One Roman Catholic Layman's Research on Evolutionism
In the beginning
GOD
created heaven and earth
Genesis 1:1
|
A project of:
Catholic Apostolate for Creation
P.O. Box 997
Jordan, NY 13080
|
The abortion link to evolutionism
FOREWORD
"Intelligence Report" provided a tally of the
votes from 2550 readers for the smartest Americans. Prof. Carl Sagan,
who received the most votes, responded with modest reflection:
A good definition of intelligence is understanding
how
little we understand of what there is to know.
[Anonymous. Readers pick America's smartest people.
PARADE, January 5, 1992, p. 13]
The perceived humility of the statement
notwithstanding, it would seem to constitute a philosophy far more ably
preached than practiced, at least by Sagan and Ann Druyan:
Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow
of a doubt alive. They are not human beings, of course.
However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized
egg....A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise
the full genetic blueprint for a human being.... Neither a
sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more
than a potential baby or a potential adult.
[1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and pro-choice?
PARADE, April 22, p. 5]
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, in
collaboration with author Dr. Francis A Schaeffer, expanded the scope of
genetic understanding:
Once the union of a sperm and an egg occurs
and
the twenty-three chromosomes of each are brought
together into one cell that has forty-six chromosomes,
that one cell has all the DNA (the whole genetic code)
that will, if not interrupted, make a human.
[1983. Whatever happened to the human race?
Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, p. 16]
Author Janet Podell wrote incredulously:
...[T]o the question of whether or not this
life is human, "What other kind could it be?" [Editor. 1990. Abortion.
The Reference Shelf, v.62, no. 4. New York: The H.W. Wilson Co.]
Any assertion to the contrary then would seem
to be contradictory. It seems highly unlikely that such a position could
be based on anything less than preconceived bias.
The title of the essay from which the Sagan/Druyan
quote was extracted, can only be perceived as insinuating that an individual
can be, simultaneously, pro-life and "pro-choice." Such a combination of
diametrically opposed ideologies can constitute nothing less than an oxymoron:
oxymoron, a figure of speech consisting of that form of
antithesis in which...contradictory terms are brought
sharply together.
[Funk & Wagnalls. 1968. Standard dictionary of the
English language, International edition. New York:
Funk & Wagnalls Company]
The insinuation that a fertilized egg is no more
than potential life is as meaningless as the contention that an individual,
who ten years hence will be an Olympic medal winner, is only a potential
athlete. If that individual is murdered before being given a chance
to develop athletic prowess, of course his or her "potential" will not
be realized. Fr. James
T. Burtchaell, C.S.C., established the proper perspective concerning
potentiality:
...[T]hough a fetus, an infant, and an adolescent
are all
"potential" adults, one individual passing through all these
developments is obviously not "potentially" his or her future
self, for stages pass while selves endure. What we honor
in humans is not their stages but their selves. The unborn
is not a potential human, but a human with potential.
[1982. Rachel weeping and other essays on abortion.
New York: Andrews and McMeel, Inc., p. 84]
PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE
It would seem reasonable to assert that the
abortion dispute is one of the ranking issues of division in our society
today. This is as it should be. A people who claim to be civilized,
as we do, must not be allowed the luxury of complacency on a matter of
such crucial importance.
David Pasinski wrote of his conviction that,
"...tolerance is possible" between those who oppose and those who support,
abortion. He further noted his belief that a consensus can be achieved
by listening to one another.
[1990. Consensus on abortion: A respectful dialogue is a good place
to start. THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse, May 23, p. A-7]
Journalist Anna Quindlen had already found
such a proposal unreasonable:
They have nothing to talk about....Those people
who
believe abortion is murder are morally obligated to oppose
it....The people who are convinced that abortion is the killing
of a human being have no choice but to fight until they win...
[1990. A time to choose. THE NEW YORK TIMES, January
28, p. E-21]
It is difficult to argue with Qunidlen, especially
in view of her personal disclosure that, "...there are many of us who...believe
that in fact it is possible to be a little bit pregnant..." One will
search in vain for any medical evidence to support such a position.
It seems incredible that a serious writer could pen such a line.
The statement would seem to indicate just how irrational and emotional
we human beings can be on the issue of abortion.
THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE
By admission, Carl Sagan is an evolutionist.
[1980. Cosmos. New York: Random House. pp. 24, 127] Presumably that also
applies to Ann Druyan. Columnist Christopher Derrick most astutely
made the connection between abortion and evolutionism:
In a positivistic culture, that question "What
is a human
being?" then receives a very different answer. Homo Sapiens
is seen as a specialized mammalian species, accidentally
thrown up by a blind evolutionary process, and nothing more.
The human individual is no child of God; he has no eternal
destiny, and he has no real value or importance beyond what
other people - or society in general - may choose to give him.
[1983. The central issue. NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER,
March 13]
Verification of Derrick's assertion is presented in APPENDIX I
Another insight was presented from the standpoint
of medical science. Fetologist Sir William Liley saw only self-contradiction
in the anti-life mentality of those who advocate abortion:
Our generation is the first ever to have a
reasonably
complete picture of the development of the human being
from conception.
For a generation that reputedly prefers scientific
fact to
barren philosophy, we might have thought that this new
information would engender a new respect for the welfare
and appreciation of the importance of intra-uterine life.
Instead, around the world we find a systematic
campaign
clamoring for the destruction of the embryo and fetus as a
cure-all for every social and personal problem. I, for
one,
find it a bitter irony that just when the embryo and fetus arrive
on the medical scene there should be such sustained pressure
to make him or her a social nonentity.
[quoted in: Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D. 1983. The abortion
papers: Inside the abortion mentality. New York: Frederick
Fell Publishers, Inc., p. 5]
American Life League (ALL) President Judie
Brown leveled charges of debasement and bias: "While the first comment
is merely demeaning, the second comment discredits any claim Sagan might
have as being an impartial scientist."
[1990. American Life League blasts "Parade" article, poll. THE WANDERER,
May 10, p. 1]
The rejoinder was directed at the "description" associated with each
of two photographs of developing human life:
[1] A human embryo at the end of the
fifth week after
conception...has a distinctly reptilian aspect.
[2] A 16-week-old fetus seems quite
human externally.
But it cannot yet move on its own enough to be detectable
as "-quickening..."
[Sagan and Druyan.1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE, April 22]
Brown's criticism is justified, though perhaps
too reserved. The reptilian reference,
in and of itself, might have been attributable to observational insensitivity
if it had constituted an isolated statement. However, it was
only one of a series:
[3] By the third week ...the forming embryo...looks
a little
like a segmented worm.
[4] By the end of the fourth week ...its tube-shaped
heart
is beginning to beat, something like the gill arches of a fish
or an amphibian...and there is a pronounced tail. It looks
something like a newt or a tadpole.
[5] By the sixth week, the...eyes are still
on the side of the
head, as in most animals...
[6] By the end of the seventh week, the...face
is manmalian
but somewhat piglike.
[7] By the end of the eighth week, the face
resembles a
primate's but is still not quite human. [ibid., p. 8]
How strikingly different, the witness presented
Sunday, February 9, 1992 before the Confirmation class at Our Lady of Good
Counsel Church in Warners, New York. Students were afforded the privilege
of personal testimony, enhanced by printed and photographic materials,
from Syracuse Friends for Life representatives. Mary and Alan Badger,
the parents of eight children, were able to describe and show the development
of limbs, finger nails, cuticle and skin using the same photographs displayed
by Sagan and Druyan. Why? One possible reason is a predilection
Sagan and Druyan seem to have toward the long-discredited offering of nineteenth-century
evolutionist Ernst Haeckel:
The theory of recapitulation was almost universally
accepted by biologists in the latter part of the century,
but in the last fifty years it has not stood the test of the
advance of knowledge and is now discarded by most.
[G.S. Carter. 1957. A hundred years of evolution. London:
Sidgwick and Jackson, p. 81]
The true implications of the "theory" were
summed up in a description of the inherent assumptions:
Ernst Haeckel regarded resemblances as indications
of common ancestry and believed ontogeny to be a true
recapitulation of phylogeny.
[B. Dawes. 1952. A hundred years of biology. London:
G. Duckworth & Co. Ltd., p. 119]
The progressive stages of embryonic development (ontogeny) supposedly
repeated (recapitulated) the ancestral stages of evolutionary development
(phylogeny).
Dr. Nathanson described the term "quickening"
as "nonsense" (1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality.
New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc., p. 154) and "...incompatible
with science today." [ibid., p. 187] Perhaps that's the reason Sagan and
Druyan enclosed the term in quotes. Even if quickening was once "valid"
as a term, it would seem to have been rendered irrelevant by what has been
scientifically established concerning the five-week-old "reptile":
We now know through ultra-sound heart monitoring
that the heart begins to beat at four weeks, and the child
begins to move at five weeks.
[ibid., p. 119]
Even if Sagan and Druyan do not specifically embrace embryonic recapitulation,
the result is unchanged. Their testimony seems to emanate a distinctive
Haeckelian odor.
THE EVOLUTIONIST MYTH
Years of observation would seem to substantiate
the personal belief that we humans have a strong (perhaps inate) tendency
to accuse others most forcefully of those very sins for which each of us
is most guilty personally. Sagan and Druyan would also seem to fit
that mold. They leveled the charge that, "Doubtful arguments are
trotted out as certainties."
[1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and pro-choice? PARADE,
April 22, p. 4]
It may very well be an allegation that looks back at them:
Despite many claims to the contrary, life
does not
begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that
stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6
billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at
conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to
the origin of our species, tens or hundreds of
thousands of years ago.
[ibid., p. 5]
The evolutionist notion of an unbroken chain
(the continuum of life) is treated in APPENDIX II.
The disclaimer against conceptional beginnings
was countered most effectively by Koop and Schaeffer:
Viable or not, the single-celled fertilized
egg will develop into a human being unless some force destroys its life.
We should add that biologists take the uniform position that life begins
at conception; there Is no logical reason why the proabortionist
should try to arrive at a different definition when he is talking about
people, the highest form of all biological creatures.
[1983. Whatever happened to the human race? Westchester, IL: Crossway
Books, p. 18]
Philosophy Prof. Donald De Marco noted the
multi-disciplinary refutation of the conception misconception that seems
to have been missed:
The scientific evidence furnished by genetics,
embryology,
perinotology, fetology and biology establishes beyond doubt
that the growing foetus within the human mother is, from the
moment of his conception, an existing, living organism who
belongs unequivocally to the species of man.
[1979. Abortion in perspective: The rose palace or the
fiery dragon? Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Co., Inc., p. 170]
Dr. Nathanson was co-founder of N.A.R.A.L.
(now the National Abortion Rights Action League) and is former director
of The Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health in New York. By
his own admission [1979. Aborting America. New York: Doubleday & Company,
Inc, preface], he was responsible, directly or indirectly, for 60,000 deaths
by abortion. Now a confirmed pro-life activist for non-religious reasons
[ibid., p. 6], he has rejected the notion that human life does not begin
at the instant of conception:
Significant advances in science and technology
in the
past four years, such as realtime ultra-sound scanning,
fetal medicine, intra-uterine surgery, and in vivo fertilization
have all confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that prenatality
is just another passage in our lives - lives which commence
with fertilization and end with death. Could any truth
be more
obvious, more self-evident? Yet infuriatingly, like the Bourbon
kings, the Abortion People have learned nothing and have
forgotten nothing. They cling to their flat earth credo, and
would
have the rest of us cling to it too.
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality.
New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc, p. 2]
British gynecologist Michael G. Kielty added
his own professional observation to the already overwhelming evidence:
If I believed that the unborn were less than
human, that
the foetus was some sort of tumor (a collection of randomly
multiplying cells) then all the reasons for killing it would make
some sense (like eradicating a cancer!). But medical science
tells us quite unequivocally that the unborn is indeed a human
being.
[1986. Abortion - a medical perspective.
L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO No. 18, 5 May, p. 7]
Archbishop John R. Roach and Cardinal Terence
Cooke provided this final rebuke in the form of a quote from the September
1970 editorial, "A New Ethic for Law and Society," in CALIFORNIA MEDICINE,
the journal of the California Medical Association:
The reverence of each and every human life
has
been a keystone of western medicine and is the ethic
which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect,
repair, prolong and enhance every human life.
Since the old ethic has not yet been fully
displaced,
it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion
from the idea of killing - which continues to be socially
abhorent. The result has been a curious avoidance of
the scientific fact (which everyone really knows) that
human life begins at conception and is continuous
whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death. The very
considerable semantic gymnastics which are required
to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human
life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth
under socially inpeccable auspices. It is suggested
that this sort of schizophrenic subterfuge is necessary
because, while a new ethic is being accepted, the old
one has not yet been rejected.
[1988. Testimony in support of the Hatch Ammendment.
In; About Catholicism: The American debate. P.B. Jung
and T.A. Shannon, New York: Crossroad, p. 14]
Sagan, an astronomer, and Druyan, a novelist
and television writer/producer, apparently have no problem understanding
that life does not begin at conception. It seems passing strange
that those whose fields of expertise include (among others) obstetrics,
gynecology, and fetology have not as yet caught up with such "facts."
Perhaps it's because the evolutionist/pro-abortion mindset is actually
nescience and real scientists have no time to waste on it.
A MISREADING OF RELIGIOUS HISTORY
The abortion controversy has erroneously been
identified as a Catholic issue. Dr. Nathanson, by his own admission,
a pro-life activist for non-religious reasons [1979. Aborting America.
New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. p. 6], noted such labeling as part
of a massive conspiracy: "...anti-Catholic warp was a central strategy,
a keystone of the abortion movement."
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality. New York:
Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc., p. 196]
He exposed the collusion between Planned Parenthood and the Nev York
Times. [ibid., p. 54] He also disclosed "...NARAL's Catholic
strategy...in terrorizing elected officials..." [ibid., pp. 179-180] and
acknowledged formulation of the well used copout for Catholic politicians:
The "modern" Kennedy Catholics needed little
persuasion
from us. They were already using contraception and it was not
a long step for them to the public position of "pro-choice."
To
maintain their appearance as enlightened and progressive
while still retaining the bona fides as Catholics
we provided
them with the now classic straddle for Catholics in public
positions; abortion is personally abhorent, but everyone must
be free to make their own choice. Now we were ready to use
them to call over the more traditional, less trendy Catholics
to
our cause. [ibid., pp. 180-181]
There are those who have made no secret of
their disdain for the alleged misdeeds of the Roman Catholic Church. [i.e.,
Sagan and Druyan. 1985., Comet. New York: Random House. pp. 26-28).
A recent presentation of abbreviated Church "history" has the earmarks
of an allegation of hypocrisy coupled with a curious attempt at using the
information in support of a personal liberal abortion agenda:
The Catholic Church's first and long-standing
collection
of canon law (according to the leading historian of the Church's .
teaching on abortion, John Connery, S.J.) held that abortion
was homicide only after the fetus was already "formed" - roughly,
the end of the first trimester. It was not until 1869 that abortion
at
any time for any reason became grounds for excommunication.
[1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and pro-choice? PARADE,
April 22, p. 6]
Whatever Fr. Connery's disposition might be
toward such praise, his contribution to the historical side of the abortion
issue is deserving of tribute. [1977. Abortion: The development of
the Roman Catholic perspective. Chicago: Loyola University Press.] However,
he could be no less than incredulous concerning the discoveries attributed
to him.
According to Connery [ibid., p. 212], "...the
code of Canon Law, published in
1917..." merely incorporated the legislative penalties issued by Pope
Pius IX in 1869 and consistently maintained through successive pontificates.
The Pope eliminated the distinction between
an "...animated and unanimated fetus" in the imposition of excommunication
for "...anyone causing an abortion, whatever the stage of fetal development..."
This was a modification of the relaxation of penalties instituted in 1591
by Pope Gregory XIV and closely paralleled those put into effect in 1588
by Pope Sixtus V who also "...attached an excommunication...to sterilization"
[ibid., p. 148).
The implication in the Sagan/Druyan testimony would seem to be that
the Church was tolerant of the practice of abortion until 1869. Fr.
Connery destroyed any such notion:
Abortion was wrong to the early Christians,
and this
was what concerned them, not what penalty it deserved.
They were not interested in camparing one abortion to
another for penal purposes.
Abortion was wrong whether the fetus was formed
or not. One finds in the early Church, then,simple, clear
condemnations of abortion without any attempt to distinguish
or classify. [ibid., p. 34]
The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals
a firm antiabortion attitude....The condemnation of abortion
did not depend on and was not limited in any vay by theories
regarding the time of fetal animation...abortion from the time
of conception was considered wrong...[ibid., p. 304]
The Sagan/Druyan commentary on Fr. Connery's
research would not appear to be information gleaned from a
serious reading of his book.
NON-CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS PRACTICE
It would seem only reasonable for those who have
made no secret of their support for legalized abortion to present arguments
that reinforce their position. Several statements, numbered for convenience,
have been reviewed in this context (the commentary in parentheses is my
own):
[1] Different religions have different
teachings.
(The statement should be no cause for disagreement.
Indeed, it would seem to be a truism).
[2] Among hunter-gatherers ("primitive"
peoples?)
there are usually no prohibitions against abortion...
(That may very well be the case. Documentary films
would seem to indicate less prohibitions in many of the
social activities of so-called hunter-gatherers).
[3] ...abortion...was common in ancient Greece
and
Rome.
(Fr. Connery [op. cit. 1977., p. 304] reminded us that the
Jews and early Christians recognized the Romans as
pagans whose customs were generally considered
unacceptable. Scriptural witness testifies to the same
attitude toward the Greeks).
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE, April 22, p. 6],
Regarding the Romans, Fr. Connery's research provided another disclosure:
Abortion was not as frequent in Rome as infanticide...the
danger to the mother associated with abortion, as well as
uncertainty regarding effectiveness of the methods used,
would incline women to a postnatal solution of their problems
whenever this was feasible.
[op. cit., pp.26-27]
Sagan and Druyan continued:
[4] the Assyrians impaled women on stakes
for attempting
abortions. The Jewish Talmud teaches that the fetus is
not a person and has no rights.
(Though providing no information on the Assyrian methods
of punishment for abortion, Connery [ibid., pp. 14-15] did
put the Jewish/Assyrian social practices into perspective:
"Indeed, it would seem somewhat presumptuous to suggest
an easy attitude toward self-induced abortion on the part
of the Jews, given the severe attitude manifested by their
neighbors, the Assyrians. The religious and moral standards
of the Jews were at least as high as that of their neighbors,
and generally considered higher.")
Fr. Connery provided no specific information
regarding the Jewish teaching on the status of the fetus. He did
quote the only case in the Talmudic Mishna which allowed
sacrificing the fetus to save the life of the mother [ibid., p. 15).
However, he followed that with an observation which would seem to refute
the notion of the Jews having any but the highest regard for the unborn
child:
...[T]his is the only case in which taking the life of the fetus
is explicitly allowed in the early written tradition of the Jews.
The fact that it is singled out for justification argues in favor
of a tradition in which abortion even by the mother was
considered wrong. If abortion were generally accepted,
there would hardly be need to justify it in extreme need of
this kind. [ibid., p. 16]
His earlier development of the reasons for
such a mindset showed the Jewish tradition respecting unborn life to be
one of their most ancient:
There are actually many indications that the idea of
abortion was totally alien to the Jewish mentality. The
attitude of the Jews toward barrenness as a curse, the
regard for fertility as onC,of God's greatest blessings,
the mandate to increase and multiply, the hope of the
Jewish maiden that she might bear the Messiah, all
militated against an easy attitude toward self- induced...or
any deliberate abortion. [ibid., p. 14]
There was no New Testament until after the
Resurrection of Christ. His teachings, and the earliest teachings
of the Apostles were based on the Hebrew Scriptures. Unaware that
his epistles would later be canonized as inspired Scripture, Saint Paul
also based his teachings on the Hebrew Scriptures. It is in that
context of the Judeo-Christian teaching tradition that Fr. Connery explicitly
documented the status of the unborn child:
...[T]he Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Bible produced
in Alexandria in the third century before Christ)...in imposing
the penalty for homicide on causing the death of the formed
f etus...is treating it as a full human being. Aristotle maintained
that formation took place forty days after conception in the
male fetus and ninety days in the female fetus. The Septuagint,
however, made no time estimate, let alone a distinction between
the male and female fetus. [ibid., p. 18]
It would seem reasonable, then, to question
the validity of the Sagan/Druyan sources of historical research.
Fr. James T. Burtchaell provided an insight that might lend a clue:
The most influential sources of statistics
on U.S. abortion
practice are the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the cluster of
other agencies linked to Planned Parenthood. But the best
single source of statistics on the progress of the Vietnam
War was General Westmoreland's office.
[1982. Rachel weeping and other essays on abortion.
New York: Andrews and McMeel, Inc., p. 2]
He also noted a dimension of religious difference regarding the opposition
to abortion which trancends the denominational rifts often assumed:
...the divide between religionists on abortion is not one
which cleaves one set of communions from another. The
cleft follows two older fracture lines, and does not conform
exactly to church boundaries. Most significantly, the
religious groups that resist abortion are the same groups
that traditionally have placed high value on the marriage
bond. Those who advocate protection for the unborn, even
at sharpe sacrifice, are the same who have advocated
fidelity in marriage, for better or for worse....Those who
have defended the bond of promise are, not surprisingly,
also defenders of the bond of blood. [ibid., p. 118]
SCRIPTURAL BLINDERS
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their
heart,
that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand
with their heart....[St. John 12:40]
(All Scriptures in this essay are from: Douay-Rheims
translation. 1899. Reprinted1971. TAN Books and
Publishers, Inc., Rockford, IL)
There are those who would seem to have ruled
out the Scriptures as a source in which to find any substantiation for
opposition to abortion:
The Old and New Testaments - rich in detailed
prohibitions
on dress, diet and permissible words - contain not a word
specifically prohibiting abortion. The only passage that's
remotely relevant (Exodus 21:22) decrees that if there's a fight
and a woman bystander is accidentally injured and made to
miscarry, the assailant must pay a fine.
[Sagan and Druyan.1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE, April 22, p. 6]
Fr. Connery's earlier testimony at least implicitly
put such notion to rest. Yet even he cautioned, "If anyone
expects to find an explicit condemnation of abortion in the New Testament,
he will be disappointed. The silence of the New Testament regarding
abortion surpasses even that of the Old Testament"
[1977. Abortion: The development of the Roman Catholic perspective.
Chicago: Loyola University Press, p. 34]
How, then, can he reasonably inform his readers that the earliest Christians
condemned abortion; a mindset they inherited from the Jewish people dating
to their earliest written and verbal traditions?
Dr. Nathanson has decried the pseudoscientific
mentality of the anti-life advocates who seem to steadfastly ignore the
findings of true science regarding life in the womb.[1983. The abortion
papers: Inside the abortion mentality. New York: Frederick Fell Publishers,
Inc. , p. 2]
Armed vith scientific fact as a base, then, Scriptural support for
the pro-life position can be found in abundance.
A Biblical imperative sometimes quoted in
support of capital punishment might seem applicable: "Whosoever shall
shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image
of God" [Genesis 9:6]. There is also a more generalized mandate which
Christians have identified as the Fifth Commandment: "Thou shall
not kill!" [Exodus 20:13]
A number of Old Testament passages tell of
women conceiving and bearing sons; there are various levels of identification:
A. Exodus 2:1-10; Moses is identified, but not his parents.
B. 4 Kings [2
Kings] 4:8-17; Eliseus prophesied conception
by a woman identified only as a Sunamitess.
C. There are cases
of only father and son being identified;
1. Judges 13:19-24; Manue, father
of Samson.
2. I Paralipomenon (I Chronicles)
7:22-23; Ephraim, father of Beria.
D. The majority of the accounts names mother, son and father.
1. Genesis 4:1;
Eve bore Cain, son of Adam.
2. Genesis 29:24-32;
Lia bore Ruben, son of Jacob.
3. Genesis 38:1-3;
Sue bore Her, son of Juda.
4. Ruth 4:13-17; Ruth
bore Obed, son of Booz.
5. I Kings (I Samuel)
1:19-20; Anna bore Samuel, son of Elcana.
6. Osee (Hosea)
1:2-4; Gomer bore Jezrahel, son of Osee.
The Text, in each case, implicitly speaks of continuity (a continuum),
not of tens or hundreds of thousands of years, but nine months from conception
to birth. At no time is
there a hint of segmented worms, newts, tadpoles or piglike mammals.
It would appear the ancient writers of Scripture were far more scientific
than some of the modern writers
who consider themselves enlightened by science which they have a seeming
tendency to ignore when it suits a particular agenda.
The continuity (continuum) of individual human
life has also been more explicitly revealed:
1. Psalm 70 (71):6; By thee have I been confirmed from the womb: from
my mother's womb thou art my protector.
2. Psalm 109(110)
:3; ...from the womb before the day star I begot thee.
3. Psalm 126(127) :3; ...behold the inheritance of the
Lord are children:
the reward, the fruit of the womb.
4. Isaias 44:24; Thus saith the Lord thy redeemer, and thy maker,
from the
womb...
The continuum was also put in the context of
a logical comparison:
And Moses called all Israel, and said to them...The
Lord
our God...will love thee and multiply thee, and will bless the
fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy
vintage...thy herds, and the flocks of thy sheep upon the land...(Deuteronomy
5:1-2, 7:13).
Anyone who plants corn seed, expects corn to grow as a result. Anyone
who is a breeder of goats, expects the effort will produce goats.
Human beings conceive human beings, who are so at the instant of conception.
The Scriptures also reveal instances of the
sex of a child being prophesied even before conception has taken place:
1. Genesis 17:19, 21; And God said. ..my covenant I will establish
with
Isaac, whom Sara will bring forth to thee [Abraham]
at this time in the
next year.
2. St.
Luke 1:13, 24; But the angel said to him: Fear not, Zachary, for thy
prayer is heard; and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou
shalt call his name John. ..And after those days, Elizabeth his wife
conceived...
The greatest prophesy of all, of course, was
that surrounding the Lord Jesus Christ: "Behold a virgin shall conceive
and bear a son..." [Isaias 7:14] That testimony was made several
hundred years before the birth of Christ, and later substantiated:
And after eight days were accomplished, that
the child
should be circumcised, his name was called Jesus, which
was called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
[St. Luke 2:21]
A scholarly Biblical development is presented in APPENDIX III.
A NON-SOLUTION
One of the long-standing verbal barbs leveled
by those employed in the central New
York industrial manufacturing sector is in the form of an accusation.
An individual's
unpopular proposals might earn the originator the charge of offering
simplistic solutions to solve complex problems. In the context of the anti-life
mindset there are those
who seem to have adopted a simplistic outlook based on a false premise:
By far the most common reason for abortion
is
birth-control. So shouldn't opponents of abortion be
handing out contraceptives? That would be an effective
way to reduce the number of abortions.
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life
and pro-choice? PARADE, April 22, p. 5]
Archbishop Patrick J. Hayes wrote a stinging
rebuke in response to the activities of
contraceptive activist (and founder of Planned Parenthood) Margaret
Sanger. His testimony was most insightful:
Heinous is the sin committed against the creative
act
of God, Who through the marriage contract invites man
and woman to co-operate with Him in the propagation
of the human family. To take life after its inception is a
horrible crime; but to prevent human life that the Creator
is about to bring into being is satanic. In the first instance,
the body is killed, while the soul lives on; in the latter by
frustrating God's laws, not only a body but an immortal
soul is denied existence in time and eternity. It has been
reserved to our day to see advocated shamelessly the
legalizing of such a diabolical thing
[1921. Pastoral letter. Archdiocese of New York,
December 14, pp. 2-3]
God's command, of course, was to Adam and Eve
to, "Increase and multiply, and
fill the earth..." [Genesis 1:28] The practice of artificial
contraception, then, renders impossible one's ability to obey this command
of Almighty God.
Nor will the claim that God's command has already
been obeyed, stand up to observation. The earth is not even remotely
close to being filled. Jesus Christ taught that He had come to fulfill
the Law, rather than destroy it [St. Matthew 5:17]. Yet He made no mention
of God's command having been fulfilled. He did, however, teach
that a woman who divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery,
thereby sinning against the Sixth Commandment. [St. Mark 10:12] The teaching
was made in the context of a social setting in which a woman had no such
right. Even if the pagan women in the region could legally obtain
divorce, those in His Jewish audience could not. Logically, then, His teaching
would seem to have been prophetic; only in our own time has it come to
pass that a woman can obtain a divorce, and on the flimsiest pretext. Still,
His teaching, prophetic or otherwise, did not exonerate us from God's command
regarding propagation of the human race.
Jesuit Fr. John A. Harden documented the Anglican
Church position reversal against contraception as a result of Resolution
15 at the 1930 Lambeth Conference.
[1959. Christianity in conflict: A Catholic view of Protestantism.
Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, pp. 86-87]
Perhaps in direct response to the Anglican sanction, Pope Pius XI countered
with authentic Roman Catholic teaching:
But no reason, however grave, may be put forward
by
which anything intrinsically against nature may become
conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore,
the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the
begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately
frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature
and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted
Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible
solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question,
the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense
of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst
of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may
preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by
this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship
and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of
matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately
frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against
the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are
branded with the guilt of a grave sin.
[1930. Casti Connubii:Encyclical on Christian Marriage.
31 December, no's. 54, 56. Provided Courtesy of: Eternal
Word Television Network, 5817 Old Leeds Road Irondale,
AL 35210. Electronic Copyright © 1999 EWTN. All Rights Reserved. ]
Pope Paul VI reinforced consistent Church
teaching in what may be one of the most maligned papal documents of our
time by those who dissent from legitimate Church authority:
Therefore we base our words on the first principles
of
a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when we are
obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption
of the generative process already begun and, above all,
direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be
absolutely excluded as lawful means of controlling the birth
of children.
Equally to be condemned, as the Magisterium
of the
Church has affirmed on various occasions, is direct
sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether
permanent or temporary.
Similarly excluded is any action, which either
before, at
the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically
intended to prevent procreation - whether as an end or as
a means.
[1968. HUMANAE VITAE : Encyclical on the regulation of birth,
25 July, no. 14. Provided Courtesy of: Eternal Word Television
Network. 5817 Old Leeds Road Irondale, AL 35210. Electronic
Copyright © 1999 EWTN. All Rights Reserved. ]
Fr. Robert J. Fox destroyed a number of the
myths long promulgated by the promoters of contraception:
The proponents of artificial contraception
have promised
many social advantages. They have promised less divorce,
less juvenile delinquincy, less poverty and more family stability.
These advocates have been wrong on all counts. There is
rising divorce, more juvenile delinquincy, increasing poverty,
and the breakdown of family life to such a serious degree
that some have even feared that the family institution would
eventually fade away. Man cannot improve on God's
commandments. They are established by God and built
into human nature. Their obedience is essential for man's
happiness in time and in eternity.
[1975. Charity, morality, sex and young people.
Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., p. 61]
Fr. Albert Shamon pointed out just how illogical
is the notion that contraception will solve the abortion dilemma:
Legalized abortions are estimated at 1.3 to 1.5 million
a year. But early abortions caused by intrauterine devices
and so-called contraceptive pills have been estimated at
between 6.4 and 8.8 million each year in this country. As
long as this contraceptive mentality remains, most unborn
babies will be killed privately.... Consequently, the pro-life
movement must have a double objective: to save lives and
to advance the conversion of America from its contraceptive
mentality.
[1989. Pro-life rescue missions appeal to a higher law.
CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, NY. April 6, p. 15]
A non-Catholic perspective on the ills of contraception
is presented in APPENDIX IV.
IMPRUDENT JURISPRUDENCE
Don E. Fehrenbacher wrote, "Seven of the nine
justices agreed..."
[1978. The Dred Scott Case: Its significance in American law and politics.
New York: Oxford University Press, p. 322]
He further advised:
Years of political pressure for judicial settlement
of
the...controversy undoubtedly had their effect on the
collective judgement of the Supreme Court...But the
boldness with which it acted also reflected public
understanding of the nature of judicial power and the
Court's own sense of strategic responsibility in the
American constitutional system. [ibid., p. 209]
It would seem, then, that such a decision must
be based on sound judicial principle. When seven of the nine justices
of the Supreme Court render a decision it must be above reproach.
Yet the result of the decision under discussion was to prove a blight on
the U.S. judiciary:
Dred Scott had lost his eleven-year legal
battle for
freedom in the last court of appeal....In his "opinion of the
Court," Chief Justice [Roger B.] Taney had emphatically
excluded Negroes from citizenship and denied Congress
the power to prohibit slavery in the territories. [ibid., p. 322]
The Dred Scott ruling effectively declared
African-Americans non-human, thus blatantly advocating and promoting racism.
That decision was not the last blight to be self-inflicted on the U.S.
judiciary by a majority of seven Supreme Court justices. Law Prof.
John T. Noonan, Jr. related another infamy:
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court of
the United
States deciding Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton announced
that, a new personal liberty existed in the Constitution - the
liberty of a woman to procure the termination of her pregnancy
at any time in its course....Vague as to the exact constitutional
provision, the Court was sure of its power to proclaim
an exact constitutional mandate. It propounded a doctrine
on human life which had, until then, escaped the notice of
the Congress of the United States and the legislators of all
fifty states.... No one of these bodies had read the constitution
right.
[1973. Raw judicial power. NATIONAL REVIEW March 2, p. 260]
Yet the decision has its proponents:
....[W]e find Roe v. Wade to be a good and
prudent
decision addressing a complex and difficult issue. With
prohibitions on abortion in the last trimester - except in
cases of grave medical necessity - it strikes a fair balance
between the conflicting claims of freedom and of life.
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE, April 22, p. 8]
The decision, on the contrary, would seem to
lack fair balance and freedom for the life of the unborn baby involved.
Dr. Nathanson described use of the term
"trimester," in the context of the abortion debate, as constituting
"...Stone Age thinking..."
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality. New York:
Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc., p. 119]
He also noted the empirical (observable) evidence that fetal heart
beat is detectable at four weeks after conception. That knowledge
was presented as analogous to a situation directly involving Sagan in SETI
(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) pursued under the auspices of
Project META (Megachannel Extraterrestrial Assay). [Sagan. 1986. The search
for radio messages from other civilizations in the depths of space is about
to enter high gear. PARADE, September 14]
If we were to receive on our huge radio telescopes
a
beat repeating itself over and over at a recognizable rate
of one hundred and forty-four per minute, the sound arching
across the vault of the universe to be neatly trapped in that
dish, how excited we would be, how quick to acknowledge
some sort of life out there somewhere in the universe.
[Nathanson, 1983, p. 119]
Notre Dame Law Prof. Charles Rice was quoted
revealing the naivete of those who champion the imaginary restrictions
in Roe v. Wade as:
...[A] practical sanction for abortion on
request at every
stage until delivery...Since 1973, the Court implemented
Roe in a series of decisions which precluded the states
from enforcing and effective prohibitions of abortion
[G.L. Smith. 1991. Roe vs. Wade. THE CATHOLIC SUN,
Diocese of Syracuse, January 17-23, p. 5]
Fr. Burtchaell provided new insight into what
constitutes "grave medical necessity:"
The Supreme Court has viewed..."health" [as]
"physical,
emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age."
In this sense, of course, every abortion serves a woman's
health because it serves her perceived well-being. On this
understanding of health the denial of any strong desire would
provoke distress and thus constitute a health problem.
[1982. Rachel weeping and other essays on abortion. New
York: Andrews and McMeel, Inc., p. 63]
Cardinal O'Connor lamented what the typical
pro-life activist knows to be all too true:
The sad truth is that a great number of babies
are
deliberately aborted, not because their mothers are in
serious financial need, or confronted with grave problems.
They are aborted because they are inconvenient. That's
what is meant by abortion on demand, and for all practical
purposes it is the law of this land.
[1990. Abortion: Questions and answers. CATHOLIC NEW
YORK, Archdiocese of New York, June 14, no. 15]
Dr. Nathanson put the "legal" basis for Roe
v. Wade in a most interesting context of surrealism:
It is a transcendent irony in the history
of medicine that
as increasing scientific attention and enormous resources
were being assigned by the medical conmunity to the
protection and welfare of the unborn child, a new liberty was
being quarried out of the United States Constitution which
permitted and even encouraged the mass scale destruction
of the child. This paradox becomes more insistent and more
inexplicable daily. In the diabolic terms of Orwellian
doublespeak the Abortion People would have us believe that
destruction is preservation, that wrong is right, that human life
is indefinable. And it is a crowning irony that 1984 is here,
literally and figuratively.
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality.
New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc. p. 4]
He summed up his judicial exasperation with a rebuke:
We have a national referendum of nine people
perched in a judicial cloudland determining the national
will, a plebescite so fragile and so pitifully inadequate that,
far from setting the issue to rest for a time, it merely stirs
up more furor by the nature of the result and the frailty of
the process. [ibid., p. 36]
Sociologist Raymond J. Adarnek exposed the
true nature of the Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton decisions with a quotation
from Justice Byron R. White in an excoriating rebuke of his fellow justices:
I find nothing in the language or history
of the Constitution
to support the Court's judgement. The Court simply fashions
and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers
and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests
that right with sufficient substance to override most existing
state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the
legislatures of the 50 states are constitutionally disentitled to
weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and
development of the fetus on the one hand against a spectrum
of possible impacts on the mother on the other hand. As an
exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has the
authority to do what it does today; but in my view its judgement
is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of
judicial review which the Constitution extends to this Court.
[1980. Abortion policy: Time for reassessment. In: Abortion
parley. Rev. J.T. Burtchaell, C.S.C., pp. 4-5]
Finally, Helen Alvare (Director of Planning
and Information, Pro-Life Secretariat, National Conference of Catholic
Bishops) has provided information that would seem to put a new twist on
the issue of separation-of-church-and-state:
Planned Parenthood equates taxpayers' freedom
not
to fund its abortion agenda with Americans' loss of free
speech.
[1991. Title X and abortion. THE CATHOLIC SUN,
Diocese of Syracuse, July 25-August 1, p. 4]
EPISCOPAL REBUKE
Concern for the welfare of others is a virtue
most noble. It was one of the most
emphatic teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ [cf. St. Matthew 25:31-46].
However, one
concern that has been expressed in the context of the abortion debate
would seem to be based on a lack of understanding. That concern was for:
"...clerics threatening politicians with perdition."
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and pro-choice?
PARADE (April 22). p. 4]
One of the most publicized cases in point is
that between Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of New York on the one side, and,
alternately. New York Archbishop, Cardinal John J. O'Connor and New York
Auxiliary Bishop, Austin B. Vaughan on the other. The misunderstanding
is in the insinuation implied by the false accusation of threat.
It seems only reasonable that each of these "clerics" be given his day
in court.
A Catholic News Service representative
interviewed O'Connor regarding a supplement to the archdiocesan weekly
newspaper.
[CNS. 1990c. Cardinal calls attack on essay 'programmed.' CATHOLIC
COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, June 14, p. 6]
Responding to the attacks against the special edition, he was quoted:
He (Cuomo) knows that as far as I am concerned
there
can be absolutely no compromise whatsoever [on abortion]....I
personally believe that he's continuing to struggle with this.
I
cannot read any man's conscience....In my judgement, he is
totally, completely wrong on this [abortion]. But I have never
called
him an evil man.
[1990. Abortion: Questions and answers. CATHOLIC NEW YORK,
Archdiocese of New York, NY, June 14]
Theologian Fr. Richard P. McBrien reviewed
the cardinal's authority to impose the penalty of excommunication for "...advocating
legislation supporting abortion...[ibid.,
no. 9] and concluded:
[No.] Canon 1398 of the Revised Code
of Canon Law
states that automatic excommunication is imposed on "a
person who procures a successful abortion. "
Only a very loose interpretation of that canon
would
expand its scope to include governors, legislators and
other public officials who vote for abortion funding or who
sign and execute laws which provide such funding.
[1990. Cardinal raises the stakes in abortion issue.
CATHOLIC COURIER,.Diocese of Rochester, July 26, p. 20]
Interviewed by Reuters News Service, Fr. Larry
Lassing, spokesman for the Pope John XXIII Medical-Moral Research and Educational
Center in St. Louis, offered this Church teaching:
Every Catholic is obliged in conscience not
only to
oppose abortion as a personal decision, but also to
oppose its practice in society...to approve public
funding (of abortion) is to co-operate directly with the
doing of abortion.
[1984. Catholic research center issues strong statement
against abortion. THE WANDERER, October 18, p. 1]
Catholic News Service representative Sr. Mary
Ann Walsh provided the following testimony:
In a telephone interview Jan. 24 after he
was released
from jail Bishop vaughan said he did not curse the governor
[Cuomo], and defined cursing as calling down evil upon another.
"I have no right to do that" he said. "God is the only one ultimately
Who can judge."
In criticizing the governor, he said, he was
meeting his
"obligation as a shepherd" to "warn someone of his wickedness."
[1990. Bishop: Cuomo risks going to hell for abortion view.
CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, July 26, p. 4]
Fr. McBrien quoted Bishop Vaughan who had
recently served a 10-day jail term for his pro-life activities: "All I
was saying is what he [Cuomo] learned, and I learned, and all of you learned
in the first grade: if you commit a serious sin and die without repenting,
you go to hell."
[1990a. Bishop's sin is judging another person's soul. CATHOLIC COURIER,
Diocese of Rochester, March 8, p. 16]
There should be no difficulty for any Roman
Catholic to accept such teaching. Jesus enjoined the Apostles (of
whom the bishops are successors) with that very mandate (St. Luke 24:46-47).
Yet, Fr. McBrien would seem to have a problem accepting Bishop Vaughan's
teaching:
What Bishop Vaughan learned in the first grade
I can't
account for. But he surely must have been taught somewhere
in his seminary studies that rash judgement, that is, the act
of assuming God's place in judging the state of another
person's soul, can itself be seriously sinful.
Perhaps someone will be stepping forward now to warn
the bishop that he, too, is on the road to hell for committing
the sin of rash judgement. [ibid., p. 16]
It would seem that someone has already stepped
forward; someone who has access to the same Scriptures as the rest
of us: "He that heareth you, heareth me..."
(St. Luke10:16)
No pastoral rebuke would be complete without
some contribution from the secular press whose membership wants no part
of the imposition of sectarian views on the part of others, but seems to have a problem practicing that which is preached.
Lest anyone be disappointed:
New York's John 0' Connor called upon Catholic
public figures to toe the church (sic) line against abortion,
"even to accept political defeat," or face the consequences
....Hopefully this latest foray by the cardinal into the debate
on abortion will not revive the old nonsense that we cannot
elect Catholics to public office because they would take
their marching orders from Rome.
[Editor. 1990. The cardinal's foray. THE POST-STANDARD,
Syracuse, June 16, p. A6]
Peoria Bishop John J. Myers, in a most authoritative
pastoral statement, taught precisely that:
Persons of good conscience must refrain from
seeking
office if the price of holding office is the enforcement of evil
laws which allow the killing of the innocent.
[1990. The obligations of Catholics and the rights of the
unborn. Pastoral statement, June 1, p. 2]
Yet Fr. McBrien issued a disclaimer based on
what would seem to be a perception of episcopal futility:
Even if some catholic politicians are clearly
in the
wrong on the abortion issue, it did more harm than
good to the pro-life cause to threaten them with
exconmunication, or even to raise the possibility.
Indeed, there is no evidence that any Catholic politician
suffered defeat at the polls this year becauseof opposition
from the hierarchy
[1990c. Abortion politics: 1990. THE CATHOLIC SUN,
Diocese of Syracuse, November 14-20, p. 9]
Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary:
"A bishop in California recently was credited with getting a losing pro-choice
candidate elected to state office with similar interference that backfired."
[Editorial. 1990. The cardinal's foray. THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse,
June 16, p. 6] Backfired? One can readily understand such naivete
from a member of the secular press. We should be able to expect better
than that from a member of the clergy. Such ignorance, real or feigned,
completely misses the point as Card. O'Connor explained: "I have
never attempted to affect the governor's political standing. I will
never campaign against the governor. I will never campaign for anyone
else." So also with "A bishop in California..."
Perhaps it would be appropriate for a brief
reflection on why so many bishops have publicly chastized politicians.
Bishop Myers very clearly stated the reason:
Catholics who hold public office cannot legitimately
support legislation or any public policy which deprives
unborn children of their basic right to life."
[1990. The obligations of Catholics and the rights of
the unborn. Pastoral statement. Diocese of Peoria,
June 1, p. 2]
He further put the excommunication frenzy in its proper perspective:
Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church's
teaching on the right to life of all unborn children should
recognize that they have freely choosen by their own
actions to separate themselves from what the Catholic
Church believes and teaches. They have also separated
themselves in a significant way from the Catholic community.
[ibid., p. 4]
Roe v. Wade, then, would seem to be the basis
for a sweeping tide of sanctions. Yet, the teachings given to politicians
of our own time are nothing new. Four decades before anyone heard
of Roe v. Wade politicians had received the same teaching from Pope Pius
XI:
Those who hold the reins of government should
not
forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate
laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and
this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered
and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we
must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's
womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend
them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death
at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that
God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried
from earth to Heaven. (Gen., IV, 10)
[1930. Casti Connubii: Encyclical on Christian Marriage,
31 December, no. 67. Provided Courtesy of: Eternal Word
Television Network 5817 Old Leeds Road Irondale, AL 35210.
Electronic Copyright © 1999 EWTN. All Rights Reserved]
The Holy Father's reference to innocent blood
is a Scriptural reprimand:
"And he (God) said to him (Cain); What hast thou done?
the voice of thy brother's blood crieth to me from the earth.
Perhaps he was prophetic. His teaching would also appear to have
already addressed a specific political claim that would be invoked a half-century
hence:
There is neither an encyclical nor a catechism
that spells
out a political strategy for achieving legislative goals. So
the
Catholic trying to make moral and prudent judgments in the
political realm must discern which, if any, of the actions one
could take would be best.
[Mario M. Cuomo. 1984. The confessions of a public man.
NOTRE DAME, Autumn, p. 25]
Perhaps the most interesting piece of real
estate in the experience of life is left field. It should be no surprise
if some emanations from that source have characteristics that
seem contradictory:
Whatever we might think of certain Catholic
politicians'
executive decisions and votes on abortion-related legislation,
theirs is not the primary responsibility for making the moral
case against abortion.
If any group is to be charged with failure
on this score,
it is our Catholic bishops, not our Catholic politicians.
[Rev. Richard P. McBrien. 1990c. Abortion politics: 1990.
THE CATHOLIC SUN, Diocese of Syracuse, November
14-20, p. 9]
Fr. McBrien took the bishops to task for failure
to denounce the actions of President George Bush and Congressman Henry
Hyde whom he accused of supporting and/or campaigning for pro-choice Republican
candidates. [ibid. , p. 9] Yet the July 3, 1989 Supreme Court ruling
in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services prompted him to advocate pro-life
acceptance of: "Half-a-loaf, even a quarter-of-a-loaf..."
(1989. Webster decision woke pro-choice support. CATHOLIC COURIER,
Diocese of Rochester, October 26, p. 18]
Furthermore, he chided the pro-life conservatives,
especially the wealthy, for taking particular delight in the bishops' denunciation
of Governor Mario Cuomo and Senator Edward Kennedy whom he described as
"...liberal Democratic politicians..." [1990c, p. 9] His charge may very well be valid, but was worded
in a manner which would seem to indicate speculation: "...this might somehow
weaken...[their] political capacity to advance their despised economic
and social agenda." [1990c., p. 9]
Fr. McBrien seems to have overlooked the quarter-of-a-loaf-or-less
of the Cuomo/Kennedy economic and social agenda which is dedicated to abortion
funding. Though also only speculative, it could very well be that
the wealthy, conservative pro-life activists only despise the Cuomo/ Kennedy
anti-life agenda. Furthermore, given the obstinate adherence to abortion
funding in spite of severe criticism, it seems highly unlikely that the
bishops will weaken either man politically even if that were the intent,
which it obviously is not. The real point at issue would appear to
be Fr. McBrien's critical vacillation. The bishops have been put
in a no-win situation.
EPISCOPAL MANDATE
The Lord commissioned (ordained) His Apostles:
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All
power
is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing
them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
I have
commanded you; and behold I am with you all days, even
to the consummation of the world. [St. Matthew 28:18-20]
Had Christ not intended perpetuation of His
earthly teaching office by succession, it would seem quite unnecessary
to promise His Providential care to the end of time. It seems only
reasonable, then, to allow the bishops, as the successors to the Apostles,
an opportunity to make known precisely how such charism should be manifested
in the administration of the Church.
The bishops of Pennsylvania:
As members of a democratic society, we have
a
responsibility to see that our government respects and
promotes the dignity and rights of all. In particular, we
must act to protect the weak and those who are unable
to defend their own rights.
[Harrisburg, 1984. Pennsylvania bishops affirm priority
of right-to-life issue THE WANDERER, October 18]
Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk:
Some Catholics hold and. publicly proclaim
views
[on abortion] which are not in accord with the church's
(sic) teaching. Such dissent does not make the church's
teaching any less sure or any less binding.
[CNS, 1990a. Archbishop states policy on abortion.
CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese of Rochester,
March 15, p. 7]
Peoria Bishop John J. Myers:
Catholic faith acknowledges the authority
of the
magisterium to propose norms of behavior for the faithful.
Christ Himself through the gift of the Holy Spirit assures
the absolute reliability of the teaching of the bishops in
communion with the Pope, when - as in the case of abortion -
three conditions have been met: the teaching concerns a
matter of faith or morals, the bishops of the whole world
have held the same thing on the matter, and they have taught
it as truth which the faithful must accept unconditionally as
certain.
[1990. The obligations of Catholics and the rights of
the unborn. Pastoral statement, June 1, p. 4]
New York Archbishop, Cardinal John J. O'Connor:
As a Catholic bishop I have neither forfeited
nor
renounced my rights and obligations as a citizen.
Moreover, as a bishop I am tasked with presenting
the teaching of the Catholic Church unambiguously
and with integrity
[1990. Abortion: Questions and answers.
CATHOLIC NEW
YORK, Archdiocese of New York, NY,
June 14, no.
17]
Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith,
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
...[T]he teaching office of the church (sic)
must defend
man against himself to prevent his destruction even if this
means opposing the philosophy of an entire epoch.
[1988. Bishops, theologians and morality. In: Abortion &
Catholicism: The American debate. P.B. Jung and T.A.
Shannon, eds. New York: Crossroad, p. 299]
Pope John Paul II:
As successors of the Twelve, we have as our
pre-eminent
duty the proclamation of the Gospel to all people. This is a
task that is always necessary, but it is even more urgent
wherever there is ignorance, error, or indifference to the truth.
[1988. The authority of the Ordinary Magisterium. THE WANDERER
November 17, p. 12]
All the testimony thus far documented has been
from bishops, archbishops, a former archbishop, and the Bishop of Rome.
The potential exists then, for criticism based on an accusation of cronyism;
the bishops are guilty of maintaining the status quo as a form of ecclesiastical
job security. The witness of a number of priests and members of the
laity would seem adequate to despell any such notion.
Columnist Frank Morriss:
...[W]e ourselves should not express love
for a Pope
unless we are to accept his teachings concerning our
faith and our moral lives....No really loving child feels
imposed upon by obedience due parents. And no
Catholic professing love of the Pope should feel imposed
upon by the obedience that love imposes....There is
a...tendency in the Church in this country - to explain
away the directions from the Pope and his spokesmen
on the basis of nationalistic psychology. Once it was the
"old celebate italian," who was respected but not heeded.
Now it is a man shaped by the conditions of his homeland -
conditions that apparently mitigate our duty to follow Catholic
doctrine strictly.
[1981. Loving obedience owed to the Pope.
THE WANDERER, May 28, p.44]
Columnist Kristina Arriaga quoted Marquette
University Associate Theology Prof.
Fr. Richard R. Roach:
[Former priest Daniel]...Maguire represents
a peculiarly
strident version of the dissenting theologian...
His claim that the Catholic Church does not
have a
monolithic view on abortion is simply his way of saying that
the Pope and bishops are not competent to teach on this
matter and that he, a theologian, is...
[1981. Maguire book embarrasses Marquette? NATIONAL
CATHOLIC REGISTER September 30, p. 8]
A media viewpoint:
Church leaders like [Cardinals] Bernard Law
and John
0' Connor, and the other fine bishops who have joined with
them, are simply doing their job.
[Editorial. 1984. Why abortion is different. NATIONAL
CATHOLIC REGISTER, October 7, p. 2]
Christian Ethics Prof. Germain Grisez:
...[T]he issue of public funding is not a question of
government reaction to abortion but of government
involvement in doing abortions. Anyone who supports
public funding of abortion wills that abortions be done is
a personal moral act of the supporter of public funding.
So the supporter of public funding really does favor
killing the unborn.
[1984. A clear-cut social issue. NATIONAL
CATHOLIC REGISTER, October 7, p. 5]
Columnist Dan De Celles quoted Congressman Henry Hyde:
...[T]he duty of one who regards abortion
as wrong is not
to bemoan the absence of a consensus against abortion but
to help lead the effort to achieve one.
[1984. Hyde: Standing up for what's right. NATIONAL
CATHOLIC REGISTER October 7, p. 2]
Writer Monica M. Migliorino:
If [New York Governor Mario M.]... Cuomo wants
to call
the state a killer when it executes a criminal then he should
equally acknowledge that we have a killer state since each
time a pre-born child dies he dies with the sanction of the
law....How does he suppose that the state avoids being an
accomplice to murder when he advocates that the state directly
finance the killing with taxpayers' money?...Cuomo may be
able to dress up his contradictions and irrationality in verbal
eloquence, but this cannot alter the fact that the governor is
simply parading in public without any clothes
[1984. Cuomo and the killer state. THE WANDERER,
October 18, p. 4]
Author Fr. John M. Le Voir:
Pope John Paul's teaching is solidly anchored
in the
Gospel, that is to say, in the truth. Thus, it must be made
unequivocally clear to all Catholics, no matter what their
place or position in the Church, that to reject John Paul is
to reject Peter, and to reject Peter is to reject Christ, and
to reject Christ is to reject the truth.
[1985. Are we for John Paul II? THE WANDERER,
May 30, p. 4]
Fr. Charles Dahlby:
Truth may be known in the authentic teaching
of the
Magisterium of the Church
[1987. Needed: O.N.G. (Order of Nice Guys) religious
community. THE WANDERER, December 10, p. 3]
Columnist Fr. Enrique T. Rueda:
Membership in the Church founded by Jesus
Christ
demands acceptance [such] that the Church is coestensive
with the Roman Catholic Church under the rule of Pope
John Paul II, that the bishops form a college when in
communion with and under the guidance of the Pope.
[1987. Unity with diversity. THE WANDERER,
December 10, p. 6]
Finally, Jesuit Fr. Vincent P. Miceli placed
the duty of the episcopacy in its only true context; submission to the
Will of Christ (in this case, an eschatological context):
Christ, rebuked the head of the Apostles St.
Peter,
immediately after proclaiming him the Rock and first pope,
in these frightening words: "Get behind me Satan, for you
are a scandal to me; for you do not mind the things of God,
but those of men." Peter had attempted to dissuade Christ
from accepting the passion and death awaiting Him. Certainly
subjectively, Peter thought he was advising Christ in kindness,
sympathy and love, hoping to save Him from that terrible
fate. Peter never saw himself doing Satan's work. But
the fact of the economy of Salvation is that the passion
and death of Our Lord was decreed by the Loving Father
and ratified by the two other Holy Persons of the Holy Trinity;
it was the Holy Will of God. Thus, even though unaware
of the satanic nature of his advice. Peter was acting the
role of Satan who would certainly have willed to prevent
the passion and crucifixion. Hence Peter was a type of
Satan, even a type of the Antichrist, as all men are when
they oppose the Holy Will of God. It took Our Lord's strong
enlightening words to bring Peter to abandon that satanic
stance.
[1983. The antichrist. West Hanover, MA: The Christopher
Publishing House, p. 147]
Those just quoted
who did not specifically support the bishops, did so indirectly by leveling
nearly identical criticism based on personally insightful analysis of the
very Church teachings invoked by the bishops. Why? Perhaps
one of the reasons is based upon the mandate of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself
Who founded the Church, inaugurated the hierarchal structure and Personally
appointed the first visible head of His Church on earth:
And Jesus answering,
said to him: Blessed art
thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath
not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to
thee: That thou art Peter; and upon
this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it.
And I will give
to thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it
shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou
shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
[St. Matthew 16:17-19]
Columnist Fr. Robert E. Burns refuted one
of the common errors concerning this most crucial Scriptural teaching:
There are those who maintain that the "rock"
our Lord
referred to was Peter's confession, not Peter the man. I
therefore ask the question: did our Lord promise the keys
to the Kingdom of Heaven to a confession or to a man,
namely Simon Peter, the Galilean fisherman?
[1981. The primacy of Peter. THE WANDERER,
May 28, p. 8]
Dogmatic Theology Prof. Fr. Pedro Rodriguez:
The Catholic Church teaches as a doctrine
of faith that
Christ gave the Church, in his Apostles, a hierarchical
structure of an episcopal nature and that within the hierarchy
and the Church he (sic) established a primacy of authority in
the successor of St. Peter....The hierarchal structure is not the
result of socio-political influences but stems from the will
of Christ. This has been stated solemnly by both the Council
of Trent and Vatican I but it is Vatican II which has given a
detailed summary...
[1982. Primacy of the Pope. CHRISTIAN ORDER,
August/September, p. 416]
The clear message is, the bishops, in communion
with the Pope, have no choice about proclaiming the Gospel, as unpalatable
as it may be for us. The Lord Jesus Christ
never hesitated in His teaching which many in His own day found unsettling.
Nothing has changed.
One need only recall the Petrine confession
to put the Christian mandate into perspective: "And Simon Peter answered
him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."
[St. John 6:69]
Any bishop, then, who teaches anything less
than what has been commanded of him by Christ, is guilty of leading others
astray, thereby leaving himself open to one of the strongest warnings Jesus
gave:
And whosoever shall scandalize one of these
little ones
that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were
hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
[St. Mark 9:41]
THE ULTIMATE VIOLATION
Three highly emotional, interrelated issues
have been offered as validation for legalized abortion in a context that
would seem to be a rebuke of those who oppose abortion:
...[F]orcing teenagers to bear children they are not
emotionally prepared to bring up...worst of all, condemning
victims of rape and incest to carry and nurture the offspring
of their assailants.
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE, April 22, p. 4]
It's unclear at what point "nurture" became
a social disgrace. In the context quoted above it would seem to have been
used in a manner suggesting revulsion on the part of the authors.
Furthermore, use of the term "condemning" appears to be another piece of
literary artillery specifically intended for anti-life rhetorical effect.
Columnist Cal Thomas proposed a motivation behind such appeal that would
indicate expediency rather than compassion:
Rape and incest are false issues in the abortion
debate.
They are loopholes that pro-abortionists use, not because
these are the only exceptions they want, but because they
have found them effective emotional tools to keep the door
open to abortion on demand. Has any pro-abortionist ever
agreed to prohibit all other abortions if granted the rape and
incest exceptions?
[1990. A conscience of convenience on abortion.
HERALD-JOURNAL, Syracuse, July 16, p. A7]
Feminist author Rosalind Pollack Petchesky
would seem to have substantiated that view:
Feminists have strongly opposed the distinction
between
therapeutic ("necessary") and elective ("unnecessary"?)
abortions.
[1985. Abortion and woman's choice: The state,
sexuality, and
reproductive freedom. Boston: Northeastern
University Press, p. 125]
According to author Marian Faux, attorneys
Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington had a most pragmatic reason for wishing
to avoid a judicial link between rape and abortion for Norma McCorvey (Jane
Roe of Roe v. Wade):
Their problem with McCorvey's claim that she
had been
raped receded once they realized there were other reasons
not to assign the rape any role in the case. Like any lawyer
working on abortion reform, they hoped to obtain as broad
a ruling on abortion as possible. They did not want a court
to rule that women were entitled to an abortion when a
pregnancy resulted from rape or incest - and this, they
realized, was a distinct possibility, since current Texas
law permitted abortion only to save a woman's life, not in
cases of rape or incest. No one had ever challenged the
law on these grounds, and Coffee and Weddington had no
intention of being the first to do so. So narrow a ruling
would be a waste of time.
[1988. Roe v. Wade; The untold story of the landmark
Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal. New
York: New American Library, p. 21]
Rape is a heinous crime; a vicious assault
against the very human dignity of the victim. Yet those who have
not experienced rape can only know of the horror in an abstract sense.
Those who have been victimized, however, are able to present rape in all
its ugly reality.
Writer Elizabeth Kaye interviewed several victims:
[ I ] rape victim: "When you are
raped, it violates your
whole being. Your instinct is to shut off and close down
because you feel abused and alienated."
[2] former graduate student at the University
of North
Carolina: ...there were times when she wished her
rapist had killed her.
[3] A woman who was raped in her apartment:
"I felt a lot
of remorse and humiliation and self-loathing....There's so
much fear...[and] self-hatred after you've been violated in
that way." As time went on, she was hyper and wired in
agony. She developed eczema and her stomach swelled
and she had a fever that wouldn't go away.
She felt anxiety, pain, suffered feelings
of aloneness
and self-recrimination.
[1991. Rape: How women erase the shame.
MADEMOISELLE, December, pp. 149, 173, 174]
Columnist Dick Case interviewed a suburban
woman raped in her own bed:
I did everything I was supposed to do, and
I'm still
waiting, more than two years later....I've gotten to the
point if it goes to trial, I'll do everything I can to get him
convicted. If not, I'm strong enough now to let it go....It
ties my stomach in knots to think about it.
[1992. Rape: A survivor. HERALD-AMERICAN/THE
POST STANDARD, Syracuse, February 2, p. A14]
Staff writer Amber Smith interviewed a rape
victim who trains to help other victims:
I can sympathize with this woman in the [William]
Kennedy Smith trial, because she can't remember details.
I know exactly how she feels.
Sometimes the thoughts of her attack are disturbing
-
when she hears strange noises, when she sees something
violent in a movie, when other victims recount their attacks.
[1992. Rape victim trains to help others. HERALD-JOURNAL,
Syracuse, February 3, p. A7]
As terrible and vicious an assualt against
human dignity as rape is, does it provide the justification for abortion?
There are those who believe the answer is no. Canandaigua [NY] resident
Jean Jesserer Smith, in a letter to the editor, noted the opportunity to
personally meet two people who were conceived as a result of rape:
The first was a boy of four. The boy's
mother told me
she had been raped....Her faith gave her the strength to
endure and see that her life and her son's life had purpose
and meaning.
The second, a twenty-year-old, never spoke
about her
earliest beginnings. I assumed she preferred being alive
to being dead. She surely seemed to enjoy life.
[1989. Children born of rape deserve a chance at life.
CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese of Rochester,
October 26, p. 19]
Cardinal O'Connor provided a measure of clear
teaching:
Some evils are what we call intrinsic evils,
that is, evil
in themselves, so that no circumstances can justify them.
Direct abortion is such an evil. This principle holds even
in regard to rape or incest. An unborn baby is an innocent
human being who has committed no crime, regardless of
how conception came about. It is never morally right to
destroy an innocent human being.
[1990. Abortion: Questions and answers. CATHOLIC NEW
YORK, Archdiocese of New York, June 14, no. 13]
Therein would seem to lie the problem.
Those who harbor an anti-life mindset also appear to have a get-even mentality
directed at the unborn baby. There is no choice for the pre-born
child whether or not he or she will be conceived or murdered in the womb.
Staff writer Catherine Scobey interviewed Crisis
Center counselor Pam Kelsey-Gossard who vehemently denounced the cavalier
attitude some take toward rape victims:
Nobody deserves that.
[1992. Rape: Who can help. HERALD-JOURNAL,
Syracuse, February 3, p. A7]
She's right! On the other side neither
does an innocent pre-born baby deserve to lose his/her chance for life.
Should an innocent pre-born child be murdered
in the womb to "punish" the rapist? Will the murder of an innocent
pre-born child in the womb unrape his/her mother?
It seems passing strange that the evolutionist
mindset will allow some to "justify" the extermination of our own species
while denouncing such action with regard to others:
We raise farm animals for slaughter; destroy
forests;
pollute rivers and lakes until no fish can live there; kill
deer and elk for sport, leopards for their pelts and whales
for fertilizer; entrap dolphins, gasping and writhing, in great
tuna nets; club seal pups to death; and render a species
extinct every day. All these beasts and vegetables are as
alive as we.
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE, April 22, p. 4]
Anyone unconcerned about those issues could
probably be justifiably accused of calousness. Is abortion, then,
the solution to such problems? Those unable to discern the Biblical
prohibitions against abortion are not likely to accept anything in Scripture
that would seem to run contrary to a pre-conceived notion of how the world
should function. The fact is, Divine Revelation is most clear on the matter
of terrestrial order:
And God said: Behold I have given you every
herb
bearing seed upon the earth, and all that have in themselves
seed of their own kind, to be your meat:
And to all beasts of the earth, and to every
fowl of the air,
and to all that move upon the earth, and wherin there is life, that
they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
[Genesis 1:29-30]
Mankind, then, has received the plants and
animals as a gift from Almighty God, freely given out of His infinite Generosity.
Presumably, most of us would not consider abusing a gift given by a relative
or friend. How much more so we should not abuse the gifts given to
us by the Lord!
As the stewards of God's Creation, we have
no prerogative to any misuse or exploitation of His gifts. However,
that includes His most precious gift; human life! It is only through
the gift of life that it's possible to receive any of His other gifts.
Fr. Burtchaell added a rejoinder that would seem to call into question the motives
of those whose concern for animals and plants appears to exceed that for human beings:
The abortion literature abounds in incongruities.
The
Department of Labor considers guidelines to protect
women from exposure to substances hazardous to their
"unborn babies," while across the mall the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare is considering guidelines
that would give aborted "non-viable fetuses ex uterus" the
status of laboratory animals.
On the hill, meantime, the House Agriculture
Conmittee
approves a bill that would extend early meat packing rules
on "humane" slaughter by requiring animals to be knocked
unconscious before being killed.
[1982. Rachel weeping and other essays on abortion. New
York: Andrews and McMeel, Inc., p. 139]
Freelance writer James Hansen took to task
a seventeenth century cleric for his
alleged mistreatment of a contemporary scientise:
Lord Cardinal Robert Bellarmine [was] a leading
Jesuit
theologian...and one of the men who would try the Tuscan
astronomer...Galileo Galilei...
[1982. Can science allow miracles? NEW SCIENTIST,
8 April , p.
73]
Whatever Fr. (later Cardinal) Bellarmine's misdeeds, real or imagined,
against Galileo,
his written opinion would seem to reflect a strong sense of proper
stewardship:
He (God) shall be thy life, meat, clothing,
house, honour,
wealth, pleasure and thy All.
Moreover, thy sweet and merciful God doth
not command
thee, while thou art a pilgrim on earth, to want altogether the
solace of his creatures; for he made them all to serve thee.
But he commandeth thee to use them soberly and temperately,
and give joyfully of thy store unto the needy, having dominion
over thy wealth in using it to the glory of God.
[1928. The ascent to the Mind of God by a ladder of things
created. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd., pp. 30-31]
Nor did Bellarmine do any less than reflect consistent Church teaching.
Fr. Burtchaell further put the anti-life claim
to compassion in a context of realism:
There are indeed girls vho are twelve years
old and
pregnant, women who would need public aid, women and
girls who have suffered rape, and who want abortions. But
these situations, desperate and tragic, put forward so
strenuously by NARAL and other agencies that make the
case for governmentally funded abortion on demand - these
cases generally represent only a small fraction (in this instance,
perhaps less than 5 percent) of the nearly 1,500,000 legally
induced abortions in America each year.
[1982. Rachel weeping and other essays on abortion. New
York: Andrews and McMeel, Inc. , p. 1]
Petchesky, on the other hand, has provided
another set of statistics: "Two-thirds (65percent) of all women getting
abortions each year since 1975 have been between the ages of fifteen and
twenty-four, and three quarters (75 percent) have been unmarried."
[1985. , Abortion and woman's choice: The state, sexuality, and reproductive
freedom. Boston: Northeastern University Press, p. 143]
Yet she would seem to have taken to task those who might be alarmed:
"It is spurious to call this an "epidemic," when in fact two-thirds of
all "sexually-active" teenagers manage not to get pregnant." [ibid., p. 145]
She further seems to have encouraged the tendency: "Abortion has
become a central part of the "facts of life" for teenage women because
of a set of social conditions that, on the whole, have improved their prospects
as women in a male-dominated society." [ibid., p. 148]
Subjugation by any other name...
Podell seems to have laid the blame for the
"necessity" of abortion squarely with pro-life advocates:
The leading element in the "right to life"
movement is
indeed composed of hypocrites, who are either indifferent
to the sufferings of others or in some cases positively
enthusiastic about it; who are marketeers of religious
cretinism; and who have been thoroughly and revealingly
unsettled by one of the century's most positive developments,
the sexual autonomy of women. As has been said before,
the "lifers" pretend concern for humanity before its born
and after it is dead, and contribute mightily to the preventable
bits of misery in between.
[1990. Abortion (The Reference Shelf, v. 62, no. 4). New York:
The H.W. Wilson Co., p. 21]
Columnist Arthur J. Brew detailed a viable
means of reducing the incidence of abortion, but a solution that many will
probably find less than "fulfilling":
The Bismark Tribune reported late last year
that North
Dakota has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in the
nation....North Dakota legislators have passed certain
restrictive legislation during the past 14 years which
substantially restricted abortions and gave a large
measure of protection to the unborn.
[1987. North Dakota seen as the most pro-life state.
THE WANDERER, May 28, p. 8]
Cardinal O'Connor reiterated his personal
contribution to pro-life "hypocrisy":
In the Archdiocese of New York....it was announced
publicly on Oct. 15, 1984, and has been repeatedly
announced publicly ever since, that any girl or woman,
of any religion, race, color or ethnic background, from
anywhere, who is pregnant and in financial need, can
come to the archdiocese and be provided medical care,
hospitalization, legal and counseling help and related
assistance. If she wishes to keep her baby after birth,
she is helped to do so. If she wishes to have the baby
adopted, arrangements are made accordingly.
[1990. , Abortion: Questions and answers. CATHOLIC
NEW YORK, Archdiocese of New York, June 14, no. 15]
According to a Catholic News Service report
0' Connor's promise was not made idly:
Cardinal John J. 0' Connor's policy of condemning
abortion and offering to help any pregnant woman in
need find an alternative has been getting more and
more takers.
The number of women seeking help from a program
that may have served around 300 women in earlier years
has more than doubled and could triple, reported officials
who are carrying out the maternity services.
[CNS. 1990b. Women seeking help after cardinal's offer.
CATHOLIC COURIER,
Diocese of Rochester, June 7]
Sociology Prof. James R. Kelly noted a significant
number of people unaware of the help that is available:
This widespread ignorance about the tens of
thousands
of pro-life volunteers in emergency pregnancy centers -
there are over 300 centers - and of the help pledged by
Catholic dioceses and pro-life groups in all the major
Protestant denominations perhaps explains the public's
luke-warm image of the movement.
[1991. Abortion: What Americans really think and the
Catholic challenge. AMERICA, November 2, p. 314]
Covenant House President Sr. Mary Rose McGeady
has devoted 40 years of her life, "...living and working on the streets
with homeless children..." The "typical" youngster who seeks asylum
at Covenant House is "...white, black, and Hispanic...as young as eight
and as "old" as twenty-one...all shapes and sizes, from all types of backgrounds,
from every kind of religion...from the north and south, the cities and
the suburbs, from ghettoes and even from America's better neighborhoods."
They also include young women in their teens who are pregnant:
[ I ]...Wendy...graduated from our drug abuse
program
...we've been able to find her a job, and a nice place for
her and the baby...Julie...to live....A tiny infant whose future
seemed hopeless six months ago, was now riding alongside
a laving mother, flying on the very wings of hope.
[2] ...Clarissa, homeless at 17, had made
the mistake
of "looking for love in all the wrong places, " and gotten
pregnant.... "Here at Rights of Passage," the young woman
said, her voice wavering, "I'm encouraged to be myself, and
to reach for the goals I have set for myself and my child..."
[3] ...Janice...fourteen...was four months
pregnant...today
...Janice is...back home in Iowa. We put her on a plane just
a few days after we picked her up off that street.
[1991. God's lost children. New York: Covenant House,
pp. 14, 2, 34-35, 40, 42, 10-11]
Those youngsters welcomed and nurtured at Covenant
House are some of the 1,000,000 homeless children each year who would otherwise
be sleeping on the streets. The vast majority of them have run away
from abuse at home or have simply been abandoned. Those who manage
to "survive" on the street must work for pimps. They are victims
of rape in every sense of the word. Yet at Covenant House there is
no abortion counselor. There is no suggestion of the "choice" for
a young woman to murder her pre-born baby. There is, further, no indication
that any violated young woman has any problem nuturing the offspring of
her assailant. Why? Nobody could have stated it any better than Sr.
McGeady: "...love truly can save these kids." [ibid., p. 4] Where's
the hypocrisy? Could it be a charge that looks back at those who
level it?
RHETORICAL POTPOURRI
There is no question that war exacts a tremendous
price in loss of human life. Even a so-called just war does
nothing to change the fact of such loss. As terrible as the massive
losses are to combatants, the greater tragedy is the loss of lives among
innocent civilians. This is especially sinister if innocent victims
are killed because of the particular circumstances of birth over which
none of them had any control.
...[S]tate-organized mass murders are often
justified by
redefining our opponents - by race, nationality, religion or
ideology - as less than human.
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE, April 22, p. 5]
Dr. Nathanson described abortion in terms that
would seem to conjure the image of "state-organized mass murders":
Not even the most zealous defenders of the
pro-abortion
cause claim a lofty moral stature for their side. The most
they can claim is a questionable and undependable political
right vulnerable to nullification by a less ultra liberal, more
biologically enlightened Supreme Court, and an irrational
brand of medical utilitarianism in which 1.5 million unborn
infants are destroyed annually...
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality.
New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc, p. 208]
Prof. DeMarco recognized each of the above
incongruities and one that was not noted:
Race, color, creed, nationality and sex have
long been
recognized as barriers which occasion prejudice. But
another universal barrier is often overlooked, one that gives
rise to the most lethal prejudice ever adopted. This is the
birth barrier.
[1979. , Abortion in perspective: The rose palace or the fiery
dragon? Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Co., Inc., p. 166]
Fr. Burtchaell documented a number of examples
of the nefarious tactic of
dehumanizing the "enemy":
There has been a systematic effort made to dehumanize
and depersonalize the being which abortion eliminates. The
unborn has been designated as:
[1] "protoplasmic rubbish; a gobbet of meat
protruding
from a human womb" (Philip Wylie)
[2] "the fetal-placental unit" (A.I.
Csapo)
[3] "gametic materials; fallopian and uterine
cell matter"
(Joseph Fletcher)
[4] "unwanted fetal tissue" (Ellen Frankfort)
[5] "the product of conception" (HEW)
[6] "sub-human non-personhood" (F. Raymond
Marks)
[7] "so much garbage" (Peter Stanley)
[8] "a collection of cells" (Malcolm Potts)
[9] "a chunk of tissue" (Sarah Weddington).
[1982. Rachel weeping and other essays on abortion.
New York: Andrews and McMeel, Inc, p. 196]
One of the major dogmas of evolutionism is
naturalism; everything in existence has a naturalistic explanation devoid
of the creation action of Almighty God. Physics Prof. Edward P. Tryon
applied this philosophy in a generalized fashion:
In 1973 I proposed that our Universe (sic)
had been
created spontaneously from nothing (ex nihilo), as a result
of established principles of physics."
[1984.
, p. 14]
Geologist Steven D. Schafersman was a little
more specific:
Needless to say, science tells us that the
universe as
we know it had a natural beginning or origin, the Big Bang,
(sic) not a creation (sic)".
[1987. Fossils, stratigraphy and evolution: Consideration
of a creationist argument. In: Scientists confront creationism.
L.R. Godfrey, ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 6]
Geologist Authur N. Strahler provided a definition:
"By "universe" I mean everything that can
be observed
and described by humans with reasonable assurance and
general agreement that what is being observed, exists as
some reasonable form of matter or energy."
[1987. Science and earth history - The evolution/ creation
controversy. Buffalo: Prometheus Books., p. 1]
The universe, then, constitutes all of known
reality. The evolutionist however,
does not limit himself to the cosmic; his influence is also carried
over into the microcosmic:
...[B]y the sixth day the fertilized
egg has become a
kind of hollow sphere wandering off to another realm: the
womb. It destroys tissue in its path. It sucks blood from
capillaries. It establishes itself as a kind of parasite on the
walls of the uterus.
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE, April 22 , p. 6]
Strangely, Fr. Burtchaell seemingly had no
perception of wandering. Rather, his
testimony reads much more as a description of a continuum:
...[T]he fact that the unborn can now be detected as
nestled in the
womb suggests no principle to explain why
it could be
considered another sort of being during its earlier,
silent journey
towards that nest.
[1982. Rachel weeping and other essays on abortion. New
York: Andrews and McMeel, Inc., pp. 82-83]
Dr. Nathanson put the "parasite" argument in
a different perspective while simultaneously countering the anti-life slogan
that abortion on demand allows a woman to control her own body:
...[W]hen a pregnancy implants itself into the wall of
the uterus at the eighth day following conception the
defense mechanisms of the body, principally the white
blood cells sense that this creature now settling down
for a lengthy stay is an intruder, an alien, and must be
expelled. Therefore an intense immunological attack
is mounted on the pregnancy by the white blood cell
elements, and through an ingenious and extraordinarilly
efficient defense system the unborn child succeeds in
repelling the attack.
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality.
New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc., p. 150]
Fr. Burtchaell then carried the parasitical
issue beyond the womb:
Natalie Shainess calls the unborn a parasite.
It is
improbable, however, to suppose that the suckling
newborn has graduated into independence. Indeed,
parents of college students attest that they can now
identify the stage at which filial parasitism takes its
heaviest toll.
[op. sit., p. 84]
The Nathanson testimony raises an interesting
question. How was biological life able to survive while the embryonic defense
mechanism was evolving? Perhaps one day a spate of masters theses
and/or doctoral dissertations will be generated on this topic. No
doubt unverifiable speculation will abound.
Those who oppose abortion have long recognized
the position as less than appreciated by anti-life advocates. One of the
reasons has been documented:
...[S]ome pro-lifers adopt what many others consider
the outrageous posture of opposing abortions under any
and all circumstances - only excepting, perhaps, when the
life of the mother is in danger.
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE, April 22 , p. 5]
Fr. Burtchaell responded with a mixture of
compassion and indignation:
In opposing it I am in no way insensitive
to the plight of
mothers who are frightened thirteen-year-olds, or are
supporting six children on welfare, or are having to drop
out of college because of one night's foolishness. I simply
say these are not misfortunes that justify anyone in raising
his or her hand to kill. They are not trivial miseries.
But to
allege them as cause for abortion reminds me too much of
the excuses for the massacre at My Lai, and for the bondage
of the slave trade, and for the industrial poisoning at Minamata.
I do not wish to donate on Tuesday to the
March of Dimes
for medical research on the health of the unborn, and on
Thursday to Planned Parenthood to keep crippled children
from ever surviving till birth. I want no part of the insanity
that sends police into the privacy of homes to stop parents
from battering and scalding their four-month-old babies to
death, and then uses the same force of law to guarantee
the "privacy" of parents to dismember their babies four
months before birth. I have no stomach for a society which
sees that in many of its homes children are unwanted, and
would rather exterminate the children than heal the parents.
And though I try to be patient, I do become exasperated when
told that since I am a Catholic I have somehow lost my civil
right to make public and legal appeal for the lives of the young
marked down for death, or that I am imposing my private
religious notions on the majority of my fellow citizens, when
it is clear to anyone willing to inquire that it is the minority of
citizens that presently uses the law to kill.
[1982. Rachel weeping and other essays on abortion. New
York: Andrews and McMeel, Inc., pp. 322-323]
Yet what of the question of abortion to save
the life of the mother? If there is a single issue on which anti-life
advocates have an iron-clad case, it would logically seem to be this one.
Pope Pius XI upheld the consistent Church teaching of God's Law with full
Christian charity:
As regards the evil use of matrimony, to pass
over the
arguments which are shameful, not infrequently others that
are false and exaggerated are put forward. Holy Mother
Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all
that is said regarding the health of the mother and the
danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of
these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration
when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude,
that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has
conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is,
can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her
by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to
overflowing.[47]
As to the "medical and therapeutic indication"
to which,
using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable
Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose
health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance
of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could
ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct
murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing
with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child,
it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: "Thou
shalt not kill:"[50] The life of each is equally sacred, and no
one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it.
It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here
it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard
only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by
bloodshed against an unjust aggressor (for who would call
an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); again there is not
question here of what is called the "law of extreme necessity"
which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent.
Upright and skillful doctors strive most praiseworthily to
guard and preserve the lives of both mother and child;
on the contrary, those show themselves most unworthy
of the noble medical profession who encompass the
death of one or the other, through a pretense at practicing
medicine or through motives of misguided pity.
[47] Luke, VI, 38.
[50] Exod., XX, 13; cfr. Decr. S. Offic. 4 May 1897,
24 July 1895; 31 May 1884
[1930. Casti Connubii: Encyclical on Christian Marriage, 31
December, no's. 58, 64. Provided Courtesy of: Eternal Word
Television Network 5817 Old Leeds Road Irondale, AL 35210.
Electronic Copyright © 1999 EWTN. All Rights Reserved]
A woman who valiantly forfeits her life giving
life to her baby, has been called by Almighty God Who alone has the Authority
to take life. God the Father also asked His only begotten Son, our
Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to forfeit His innocent life that others
might live. We sadly grieve each in Faith.
Questions can be asked in a manner giving
the impression that the answer is known beforehand. Such would seem to
be the case in the following example:
When does the fetus become human? When
do distinct
and characteristic human qualities emerge?
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life
and pro-choice? PARADE, April 22 , p. 6]
Were the questions derived from any but an anti-life mindset, they might
very well constitute valid inquiry. In this instance the human quality
considered acceptable is
...when characteristic human thinking becomes
barely possible."
[ibid., p. 7]
It has been further offered as:
...a very conservative definition...[ibid.]
Perhaps under the illusion of bending over
backwards to make abortion as
"reasonable" as could be expected, there was an endeavor to tighten
the act:
If we wanted to make the criterion still more
stringent,
to allow for precocious fetal brain development, we might
draw the line at six months. This, it so happens, is where
the Supreme Court drew it in 1973 - although for completely
different reasons
[ibid., p. 8]
The testimony is flawed. Conservative
can only be a relative term when considering the pre-born babies who were
not fortunate enough to have qualified. The coincidence of arriving at the same "bench mark" as that of the Supreme Court "Magnificient
Seven" (Nathanson. 1983., p. 158), somehow seems less than laudatory based
on the reason given.
Author Catherine Jarman had already destroyed
the notion that embryonic physiological features are of any relevance:
Embryology reveals remarkable similarity of
structure
between animals in which the adult stages are as different
as fish, tortoise, hen, rabbit and man. No one mistakes the
adult forms, but it is very difficult to identify embryos without
knowing their parents.
[1971. Evolution of life. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, p. 26]
It would also seem reasonable to expect the
embryo of a fish, tortoise, hen or rabbit to be the same species as the
appropriate adult female. Why, then, would anyone pretend any differently
concerning the embryo being carried in the womb of an adult female human
being? The only "logical" reason would seem to be anti-life bias,
not against "...just any kind of life, but...particularly and uniquely
- human life"
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and pro-choice?
PARADE, April 22 , p. 5 (out of context)]
The typical evolutionist, of necessity, lives
in a phantasmagoric, surrealistic, illusory dream world.
[Rev. Valentine Long, 0.F.M. 1978. Evolutionism - a fairy tale
for adults. HOMILETIC &
PASTORAL REVIEW, April]
[Rev. 0wen Bennett, 0.F.M. 1982. A scientific scrutiny of "Evolution
Science."
HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW, August-September]
[Rev. Howard Morrison, S.J. 1982. The irrationality of biological evolution.
HOMILETIC &
PASTORAL REVIEW, August-September]
Since assumptive speculation is the very substance
of the evolutionary scenario,
contradictions abound.
[Crofut and Raymond M. Seaman. 1990. Evolutionism: Genetic 'egg'-sasperation,
Evolution: Factual or fanciful? and Evolution: A cosmic numbers game.
CREATION
RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, September, pp. 57-60]
It should be no surprise, then, that an evolutionist
can also be a victim of
self-contradiction. The following example would seem to constitute
such a case:
What was the reasoning in Roe v. Wade?..the
criterion
adopted was whether the fetus could live outside the mother.
This is called "viability" ...Viability arguments cannot, it
seems to us, coherently determine when abortions
are permissible...we find Roe v. Wade to be a good and
prudent decision.
[Sagan and Druyan.1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE, April 22 , pp. 7, 8]
Perhaps earlier admission that they arrived
at the same termination date for abortion
as the Supreme Court justices, but for different reasons, was intended
to provide an
ideological escape hatch.
One of the fabricated mental constructs personally
encountered in abortion rhetoric is
the ruse, "I can't get emotional over a cell." Perhaps the reductionist
use of language is an aid in beating the conscience into submission. A
variation on theme is presented
here:
Every one of us began from a dot. A fertilized
egg is
roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence.
[ibid., p.6]
Fr. Burtchaell quoted Dr. William Lynch of
Boston who would seem to have accused
the 'dotters' of straddling the proverbial fence:
You can't have it both ways. Medical scientists claim
they are creating life in a test tube. You can't call it something
else in the womb.
[1982. Rachel weeping and other essays on abortion. New
York: Andrews and McMeel, Inc., p. 87]
Those who call themselves Christians, yet rationalize
abortion on the basis of
embryonic measurement, grasp at a tenous thread. Firstly, it is highly
unlikely that any
induced abortion is going to be perpetrated on a "dot" or a "period."
Infinitely more
important is the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was once a Cell, a
"dot," a "period!"
Augusta S. Reynolds of St. Louis was one of
the "Intelligence Report" respondents
(noted in FOREWORD) who voted for Prof. Sagan because he "...seems
to have answers to every question, regardless of the subject." On
the other side, some things are not what they seem. Attorney Karl
Keating apparently believes there are some subjects to which Sagan's answers
are less than omniscient in character:
One must keep in mind that preposterousness
has
nothing to do with influence. Hitler said the most
preposterous things, yet millions of people swallowed
his every word. Carl Sagan says preposterous things
today and gets invited on all the talk shows.
[1985. Fundamentalism's darker side. In: The fundamentalist
challenge to the Church, part vii. THE WANDERER, November
7, p. 11]
Dr. Nathanson quoted Saul Bellow in an alternative
assessment:
A great deal of intelligence can be invested
in ignorance
when the need for illusion is deep.
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality.
New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc., p. 32]
WHAT OF THE FUTURE?
One of the arguments often hoisted by anti-life
proponents is, "...the specter of
predominantly male, predominantly affluent legislators telling poor
women they must
bear and raise alone children they cannot afford to bring up..."
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990 Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE,
April 22 , p. 4]
More generally, throwing off the yoke of male
dominance would seem to be a common thread running through feminist literature.
Sociologist Kristin C. Luker and author Kathleen McDonnell would seem to
have aimed criticism at males in general, while author Rosalind Pollack
Petchesky appeares to have concentrated her attack more specifically on
the male medical establishment.
[Luker. 1978. Taking chances: Abortion and the decision not to
contracept. Los
Angeles: University of
California Press]
[McDonnell. 1984. Not an easy choice: A feminist re-examines abortion.
Boston: South
End Press]
Petchesky. 1985. Abortion and woman's choice: The state, sexuality,
and reproductive
freedom. Boston: Northeastern University Press]
Yet McDonnell also astutely recognized one
of the more striking realities of the pro-life movement:
More disquieting, for feminists, is the painful
fact that
the anti-abortion movement is largely a women's movement.
We have sometimes fostered the idea that it is men who
want to deny us the right to abortion, that the anti-abortion
movement is yet another instrament of male domination.
In fact it is women "who make up the rank-and-file of the
movement, women who do the bulk of telephone-answering
and envelope-stuffing that keeps anti-abortion organizations
going...
[1984. Not an easy choice: A feminist re-examines abortion.
Boston: South End Press]
Contributing writer Jenn O'Connor interviewed
a pro-life activist who joined Operation Rescue in Wichita, Kansas:
Ethyl Norton, a parishioner at St. Joseph's
Church in
Oswego [NY], was one of them. A soon-to-be-64-year-old
mother of six, Norton is a former schoolteacher, widowed
for 16 years.
She is a grandmother and great-grandmother
of 16 and
counting, and she lives in a home filled with pictures of the
family she adores. She is a most unlikely activist.
How did this woman ever get caught up in the
midst of
the Wichita Protests?
Norton described her motivation as "divine
discontentment. "
[1991Fighting for life in Wichita. THE CATHOLIC
SUN, Diocese of Syracuse, October 10-16, p. II]
The perpetuation of any organization or movement
is dependent on the active participation of its youth. Nineteen years
has elapsed since the infamous Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton decisions legalizing
abortion on demand. An entire generation has, from the beginning
of cognizance, known that the murder of innocent pre-born children in the
womb is legal.
Millions of our young people have grown up
admist the liberal, anti-life, secular media blitz promoting abortion.
Charles H. Swain most effectively exposed the anti-life activities of the
media "professionals":
For two decades this Tower of Babel has campaigned
to detoxify the term abortion, yet could never hide the naked
fact that killing innocent unborn babies is cruel, evil, and ugly.
No amount of window dressing such as "choice",
"women's rights", or "privacy", ever will cover the fact that
life is destroyed by a so-called "medical procedure."
The falsified agenda of these media merchants
is
based on sleazy, slanted bias designed to promote the
abortion profiteers and sell promiscuity to teenagers.
Once a pregnancy takes place, a solution is offered; a
solution that would turn the stomach of a savage.
[1992. Media madness. Washington: March for Life
Education & Defense Fund Annual Report. , p. 71]
His claims were substantiated in an opinion
rendered in favor of the Onondaga County (NY) Infant Mortality Review placing
Syracuse seventh in the nation, for cities of that size, reporting deaths
of babies before the first birthday:
The study conmittee has reluctantly but firmly
opened
a Pandora's Box in insisting that more be done to provide
sex education to our children in the elementary grades;
that second-trimester abortion be available to low-income
women; and that more family planning clinics be set up in
our schools.
Sticking our fingers in our ears and closing
our eyes and
shouting abstinence into the wind will not solve the problem.
[Editorial. 1992. Unhappy lives. THE POST-STANDARD,
Syracuse, NY, March 19, p. A8]
What a blatant insult to the youth of our community!
Of course, if young people are systematically made the subjects of Hitlerian-style
propaganda , they will eventually believe it and conduct themselves accordingly.
Is not such a position alarmist?
[Shirer. 1960. The rise and fall of the Third Reich: A history of Nazi
Germany. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 248]
Dr. Nathanson would seem to believe otherwise:
...[E]ven more serious than the breach of
good faith on
the part of the press (in the failure to adequately cover and
report the Hatch Amendment hearings ), beyond the abuse
of the fiduciary relationship, is the seemingly purposeful
suppression of the news. The New York Times has been
quite openly committed to the permissive abortion ethic in
its editorial columns. However, when someone up there in
the decision-making stratosphere of the paper decrees that
senatorial hearings should not be covered because they
might be the source of new and startling revelations in the
abortion arena that are inimical to the stated editorial
policy of the publication, we have now crossed into the
Orwellian world of suppression of the news, or internal
censorship
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality.
New York:
Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc. , pp. 45-46]
Is there, then, any hope for the young in this
consistent satanic assault on their very immortal souls? Thanks be
to God, yes! Catholic News Service correspondent Jennifer
Willems interviewed 15-year-old Jennifer Supancheck of Omaha, a veteran
of four arrests and 102 days of incarceration (her second arrest) in Fargo,
ND:
I liked the way...the Lambs of Christ...used
Christ's suffering.
They are sacrificial lambs for Christ - they put their bodies on
the line for God.
In solidarity with aborted, babies, they refuse
to give their
names or pay fines. In a way we become the babies, become
their voice.
Also, because the babies can't walk, the Lambs
go limp
when arrested.
It buys more time for the babies...
[1991. Teen reflects on 102 days in jail for abortion protest.
THE CATHOLIC SUN, Diocese of Syracuse, November
21-27, p. 8A]
Freelance writer Scan McNamara conducted interviews
at Bishop Kearney High School (Rochester, NY) concerning an active pro-life
discussion group:
Sophomore Nikki Zaleski had participated in
two
marches for life in Washington: "I'd tell [a friend experiencing
an unwanted pregnancy] there's always someone there to
help you. I have compassion for a girl in that situation. (She
would suggest adoption, and other options, but not make
any decision).
Religion teacher Kevin Mannara is adopted:
(Abortion is)
not wrong because the church (sic) says its wrong. It's wrong
because it is wrong. I think that if in 1963 abortion was legal,
I would not be here.
[1990a. Students examine abortion. CATHOLIC
COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, March 1, p. 12]
Further interviews were conducted of some of
the fifteen students who are members of Teens for Life at De Sales High
School (Geneva, NY):
Sophomore Heather Otis, group secretary:
We're doing this so people can get educated
about
what we're trying to say - that abortion is wrong.
Freshman Amy Hickey, vice president:
It's good to protest at the (Geneva General) hospital.
It lets other people know that youth really
care about this issue.
Senior Sara Hovey, public relations director:
People think we are very courageous in forming
an
anti-abortion group. Because of our concern about the
abortion issue, we have to voice our opinions.
Sophomore Chris Marturano, treasurer
[As the only male member of the group]...nobody,
not
even a mother, has the right to take a life. It's not the
Christian way to be.
Kathy Peters, adult advisor:
It's understandable that they are involved.
They have
peers who are having abortions.
[S. McNamara. 1990b. Teen group at Desales defends life.
CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, May 10, p. 16]
As part of the sacramental requirement, each of
the members of the Confirmation class at Our Lady of Good Counsel Church
(Warners, NY) constructed a pro-life poster. Each is in and of
itself, an excellent effort in free-hand artistry, and laudable
for that reason alone. However, the message behind this project is
a manifestation of how the Holy Ghost can work through those who are open to the Faith of
our Fathers. Following, in alphabetical order, is the name of each
of these young soldiers for Christ:
Stephanie Dantuano
Elizabeth Longo
Mike Marshall
Jenny Marshall
Steve Morgan
Jessica Wilkie
|
Nancy Nelson
Eric Porter
Tim Pringle
Heather Purdy
Stephanie Trendowski
|
Two of the students (also noted alphabetically)
each wrote an essay: Stephanie Trendowski and Jennifer Wilkie. The
depth of human compassion and understanding displayed by these young women
is a further example of the Faith in action. Broken sinners though
each of us is, the Holy Ghost can still use each of us magnificently to
the greater glory of the Lord in direct proportion to our willingness to
allow Him to do so. Stephanie and Jennifer are obviously open to
that call in Faith. Each essay has been reproduced in its entirety
in APPENDIX V.
AFTERWORD
Polemical diatribe from the faithless members
of the secular media only shows how far out of touch with reality these
misguided zealots really are. One of their worst offenses against the human family is the utter denial of the ability
of our young people to make morally correct choices, according to the authentic
Gospel teachings of Jesus Christ. Yet we have documented examples of those who have been
so shamefully written off, putting the lie to all the erroneous "ex cathedra"
pronouncements. And what have these peddlers of iniquity to show
for their perfidy? They can "proudly" point to increases in promiscuousness
with the inherent proliferation of out-of-wedlock pregnancy, venereal disease
and their "crown of glory," AIDS. Were the AIDS epidemic not so tragic, it might even be humorous to read the editorial
and feature article shrill-of-the-banshee demands for research expenditures
to find a cure, as the sanity of behavior modification is rejected out of hand.
The scourge of abortion is a shameful testimony
to our sad lack of national conscience. There are those who have
recognized the contradiction:
...[S]ome feminists are beginning to perceive
a
dissonance between our stance on abortion and our
stance in other areas. Feminism has tended to ally
itself with non-violence, with justice for the oppressed,
with nurturance and respect for life and for the ecosystem.
Yet abortion is in some sense an act of violence,
and
indisputably results in the termination of life.
[McDonnell. 1984. Not an easy choice: A feminist
re-examines abortion. Boston: South End Press, p. 25]
Yet others would seem to be oblivious to that contradiction. Observed
in the city of lthaca, NY on May 10, 1991 was an automobile to which was
afixed each of the following bumper stickers:
IF MEN BECAME PREGNANT
ABORTION WOULD BE A SACRAMENT
and
SAY NO TO VIOLENCE
Ironically, lthaca is the home of Cornell University where Sagan is
Director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies and David Duncan Professor
of Astronomy and Space Studies.
The question of title that provided the impetus
for this offering bears repeating:
"IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE PRO-LIFE AND PRO-CHOICE?"
The uncompromising answer for one segment of the population, excellent
for its brevity and clarity, was provided by Bishop Myers:
THERE IS, AND CAN BE, NO SUCH THING
AS AN AUTHENTIC "PRO-CHOICE" CATHOLIC.
AMEN!
APPENDIX I
Catholic writer Christopher Derrick wrote of
the cultural acceptance and promotion of abortion as a direct result of
the social influence of evolutionism:
In a positivistic culture...Homo Sapiens is
seen as a
specialized mammalian species, accidentally thrown up
by a blind evolutionary process, and nothing more. The
human individual is no child of God; he has no eternal
destiny, and he has no real value or importance beyond
what other people - or society in general - may choose to
give him.
[1983. The central issue. NATIONAL CATHOLIC
REGISTER,
March 13]
Derrick's assessment is correct. His
charge has been substantiated by the written testimony of a number of evolutionists.
Paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson:
This world into which Darwin led us is certainly
very
different from the world of the higher superstition...
celebrated weekly in every hamlet of the United States...
In the world of Darwin man has no special status other
than his definition as a distinct species of animal
[1960. The world into which Darwin led us. SCIENCE
I April, pp. 970, 967]
Astronomer Harlow Shapley:
In the beginning was the Word, it has been
piously
recorded, and I venture that the word was hydrogen gas.
[1960. Stars, ethics, and survival. In: Science ponders
religion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crafts, Inc., p. 3]
Astronomer Carl Sagan:
I am a collection of water, calcium, and organic
molecules
called Carl Sagan. You are a collection of almost identical
molecules with a different collective label. But is that all?
Is there nothing in here but nrilecules? Some people find this
idea somehow demeaning to human dignity. For myself, I find
it elevating that our universe permits the evolution of molecular
machines as intricate and subtle as we are.
[1980. Cosmos. New York: Random House, p. 127]
Ecologist Douglas J. Futuyma:
To the questions "What purpose does this species
serve? Why did God make tapeworms?" the answer is
"To no purpose." Tapeworms were not put here to serve
a purpose, nor were planets, nor plants, nor people. They
came into existence not by design but by the action of
impersonal natural laws
[1982. Science on trial: The case for evolution. New York:
Pantheon Books., p. 37]
Anthropologist Sheila A. Womack:
We are forgetting that the war between creationists
and
evolutionists is a clash of world views....The world view that
creationism reflects is formalized and codified in Christian
fundamentalism. The basic proposition of fundamentalism
is that the world has been created by an all-powerful Gold (sic).
This God has given exact prescriptions that are eternally
present in the Bible, for how the world is ordered, and how
humans are to behave in it....But from a mentalist viewpoint
fundamentalist- creationists are a very different cultural group
from evolutionist-anthropologists. They may not be different in
so many ways as, say, a Kalahari Bushman; but, the difference
is enough to produce behavioral dissimilarities that have had
national repercussions
[1982. Creationism vs. evolutionism: The problem for cultural
relativity. In: Confronting the creationists, S. Pastner and
W. Haviland, eds. Northeastern Anthropological Association
Occasional Proceedings No. 1. Burlington: University of Vermont,
pp. 26, 27, 28]
Anthropologist Kenneth R. Stunkle:
An earnest attempt to impart accurate information
and
make sound decisions ...will be useless because creationists
are not in search of testable knowledge about the workings of
nature.
They are fideists preoccupied with the conditions of
salvation.
All else must be assigned a lower priority.
[1982. Understanding "scientific creationism." In: Confronting
the creationists. S. Pastner and W. Haviland, eds. Northeastern
Anthropological Association Occasional Proceedings No. 1.
Burlington: University of Vermont., p. 53]
Philosopher of science Philip Kitcher:
Evolutionary theory reveals Homo sapiens as
simply one
of the latest stages in a long process of development of living
forms. There is no suggestion that humans are privileged,
that our
species is the focal point of divine concern.
[1982. Abusing science: The case against creationism.
Cambridge:
The MIT Press, p. 191]
Anthropologist John R. Cole:
...Darwinism matter of factly showed humans to be animals
and not the centerpiece or epitome of Creation.
[1985. Scopes and beyond: Antievolutionism and
American culture. In: Scientists confront creationism.
L.R. Godfrey, ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. , pp. 18-19]
Biologist Joel L. Cracraft:
...[T]he differences between Homo sapiens
and some
fossil hominoids are uncomfortably small in comparison to
the variation among present-day human populations
[1983. Systematics, comparative biology, and the case
against creationism. in: Scientists confront creationism.
L.R. Godfrey, ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 169]
Geologist Steven D. Schafersman:
The creationists often claim that if man believes
he is
descended from an ape, he will act like it. I believe that I
am descended from an apelike creature...Man's evolutionary
journey has prepared him to face life and the universe with
acceptance in the face of meaninglessness and hope in the
face of ignorance...today the arrogance and self-righteousness
of the true believers can be explained. They regard themselves
as being created in the image of God, and act like it.
[1983. Fossils, stratigraphy and evolution: Consideration
of a creationist argument. In: Scientists confront creationism.
L.R. Godfrey, ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 243]
Immunologist Peter B. Medawar:
I do not regard myself as either a victim or a beneficiary
of divine dispensations, and I do not believe - much though
I should like to do so - that God watches over the welfare of
small children in the way that small children need looking
after...
[1984. The limits of science. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers, p. 97]
Biochemist
Isaac Asirnov:
The mathematical language of science is understood
by very few. The vistas it presents are scary - an enormous
universe ruled by chance and impersonal rules, empty and
uncaring, ungraspable and vertiginous. How comfortable
to turn instead to a small world, only a few thousand years
old, and under God ' s personal and immediate care; a world
in which you are His peculiar concern and where He will not
consign you to hell if you are careful to follow every word of
the Bible as interpreted for you by your television preacher.
[1984. The "threat" of creationism. In: Science and creationism.
A. Montagu, ed. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 192]
Zoologist L. Beverly Halstead:
I personally do not see how the concept of evolution
can be made consistent with that of creation by a personal
god (sic), or indeed and sort of god...the defiance of the
Lord God was original sin, and this sin is the one which
every scientist worthy of the name is dedicated to uphold.
[1984. Evolution - The fossils say yes! In: Science and
creationism. A. Montagu, ed. New York: Oxford University
Press., pp. 240-242]
Biologist William B. Provine:
No purposive principles exist in nature ....Humans
are
complex organic machines that die completely with no
survival of soul or psyche....The universe cares nothing for
us and we have no ultimate meaning in life.
[1988. Scientists, face it! Science and religion are
incompatible. THE SCIENTIST, September 5, p. 10]
"Thestic" evolutionism is the sadly naive,
accornmodationistic notion that somehow God can be infused into the obviously
atheistic philosophy of evolutionism. Literary theorist Paula Haigh described theistic evolution as:
...causing more harm ultimately than atheistic
evolution
because of its reduction of God to a mechanism for the
supposed natural processes of evolution, its lack of reverence
for Holy Scripture as the Word of God Revealing, and its
insidious attack upon Catholic doctrine and Tradition.
[1976. Thirty theses against theistic evolution. Louisville:
Catholic Center for Creation Research., cover]
Fr. William J. Kramer, an admitted theistic
evolutionist, astutely recognized one of
the few issues on which creationists and evolutionists agree:
"...[N]either side in the controversy has
much use for
theistic evolution."
[1986. Evolution and creation: A Catholic understanding.
Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division., p. 5]
The evolutionists herein quoted have at least
been honest enough to admit the only real value of evolutionism; the elimination
of Almighty God from His Creation. Those who support theistic evolution should, at the very least, be given
pause for reflection at a system of thought so adamantly promoted by the
enemies of Christianity.
APPENDIX II
One of the more popular myths of evolutionism
is that
of the so-called continuity of life.
...[l]ife...is an unbroken chain that stretches
back nearly
to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago...human
life... is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our
species, tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago.
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE, April 22, p. 5]
They are by no means the only evolutionists
who insist on promoting fallacious doctrine. Ecologist Douglas J.
Futuyma, for instance, provided one of the many charts purporting to show precisely such development from algae
to man.
[1983. Science on trial: The case for evolution. New York: Pantheon
Books., p. 73]
However, paleontologist David B. Kitts disclosed
the mindset as compulsive:
We [who study fossils] can leave the fossil
record free
of a theory of evolution. An evolutionist, however, cannot
leave the fossil record free of the evolutionary hypothesis.
[1974. Paleontology and evolutionary theory. EVOLUTION,
December, p. 466]
Evolution, in the only meaningful sense of
the term (the transformation of one species into another species), is not
in evidence today. That fact was affirmed by Prof. Theodosius Dobzhansky
one of the ranking evolutionist biologists of our time :
...[i]t is manifestly impossible to reproduce
in the
laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine,
or of the modem horse from an Eohippus, or of a land
vertebrate from a fish-like ancestor. These evolutionary
happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible.
It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as
it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability
of the experimental method to the study of such unique
historical processes is severely restricted before all else
by the time intervals involved...
[1957. On methods of evolutionary biology and anthropology:
Part I, biology. AMERICAN SCIENTIST, December, p. 388]
Canadian biologist. Prof. W. R. Thompson, substantiated
the admission of evolution as historical:
Evolution, if it has occurred, can in a rather
loose sense
be called a historical process; and therefore to show that it
has occurred historical evidence is required....The only
evidence available is that provided by the fossils
[1956. Introduction: The origin of species. London: J.M.
Dent and Sons, Ltd. (Everyman Library No. 811). In: New
challenging "introduction" to the origin of species. 1967.
Hounslow, Middlesex: Creation Science Movement, p. 14]
L.C. Birch and Paul R. Ehrlich (biologists
at the University of Sydney and Stanford University respectively) carried
the admission even further:
Our theory of evolution has become...one which
cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every
conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus
"outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false.
No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas either
without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments
carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained
currency far beyond their validity. They have become part
of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part
of our training.
[1967. Evolutionary history and population biology. NATURE,
22 April, p. 352]
French biologist Pierre-Paul Grasse' affirmed
the evolutionary importance of the fossil record:
Naturalists must remember that the process
of evolution
is revealed only through fossil forms.
[1977. Evolution of living organisms: Evidence for a new
theory of transformation. New York: Academic Press., p. 4]
Yet paleontologist Niles Eldredge pointed out
a serious deficiency with such
evidence:
...[T]he predicted gradual accumulation of
change
within species is seldom (if ever) encountered in our
practical experience with the fossil record.
[1980. An extravagance of species. NATURAL HISTORY,
July, p. 50]
Kitts provided additional damaging testimony:
...the paleontologist can provide knowledge
that cannot
be provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot
provide us with evolution.
[1974. Paleontology and evolutionary theory. EVOLUTION,
December, p. 466]
The claim regarding human evolution has fared
no better than the general assertion regarding the remainder of life. Rev.
Patrick O'Connell was a paleontologist with over 50 years of experience in the field. He specialized in the investigation
of claims regarding the so-called hominids (the alleged evolutionary ancestors
of man):
All cases of "missing links" put forward since the time
of Darwin have been proved to have been cases of either
fraud or deception...
[1968. The origin and early history of man. Houston: Lumen
Christi Press, p. 62]
The notion of the evolutionary continuity of
life, then, would seem to be more of a mental construct (wishful thinking)
than an empirical (observable) fact. Rare indeed is the evolutionary pronouncement
which lacks for a dissenter. Anthropologist Vincent Sarich provided
his assessment of the value of the fossil evidence:
No matter what the creationists may pretend, the fossil
record is not, and never has been, our major source of
information about evolutionary relationships.
[W.J. Bennetta, ed. 1987. Scientists decry a slick new
packaging of creationism. THE SCIENCE TEACHER,
May, p. 41]
If the fossil record is and was of so little
consequence in the evolutionary scheme, the master promoter of the "transformist
illusion" was apparently unaware. Though expressing the belief that fossil evidence is not fatal to his theory,
Darwin still included it among:
...[A] crowd of difficulties...so serious
that to this day
I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree
staggered.
[1928. The origin of species. New York: Literary
Classics, Inc ,p. 112]
He asked a rhetorical question that would seem to indicate a realization
of the problem as quite serious:
...why, if species have descended from other
species
by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable
transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead
of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
[ibid.]
Why indeed!
Hydraulicist Henry M. Morris and creationist
Donald H. Rohrer have accused evolutionists of plasticity in the application
of the evolutionary "theory."
[1981. The decade of creation. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers,
p. 177]
Darwin would seem to have lent credence to the charge. By employing
a convenient series of "must haves," he was able to explain away empirical
(observable) evidence, thus molding a series of assumptions into a literary
elimination of inherent problems. [ibid., pp. 112-116] One of his
claims, to which he devoted an entire chapter [ibid., pp. 220-241), was
that of the alleged imperfection of the fossil record. Paleontologist
Stephen Jay Gould would seem to have dismissed the
assertion as an evasion of reality:
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored
escape
of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record
that seems to show so little of evolution.
[1977. Evolution's erratic pace. NATURAL HISTORY, May)., p. 14]
The very fossil record touted by some as the
only evidence for evolution, is admitted
by others as providing no evidence for evolution. Creationists agree
with each position.
Interestingly, the evolution-continuum was proposed over a decade ago,
but in a context which could hardly be construed as lending any support
to the Sagan/Druyan position.
Archbishop John R. Roach and Terence Cardinal
Cooke (1988, p. 12) provided a quote from the 1979 document, "The Status
of Children, Youth, and Families," issued by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services:
Life is a constantly evolving process that
begins with
conception and continues until death. Movement through
time necessitates change and therefore is synonymous
with life itself; the opposite state is stasis and death
....With the passage of time, the human organism
grows from a single cell to a fully developed adult....Life
begins when a male aperm unites with a female egg.
The new life created by this union starts as a single
cell.... In relation to the total life span of the individual,
the early developmental years are short and serve as the
foundation for the remainder of one's life span. The needs
of a child in the support of this growth and development
begin before birth and continue throughout the growth
years until maturity is reached.
Sr. Mary Terese Donze added a further measure
of insight to what she insisted is already well known:
At the moment the ovum is fertilized, its
specialization
begins and there is set in motion the development of a
human person - not the development into a human person.
Something cannot develope unless it first exists as what
it is....Furthermore, if the initial fertilized ovum were simply
a bit of undeterminate tissue, how could it at some later
stage of development spontaneously acquire humanness
since the link with humanness had never been established?
From where would humanness come?
[1992. Some reflections on abortion. THE WANDERER,
February 6, p. 9]
Where indeed!
APPENDIX III
Experience has been that Scripture can be used
as "proof" of almost any belief one chooses to espouse.
The Old and New Testaments...contain not a
word
specifically prohibiting abortion. The only passage that's
remotely relevant...[is Exodus 21:22].
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice? PARADE, April 22, p. 6]
Fr. John R. Connery warned of disappointment
for anyone who would hope to find an explicit Scriptural condemnation of
abortion. His research into the Judeo-Christian tradition and mindset prohibiting abortion would seem to render such
condemnation unnecessary.
[1977. Abortion: The development of the Roman Catholic perspective.
Chicago: Loyola
University Press., p. 34]
However, for anyone to assert that Exodus 21:22
is the only Scriptural reference of any relevance (and that only remotely)
is to display a palpable (perhaps even culpable) ignorance of God's Word
Revealing, as the following development will show.
Edward P. Atzert issued a rebuke to the claim of the New Jersey Religious
Coalition for Abortion Rights:
First, we would like to answer the charge
that "The
Bible does not contain a teaching on abortion." If by
that they mean the Bible does not mention abortion,
we answer simply that neither does it mention racism,
anti-Semitism, wife-beating, drug-addiction, cruelty to
animals, water-pollution, and other evils that plague
modern civilization. No one dares maintain that these
evils are thereby permitted by the Bible. On the other
hand, there is much in the Bible that indicates the
presence of life in the womb before birth, and the
termination of this life is called abortion.
[1991. Children wanted and unwanted. LIVING
TRADITION, no.
34, March (Reprinted from the Newsletter
of the Trenton,
NJ Chapter of Catholics United for
the Faith).
, p. 9]
Atzert provided the following development:
[ I ] King David traces his sinfulness
back to the
moment of his conception: "For behold I was conceived
in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me"
(Psalm 51:5). R.C. Sproul sums it up neatly: "It is not
merely David's biological substance that dates back
to conception, but his moral disposition as well." It is
quite evident from this that the person of David existed
at the moment of his conception.
[2] Moreover, God's action in creating
soul and body
is clearly indicated in Psalm 139, v. 13. "For You created
me in my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's
womb."
[3] In the Book of Isaiah (49:1), we
read: "The Lord hath
called me from the womb from the bowels of my mother he
hath been mindful of my name." And in verse 5: "The
Lord....formed me in the womb to be his servant." Thus, it
is by God's action that man is conceived and given from that
moment the office of prophet.
[4] We note the same in the Book of Jeremiah,
the prophet,
1:5: "Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew
thee; and before thou earnest out of the womb, I sanctified thee,
and made thee a prophet unto the nations."
French Biblical scholar Fr. Rene Laurentin
developed a notable exegesis of the Gospel account of St. Luke (1:39-56)
which testifies to life at conception:
The Holy Spirit, having come upon Mary (1:35),
now fills
Elizabeth (1:41). It is with the salutation of Mary that this
divine gift is emphatically associated (1:41 and 44):
And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe
leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy
Spirit (1:41).
[1986. The truth of Christmas beyond the myths: The Gospels
of the Infancy of Christ. Petersham, MA: St. Bede's
Publications, pp. 155-156]
This formulation is revealing. Signified here is the fulrillment of
the narrative program presented in the annunciation to Zechariah which
concerned St. John the Baptist:
"He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even
from his
mother's womb" (1:15). We have already noted the
Lucan characteristic which we see at work here: the
"coitniunication of idioms" between mother and
child. Here the text simply says, "Elizabeth
was filled with the Holy Spirit." For the same
reason, the blessing of Mary (in the next verse)
is mentioned before the blessing of the fruit
of her womb (1:42) [who, however, is qualified
as Lord (1:45)] and Elizabeth verbally refers
her praise to the mother of the Lord, a praise
which in the end concerns the Lord himself.
In this scene a twofold identification of mother
and child occurs.
The Prophecy of Elizabeth (Lk 1:42-45)
And she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among
women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is
this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to
me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my
ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy" (1:42-44).
Thus, there can be no doubt that the babe,
St. John the Baptist, is alive in the womb of his mother, St. Elizabeth.
However, in his Gospel account, St. Luke tells us that St. Elizabeth was in her sixth month of pregnancy at the time the Blessed
Virgin Mary conceived (St. Luke 1:36).
Sagan and Druyan have noted they "...might draw the line at six months,"
in restricting abortion, "...to allow for precocious fetal brain development...
[1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and pro-choice? PARADE,
April 22, p. 8]
Mary stayed with Elizabeth, "...about three
months..."
(St. Luke 1:56) until, "...Elizabeth's full time of being
delivered was come, and she brought forth a son" (St.
Luke 1:57).
The testimony, then, would seem to indicate
that the Blessed Virgin Mary would, at most, have been pregnant a month
when she arrived at the home of Zachary to assist Elizabeth in her final
weeks of pregnancy. Yet, Elizabeth greeted her as, "...the mother
of my Lord..." (St. Luke 1:43). It would seem reasonable that
Elizabeth's "Lord" was a Person rather than, "...a segmented worm..." or
"...something like a newt or a tadpole..." as we would be led to believe
by the Sagan/Druyan photographic interpretation.
For professing themselves to be
wise, they became
fools (Romans 1:22).
Theologically the argument might also be carried
into the abstract. St. John the Apostle tells us (St. John 1:1) that
Christ, the Word of God, was God. That's a logical
extension from created to Creator. The adage, "A man is only
as good as his word," would indicate that one's word is an integral part
of each individual human being. How
much more so, then, would God's Word be a part of Him; infinitely more
so (God said, "Jesus Christ," and a man was conceived). St. Paul
the Apostle reminds us (Hebrews
4:15, Douay-Rheims translation) that Christ was "...tempted in all
things like as we are,
without sin." Christ, as God, then, always existed. Therefore,
He, as the Incarnation,
had to be alive at the instant of His Conception. Since we are as He
is in all things but sin, we too, must each have been human at the instant
of conception.
APPENDIX IV
Dr. Nathanson has documented a number of instances
in which myths about abortion have been perpetuated by those who have a
vested interest in the abortion industry. Even those myths which
may have been spread without malice of forethought do not
change the final outcome.
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality. New York:
Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc.]
One erroneous "explanation" has been compounded by a proposal which
would seem to be part of the problem rather than a solution to the problem:
By far the most common reason for abortion
is
birth-control. So shouldn't opponents of abortion be
handing out contraceptives? That would be an effective
way to reduce the number of abortions.
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life
and pro-choice? PARADE, April 22, p. 5]
Understandably, those who support abortion
also seem to support contraception (although the reverse is not necessarily
true). Sociologist Kristin C. Luker has done research which would
seem to show abortion to be a derivative of contraception, thus rendering
flawed the basic premise of the Sagan/Druyan proposal:
...[A]bortion in California is rapidly becoming
a de facto
method of birth control....What makes it so surprising is
the fact that California...has both a technologically
developed society and a population with high levels of
contraceptive expertise....California then, represents an
anomaly...In simple numbers, abortions have increased
twenty-fold since 1968, the first full year after liberalization
of the state abortion law.
[1978. Taking chances: Abortion and the decision
not to contracept. Los Angeles: University of California
Press. , pp. 1, 3, 4]
Dr. Nathanson offered a reasonable explanation
for the proliferation of abortions:
...[I]t would seem that the dominant factor
in the decision
for abortion...is the legality or illegality of the operation."
[1983, pp. 40-41]
Former abortion clinic operator Carol Everett substantiated a long-standing
accusation by many pro-life activists from her personal experience:
Abortion, is about money....The telephone...[at]
the
abortion clinic ...will be answered by someone who is
trained to sell abortions
[quoted in: George Kendall. 1991. Former abortionist
declares "Abortion is about money." THE WANDERER,
May 16 , p. 6]
Margaret Sanger [1971, p. 309] declared the
teaching of New York Archbishop Patrick J. Hayes (in his Christmas 1921
pastoral letter), "A monstrous doctrine..." Yet she would seem to
have advocated and promoted contraception for less than honorable purposes:
...[E]ugenics without birth control seemed to me a house
built upon sands. It could not stand against the furious
winds of economic presdure which had buffeted into
partial or total helplessness a tremendous portion of the
human race. The eugenists wanted to shift the birth control
emphasis from less children for the poor to more children
for the rich. We went back of that and sought first to stop
the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared to be the most
important and greatest step towards race betterment.
[1971. Margaret Sanger: An autobiography. New York:
Dover Publications, Inc., pp. 374-375]
Sanger has been identified as the founder of
the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. [World Book, 1962]
Interestingly, Jeff Gilbert, Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood
Center of Syracuse felt justified in making reference to "...anti-abortion zealots..." [1992. Proof of difficulties is from bogus study. THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse, January 3, p. All] A zealot by any other name...
Feminist author Kathleen McDonnell has put
the new abortion technology and contraception "advantages" for women
under a veil of suspicion:
We keep returning to the uncomfortable fact
stressed
by Germaine Greer that the new self-abortion methods
like the invasive contraceptive methods are being
developed primarily for population control purposes, not to
increase women's choices. They offer the prospect of cheap,
effective abortions for peasant populations in underdeveloped
countries, and we must not delude ourselves that they will
automatically be to women's benefit, either to us or to our
sisters in the Third World. As we should have with the birth
control pill and the IUD, let us look this gift horse in the mouth
carefully before we accept it. If women are to reclaim abortion
for ourselves, we will have to fight hard to exert control over
how these new methods are researched and used.
[1984. Not an easy choice: A feminist re-examines abortion.
Boston: South End Press., p. 138]
McDonnell also appeared far too willing to
pass the buck of responsibility:
It may be that our society's failure to support
women
working through an abortion, rather than mere "carelessness"
or "promiscuity," is often responsible for repeat abortions
where birth control failure is not a factor.
[ibid. , p. 40]
It may be more correctly stated that blaming "society" is an escape.
Reality would seem to be a repetition of personal decisions for which one does not
wish to accept responsibility.
Dr. Nathanson offered a personal perspective
on the contraception issue that would seem to indicate a classic (liberal)
social "Chicken Little" mentality:
By the mid 1960's, laws regulating the availability
of
contraceptives had been largely set aside...Feminism
was on the march, and the wooly-headed Malthusiasts
of the population panic (remember Zero Population
Growth and Ehrlich's Population Bomb?) were all
preaching The End Of The World a week from next
Monday and persuading credulous susceptible youngsters
in their late teens and early twenties to have themselves
sterilized in the interest of controlling population growth in
India. (I and many other gynecologists who do micro-surgical
tubal reconstruction are still busy undoing the reproductive
damage the poor children were cajoled into inflicting upon
themselves).
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality.
New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc. , pp. 197-198]
Sociologist Kristin C. Luker outlined a three-step
"benefit" package of contraceptive use that would seem to indicate the
feminist agenda has produced less than the anticipated advantages.
Rather then freeing women from the specter of male dominance, active contraception
appears to have had the opposite effect.
Costs of planning contraception.
A woman who plans intercourse is also socially
defined
as an experienced woman: virgins and "innocents" do not
use contraceptives. A woman may refuse to plan contraception
to avoid a social (and male) definition of being a "woman who's
been around."
Costs of continuing contraception.
Continuing contraception beyond the confines
of one
relationship forces a woman to acknowledge that she is
always sexually available -- a "sexual service station" as
one woman bitterly expressed it. Both men and women
share in this assumption, so that a woman who continues
to take the pill or who keeps her IUD in place is by
definition frankly admitting that she is available. Not only
is this an unpleasant acknowledgement for a woman to
make about herself, but it loses her an important
bargaining position. If she is frankly expecting sex, as
evidenced by her continued use of contgraception, she
need not be courted on the same terms as a woman
whose sexual availability is more ambiguous. For many
women, the loss of this bargaining position outweighs all
the benefits of contraception.
Costs to spontaneity.
One part of the sexual ideology surrounding
intercourse
is that it must be romantic, an act of impulse infused with
passion and noble feelings. Introducing contraceptives
(except the pill and the IUD) into this act can seem
dishearteningly "mechanical..."
[1978. Taking chances: Abortion and the decision
not to contracept. Los Angeles:
University of
California Press., pp. 47, 49]
Strangely, the women involved seem to realize it and continue to embrace
it!
[Ellen Messer and Kathryn E. May. 1988. Back rooms: Voices from the
illegal abortion era. New York: St. Martin's Press]
[Rosalind Pollack Petchesky. 1985. Abortion and woman's choice: The
state, sexuality, and reproductive freedom. Boston: Northeastern University
Press]
It seems contradictory that one of the "justifications"
for contraception has long been the freedom of spontaneity it provides!
APPENDIX V
ABORTION
Stephanie Trendowski
"Thou shall not kill!" This commandment of
the Holy Bible should be followed and
praised upon by every Catholic. But when a woman has an abortion, she
is deceiving the
Catholic Church because aborting the child is killing.
If the pregnancy is not wanted, there are
many alternatives other than abortion.
Adoption is an option which will benefit the baby greatly because it
would be given
to a family that could care for it and help the child grow into
an adult in a loving environment. Another choice a mother has is
to keep the baby and raise it with the help
of friends and family. There is always someone who can help a
mother to care for the child either physically, emotionally, or financially.
The decision to not abort a life could help
the world in many ways. This child could be
the future doctor with a cure for a fatal disease, tomorrow's hero
that brings peace on earth, or a person who can help the needy find a home
and meals.
With all of the options a mother has and future
plans that may happen during life, there is no need for abortion because
every life that God gives is meant to happen for a purpose. If these
children are killed even before they have a chance, what will become of
the generations hereafter
With all of the options a mother has and future
plans that may happen during life, there is no need for abortion because
every life that God gives is meant to happen for a purpose. If these
children are killed even before they have a chance, what will become of
the generations hereafter?
WHAT IS ABORTION?
Jessica Wilkie
Webster's Dictionary defines abortion as "To
miscarry or induce the expulsion of a fetus before it is able to survive,
usually within the first three or four months of pregnancy." But
simply put, abortion is the killing of unborn children; the death of our
future.
"Thou shall not kill!" This is one of
the Ten Commandments that God gave Moses to deliver unto us. Knowing
of this commandment, how can a true Christian have an
abortion? There are many people who give what they think are
valid excuses for this act. What if the mother's life is in danger
...or the mother can't afford to support the
child, ..or what if she just doesn't want the baby? These are
all very selfish reasons. We have already had the chance to experience
life. It is only right that we pass
this right on to all humans, born and unborn.
The Catholic Church has taken a big part in
the fight to stop abortion. Marches,
protests, rallies, and conventions have been organized to express the
feelings of clergy
members and parishioners, as well as educate the public on this issue.
These prolife
actions are being done with hopes that eventually all humans will agree
that abortion
is wrong. If abortions are allowed to continue, like the animals of
the rainforests, our own
species may become endangered or even possibly extinct!
ALPHABETICAL REFERENCE LIST
Adarnek, R.J. 1980. Abortion policy: Time for reassessment. In: Abortion
parley. Rev.
J.T. Burtchaell, C.S.C., ed. New York: Andrews
and McMeel, Inc.
Alvare, H. 1991. Title X and abortion. THE CATHOLIC SUN, Diocese of
Syracuse,
July 25-August 1.
Anonymous. 1992. Readers pick America's smartest people. PARADE, January
5.
Arriaga, K. 1984. Maguire book embarrasses Marquette? NATIONAL CATHOLIC
REGISTER, September 30.
Asirnov, 1. 1984. The "threat" of creationism. In: Science and creationism.
A. Montagu,
ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Atzert, E.P. 1991. Children wanted and unwanted. LIVING TRADITION,
no. 34, March
(Reprinted from the Newsletter of the Trenton,
NJ Chapter of Catholics United for the
Faith).
Bellarmine,Rev. B.R., S.J. 1928. The ascent to the Mind of God by a
ladder of things
created. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne
Ltd.
Bennett, Rev. 0., 0.P.M. 1982. A scientific scrutiny of "Evolution
Science." HOMILETIC
& PASTORAL REVIEW, August-September.
Bennetta, W.J., ed. 1987. Scientists decry a slick new packaging of
creationism. THE
SCIENCE TEACHER, May.
Birch, L,C. and P.R. Ehriich. 1967. Evolutionary history and population
biology.
NATURE, 22 April.
Brew, A.J. 1987. North Dakota seen as the most pro-life state. THE
WANDERER,
May 28.
Brown, J. 1990. American Life League blasts "Parade" article, poll.
THE WANDERER
May 10.
Burns, Rev. R.E., C.S.P. 1981. The primacy of Peter. THE WANDERER,
May 28.
Burtchaell, Rev. J.T., C.S.C. 1982. Rachel weeping and other essays
on abortion. New
York: Andrews and McMeel, Inc.
Carter, G.S. 1957. A hundred years of evolution. London: Sidgwick and
Jackson.
Case, D. 1992. Rape: A survivor. HERALD-AMERICAN/THE POST STANDARD,
Syracuse, February 2.
CNS. 1990a. Archbishop states policy on abortion. CATHOLIC COURIER,
Diocese of Rochester, March 15.
----- 1990b. Women seeking help after cardinal's offer. CATHOLIC COURIER,
Diocese
of Rochester, June 7.
----- 1990c. Cardinal calls attack on essay 'programmed.' CATHOLIC
COURIER,
Diocese of Rochester, June 14.
Cole, J.R. 1983. Scopes and beyond: Antievolutionism and American culture.
In:
Scientists confront creationism. L.R. Godfrey,
ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Connery, Rev. J.R., S.J. 1977. Abortion: The development of the Roman
Catholic
perspective. Chicago: Loyola University Press.
Cracraft, J. 1983. Systematics, comparative biology, and the case against
creationism.
in: Scientists confront creationism. L.R.
Godfrey, ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Crofut, B. and R.M. Seaman. 1990. Evolutionism: Genetic 'egg'-sasperation;
Evolution:
Factual or fanciful? and Evolution: A cosmic
numbers game. CREATION
RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, September.
Cuomo, M.M. 1984. The confessions of a public man. NOTRE DAME,
Autumn.
Dahlby, Rev. C., O.P.M. 1987. Needed: O.N.G. (Order of Nice Guys) religious
community. THE WANDERER, December 10.
Darwin, C.R.1928. The origin of species. New York: Literary Classics,
Inc.
Dawes, B. 1952. A hundred years of biology. London: Gerald Duckworth
& Co. Ltd.
DeCelles, D. 1984. Hyde: Standing up for what's right. NATIONAL CATHOLIC
REGISTER, October 7.
DeMarco, D. 1979. Abortion in perspective: The rose palace or the fiery
dragon?
Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Co., Inc
Derrick, C. 1983. The central issue. NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER, March
13.
Dobzhansky, T. 1957. On methods of evolutionary biology and anthropology:
Part I,
biology. AMERICAN SCIENTIST, December.
Donze, Sr. M.T., A.S.C. 1992. Some reflections on abortion. THE WANDERER,
February 6.
Editorial. 1984. Why abortion is different. NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER,
Oct. 7.
--1990. The cardinal's foray. THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse, June 16.
--1992. Unhappy lives. THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse, March 19.
Eldredge, N. 1980. An extravagance of species. NATURAL HISTORY, July.
Faux, M. 1988. Roe v. Wade; The untold story of the landmark Supreme
Court decision
that made abortion legal. New York: New American
Library.
Fehrenbacher, D.E. 1978. The Dred Scott Case: Its significance in American
law and
politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fox, Rev. R.J. 1975. Charity, morality, sex and young people. Huntington,
IN: Our Sunday
Visitor, Inc.
Funk & Wagnalls. 1968. Standard dictionary of the English Language,
International
Edition. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.
Futuyma, D.J. 1983. Science on trial: The case for evolution. New York:
Pantheon
Books.
Gilbert, J. 1992. Proof of difficulties is from bogus study. THE POST-STANDARD,
Syracuse, January 3.
Gould, S.J. 1977. Evolution's erratic pace. NATURAL HISTORY, May.
Grasse', P-P. 1977. Evolution of living organisms: Evidence for a new
theory of
transformation. New York: Academic Press.
Grisze, G. 1984. A clear-cut social issue. NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER,
Oct. 7.
Haigh, P. 1976. Thirty theses against theistic evolution. Louisville:
Catholic Center for
Creation Research.
Halstead, L.B. 1984. Evolution - The fossils say yes! In: Science and
creationism. A.
Montagu, ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hansen, J. 1982. Can science allow miracles? NEW SCIENTIST, 8 April.
Harden, Rev. J.A., S.J. 1959. Christianity in conflict: A Catholic
view of Protestantism.
Westminster, MD: The Newman Press.
Harrisburg. 1984. Pennsylvania bishops affirm priority of right-to-life
issue. THE
WANDERER, October 18.
Hayes, Most Rev. P.J., D.D. 1921. Pastoral letter. Archdiocese of New
York, Dec. 14.
Jarman, C. 1971. Evolution of life. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
John Paul II, Pope. 1988. The authority of the Ordinary Magisterium.
THE WANDERER,
November 17.
Kaye, E. 1991. Rape: How women erase the shame. MADEMOISELLE, December.
Keating, K. 1985. Fundamentalism's darker side. In: The fundamentalist
challenge to the
Church, part vii. THE WANDERER, November 7.
Kelly, J.R. 1991. Abortion: What Americans really think and
the Catholic challenge.
AMERICA, November 2.
Kendall, G. 1991. Former abortionist declares "Abortion is about
money." THE
WANDERER, May 16.
Kielty, M.G. 1986. Abortion - a medical perspective. L'OSSERVATORE
ROMANO
No. 18, 5 May.
Kitcher, P. 1982. Abusing science: The case against creationism. Cambridge:
The MIT
Press.
Kitts, D.B. 1974. Paleontology and evolutionary theory. EVOLUTION,
December.
Koop, C.E. and F.A. Schaeffer. 1983. Whatever happened to the human
race?
Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.
Kramer, Rev. W.J., C.PP.S. 1986. Evolution and creation: A Catholic
understanding.
Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing
Division.
Laurentin, Rev. R. 1986. The truth of Christmas beyond the myths: The
Gospels of the
Infancy of Christ. Petersham, MA: St. Bede's
Publications.
LeVoir, Rev. J.M. 1985. Are we for John Paul II? THE WANDERER, May
30.
Long, Rev. V., 0.P.M. 1978. Evolutionism - a fairy tale for adults.
HOMILETIC &
PASTORAL REVIEW, April.
Luker, K.C. 1978. Taking chances: Abortion and the decision not to
contracept. Los
Angeles: University of California
Press.
McBrien, Rev. R.P. 1989. Webster decision woke pro-choice support.
CATHOLIC
COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, October 26.
-----1990a. Bishop's sin is judging another person's soul. CATHOLIC
COURIER,
Diocese of Rochester, March 8.
-----1990b. Cardinal raises the stakes in abortion issue.
CATHOLIC COURIER,.Diocese of Rochester, NY (July 26).
- - l990c. Abortion politics: 1990. THE CATHOLIC SUN, Diocese
of Syracuse,
November 14-20.
McDonnell, K. 1984. Not an easy choice: A feminist re-examines abortion.
Boston:
South End Press.
McGeady, Sr. M.R., D.C. 1991. God's lost children. New York: Covenant
House.
McNamara, S. 1990a. Students examine abortion. CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese
of
Rochester, March 1.
-----1990b. Teen group at Desales defends life. CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese
of
Rochester, May 10.
Medawar, P.B. 1984. The limits of science. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers.
Messer, E. and K.E. May. 1988. Back rooms: Voices from the illegal
abortion era. New
York: St. Martin's Press.
Miceli, Rev. V.P., S.J. 1983. The antichrist. West Hanover, MA: The
Christopher
Publishing House.
Migliorino, M.M. 1984. Cuomo and the killer state. THE WANDERER, October
18. Morris, H.M. and D.H. Rohrer. 1981. The decade of creation. San Diego:
Creation-Life
Publishers.
Morrison, Rev. H., S.J. 1982. The irrationality of biological evolution.
HOMILETIC &
PASTORAL REVIEW, August-September.
Morriss, F. 1981. Loving obedience owed to the Pope. THE WANDERER,
May 28.
Myers, Most Rev. J.J. 1990. The obligations of Catholics and the rights
of the unborn.
Pastoral statement. Diocese of Peoria, IL
(June 1).
Nathanson, B.N. 1979. Aborting America. New York: Doubleday & Company,
Inc.
-----1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality. New
York: Frederick Fell
Publishers, Inc.
Noonan, J.T., Jr. 1973. Raw judicial power. NATIONAL REVIEW, March
2.
O'Connell, P., B.D. 1968. The origin and early history of man. Houston:
Lumen Christi
Press.
0' Connor, J. 1991. Fighting for life in Wichita. THE CATHOLIC
SUN, Diocese of
Syracuse, October 10-16.
O'Connor, J.J. Card. 1990. Abortion: Questions and answers. CATHOLIC
NEW YORK,
Archdiocese of New York, June 14.
Pasinski, D. 1990. Consensus on abortion: A respectful dialogue is
a good place to
start. THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse, May 23.
Paul VI, Pope. 1968. HUMANAE VITAE : Encyclical on the regulation of
birth, 25 July.
Provided Courtesy of: Eternal Word Television
Network 5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210. Electronic Copyright ©
1999 EWTN. All Rights Reserved.
Petchesky, R.P. 1985. Abortion and woman's choice: The state, sexuality,
and
reproductive freedom. Boston: Northeastern
University Press.
Pius XI, Pope. 1930. Casti Connubii: Encyclical on Christian Marriage,
31 December.
Provided Courtesy of: Eternal Word Television
Network 5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210. Electronic Copyright
© 1999 EWTN. All Rights Reserved]
Podell, J., ed. 1990. Abortion (The Reference Shelf, v. 62, no. 4).
New York: The H.W.
Wilson Co.
Provine, W.B. 1988. Scientists, face it! Science and religion are incompatible.
THE
SCIENTIST, September 5.
Quindlen, A. 1990. A time to choose. THE NEW YORK TIMES, January 28.
Roach, Most. Rev. J.R. and T. Card. Cooke. 1988. Testimony in support
of the Hatch
Ammendment. In; Abortion & Catholicism:
The American debate. P.B. Jung and T.A.
Shannon, eds. New York: Crossroad.
RNS. 1984. Catholic research center issues strong statement against
abortion. THE
WANDERER, October 18.
Ratzinger, J. Card. 1988. Bishops, theologians and morality. In: Abortion
& Catholicism:
The American debate. P.B. Jung and T.A. Shannon,
eds. New York: Crossroad.
Rueda, Rev. E.T. 1987. Unity with diversity. THE WANDERER
(December 10).
Rodreguez, Rev. P. 1982. Primacy of the Pope. CHRISTIAN ORDER,
August/September.
Sagan, C. 1980. Cosmos. New York: Random House.
-----1986. The search for radio messages from other civilizations in
the depths of space
is about to enter high gear. PARADE, September
14.
Sagan, C. and A. Druyan. 1985. Comet. New York: Random House.
Sagan, C. and A. Druyan-----1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and
pro-choice?
PARADE, April 22.
Sanger, M. 1971. Margaret Sanger: An autobiography. New York: Dover
Pub., Inc.
Schafersman, S.D. 1983. Fossils, stratigraphy and evolution: Consideration
of a
creationist argument. In: Scientists confront
creationism. L.R. Godfrey, ed. New York:
W.W. Norton & Co.
---1987. Review of ASA booklet. CREATION/EVOLUTION NEWSLETTER, March/April
and May/June.
Scobey, K. 1992. Rape: Who can help. HERALD-JOURNAL, Syracuse, February
3.
Shamon, Rev. A. 1989. Pro-life rescue missions appeal to a higher law.
CATHOLIC
COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, April 6.
Shapley, H., iid. 1960. Stars, ethics, and survival. In: Science ponders
religion. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crafts, Inc.
Shirer, W.L. 1960. The rise and fall of the Third Reich: A history
of Nazi Germany. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Simpson, G.G. 1960. The world into which Darwin led us. SCIENCE, I
April.
Smith, A. 1992. Rape victim trains to help others. HERALD- JOURNAL,
Syracuse,
February 3.
Smith, G.L. 1991. Roe vs. Wade. THE CATHOLIC SUN, Diocese of Syracuse,
January 17-23.
Smith, J.J. 1989. Children born of rape deserve a chance at life. CATHOLIC
COURIER,
Diocese of Rochester, October 26.
Strahler, A.N. 1987. Science and earth history - The evolution/ creation
controversy.
Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
Stunkle, K.R. 1982. Understanding "scientific creationism." In: Confronting
the
creationists. S. Pastner and W. Haviland,
eds. Northeastern Anthropological
Association Occasional Proceedings No. 1.
Burlington: University of Vermont.
Swain, C.H. 1992. Media madness. Washington: March for Life Education
& Defense
Fund Annual Report.
Thomas, C. 1990. A conscience of convenience on abortion. HERALD-JOURNAL,
Syracuse, July 16.
Thompson, W.R. 1956. Introduction: The origin of species. London: J.M.
Dent and Sons,
Ltd. (Everyman Library No. 811). In: New challenging
"introduction" to the origin of
species. 1967. Hounslow, Middlesex: Creation
Science Movement.
Tryon, E.P. 1984. What made the world? NEW SCIENTIST, 8 March.
Walsh, Sr. M.A. 1990. Bishop: Cuomo risks going to hell for abortion
view. CATHOLIC
COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, July 26.
Willems, J. 1991. Teen reflects on 102 days in jail for abortion protest.
THE CATHOLIC
SUN, Diocese of Syracuse, November 21-27.
Womack, S.A. 1982. Creationism vs. evolutionism: The problem for cultural
relativity. In:
Confronting the creationists, S. Pastner and
W. Haviland, eds. Northeastern Anthro-
pological Association Occasional Proceedings No. 1. Burlington: University
of Vermont.
World Book Encyclopedia. 1962. Sanger, Margaret. Chicago: Field Enterprises
Educational Corporation, vol. 6.
Dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary
who did not abort her CHILD!
In loving memory of Bridget McPeak
Sunday 10 May 1992 Mother's Day
Updated for the web site
August 1999.
Sincerely yours in Christ and His beleagured Church,
Bill Crofut, Founder