Financial Assistance requested    

Given to Fr. John Rock for Joseph Cardinal Ratziner in the Cardinal's offices in Rome, Italy

A Rational Presentation of the Use of Lethal Force in Opposing Aborticide.

Mt 7.21 "Not everyone who says to me `Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven".

NOTATION: These references have been accumulated, from a variety of sources, over a period of time with the goal of responding to reactions to prior commentaries. The intention herein is to provide formal information whereby humanistic reactions can be replaced by spiritual values. DCT

The more innocent blood which is shed, the more the condemnation by God. Numbers 35:33 "You shall not desecrate the land where you live. Since bloodshed desecrates the land, the land can have no atonement for the blood shed on it except through the blood of him who shed it." Numbers 25 makes a similar point through the example of Phinehas.

Exo 23:25-26 The LORD, your God, you shall worship; then I will bless your food and drink, and I will remove all sickness from your midst; [26] no woman in your land will be barren or miscarry; and I will give you a full span of life. (NOTE: In America one of the fastest growing medical specialties is that of infertility.)

Luke 10:27 He said in reply, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." (NOTE: Is not the unborn child your neighbor?)

"We cannot walk into the future while planning the systematic death of the unborn! We can only walk with a civilization of love that welcomes life."

John Paul II, 6 April 1994, from L'Osservatore Romano.

John 15:12 "This is my commandment: love one another as I love you." NOTE: (If one does not do what he is able to do to protect his neighbor, whether born or unborn, he has not kept the commandment, he does not have eternal life in him. Fr. David C. Trosch)

If we Catholics believe, as the Church teaches, that life begins at conception, we have no choice but to make a defense of unborn life our highest priority. Virgil C. Dechant, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus. Columbia, February 1993.

Mat 7:12 "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." (Would you personally like to be pulled apart by an abortionist?)

Luke 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of a letter of the law to become invalid."

QUOTATIONS EXCERPTED FROM:

"THE NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA"

Intervention -- A term (from the Latin intervenire, to come between) used in international law and ethics to note the assistance given by one or more governments to one belligerent against another, or the action taken by governments outside their own territory to bring help to individuals or to aid one or more parties to internal dissension within another state. Historically the term has been used by Christian moralists in the sense of action taken to defend others against injury in fulfillment of a natural obligation of human society (see Peace, International).

Principle of Social Solidarity -- Studied in the context of the morality of war or as an expression of human solidarity overriding the claims of national sovereignty, intervention is the expression of a moral principle that is at the root of the Christian tradition: "Greater love than this no one has that one lay down his life for his friends" (Jn 15.13). This dramatic assessment by Christ of the worth of the individual person guided the early Fathers of the Church when the Christian community, no longer a persecuted minority immune from civil responsibility, was called upon, after the conversion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, to define the rights and duties of a vast multiracial state menaced by the barbarians. St. Ambrose (c. 340-397) and St. Augustine (354-430) distinguished between the counsels of perfection "not to resist the evil doer" and to "turn the other cheek" (Mt 5.39-40) directed to the individual, who can renounce his natural right of self-defense for a higher cause, and ***the social duty to defend others from injury and oppose the violation of peace. The first recorded praise of military courage by a Christian author--found in the De officiis of St. Ambrose--avers that "fortitude which in war preserves the country from the barbarians, or ***helps the infirm at home, or defends one's neighbor's from robbers, is full of justice" (1.27.129). Following the reasoning of Cicero's work under the same title, ***St. Ambrose went further: "He who does not repel an injury done to his fellow, if he is able to do so, is as much at fault as he who commits the injury" (1.36.179). (The New Catholic Encyclopedia -- Intervention -- Page 593).

Military Intervention: Development of Doctrine.

..the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546). In addition to reasserting the accepted teaching on the rightfulness of fighting in defense of allies who are attacked, he asserted that intervention within other countries was ***justified and even a duty, notably in two sets of circumstances. In the first instance, it could be undertaken ***to save innocent people from massacre, human sacrifice, cannibalism, or other violations of natural morality. This, he showed in his first Relectio de Indis, could be a possible title to war and even to the disposition of tyrannical rulers. The requisite conditions were present only too often during the age of colonization (the British intervention to stop the human sacrifices of the Benin kings being a case in point); but in these ***situations in which it would have been wrong for those having power to save human lives to refuse to do so, humanitarian intervention could only with difficulty be disentangled from national interests.

The second set of circumstances relates to the right of rebellion. Vitoria taught that, if the justice of a rebellion is doubtful, other rulers do not have the right to intervene. On the other hand, ***"if it is evident that subjects are suffering injustice from their king, it is lawful for foreign princes to make war on that king. And, in general, when subjects have right on their side in fighting against their king, other princes may justly fight for the people. This is because the people is innocent and princes (i.e., rulers of the states) have by natural law the right and power to defend the world against injustice" (Commentary on the Summa Theologia of St. Thomas 40.1.6.). This doctrine presupposes the existence of a world community in potentia on behalf of which governments may act as the instruments of justice.

The great Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) most significant contribution to the doctrine of intervention was that he brought out what was implicit in the work of his predecessors, namely, that ***military action was justified in order to come to the aid not only of allies or neighbors, but of all victims of grave injustice in virtue of the solidarity of the human race (De jure belli ac pacis 2.25.6).

***During the 19th and 20th centuries a doctrine of non-intervention was developed. As such it was condemned in the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX in 1868, together with the proposition that the State as the fount and origin of all rights itself enjoys a right which knows no limits" (39).

In a remarkable Essay on Natural Law by Luigi Taparelli d'Azeglio was worked out for the first time, as a logical requirement of nature, the establishment of a world society and had an immense influence in subsequent papal teaching. ***Taparelli saw intervention first as an obligation of charity that should naturally lead one society "to lend others protection against unjust aggression, just as ... the duty of natural benevolence makes us go to the defense of another person unjustly attacked." (Intervention, P. 595).

Justice and Law. A striking feature of contemporary thought is the somewhat general omission of justice from theories about the legal order. ... The notion of justice seems to have disappeared. In fact, H. Kelson, a writer on jurisprudence, published his collected essays under the title What is Justice? (Berleley 1957), thus recalling Pontius Pilate's comparable question to Christ, What is Truth?" (Jn 18.38). Clearly, the notion of justice must be reasserted in contemporary legal theory.

Virtue of Justice. ***According to the common definition of St. Thomas Aquinas, the virtue of justice is "the strong and firm will to give to each his due" (ST 2a2ae, 58.1). JUSTICE p.70. (The New Catholic Encyclopedia)

JUSTICE p.71 -- The Family. Social Justice encompasses every community from the family to the community of nations. ***The child as a person and as a member of the human community has inalienable rights -- above all, the right to life (and that indeed from the moment of conception), the right to be born into a wholesome family (from which follow the immorality of extramarital intercourse and a whole set of community obligations for safeguarding the family), and the right to education and support. ***Every community, from the family on up to the state and the community of nations, has to attend to and, as far as possible, to protect these rights.

JUSTICE p.71 -- Civil Government. Beginning with the smaller groups and next higher communities and extending on up to the state and the community of nations, the government has ***the duty of safeguarding the inalienable rights of each member of the community. Such rights would be, for example, the rights to life, security, intellectual and religious freedom, and the opportunity to work according to one's capacity, so long as one does not forfeit one or the other of these rights by wrongdoing, thus bringing into play penal justice.

VENGEANCE p.600a -- For those in a position of authority the infliction of penalties upon violators of the law is therefore a strict duty in justice. Under ordinary circumstances private individuals are not obliged to take a personal part in securing the punishment of the guilty. Indeed, where personal injuries are concerned the Christian is counseled to pardon wrongs without seeking vengeance (Rom 12.18-20), although ***in some cases personal injuries are grievously dishonoring to God, or are damaging to the Church or to the civil community, and in these circumstances an individual can be under strict obligation to take action against an offender.

WAR, MORALITY OF p.803 -- Origins of the Just War Theory. St. Augustine was the originator of the just war theory and his thinking exerts an influence even on that of modern times. Augustine contended that no Christian should kill in self-defense, for no disciple of Christ should love property or life more than God or his neighbor. Not natural justice but Christian charity was the decisive factor in this contention. The maintenance of peace, however, postulates in rulers the right and duty to make war and in subjects the duty to obey when the command is not clearly against a divine precept. The only legitimate reason for making war is the defense of the peace against serious injury. But even a just war should be waged in a spirit of benevolence, that is, with mercy for the vanquished and with peaceful intent. Thus in Augustine's thought war was "limited" by its purpose, its authority, and its conduct, though he seems never to have satisfied himself as to how it is fully compatible with Christian charity.

St. Thomas Aquinas. In his explicit treatment of war (ST 2a2ae, 40) St. Thomas added little to what St. Augustine had written. A war could be just under three conditions.

1. It is to be waged on the authority of the ruler charged with the care of the common good..¹

2. There must be a just cause, that is, those against whom the war is waged must have merited this through some fault (culpam).

3. Finally, there must be a right intention.

However, Thomas's more important contributions would appear to consist in his stress on the natural law and his re-introduction of the Aristotelian concept of the perfect society, a notion that complicated the identification of the authority competent to declare and wage war.

WAR, MORALITY OF p.804 -- Defensive War Justifiable. That defensive war is morally justifiable is not surprising; the proposition has always found a place in traditional Christian thinking. Its repetition by Pius XII in the era of ABC (atomic-bacteriological-chemical) warfare is important in the extreme, for it reasserts that among the goods of humanity "there are some of such importance for the human community that their defense against an unjust aggression is without doubt fully justified" {ActApS 41 (1949) 13] even in an era familiar with weapons of mass destruction. Failure to defend these goods would give "free field in international relations to brutal violence and lack of conscience" [ActApS 45 (1953) 748]. ***From this "it becomes clear that, in present circumstances, there may come into existence in a nation a situation in which all hope of averting war becomes vain. In this situation a war of efficacious self-defense against unjust attacks, which is undertaken with hope of success, cannot be considered illicit" [ActApS 49 (1957) 19] and indeed may be "in certain circumstances obligatory" {ActApS 41 (1949) 13]. These are not the conclusions of a reckless bellicism since "one cannot, even in principle, raise the question of the liceity of ABC warfare except in the case in which it must be judged indispensable for self-defense in the conditions indicated" [ActApS 46 (1954) 589]. Knowing the horrors of modern warfare the Pope asserted that only a nation "unjustly attacked and menaced in its vital rights" [ActApS 44 (1952) 422] could resort to violence in defense of these rights.

(NOTE: In an international civil war [insurrection due to aborticide, etc.,] there is no fear of there being ABC warfare. Fr. David C. Trosch)

***In summary, war is not morally justifiable ad vindicandas offensiones (to punish an offense) or ad repetendas res (to recover a thing), but is justifiable only ad repellendas injurias (to repel injury and aggression).

WAR p.795 -- In its juridical sense, war is armed conflict between sovereign states or communities having in this regard the right of states. Sociologists define war generically but limit use of the term to conflicts that take the forms recognized in law and customs. Popular usage tends to overlook technical distinctions between war and other forms of conflict; the term is applied to hostilities on a large scale or of notably of long duration, but the public is often puzzled when it is not applied to the use of force in incidents of more limited scope. When the contending powers are grossly unequal, the conflict may be called simply a military expedition, an intervention, or a reprisal. Internal conflicts, such as insurrections, seditions, and rebellions, may attain the status of civil wars. In fact, ¹***a people in revolution, in the instance of a just effort to reestablish civil government or the exercise of constitutional rights, is conceded to be in a juridical category similar to a state, with respect to the protection of its fundamental rights by force of arms.

The Ends of War. Thomas E. Murray once proposed a useful distinction between force and violence. Force is the controlled use of armed and other coercion to achieve a rational and potentially moral end. Violence is the irrational and uncontrolled use of armed coercion with the result that great evil is done and little if any proportionate good is accomplished.

WAR p.796c -- St. Thomas Aquinas established the basic requirements that to be just, a war must be

(1) engaged on order of a competent authority,

(2) truly necessary for the achievement of a just cause, and (3) carried out with right intention.

WAR p.798d -- The international tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo heard the account of the Axis war crimes, some of which were of such an extreme nature that ***no one had ever thought of formulating rules of positive international law against them, e.g., genocide, the systematic annihilation of an entire race or group, regardless of any crimes alleged to have been attempted by it.

STATE, THE p.649c -- Solidarity. A fourth principle, solidarity, follows from the sociality that has been described and affirms a fundamental mutual relationship between individual persons and the community. The first are ordered to the latter, and the latter exists only in and for the persons in mutual solidaristic obligations. The common good of the community, e.g., of the state, ***embraces the rights of the citizens to the extent that the wanton arbitrary deprivation of the rights of the member of a racial or religious group is a mutilation of the common good itself.

Social Justice. Social Justice as a fifth principle augments the three classical forms of justice, legal, distributive, and commutative. It is the dynamic element that demands a continuous effort to adapt the positive sociolegal order to ever-changing conditions of life and to the more clearly conceived ideals of justice as they grow in the community. ***Each age has its "social questions" through which men become aware that de facto the static positive order has become unjust, inasmuch as whole groups within the community have become its victims while others have gained unjustifiable advantage exclusively from it. In such an eventuality social justice demands that objectively unjust but legally correct rules should be changed and that a more just positive order should be established. Thus, social legislation has been employed to correct the injustice of the predominance of property rights over the personal rights of the unprotected worker selling his labor as a "commodity." All these principles are principles of the order of being and therefore ethical-legal principles governing man's social activity.

The Realization of Justice and Public Peace. p.650d -- ***The order of positive law that rests upon the moral order of justice guarantees and protects not only the persons but also all free and autonomous groups within it. Thus the common good is a bonum ordinis, an order of positive law, security, protection, peace, and mutual help that approximates justice.

The Common Good and the Person. p.650d -- ***The common good may demand the risk of life in its defense, not only out of pietas but in justice. The duty of justice is perfectly fulfilled in the supreme sacrifice.

Necessity of Authority. p.651d -- Those in authority and in power have the right to demand obedience, the free assent of free men; but ***if authority is gravely abused by the tyrant, by arbitrary and unjust laws, there is presented the severe problem not only of passive but of active resistance.

Origin of Authority. p.652a -- Christian tradition has always taught that political power comes from God. ... Political power is mediately from God; immediately its form, its constitution, is determined by ***men who as free persons may never owe "blind" obedience to any human authority. In constituting political authority, men must order its competencies, form, etc., to the common good, which is the only source of the legitimacy of political authority and of all its acts.

... Naturally, once an individual or a "collegium" of elders, a "senate," was established to rule, all owed obedience to laws and commands, ***so long as these served the common good, the realization of which is the categorical duty of rulers and ruled alike.

INTERNATIONAL LAW p.582c -- Termination of War. Following World War II, major German and Japanese figures were placed on trial. During these trial the plea of respondeat superior, the obligation of carrying out higher orders, was rejected.

NATURAL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE -- Inalienable Human Rights. p.265a -- ***The philosophy of the natural law postulates a number of fundamental human rights and obligations that are absolute and inalienable and that must be protected by civil law. Among such rights are those to life, worship, marriage, property, labor, speech, locomotion, assembly, and reputation. The "absolute" character of such rights creates a difficulty for those who do not understand natural-law philosophy.

... Life may be forfeited upon just conviction of a capital crime. The right to it is qualified by the right of others to legitimate self-defense, is subject to the right of the state to reasonable prevention of crime, and ***may be endangered by the waging of a just war.

NATURAL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE -- Immutable. Confusion is created also by the universal and immutable character of fundamental principles of natural law. ***Such principles are as universal and immutable as the human nature from which they are derived. When properly understood, they suffer no exceptions.

The four monosyllables, ***"Thou shalt not kill," are sometimes used to express a fundamental secondary principle of natural law. If these four words were to be taken in simplistic literalness, they would not indicate a universal and immutable principle, because there are circumstances in which killing is obviously permissible.

The quoted words merely indicate the natural law principle that is adequately expressed as, "Thou shalt not kill or inflict bodily harm upon any human being unjustly." This principle is universal and immutable. In its negative aspect, it prohibits the immoral killing or inflicting of bodily harm upon self or other human beings. ***In its positive aspect, it commands a reasonable preservation of life and bodily integrity. Therefore, acts of legitimate self-defense, defense of others, warfare, executions for crime, corporal punishment, surgery, vaccination, anesthesia, strenuous sports are relevant to the principle if they are justifiable.

SELF-DEFENSE

***Man's right to life is a natural, inalienable, and inviolable right. This right has certain intrinsic limitations, e.g., right of society to punish with death one convicted of a very serious crime. ***Man's right to life carries with it the right to preserve this life against unjust attack. ...

Catholic moralists are unanimous in upholding the right of self-defense. ***The basic argument runs thus: The right to life, arising from the natural law, must include the right to protect that life by all means not intrinsically evil. But the use of force, even when death of the assailant results, is not intrinsically evil, provided the conditions of legitimate self-defense are observed. Otherwise, the assailant who breaks the natural law would enjoy a better right to life than the innocent party unjustly attacked; the virtuous would be obliged to permit aggressors to use force indiscriminately and unchecked. ...

*****It is permissible not only to defend oneself, but also to defend another whose life is unjustly attacked. In general, such assistance is a duty in charity. However, it may also be a duty in justice (a policeman) or piety (a parent protecting his child). ...

It may be asked whether self-defense is an application of the principle of double effect or not. St. Thomas (ST 2a2ae 64.7) seems to have thought so. ... ***The more common opinion is that expressed by De Lugo that one may intend whatever is necessary for self-defense, even the death of the assailant. This is direct killing and justifiable on the basis of a collision of rights.

There are around 4,400 abortions every day in America, 1.6 million every year, over 30 million since Roe v. Wade was handed down; each one of these abortions represents a death, often a bloody and painful death for the victim. In all the wars of American history, by contrast, there have been around 1.2 million fatalities in all, according to the World Almanac -- fewer than we destroy every year by abortion. (Roe's companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, came along and defined "health" to mean "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient."

The fact that such appalling statistics as these can be put aside and passed over while alleged prolife "extremism" and "violence" are made the issues over which respectable heads shake surely indicates that Americans are "into denial," as psychologists say, in a very big way; it is just one more indication of how the abortion issue distorts everything it touches, especially rational judgements about itself. Our society is currently trying very hard not to admit that anything much has really gone amiss. As a society the last thing we can now imagine is trying to "impose" morality on anyone.

Abortion represents a major national, moral, and social crisis which, however, rarely comes to be substantively discussed at all. Where abortion is concerned, the normal rules of human interactive relationships never seem to apply. It should be recognized that abortion represents a corruption of our civilization which, until very recent times, did afford legal protection for the unborn by the simple expedient of making abortion illegal.

Veritatis Splendor -- John Paul II

34. "Although each individual has a right to be respected in his own journey in search of the truth, there exists a prior moral obligation, and a grave one at that, to seek the truth and to adhere to it once it is known."

50. "`The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person.' ... While it is always morally illicit to kill an innocent human being, it can be licit, praiseworthy or even imperative to give up one's own life (cf. Jn 15:13) out of love of neighbor or as a witness to the truth."

51. "The alleged conflict between freedom and nature also has repercussions on the interpretation of certain specific aspects of the natural law, especially its universality and immutability. "Where then are these rules written," Saint Augustine wondered, "except in the book of light which is called truth? ...

Precisely because of this "truth" the natural law involves universality. ... In order to perfect himself in his specific order, the person must do good and avoid evil, be concerned for the transmission and preservation of life, refine and develop the riches of the material world, cultivate social life, seek truth, practice good and contemplate beauty. ... By submitting to the common law, our acts build up the true communion of persons and, by God's grace, practice charity, "which binds everything together in perfect harmony" (Col 3:14). When on the contrary they disregard the law, or even are merely ignorant of it, whether culpably or not, our acts damage the communion of persons, to the detriment of each."

52. "On the other hand, the fact that only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandments. The reason is this: the commandment of love of God and neighbor does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, but it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken. ... Finally, it is always possible that man, as a result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than do evil."

53. "This truth of the moral law -- like that of the "deposit of faith" -- unfolds down the centuries: the norms expressing that truth remain valid in their substance, but must be specified and determined "eodem sensu eademque sententia" in the light of historical circumstances by the Church's Magisterium, whose decision is preceded and accompanied by the work of interpretation and formulation characteristic of the reason of individual believers and of theological reflection."

63. "There are faults which we fail to see but which nevertheless remain faults, because we have refused to walk towards the light (cf. Jn 9:39-41).

Conscience, as the ultimate concrete judgement, compromises its dignity when it is culpably erroneous, that is to say, `when man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin.'"

76. "It is an honor characteristic of Christians to obey God rather than men (cf. Acts 4:19; 5:29) and to except even martyrdom as a consequence, like the holy men and women of the Old and New Testaments, who are considered such because they gave their lives rather than perform this or that particular act contrary to faith or virtue.."

116. "As bishops, we have the "grave obligation" to be personally vigilant that the "sound doctrine" (1 Tim 1:10) of faith and morals is taught in our dioceses."

119. "It is the task of the Church's Magisterium to see that the dynamic process of following Christ develops in an organic manner, without the falsification or obscuring of its moral demands, with all their consequences. The one who loves Christ keeps his commandments (cf. Jn 14:15)."

120. "No absolution offered by beguiling doctrines, even in the areas of philosophy and theology, can make man truly happy: only the Cross and the glory of the Risen Christ can grant peace to his conscience and salvation to his life." 6 August 1993

Matthew 25:31-46 commands us to be active in regard to the needs of human life if we are to have salvation. The most needy are innocent unborn children in the womb. This is a question concerning life itself and is of far greater value to God than momentary human comforts as found in the corporal works of mercy. Those who believe they have salvation and have not been directly active in defending such life are no different than the pharisee in the story of the tax collector and the pharisee who were in the temple praying (Lk 18:10-13).

All truth is grounded in Jesus Christ, who is always the same, yesterday and today and forever (cf. Heb 13.8; "Gaudium et Spes, 10".

Pro 24:11 Rescue those who are being dragged to death, and from those tottering to execution withdraw not.

Pro 6:16-17 There are six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to him; Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood;

James 2:14-17 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? [15] If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, [16] and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? [17] So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Mat 25:40 And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Human life must be protected with the greatest of care from the moment of conception. (Gaudium et Spes, n. 51).

Biblical facts concerning abortion:

1. The New Testament condemns the killing of innocent human beings.

2. The New Testament makes no distinction between pre-born and post-born babies.

3. Babies are innocent human beings.

4. The only logical conclusion: The New Testament condemns baby killing (i.e., in essence, the Bible condemns abortion). NOTE: The Scripture makes no distinction between babies in the womb and babies outside the womb. The word "brephos" is used in Luke 1:41 and 44 to refer to a baby living in the womb. And in Luke 18:15-17 the same word is used to refer to a baby living outside the womb. It means, "an unborn child, embryo, fetus; a newborn child, and infant, a babe." (Thayers Greek English Lexicon, p.105.)

Above taken from the AFA Journal dated October 1993.

IS HUMAN LIFE A HUMAN BEING FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION?

With the knowledge that the Church has a greater ecclesiastical penalty, i.e., automatic excommunication, for taking the life of the unborn than it does for premeditated murder of the born of any age or social status; it is demanded that the following questions be clearly answered.

Q.1. Does a pre-born baby, from the moment of conception, have full human status in the sight of God, or is he/she something less than a human person?

Q.2. In consideration of Luke 1:41-43 where John leapt for joy at the presence of Jesus who was less than two weeks conceived, does a human embryo have the same right to the full protection of the law that a born person has?

Q.3. Is the spirit of a preborn person of less value to, God, than the spirit of a born person?

Q.4. Should someone be found guilty of first degree murder who has either, with full premeditation, unjustly killed a preborn child of God, or, a full grown person of important public status such as the president of a nation?

Q.5. In Gen 9:6, "If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made." God, who is immutable, has made a clear binding statement valid for all time.

***An abortionist, who is known to have killed innocent human life, has according to the justice of God already forfeited his own right to life. If it is, with reasonable certainty, believed that he will soon again murder one or more innocent human beings, does not a person who has such knowledge have the moral duty/obligation -- providing one has the ability to do so -- to terminate the life of an unjust aggressor when no other reasonable and immediate alternative is available, as did many important personages in Sacred Scriptures; even though in some cases there may not have been a strict duty to do so?

Q.6. Are you among those who belong to God? "Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not listen, because you do not belong to God." (John 8:47)

Q.7. Is ones belief that the use of deadly force is sinfully wrong based upon Scripture, some other formal Church teaching, or is it merely personal interpretation based upon quick, thoughtless reaction to human emotion?

Q.8. Is there a different status of citizenship if one is born at four months of maturity or at the standard nine months maturity?

Human life begins at conception not at date of birth. There are many who are prematurely born four months following conception, five months premature and live. What of the so called test tube baby, does it have citizenship when the ovum is initially impregnated, keeping in mind that it does at that point have existence outside of the womb?

Acts 4:19-20 Peter and John, however, said to them in reply, "Whether it is right in the sight of God for us to obey you rather than God, you be the judges. [20] It is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard."

Matthew 25:42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, (NOTE: If this is true then most certainly those who do not effectively protect innocent human life will not have salvation.)

The Declaration on Procured Abortion, issued with the approval of Pope Paul VI in 1974, states that human law "cannot declare to be right what would be opposed to natural law, for this opposition suffices to give assurance that a law is not a law at all."

Pope John Paul II declared at the Capitol Mall in Washington, D.C., in 1979: "No one ever has the authority to destroy unborn life."

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS:

"Epikeia" or Equity -- ST 2,2,120,1 -- "it was not possible to lay down rules that would apply in every single case. ... if the law be applied to certain cases it will frustrate the equality of justice and be injurious to the common good, which the law has in view." "Without doubt he that transgresses the law who by adhering to the letter of the law strives to defeat the intention of the lawgiver."

ST 2,2,40,1 -- "Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil." ... (reply 1) "On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword ... (as a public person) ***through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to take the sword, but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment."

ST 2,2,40,1, reply 2 and 3 -- "Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i. 19), so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self defense. ***Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): ***Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy.

***Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which our Lord came not to send upon earth (Matth. x. 34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): ***We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS ON THE QUESTION OF USING LETHAL FORCE TO DEFEND THE UNBORN. -- (Summa Theologiae IIa - IIae q.64 art.7) - Criteria Necessary to justify Killing a human being. (singular action).

1. The force used to prohibit harm to an individual must be the least amount of force reasonably necessary to protect oneself or another. (NOTE: With 11 years of personal active experience and analysis, and in consideration of the failure of all other methods to adequately stop aborticide, it is reasonable to accept that the only remaining method currently available should be used, "Justifiable Homicide". This method would only require a minimum loss of guilty human life and would be a great deterrent to other practitioners. It would also be a witness to those considering an abortion that innocent life is precious to God. Any additional public disturbances and related loss of life are the direct responsibility of those charged with public moral teaching, who have failed to meet the requirements of their offices over the many years. DCT)

2. Stopping an act of aggression in defense of oneself or another must be with the moral certitude that harm will be inflicted upon that individual if force is not used. (NOTE: 21 years of continuous public witness and testimony concerning the fact of procured abortion and the loss internationally of approximately one billion innocent human beings during this same period should be more than adequate evidence to establish that this criteria has been met. DCT)

3. The person preventing the harm to an individual cannot intend to inflict mortal injury on the aggressor. (NOTE: See above two comments and related comments *** elsewhere in this document.)

CRITERIA.

Summa Theologiae IIa - IIae q.64 arts. 1-8

St. Thomas said an unjust law "is no longer law but a perversion of law" (ST 1,2, Q.95, art. 21).

Whether it is Lawful for Clerics and Bishops to Fight? ST 2,2,40,2 -- "For this reason it has been decreed that those who shed blood, even without sin, become irregular." (3) ... "Wherefore it is the duty of clerics to dispose and counsel other men to engage in just wars. For they are forbidden to take up arms, not as though it were a sin, but because such an occupation is unbecoming their personality." (See also: ST 2,2,64,4 reply 2 & 3)

DEFINITION: In lay terms killing generally means death by an outside agency, external agency. Homicide generally refers to death at the hands of man. Whereas murder refers to the unwarranted death of an innocent person at the hands of man. In religious terminology when the terms killing, homicide and murder are used in reference to, or as being, a sinful act, i.e., immoral, unjust act, always refers to taking the life of an innocent person. This is established by use of context in the habitual practice of the Church dating all of the way back through the Mosaic covenant to the time of Noah following the flood where Christ (God) said, whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. Again it always refers, when it is in any sense understood as an immoral reference, to the taking of innocent human life. The taking of guilty life would be considered lawful termination of life, execution, elimination from society, and so forth. This is always used in the just sense of the term, as practiced throughout the history of the Church, in both New and Old Testament times.

A clear reference might be seen in Pope John Paul II latest encyclical, The Splendor of Truth, wherein he says all homicide is intrinsically evil. However in an earlier reference he defines murder as the taking of innocent human life. It should be noted that Pope John Paul II promulgated, dispensed, this encyclical on the feast of the "Transfiguration of Jesus".

If you understand the term homicide to mean the taking of all life, whether innocent or guilty, as being an intrinsically evil act, as many would like to believe, then we are faced with the clear conundrum of Moses, who killed the Egyptian soldier, as doing something intrinsically evil and therefore extremely sinful. (St. Stephen defends Moses for killing the Egyptian in Acts 7:24 "When he saw one of them treated unjustly, he defended and avenged the oppressed man by striking down the Egyptian."

St. Stephen said that this was true even though no one had appointed Moses as ruler or judge. Acts 7:27 "Then the one who was harming his neighbor pushed him aside, saying, 'Who appointed you ruler and judge over us?") Moses on different occasions was the instrument of ordering the wrath of God, in the form of death, at the hands of man. At his direction, thousands of his own people were slaughtered.

We have Elijah who was also present at the transfiguration who personally slit the throats of four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal, being, according to present common definition, intrinsically evil.

We have Peter, obviously a bad swordsman, who attempted the killing of the Roman soldier who came to arrest Jesus in the garden of the Mount of Olives.

We have the Son of David, David being highly honored to have as his descendant, Jesus, the Son of God. David was the person who began his public life by killing Goliath. This he was given the opportunity to do at his own request. Later in life David was sung about as having killed his tens of thousands of men. David was, upon one occasion, responsible for the death of an innocent man with whose wife he had committed adultery. In this case, of course, but in none of the other cases, David was deeply sorrowful, repentant and was forgiven by God.

Jesus Himself, Son of God, is responsible for far worse, in the human sense, than physically putting someone to death, mortal death. He will sit in judgement on the last day and say, go to my right and go to my left, i.e., come with me to Heaven, or, suffer eternal punishment where you will experience horrible pain for all eternity.

Is there a difference between the definitions, terminology used, in mortal life and in religious life; in temporal affairs and in spiritual affairs? Quite clearly there is. Fr. David C. Trosch

BIBLICAL WOMEN WHO KILLED TO PROTECT INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE:

Jdg 4:21 Instead Jael, wife of Heber, got a tent peg and took a mallet in her hand. While Sisera was sound asleep, she stealthily approached him and drove the peg through his temple down into the ground, so that he perished in death. [22] Then when Barak came in pursuit of Sisera, Jael went out to meet him and said to him, "Come, I will show you the man you seek." So he went in with her, and there lay Sisera dead, with the tent peg through his temple.

[23] Thus on that day God humbled the Canaanite king, Jabin, before the Israelites; [24] their power weighed ever heavier upon him, till at length they destroyed the Canaanite king, Jabin.

Jdg 9:53-54 But a certain woman cast the upper part of a millstone down on Abimelech's head, and it fractured his skull. [54] He immediately called his armor-bearer and said to him, "Draw your sword and dispatch me, lest they say of me that a woman killed me." So his attendant ran him through and he died.

A BIBLICAL WOMAN WHO TELLS A DECEITFUL LIE PRIOR TO KILLING A HUMAN BEING:

Jdt 11:5-6 Judith answered him: "Listen to the words of your servant, and let your handmaid speak in your presence! I will tell no lie to my lord this night, [6] and if you follow out the words of your handmaid, God will give you complete success, and my lord will not fail in any of his undertakings.

Jdt 13:6-8 She (Judith) went to the bedpost near the head of Holofernes, and taking his sword from it, [7] drew close to the bed, grasped the hair of his head, and said, "Strengthen me this day, O God of Israel!" [8] Then with all her might she struck him twice in the neck and cut off his head.

While it is true that by taking action against an abortionist and/or his staff will not always stop a particular abortion from occurring, it does have the effect of stopping a substantial number of planned abortions from taking place. Many women continue with their pregnancies and become more loving mothers than they otherwise might have been.

war

War is the condition that exists when a group--generally, a recognized state or nation but often a political, social, or economic faction within a recognized political group--feels its vital interests are at stake and seeks to impose its beliefs or control on a rival group through the use of overt force. The term cold war has been used to characterize intense and severe political competition among nations that takes the form of such events as arms races, assassinations, hostile propaganda, covert intelligence activities, and subversion but with the absence of significant armed conflict.

In most modern societies the resort to war usually occurs only when other methods of resolving differences have been exhausted. The generally preferred means of resolving differences among modern nations is through discussion, negotiation, and compromise--the tools of diplomacy. When diplomacy cannot resolve issues vital to the fundamental interests of the involved parties, war--the ultimate tool of diplomacy--may result. War, as described by the 19th-century military writer Carl von CLAUSEWITZ, is the continuation of policy by other means--that is, by forceful, violent means.

Historically, war has also been greatly influenced by technological change. The development of weapons from the BOW AND ARROW to CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE and nuclear weapons (see ATOM BOMB; HYDROGEN BOMB) has steadily expanded the reach and the serious consequences of all-out armed conflict. The violence that occurs in war is of variable duration and magnitude corresponding to the technology available, the STRATEGY AND TACTICS used, and the various forms of war waged.

Internal War.

Internal war refers to conflicts within a recognized political group that occur when dissenters seek the destruction or replacement of their existing government. Internal war includes such subcategories as REVOLUTIONS, insurrections, rebellions, and civil war. Internal wars may be waged by conventional means or by GUERRILLA warfare. Guerrilla warfare is usually conducted by irregular forces, who seek to harass, delay, and disrupt the activities of an established government or an invading army. Espionage, sabotage, ambush, assassination, and propaganda are characteristic activities of the guerrilla.

The Laws of War.

The notion of the "just" war has been used for centuries to rationalize or criticize the waging of war. The term just, however, had many meanings, ranging from Christian morality expressed by Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas to the secular justifications of medieval sovereign princes. Until the emergence of the modern state system in Europe after the 16th century, INTERNATIONAL LAW governing warfare was limited. The first important treatise on the law of war was that of Hugo GROTIUS in 1625. International agreements on the conduct of warfare, however, began to flourish only after the 18th century with such developments as the 1856 Declaration of Paris, the HAGUE CONFERENCES, and the GENEVA CONVENTIONS. Until World War I, nations were regarded as the only judge of their reasons for going to war. After the war international attempts--in such efforts as the LEAGUE OF NATIONS, the KELLOGG-BRIAND PACT, and eventually the UNITED NATIONS--to prevent the use of war as an instrument of national policy have increased the need for nations to justify publicly their unilateral use of force other than that used in self-defense. The increased destructiveness of war has also led to attempts by major powers to deter war through finely tuned NUCLEAR STRATEGY and to reduce armaments through ARMS CONTROL.

homicide, {hahm'-i-syd}

Homicide is the killing of one person by another. Homicide is not necessarily a crime. Numerous distinctions between criminal and noncriminal homicide have developed over the centuries in English common law. When a person who kills another is found to have acted within certain legal rights, such as that of self-defense, or when the killing is judged an accident involving no gross negligence, the homicide is considered excusable or justifiable.

Traditionally, the law has recognized two types of criminal homicide: MURDER and MANSLAUGHTER. Murder is associated with "malice aforethought," or deliberate intention on the part of the actor. The U.S. Criminal Code distinguishes between murder in the first and in the second degree. The category of first-degree murder is reserved for killings carefully planned by the murderers and for homicides committed by persons engaged in some other serious crime, such as rape. Acts that result in homicide but that are the consequence of anger or impulse are generally classified as second-degree murder.

Manslaughter is wrongful, unplanned killing, done without malice. Voluntary manslaughter involves some provocation, as when someone kills a person in a fight. Involuntary manslaughter is the result of criminal carelessness in committing some act that is not in itself felonious. Many persons responsible for fatal automobile accidents are charged with manslaughter.

EUROPE IS DYING -- The average woman in Europe now is bearing 1.48 children in her lifetime. In order to maintain a level population with replacement births, the average woman in her lifetime must bear 2.1 children. Malta, Ireland, Poland, and surprisingly Sweden, are the only countries reproducing themselves. Sweden does it mainly through births to immigrants and postponed births. In what had been Soviet Russia, now called the Commonwealth of Independents states, only the five Muslim countries are replacing themselves by natural increase.

Italy has the lowest birthrate in the Western World with only 1.23 children per woman. Spain is next with 1.26, Germany and Austria with 1.3. The lowest country of all is Russia proper which is around 1.0 although exact figures are not available.

It is interesting that this is taking place in what had been Christian nations. That term doesn't really apply anymore. France, where 90 percent of people still define themselves as Roman Catholics, sees fewer than four million attending regular mass. In Holland, both Calvinist and Catholic churches can only be described as largely morally decadent, and this in spite of a few traditional voices and groups which have maintained some faith there.

In Germany, only one-fourth of the south's thirteen thousand Catholic parishes have their own pastors, while the predominate Lutheran Church in the north, if anything is in even worse shape. Lutheran church attendance since 1991 has fallen by 500,000 people. In England, less than 3 percent of the 36 million baptized Anglicans go to church weekly. In fact, Britain's four and one-half million Catholics, mostly Irish allegedly have higher church attendance than all of the Anglicans. The Anglican decision to ordain women priests has further fractured that communion.

In Scandinavia, church attendance is at an historic low. In Finland, which is mostly Lutheran, only 5 percent of people go to church. In Sweden, only 1 percent of the 7.6 million people attend church. However, there is in Sweden a strong and growing evangelical movement, encompassing a total of 150,000 Swedes. Of the Scandinavian countries, Denmark alone seems to be holding rather than continuing to loose church attendees.

A movement parallel to the decline of Christianity in Europe has been the rapid growth of the Muslim population. Mosques are being erected all over western and eastern Europe. England's 2 million Muslims have organized their own political party and are requesting the same taxpayer money for their schools as Christian schools receive. The Muslim population in Europe is increasing rapidly from the influx of Algerians into France, North Africans into Italy and Spain, and Turks into Austria and Germany. If the present birthrates continue with no change, it will only he a matter of time until Europe becomes a defacto part of Islam.

Incidently, in the United States there are now an estimated 5 million Muslims.

FEDERAL MARRIAGE PENALTY- For those who do not want to itemize their charitable gifts, interest etc. on their income tax, the standard deduction for the year for a single person is $3,700.00. If this person marries the deduction drops to $3,100.00. This amounts to a penalty of 2 x $600.00 or $1,200.00 penalty for those who marry. This will encourage marriage?!

Above information taken from News Letter of "Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati, Inc." dated April, 1994.

COMMENT: The failure of the Church hierarchy to teach as Jesus taught is responsible for the decline of faith throughout most of the Christian world, most particularly in the first world countries of Europe and North America.

The instructions St. Paul gave to St. Timothy are no longer being followed: "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry. (2 Tim 4:1-5)

If clerics had been fulfilling their spiritual obligations, there would be no need for this document. See: "Europe is Dying", "Canon 386", "Voting in America", etc. DCT

AUTHORITY. -- It is the universal and perpetual teaching of the church that when the clergy, or even bishops rebel against the Pope, or the laws of God or the Church, it is not only the right but also the duty of the faithful to oppose them. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that bishops are not to be obeyed in all things, since sometimes the directives of bishops go against the law of God, and in such a case, "it is necessary to obey God rather than men." A bishop's order can directly oppose the Law, in which case, the subject is bound to obey the greater authority. Furthermore, a subject is not obligated to obey his superior "if he is given an order in a matter in which he is not subject." (Summa Theol. 2-2.104.5) The second Vatican Council expressly prescribes "reasoned obedience" to the legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

St. Augustine observed that for God to allow crimes and vices to go unpunished is a more terrible judgement than for Him to curb them by affliction.

Gary Bergel, director of Intercessors for America, wrote:

"What audacity we have -- to ask Him to keep us and our "planned" families alive while condoning the grossest execution of one fourth of our children--His inheritance--over the past ten years! We cry for peace while we unrelentingly war against and exterminate the unborn of our species! We have become a deceived and foolish people."

VOTING IN AMERICA: In the 1992 national elections in the United States of America 64% of Catholics voted for pro-abortion/pro-sodomy candidates. 44% of Catholics voted for Bill Clinton, 20 % voted for Ross Perot, and 35% voted for anti-abortion/anti-sodomy George Bush. There is no legal reason and certainly no moral reason why the bishops of this country did not openly and directly speak out against candidates clearly in favor of mortal sin. It is conceded that the Church should not take sides in purely political issues or favor particular candidates, but there is absolutely no reason why clearly moral issues cannot be presented openly and unequivocally.

The defense of the innocent warrants a defensive war, insurrection or guerilla activity. This motivation for defense is moral justification in and of itself.

Titus 1:10-14 For there are also many rebels, idle talkers and deceivers, especially the Jewish Christians. [11] It is imperative to silence them, as they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what they should not. [12] One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, "Cretins have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons." [13] That testimony is true. Therefore, admonish them sharply, so that they may be sound in the faith, [14] instead of paying attention to Jewish myths and regulations of people who have repudiated the truth.

PRAYER? -- While we should turn to God in prayer concerning all things, God does not do for us what we are capable of doing for ourselves. (James 2:14-17)

PRAYER - It is unnatural to pray when one could -- indeed should -- act. And that means that sometimes one should act even when the use of force is appropriate.

Fairness to the unborn innocent requires us to recognize their right to life, and that means their claim in strict justice to effective and just action on our part. If we do not recognize that innocence demands defense, in strict justice, and that defense may justify appropriate force, then it is our minds that need to be changed also.

By all means let us raise our hands and hearts in prayer. But let us also recognize, as a matter of principle that force is permissible, legitimate, and sometimes even morally binding. Does the proper reliance on the supernatural allow us to ignore the demands of natural morality and justice?

It is a false, or at least an improper, use of history to say that the friends of St. Stephen did not use force to defend him and the innocent, or that the early Christians did not use force to protect the martyrs in the arenas, many of whom were children. I do not think that I would be wrong if I say that neither St. Stephen nor the early martyrs claimed a right to be helped. They were persecuted because they were Christians. When one turns one's own cheek, as a Christian, one is in effect telling other Christians of the community that one is willing to bear witness for the faith and therefore one does not call for defense from his fellow Christians. It is stretching the analogy to the breaking point that we can assume the unborn to be willing martyrs for our faith, when we are not being killed or martyred for that faith. Our minds and our hearts should indeed be raised in prayer, but not necessarily our hands -- at the time when they should be extended toward the innocent. (Extracted from an article written by Damian P. Fedoryka entitled, "Raising Our Hands In Prayer ... And In Action")

Collaboration with Roe vs Wade is Sinful:

"Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don't stand back and let them die", God tells us in Divine Revelation. (Prov 24:11)

Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Saplientiae Christianae, on Christian citizenship, as the Vicar of Christ, teaches that: "If the laws of the state are manifestly at variance with the Divine Law. . . to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey a crime. . ."

Pope John Paul II has stated forcefully: "It is the task of the Church to reaffirm that abortion is death, it is the killing of an innocent creature. Consequently, the Church considers all legislation in favor of abortion as a serious offense against primary human rights and the Divine Commandment, `you shall not kill'."

The Declaration on Abortion, issued by the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for the Faith and promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1974, declared: "It must be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in the matter (of abortion), one can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liciety of abortion. Nor can one take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. More over, one may not collaborate in its application."

Roe vs Wade is not a law, but a perversion of the U.S. Constitution. Pope Leo XIII said, and every Catholic has a moral duty in conscience to agree, "Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God ... must be looked upon as anything rather than laws."

When it is by human fault that human life does not come to its natural completion it is a grave offense against God. Human fault can be either by direct action, or by indifference, that is, failure to act.

Moral theologians have a grave responsibility to almighty God to present His truth, the full truth for the protection and defense of innocent human life. I am asking moral theologians to examine the contents of the enclosed document, and if they find it to be in error to please let me know the source of that error so that I can correct my position. If it is not in error I am asking that they write an affirmation to Cardinal Ratzinger and to Archbishop Lipscomb as to their own position and their additional reasons, if any, in support of the document, the position presented. Failure to respond in either direction could possibly only be seen by God as indifference to the lives of innocent human beings, indifference to the Word of God.

Because of the importance of human life, personal opinion is of little value. Please either actively support or actively oppose the position of "Justifiable Homicide". Do not be indifferent to the question, too many lives are at stake. by Fr. David C. Trosch

Fr. Andrew Greely on CNN's Larry King Live a few months ago said that not only will the Catholic Church ordain women priests - he said there will also be a woman pope. He added that in the future, priests likely would take five-year vows, with the option to renew.

Why wasn't there an outcry after Fr. Greeley's gross misrepresentation and deliberate distortion of Catholic dogma? Or, for that matter, why were there no cries of "Foul!" after his Los Angeles Times opinion piece last month stating that Church teachings don't have to be followed by Catholics? (from an article entitled "In defense of Mother Angelica..." by Kathleen Howley, a syndicated columnist, as reported in "The Catholic Week" of the Archdiocese of Mobile.)

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN GRAVE CONTRADICTION TO FORMAL CHURCH TEACHING WHO STILL HAVE FULL FACULTIES OF THE PRIESTHOOD:

Father Andrew Greeley promotes abortion and still has his faculties.

Father Charles Curran promotes abortion and still has his faculties.

Father Richard P. McBrien, Etc.

Matthew 15:14 Let them alone; they are blind guides (of the blind). If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into a pit."

Matthew 23:24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!

Psalm 12:1-5 Lord! Help! Godly men are fast disappearing. Where in all the world can dependable men be found? Everyone deceives and flatters and lies. There is no sincerity left.

But the Lord will not deal gently with people who act like that; he will destroy those proud liars who say, "We will lie to our hearts content. Our lips are our own; who can stop us?" The Lord replies, "I will arise and defend the oppressed, the poor, the needy. I will rescue them as they have longed for me to do." (from the "Living Bible".)

John 8:47 Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not listen, because you do not belong to God."

Luke 18:8 I tell you, he will see to it that justice is done for them speedily. But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?"

Psa 12:1-5 For the leader; "upon the eighth." A psalm of David. [2] I Help, LORD, for no one loyal remains; the faithful have vanished from the human race [3] Those who tell lies to one another speak with deceiving lips and a double heart. [4] II May the LORD cut off all deceiving lips, and every boastful tongue, [5] Those who say, "By our tongues we prevail; when our lips speak, who can lord it over us?" (from the "New American Bible.")

1Ti 2:15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (NOTE: A married women who does not, within the bounds of spiritual reason, freely bear children will not enter Heaven. If any woman rejects a conceived child, she will not have eternal life. In both of the above cases the exceptions due to proper repentance are to be understood.)

John 12:25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life.

Luke 18:27 And he said, "What is impossible for human beings is possible for God."

Psa 82:4 Rescue the lowly and poor; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

Romans 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.

Jesus teaches and commands us to keep the law --

Mat 5:19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 7:23 Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'

Mat 13:11-15 He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. [12] To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away. [13] This is why I speak to them in parables, because `they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.' [14] Isaiah's prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says:

'You shall indeed hear but not understand

you shall indeed look but never see.

[15] Gross is the heart of this people,

they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes

and hear with their ears

and understand with their heart and be converted,

and I heal them.'

Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' but not do what I command."

Mat 13:41 "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all who cause others to sin and all evildoers." (NOTE: This would include omission as well as commission.)

1 John 2:4 Whoever says, "I know him," but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Rev 6:10 They cried out in a loud voice, "How long will it be, holy and true master, before you sit in judgment and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?"

OLD TESTAMENT versus NEW TESTAMENT:

I have often heard it stated in arguments against the actions which took place in the Old Testament that Jesus intended to establish changed standards of conduct. While it is true He advanced teachings to include additional offenses to God he did not reverse any moral teaching or practice. Only teachings related to sacrifice, etc. have been changed. The evidence of this is seen in the following Scripture passages and in others. Keep in mind that what we now consider the New Testament and part of Scripture was not thought of in that context during the time it was being written.

2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

2 Peter 1:20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,

Matthew 5:17-20 Teaching about the law.

"Veritatis Spendor": Bishops have the responsibility of preserving "sound teaching" (2 Tim 4.3). They must be vigilant that the word of God to be believed and lived is faithfully taught. This is part of the mandate originally given by Jesus to the Apostles (Mt 28.16-20).

Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb, without stating a Church doctrine that I have gone against, has removed my faculties to hear confessions and to say public Mass. Further he has, without due process, stopped my monthly stipend and allowances. No formal process has been initiated against me. He has, however, had my name removed from "The Official Catholic Directory" of priests, etc.

Canon 386 -- #1. The diocesan bishop is bound to present and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith which are to be believed and applied to moral issues, frequently preaching in person; he is also to see to the careful observance of the prescriptions of the canons concerning the ministry of the word, especially those concerning the homily and catechetical formation, so that the whole Christian doctrine is imparted to all.

#2. Through suitable means he is strongly to safeguard the integrity and unity of the faith to be believed while nevertheless acknowledging a rightful (correct according to truth) freedom in the investigation of its truths.

The duties of a pastor with respect to his parishioners are much the same as those of a bishop as found defined in cc. 528-530.

Luke 11:52 Woe to you, scholars of the law! You have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not enter and you stopped those trying to enter."

Mark 7:6 He responded, "Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:

'This people honors me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me;

2 Tim 4:1-5 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: [2] proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. [3] For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers [4] and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. [5] But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry.

This addition to paper was added 1 June 1994:

"Law is nothing else than an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by him who has care of the community." (Summa Theologia I-II, q.90, a4)

What is truly and immediately effective in protecting the unborn?

What, historically, did God state as effective deterrence to protect innocent human life?

Should there be solidarity of the born with the unborn?

What is it that strikes most at the human heart?

If the subject of the abortion procedure is viewed as being worthy of human rights and the fundamental position, "Babies inside the womb are to be substantially valued as babies outside the womb" is held to be true, then the modern practice of abortion is the worst human-rights atrocity of history. The qualifier "worst" is justified by the world-wide casualty figure of fifty-five million preborn babies per year and the manner of their killing - dismemberment.

The general statement (principal) in matters concerning the correction of injustice is that, `Common sense dictates that the Christian community ought first to attempt to stop the repeating evil occurrences, more especially those protected by erroneous civil law, by political and educational activities.' This principal should be subordinated when human life is at stake due to the urgency of needed immediate action to prevent immanent death of innocent human beings. In consideration of the slaughter of approximately 50 million pre-born people each year, throughout the world, due to lack of effective action, is clear indication that the general populous, governments and religious leaders, do not truly consider that the preborn are yet fully human, i.e. endowed with an immortal soul by God. This of course makes a mockery of the account in Luke 1 wherein Jesus, in the womb of Mary, encounters Elijah (John the Baptist) in the womb of Elizabeth.

It is arguable that damage control of a peripheral nature, through use of political and educational activities, is an inadequate Christian response, because:

(a) It has no reasonable hope of success (as evidenced after 21 years of effort which is developing into a worsening situation for the unborn), and

(b) It does not register a proportional response to the killing of the preborn.

What would a proportional response to abortion entail? First it should witness to the commandment of love in either its "pass" level of "Love one's neighbor as oneself," or the "honors" level of, Love one another as I have loved you". An application of the former criterion would be, "What would I want my neighbors to do if I was the individual scheduled for dismemberment at a given location tomorrow morning?"

John Paul II in his exortation "On Reconciliation and Penance" defines social sin not as a nebulous cloud that hangs over society as a whole but as:

"the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins. It is a case of the very personal sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or indifference; of those who take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world, and also those who sidestep the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons (excuses?) of a higher order. The real responsibiity , then, lies with individuals." (para 16)

It is taught and believed in the Catholic Church that at the moment of conception the preborn human being becomes the "living image and likeness of the most Holy Trinity." (GN 1) The great commandment states that we must "love our neighbor as ourself." We are further advised that one who truly loves is willing to lay down his life for his friends. (cf. JN 3:16; 15:13,14,15)

Under present day law, in respect to the question of "Justifiable Homicide" in relationship to abortionists and their staffs, one is clearly risking one's own life to protect those who are certainly innocent. Such action is the highest representation or demonstration one can show as being in real `solidarity with the unborn', who themselves are totally helpless to defend themselves.

There is a fundamental proposition which states: `Babies inside the womb are to be substantially valued as babies outside the womb'. It is self evident that both religious and civil leaders do not hold this to be true. Less than three percent of religious or civil leaders have done anything but pay lip service to the immortality of the soul of the unborn. Less than one percent have done anything to risk their own public positions. They have not demonstrated true solidarity with the unborn. Most church and civil authorities have demonstrated a greater willingness to obey the laws of man rather than obey the laws of God. This is clearly in opposition to the statements in the Acts of the Apostles: "Peter and John, however, said to them in reply, `Whether it is right in the sight of God for us to obey you rather than God, you be the judges'" (4:19). "But Peter and the apostles said in reply, `We must obey God rather than men.'" (5:29)

During the reign of Adolf Hitler, there was a group of German students called the "White Rose Resistance". They gave their lives (executed by guillotine) resisting the Nazi Holocaust". The freedom fighters of France and other countries commonly risked and gave their lives in the cause of freedom and the defense of the innocent. To my knowledge, in none of these cases has the Church ever condemned their activity. On the contrary, many Church leaders, then as today, have lent their support to known evil leaders such as Adolf Hitler and Bill Clinton. None have, to my knowledge, been appropriately publicly admonished for their horrendous activities. Instead, diplomacy was always the consideration of the day with the implied, if only by omission but never the less clear, presentation of public support for these men leading to the loss of faith or confusion for the masses of people who were desirous of true leadership.

More than anything else poor, long term Catholic leadership was responsible for those terminated by the Germans in the late 1930's and early to mid 1940's. This poor leadership is also the reason for the termination of pregnancies (murder of unborn people) in our present age.

During these last 15 years there have been more innocent people killed either by procured or forced abortion or by deadly contraceptive methods than in any previous age, and perhaps in all previous ages combined.

The political situation in the world has become so adverse to religious principles that today, in the United States of America at least in relation to any trial concerning anti-abortion activity, potential jurors are commonly dismissed if they state they will not uphold civil laws in preference to religious beliefs. Can the world situation get much worse before the punishing and corrective hand of God comes into being with disasterous effect?

Should not religious leaders, who only pay lip service to God, be warned of the consequences they will pay on judgement day? Wouldn't it be better for them and the world if they were removed from office today rather than allowing them to continue to mislead their flocks if not directly, then by omission? Would it not be better for civil leaders to be reminded from the highest of levels that in the past there was such a thing as the Nuremburg trials, and that such trials should be held in the future in regard to all political leaders, police officials and jurists who in any way have promoted or defended aborticide?

Because religious leaders have for so long been silent or at best been very inadequate in dealing with the offense of procured abortion, these words of T.S. Elliot from "Murder in the Cathedral" have particular meaning in our age, "The land is foul, the water is foul, our beasts and ourselves defiled with blood. And rain of blood has blinded my eyes. Where is England? Where is Kent? Where is Canterbury?

O far far far far into the past; and I wander in a land of barren boughs: if I break them, they bleed; I wander in a land of dry stones: if I touch them they bleed.

How, how can I ever return, to the soft quiet seasons?"

Morally binding laws must be mandatory, reasonable, community serving, promulgated and authoritative. Obedience to such laws is the only way of regulating human acts that are consistent with the dignity of the person. However, for the good of the community, those laws that clearly oppose the moral good of the whole, or any part, of the community should be opposed to whatever degree, according to proportionality, is necessary to obtain justice for the oppressed.

According to St. Thomas, and historical Church teaching, this is binding upon the conscience of those who have the capacity to understand, and have the ability, to whatever degree, to carry out effective and timely opposition. It should be understood that most people should be under the guidance of legitimate authoritative leadership. Only a few have the knowledge and capacity to carry out, on their own, what is necessary for the salvation of men as was given witness to by such greats as Phinehas, Judith, etc.

Footnote:

[1] Credible evidence, from a group called `Pharmacists for Life', suggests that chemical abortions resulting from the use of abortifacient `contraceptives' such as the `Pill' and IUD, exceed surgical abortions in America by a factor of ten. (cf. Moral Theology Project, dated 2 Nov 93 by Morty O'Shea, St. Patricks College, Thurles, Ireland)

      HOME                      E-MAIL: Editor

  Contributions  Requested
        for Maintaining  Site

          Books and Religious Gift Items

    Document provided as a service of:
    LIFE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED
           (A 501-c-3 Non-Profit Organization)
    P. O. Box 850307
    Mobile, AL  36685
    U. S. A.