I mention that he receives this authority from Christ?

You say that these "very poor leaders" must be "corrected by the People of God." So even though the bishops have authority from Christ, WE must correct THEM? We can dialogue with them, raise questions to them, even express our dismay at some of their prudential judgments. But we do not correct them. Any "correction" must come from authority; it is not to be directed at authority. That would be rather like the tail wagging the dog.

Oh there is a lot in modern

Oh there is a lot in modern science to tell us when life begins, Christa, enough to convince the medical profession that it begins at fertilization. Modern medical textbooks state quite unequivocally that when the sperm and the egg meet a new human life begins. They speak of the fetus as the second patient in the case of a pregnancy. However we justify abortion we cannot do so by claiming we don't know when human life begins.

Christa, you are very right

Christa, you are very right when you state, "There is still NOTHING in modern science to tell us when life begins." For those that criticize you and call you a feminist, (as if being a feminist is a sin), they are simply responding to a rather black and white patriarchal structure that in our church has led to authoritarianism.

Pope Pius IX was a very flawed man who essentially kidnapped a young Jewish boy that was baptized by a servant. He stated that it was correct to remove this child from his parents since he now was Catholic. The same Pius IX called together Vatican I, a rather tumultuous gathering that at first refused to give this man what he wanted- to be declared infallible. They voted against him and so Pius dissolved the council and when a significant number of his detractors left, he reconvened the conference to WA-LA get a simple majority of those still present to declare Papal infallibility. This rather flawed declaration was enforced on Bishops by treats to their retirement resources if they did not go along, and sign onto allegiance to this flawed doctrine. Come to think of it, this same threat continues when in so many cases the Church does not buy into the social security funds for their priests. Priest that disagree are silently threatened to be left without old age resources.

In recent years after the appointment of many fundamentalist Bishops, without very advanced degrees in theology but more with degrees in canon law, now try to point to the falsity that they alone are the only responsible teacher of the faith in their own diocese. Canon Law like civil law is made by men not God. It includes or included things like not eating meat on Fridays and the easter candle MUST be light by a flint light! This is inspite of so many clerical and non clerical theologians educated in Catholic Universities. It now seems with the licensing of theologians by Bishops to teach theology, our Catholic Universities are approaching becoming Cathecatical centers rather than true Universities that seek truth. Father Hesberg, a former President at Notre Dame in the 1980’s warned of this outcome in one of his departing addresses. A question for our readers do you think administrators like Mayors or Bishops should tell a university what they can teach and to whom they can teach it? If your answer is yes to that question do you prefer indoctrination to seeking truth or learning?

Today the Bishops are even taking things one step further, they are declaring themselves by authority of the magisterium in their own diocese always RIGHT in their thinking. This approaches the totalitarian mind set and is certainly not authoritative but authoritarian in nature. So many of these neocon Bishops are in effect declaring themselves infallible! Infallible in both belief and deed. This certainly does not meet the test of reality any more than Pius IX, method to declare himself infallible.

May the Peace of our Lord and understanding from the Spirit be with the Bishops and all of the People of God.

R. Dennis Porch, MD

"You state that no

"You state that no man...should dictate to women..." Then why are 64% of abortions forced/coerced? BY A MAN that FAILS to accept his role in sex. So all of you abortion supporting Catholics (Because that's what I'm reading through many of these posts)are reducing women to nothing more than objects for a sexually exploiting man, removing his responsibility as a father, and and elevating the killing a child to sacramental levels. All of you that say the Church needs to change are deifying yourselves instead of God. You have managed to make yourself believe YOU are right, the Church that Christ instituted as wrong.

I heard this Bishop speak. I was there in the crowd and NONE of you even come close to understanding what he's saying because you have your blinders on, believing only what you want to believe. Wanting to argue what he's saying because you believe you are right and he's wrong. You can't even humble yourself enough to even think that what he's saying has truth in it.

That decision you spoke of

That decision you spoke of 'fertilization' being the geginning of life. Well it came about from yes the conference of the best in the medical and theological field convening. What you don't seem to know is they could not come to a definative conclusion. They vaccilated between either when the eff was fertilized or when it attached to the uterus.

So my friends the decision was made to go with the safer conclusion. The erlier probability.

This my friends is all considered 'guessing'. God did not promise that all the conclusions our eminent leaders would come to would be infallible. He did say that faithful followers would not be wrong if they followed them. It's man, and much of it the grap for power, who have come up with much of what we hear.

When a bishop so sets himself apart form his peers, and sometimes his Pope, than I can choose to believe he has done so for his own edification. And you who should do more of your own thinking - well God does allow that you don't suffer for believing in a teached to sets himself on high.

Anonymous, I doubt that smart

Anonymous, I doubt that smart seekers like Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine would today treat the loss of a fertilized zygote as homicide. I doubt that a comparatively large number of people with any scientific expertise see abortion itself as homicide. Many would see it as wrong and maybe sinful but homicide- NO WAY! Only those that seek infinite definition provided by mere finite humans are unfortunate enough to believe such nonsense.

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS SHOULD

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS SHOULD DO MORE TO PROTECT CHILDREN

It is outrageous to read that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Jewish Community are pooling their resources, not to better protect children and give all victim/survivors of childhood sexual abuse access to justice, but rather to keep inadequate and discriminatory laws on the books which give more protection to sexual predators than to their victims.

Such an action certainly fails the test of morality! The sexual abuse of a minor is an egregious sin, a human tragedy and a major social problem that demands comprehensive solutions but, most importantly, it is a crime committed against the innocent.

It has been accurately described by Cardinal William Keeler, the former archbishop of Baltimore, Maryland, as murder of the soul and the egregious nature of such crimes demands that there should be no statutes of limitation, period.

Childhood sexual abuse is a major epidemic going on in our country, a pandemic if one considers it in its worldwide proportions so it is hard to believe, in light of recent statements in this newspaper, that we continue to have churchmen representing various religious denominations who actually oppose the removal of statutes of limitation in regard to the sexual abuse of children.

It is unconscionable that any synogogue, church or sect would hold fast to a belief that sexual predators and abusers should not be held accountable along with their enablers and that they would support the present accommodation in law that gives more protection to individuals who have been accused of the sexual abuse of children than to the victims themselves.

Window legislation, as it relates to civil statutes, is the single most important factor in holding sexual predators and any enabling institutions or individuals, if they exist, accountable whether they are religious denominations, hospitals, schools or scouts.

In the case of New York, a one year civil window just to gain access to the courts is the barest of minimums and yet religious leaders oppose it.

How can the Catholic dioceses of New York state deny the rightfulness of extending statutes of limitation in regard to the protection of children? This is not a matter belonging to what our church calls the "deposit of faith," and leaving aside the matter of mortal sin for the moment, the sexual abuse of children is a matter of criminal behavior, not to be relegated to the venial status of a lesser weakness.

On the basis of what is known today about the obstacles impeding a victim's ability in coming forward, present laws covering the sexual abuse of children are totally inadequate.

Why isn't the archdiocese distributing postcards for the members of the Catholic community to sign and send to their legislators in Albany to support the complete removal of statutes of limitation going forward in regard to the sexual abuse of children, criminally and civilly?

Why isn't the New York Catholic Conference lobbying to protect children as would befit the Holy See's signatory status to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? Window legislation is not "anti" any particular religion or institution but it is anti-rapist and child molester. It forces records, if they exist and have not been destroyed, to be made available in a court of justice and hopefully into the public venue as well.

We know that pedophiles, rapists, molesters and child abusers come from all walks of life and that the sexual abuse of children happens primarily in the home so it is patently unconscionable for religious denominations and their leadership to protect and enable sexual predators by refusing to support changes in the laws that would hold both the perpetrators and their enablers accountable.

No child ever deserves to be raped, sodomized, molested, abused or trafficked across state lines or international borders for purposes of sexual exploitation.

Such acts, especially when committed by a parent, family member, doctor, teacher, trusted minister, rabbi, imam or priest are crimes and the perpetrators should be treated as the criminals they are.

The Orthodox Jews and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church should be coming together to better protect our children from these vicious individuals and those who may have protected them.

Is it about money?

The outrageous claim that Assemblywoman Margaret M. Markey's bill A2596, known as the Child Victims Act, is "designed to bankrupt the Catholic Church," as claimed by Dennis Poust, a spokesman for the New York State Catholic Conference is simply beyond the pale.

Such disinformation promulgated by the institutional church is as disingenuous as it is outrageous.

One needs to keep in mind that in 2007 the Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to a 660 million dollar settlement, the church's largest payout to victim/survivors of clergy sexual abuse while also paying millions of dollars to their own lawyers, lobbyists and to the California Catholic Conference to oppose settling.

At the same time the archdiocese built and paid for a magnificent new cathedral that any city in the world would be proud to showcase and they did it without ever mentioning bankruptcy.

In the New Testament Gospel of St. Matthew, Jesus says, "whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea," (18:16).

Where is it found that Jesus said justice for a child was dependent on the price tag?

Nowhere! Neither in the Old Testament nor in the New Testament.

No, the real issue is not money.

The real issue was and still is about the exercise of power and the abuse of that power no matter the religious denominations concerned.

The Catholic bishops of the United States, for example, promised accountability and transparency in 2002 but have they been conscientious in delivering on that promise?

Investigations and grand jury reports in a number of major jurisdictions have shown that the answer is a resounding "No."

Even the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has yet to release priests' files which were part of their 2007 settlement and was ordered by the courts.

In all good conscience, I would strongly encourage our brothers and sisters of the Jewish faith along with the faithful Catholics of the Archdiocese of New York, and indeed all the good and decent people of the state of New York to support criminal and civil laws that are as strong as possible in holding accountable the sexual predators of our children and any individuals or institutions who were complicit in their protection.

The proposed New York legislation (A2596 and S2568) sponsored by Assemblywoman Margaret M. Markey, D-Queens and Senator Tom Duane, D-Manhattan, is both comprehensive and a solution that will go far to help reduce childhood sexual abuse.

__________________

Sister Turlish is a Delaware educator and victims' advocate who testified before the Delaware Senate and House Judiciary Committees in support of Delaware's 2007 Child Victims Law. She is on the National Representative Council of Voice of the Faithful and on the Board of Directors for the Delaware Association for Children of Alcoholics.

E-mail Sister Maureen Paul Turlish at maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com.

Gee, another single-issue

Gee, another single-issue Catholic.

Sister, you passion for

Sister, you passion for justice is admirable. I would suggest that the main target of your efforts in that regard should be our public school system, not just in New York, but across the country. The Catholic Church has taken effective measures to end abuse by clergy and other employees. A lot still has to be done by way of punishing the guilty, of course, but the possibility of future abuse has been greatly diminished (although not yet eliminated). Not so in public education, if one is to believe the reports. I would suggest too, you ask the media, who so effectively investigated and exposed clerical sexual abuse, why they do not do the same with the public school system. A concern for abused children should include ALL abused children, not just those involved with the Church.

Any child abusers and anyone

Any child abusers and anyone who covered up for them should be sent to jail.

Once again Sister Maureen,

Once again Sister Maureen, you say it well! I hope you continue to inform others of what is happening. It is such a shock for people to understand the severity of the ramifications of such poor Episcopal leadership that it takes people such as your self to continue to point out the obvious.
May you and the rapped children one day bathe in the peace of the Lord!

Peace and continue to spread understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD

"One modern-day saint said

"One modern-day saint said when you are going out to try to change someone’s heart determine to make your effort 80 percent prayer and 20 percent words or actions."

This forgetful bishop (realtively young compared to most others in their seventies) cannot even name the "One modern-day Saint".

This bishop seems to be all words and no prayer.

What a rant! There are many

What a rant! There are many ways to destroy a human life; abortion is only one way. This one issue approach is hypocritical. Think about all the lives destroyed/maimed as a result of the pedophile scandal, the war in Iraq--to name a few.

Once again, a prolife speech

Once again, a prolife speech with no mention of children who are poor, abused or molested, orphaned by AIDS, starving, killed or maimed in war, forced in to military service, abandoned to the sex trade, oh, did I mention these were children. It boggles my mind how the millions of innocent lives and lost generations of children can be so blatently ignored by those who concider themselves champions of life! And to champion life without acknowledging the cruelity and inhumanity of the death penalty is hypocracy.

Embryos are not the only lives that matter!

Bishop "Photo opportunistic"

Bishop "Photo opportunistic" Robert W. Finn must be "yearning" for some "ATTENTION" in the media.
Good day to select the perfect timing to coincide with something happening in Washington.
Good way to join the "ELITE SINGLE-ISSUE PRO-BIRTH" club of Bishops.
Good way to get noticed at Rome and promote one's carrer, saying what Rome likes to hear.
All power corrupts.

"There are a thousand

"There are a thousand striking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root" Henry David Thoreau

Thank you, Bishop Finn, for shaking the foundations and striking at the root.

You do know that Thoreau very

You do know that Thoreau very completely rejected Christianity, don't you?

Sure you couldn't find a quote by Nietsche or Voltaire to put here?

Hmmm...speaking of Voltaire,

Hmmm...speaking of Voltaire, are you a lawyer or a priest?

Sure are a lot of violent

Sure are a lot of violent words in this speech. I know he makes occasional reference to obeying the law, but that's an incidental comment. The constant message is "war, attack, fight, battle, enemies, war, war, war."

Can't help but think that this is a terrible person who is pretending to advocate for innocents. This person is not an instrument of love on earth.

Seems that you would also

Seems that you would also have a difficulty with this prayer:

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.

You ought to try it, its popular!

Christ is Risen! Alleluia! Alleluia!

Yes, I would. Seems to me

Yes, I would. Seems to me that the union of faith and war generally leads to a very bad place. Or have you never opened a history book?

Are you serious?

Are you serious? Christianity 101 advises us to struggle against all forms of evil-if you don't you get Stalins, Maos, Hitlers etc... As for the popular misconception around religion and war. Recent studies have concluded that of the hundreds of millions who have died in wars, less than 20 million have been associated with wars associated with all kinds of religion. Why don't you do some researching of your own. But here are some facts:

From a website: http://www.ask.com/bar?q=how+many+people+died+in+religious+wars&page=1&q...

"..consider the following deaths in this century caused by non-religious conflict where the leaders all claimed they did not believe in God.

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse
1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia

All of the leaders of these regimes claimed they did not believe in God. These were not religious wars, they were fueled by plain old power and hatred.

So are religious wars.

So are religious wars.

Religion is an interesting phenomenon, and sometimes the religion is secular and nationalistic. Liturgical rites are symbolic and designed to motivate the unconscious emotional mind. There is very little difference between the liturgical offering of a football game, the Nuremburg rallies and a WYD Mass as they impact the human psyche. All appeal to the same 'fundamental' instincts. Pun intended.

I hear you. The Media tends

I hear you. The Media tends to hate Religion to such an extent, that the message being actively propagated is the awful lie that War=Religion. Its an insidious communication plan. I pray that more people come to the understanding that Catholicism is Truth because it is founded upon Jesus-God come in the flesh and stop accepting the simplistic drivel being shoveled at us by the Media. God bless!

Which church is this guy

Which church is this guy from? Where is the gospel in this church. It surely isn't mine. That is why the paper said today people are leaving the CATHOLIC CHURCH, my church. I AM FOR LIFE------ALL of life.
ABORTION stops a beating heart!
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT stops a beating heart!
WAR stops a beating heart!
STARVATION stops a beating heart!

Is using a "war" reference

Is using a "war" reference really such a good idea when people have been know to committ acts of violence at abortion clinics? Just my two cents.

wish he was our bishop. great

wish he was our bishop. great guy!

Go to war Pete the greek if

Go to war Pete the greek if you want it so bad. Go follow the right wing fundamentalist who've lost their marbles and Jesus Christ and have your God forsaken bloody war for the unborn. Just don't say you are pro-life when all you are doing is warring against life for the born!

BTW: Jesus Christ is all about Peace. Follow Him. Jesus says "Follow Me." He doesn't say follow the padre into war and hell. "War is Hell." I suppose you might have heard that term before. But, maybe you have not.

When you walk into war you are walking your body and soul right into the hell you are supposedly trying to save others from? Gee, makes so much sense!!!

ha another 'nothing existed

ha

another 'nothing existed before the 60s' catholic. the warfare hes talking about is a very old term.

you've never heard the term 'spiritual warfare' before? that is what goes on in our daily struggle against tmeptation and personal sin. you do know that right?

jesus never said make peace with the devil. thats what the whole term church militant means. do you all accept the existence of the devil? im never sure what parts of catholic faith you all havent rejected.

Pete, my family has been in

Pete, my family has been in this country for about eight generations. I am a daughter of the American Revolution. Your trying to paint anyone as "another 'nothing existed before the 60s' catholic" is really out of place and way off the mark and is rude and intended to insult in some way.

Most likely I heard of the term "spiritual warfare" long before you did. Jesus had an encounter with the devil as you are probably familiar with also. To counter any kind of evil, Jesus taught us by His example in the Gospels as well. What was the prayer that he taught us Pete? Did Jesus speak to all the people about conducting spiritual warfare against their enemies? I'm never sure what parts of the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus Christ y'all haven't rejected.

insult? nah, just a pattern i

insult? nah, just a pattern i notice.

youre talking about the 'our father', which ends 'deliver us from evil' (or 'the evil one' depending on the translation).

you may HAVE heard it before i did (don't know how old you are), but you don't seem to know what it means.

paul also tells us to be ready to grapple with the devil. here's what he says in ephesians:

"Finally, brethren, be strengthened in the Lord and in the might of his power. Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. That is to say, in the air, the lowest of the celestial regions; in which God permits these wicked spirits or fallen angels to wander. Therefore, take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day and to stand in all things perfect. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth and having on the breastplate of justice: And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God)."

notice the image here? paul is putting it all in the image of a soldier preparing for battle. we truly are at war with evil in the world. we must rely on god to help us, becuase without him, we are nothing. but we ARE at war, a spiritual war against evil. we cant, as the prophet jeremiah says, cry 'peace peace when there is no peace'.

btw, ever notice in the gospel how jesus says 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?' do people attack other people with gates? no!

what is 'spiritual warfare'. i think its a term you profoundly misunderstand. here, from the speech, is what bishop finn said:

"Our battle is ultimately a spiritual battle for the eternal salvation of souls – our own and those of other people. We are not engaged in physical battles in the same way military soldiers defend with material weapons. We need not – we must not – initiate violence against other persons to accomplish something good, even something as significant as the protection of human life.

But it is true that we might have to endure physical suffering to prosper the victory of Jesus Christ. He carried the Cross. He promised us that – if we were to follow Him – we also would share the Cross. We must not expect anything less. When you stand up for what is right – you will be opposed. The temptation will be to avoid these attacks. But through our responses we must see what kind of soldiers we are."

what are our weapons in this war? firebombs? rifles? bricks and bottles to throw at riot cops? ( you, and more the guy below your comment, seem to imply this is what the bishops words are pushing )

no

our weapons are the same that jesus mentioned, prayer in particular. what did he tell his apostles in the garden before judas came in the gospel of matthew? "Watch ye: and pray that ye enter not into temptation." what did he tell his disciples about the demons that would not come out when they commanded them in the gospel of mark? "This kind can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting."

we must also do what instruct the ignorant and admonish the sinner. but we must do so with true charity.

finally, we must fight by our example. what was one of the major factors that struck the pagans about early christians? "look how they love one another". this is not the pop culture version of love, the im ok youre ok love. no, it was genuine love, charity.

the bishop says we will be reviled by the world for standing up for issues such as this. that's true. christ himself says "i come not to bring peace but to bring a sword". the world has always attacked the church whe she speaks out on these things. and it always will. fighting this spiritual war will not earn us friends and fame in this world. all but one of the apostels were murdered for teaching about christ. we probably won't have to face THAT. but we should be willing to accept the lesser crosses when we speak out for life, shouldnt we? if we arent willing to stand against the slings and arrows of repubs by stating without reservation that torture is a gross violation of human dignity and grave sin; if we cant stand being shunned by demos by stating without reservation that abortion is grave evil; what kind of catholcis are we?

Pete, I agree with what

Pete, I agree with what Colkoch has written below. Please read that as it is well worth the read.

actually, i want the 45

actually, i want the 45 seconds back that i wasted reading it yesterday.

he doesnt try to debate what the bishop actually said. instead he attacks what he personally would like to believe are the bishops motivations.

to say that jesus didn't battle the devil is to admit to a complete lack on knowledge of the entire scripture, new and old testament. jesus did battle the serpent. the fact that when jesus showed up physically it was a very one sided fight doesnt change that.

Pete the greek, what you are

Pete the greek, what you are saying is very presumptuous and you assume that you know what the bishop is actually doing and saying. A better approach for you would try to read what Colkoch said again and not assume it is "what he personally would like to believe are the bishops motivations." Actually, it is you who "personally would like to believe are the bishops motivations."

If you have read the scriptures you would know that Jesus did not battle the devil and nor did He teach us to do battle with the devil. Furthermore, the Lord's Prayer says more than just the last line. You should focus on this line: "lead us not into temptation."

The Bishop is leading you into temptation to evil. You believe that he is a good guy, when he is just like the evangelicals that Colkoch was speaking about, but that you apparently have no clue exist and what their motivations are. You need to broaden your reading of what different groups are promoting which is leading Christians into temptation to evil against their neighbors. You need to do as Christ said which is to "not judge by appearances only."

here is the guys words from

here is the guys words from below:
"Their agenda is to take over the world for Jesus and run it for the saved. Their definition of saved includes mostly just them."

he is the one making assumptions about the bishop's motivation. i'm just taking the bushop at his word and not assuming some kind of maniacal conspiracy to promote physical violence.

you say: If you have read the scriptures you would know that Jesus did not battle the devil and nor did He teach us to do battle with the devil.

you didn't read a single thing i posted above, did you? i guess for you, the scriptures consist of chosen sections with a complete disregard for the teachings of the apostles or anything else in the bible it seems.

what you all seem to be espousing is basically what a lot of the protestants espouse. it really smacks of the whole 'jesus is my personal lord and savior now. nothing can ever hurt me and nothing can lose my salvation'.

the devil does not make war upon god's children in this world? do you people just ignore things like luke 22:31

"And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat."

you all also seem to gloss over other mentions of spiritual warfare in scripture like: 2 timothy 4:18, 1 timothy 6:12, ephesians 6:14, ephesians 6:11, james 4:7, ESPECIALLY 1 peter 5:8-9 and the entire book of revelation. you are the one that needs a scripture lesson, sir. the church's teaching is correct on this subject (as it has been, unbroken, for 2000 years), not the teaching of john lennon.

you say: The Bishop is leading you into temptation to evil.
ok... so the bishop is calling us toward prayer, penance, witness, etc. THATS your idea of leading into temptation?

Pete, Jesus didn't do battle

Pete, Jesus didn't do battle with Satan. He either ignored Satan or dismissed Satan. Jesus never spoke about 'spiritual warfare.'

Bishop Finn is using in this speech the same language used by Evangelical prayer warriors.
Their agenda is to take over the world for Jesus and run it for the saved. Their definition of saved includes mostly just them. They are not too keen on Catholics as we are possessed by the demon the 'Queen of Heaven'.

Pro life Catholics should be very careful about using the kind of language that Bishop Finn uses. Ultimately this language is not pro life, it's pro conflict and the unborn become nothing more than an excuse to engage in conflict.

Really, Jesus is all about

Really, Jesus is all about peace? Have you ever read the Gospels?

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," (Matthew 10: 34).

And, "I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division," (Luke 12: 49-51).

And, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one,"
(Luke 22: 36).

Christ came for many reasons and one of them was to ignite a fire in the hearts of those who believed in Him. Never are we to compromise with evil. Never are we to make peace with the Devil. Never are we to sacrifice our beliefs and our souls on the altar of tolerance or political expediency. If we are people of integrity, people who really believe in Jesus and His Gospel, we must be people who never ever cooperate with evil, either by action or inaction, but who fight against it daily. Sometimes everyone falls and fails, but we are called to get up, be reconciled to God through Confession and penance, and fight on.

People who are victims of war and violence, criminals who are under the sentence of death, these can speak for themselves and can fight for themselves. But can the unborn speak for themselves? No. We must speak for them. We must be the voice for the millions of unborn children who have been murdered and for the countless others still to be born. Yes, we must raise our voice at injustice in all its forms, and always be for the culture of life, from birth to natural death, but the unborn are the most innocent among us. Satan and his minions chose this battlefield, literally the murder of the most innocent of human life. It is an attack upon the very soul of humanity when a mother can choose to kill her unborn child. We are horrified when a mother, in a fit of depression and mental illness, drowns her own children in a bath tub. Yet we don't even bat an eye when a mother chooses to have the innocent life within her killed and ripped from her body.

What kind of a people have we, in our complacency, by our tolerance of differences, by our willingness to understand, in our tacit compromise with evil, allowed ourselves to become?

Clint, Jesus never preached

Clint, Jesus never preached for us to go into spiritual warfare against anyone. You are taking snippets from the Gospels and taking them out of context. You are interpreting Jesus' words in a way that discounts the rest of the Gospels and changes the meaning to support a political agenda.

I have faith in Jesus Christ and the fire is ignited and burning in my heart. This fire is ablaze not for my glory but for the glory of God. This fire gives me the sword of His justice. His justice is of love. Not all will accept the sword as that as being of love, but have mistaken that sword as that of vengeance and hatred. The sword of His love is not making peace with the Devil, but is making peace with Christ and His love. The devil is not about love. Love never cooperates with evil, for there is no evil in love.

You say "People who are victims of war and violence, criminals who are under the sentence of death, these can speak for themselves and can fight for themselves." Oh really. Go tell that to someone on death row who has run out of appeals and will be sent to death or to someone in Darfur to speak for themselves and to take care of themselves as they are being raped, their homes destroyed, driven from their lands, starved and there is mass genocide against them. As men, women and children are dying in their tent cities they can speak for themselves and fight for themselves?

Complacency would be to ignore or negate every other issue surrounding the life issues and just focus on one and decide that is the only issue worthy of speaking up about and doing it in such a way that does nothing to really promote life but promotes conflict and a warlike attitude against your neighbors who are Pro-life via a route that actually does promote life and the health of the mother and child.

from ephesians: "Finally,

from ephesians:

"Finally, brethren, be strengthened in the Lord and in the might of his power. Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. That is to say, in the air, the lowest of the celestial regions; in which God permits these wicked spirits or fallen angels to wander. Therefore, take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day and to stand in all things perfect. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth and having on the breastplate of justice: And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God)."

quoting that is hardly out of context. we DO have to fight against the temptations to sin and evil in this life. to deny that is to deny some very basic, 2000 year old teachings of the church. stating the truth that 'the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour' is not a statement of a political platform. its the inspired word of god.

I assure you Pete the greek,

I assure you Pete the greek, the devil does not have my soul, for it belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. I am not tempted by Fr Flinn, but truly try to follow Jesus Christ. I am not a ruler of the world, nor am I of the spirits of wickedness in the high places, so you are shouting at the wrong person.

"God permits these wicked spirits or fallen angels to wander" "in the air, the lowest of the celestial regions." I am a baptized Catholic and love Jesus Christ so do not dwell in the lowest of the celestial regions I think you would agree. "God permits" adversaries. Why do you think God permits these wicked spirits?

The good bishop said, "To

The good bishop said, "To deliberately destroy a human person, and without any justification of self-defense, is to preempt without an equal and sufficient cause, the right to life bestowed by God alone. Life is a gift which we have from God, not from man. This right cannot be taken away by means of a human law. It ought to be protected and assured by human law.", yet he does not speak of the death penalty provisions in our country, which contradict his "life is a gift" theology, and his "gift from God".

His is not a "Right to Life" but a "Right to Birth" theology. Just make sure that baby is born (without any social safety nets), but if that baby is involved in any henious crime...kill it !!!! When hypocrisy wears a pectrol cross, I tend to get sick to my stomach.

While I oppose both abortion

While I oppose both abortion and the death penalty, I view the comparison of the deliberate, premeditated killing of a completely innocent and defenseless pre-born baby to the execution of a convicted killer as a ridiculous and irrational analogy engaged in by those who are really pro-abortion, but afraid to say so.
The aborted baby has been accused of no crime, but he or she is automatically condemned to death having received no counsel, no defense, no hearing, no trial by jury, no bifurcated death penalty phase, no motions, no appeals, no due process, and no time between condemnation and execution by the most gruesome procedures that would constitute egregious violations of the Eighth Amendment if only the poor little soul was deemed by five justices to be a person. A baby enters an abortion clinic alive in the morning and is often dead by lunchtime. No questions asked. No news stories of this extraordinary event. There are no public witnesses to this execution--it is all a dark shameful secret.
By contrast, since 1973, the date of the Roe v. Wade decision, the executed prisoner has been accused and convicted by a jury of a heinous crime. The prisoner receives notice of his/her crime, the benefit of some kind of legal counsel, some type of trial by jury, some type of death penalty hearing, numerous motions and appeals--in other words, some crack at due process, however imperfect it may be. The news media covers the trial, motions, appeals, and execution of the convicted criminal at length, and public witnesses are always on hand.
The rationalizing soul who refuses to condemn abortion on the grounds that capital punishment exits only fools him/herself. I am sure if I hear any response it will be more rhetoric on the imperfections of the justice system, statistics on unjustly convicted prisoners, the disproportion of death sentences with regard to poverty and race, and any other attempts to obfuscate the central issue. You are still rationalizing and you are pro-abortion.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <font> <swf> <swf list>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This is prove you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Solve the simple math problem.
3 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.