Wednesday, August 1, 2012
THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Mary said "Yes" to Life: Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mother of Life, pray for the defeat of the RH Bill
The
Reproductive Health Bill is Unconstitutional
The Reproductive Health Bill (House Bill No. 4244) in its entirety is
unconstitutional because its very premise is at war with the philosophy
embodying the 1987 Constitution, dubbed as the Pro-Life Constitution.
The RH Bill proponents hail it as a solution to poverty in our country. They insist that
the RH Bill will spare children, especially those who are unwanted, from a life
of poverty. The RH Bill will save mothers from emotional trauma brought about
by child bearing. These arguments are not new. They were already discussed and
voted on the floor of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The result is the
present Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:
“Section 12. The
State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen
the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally
protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.
The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth
for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the
support of the Government.”
Constitutionalist Rev. Fr. Joaquin G.
Bernas, S.J., in his annotation on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, expresses
the sense of Article II, Section 12 that it “denies that the life of the unborn may be sacrificed merely
to save the mother from emotional suffering or to spare the child from a life
of poverty.”[1] The
commonsensical and constitutional solution to the problem was stated by Fr.
Bernas, thus: “The
emotional trauma of a mother as well as the welfare of the child after birth
can be attended through other means such as availing of the resources of
welfare agencies.”[2]
Atty. Marwil N. Llasos reads "The 1987
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary" by
constitutionalist and member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission Rev.
Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
What does Article II, Section 12 seek
to achieve? Fr. Bernas answers that the provision was intended “primarily to prevent the state from adopting
the doctrine in the United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade which
liberalized abortion at the discretion of the mother any time during the first
six months when it can be done without danger to the mother.”[3]
Clearly, the
provision constitutionally outlaws abortion. There’s no chance that abortion
can ever be legal in this country as long as the 1987 Philippine Constitution
stands.
Abortifacients kill human life!
But what about the RH Bill? Does it
promote or facilitate abortion? The answer is a categorical Yes. While the RH
Bill purports to recognize abortion as illegal and punishable by law [Sec. 3
(9)], it however mandates “[a]ll accredited health facilities [to] provide a full
range of modern family planning methods” [Sec. 7]. Thus, the RH Bill is inconsistent
as best, duplicitous and hypocritical at worst.
Atty. Marwil N. Llasos defends life and
the Constitution under the gaze of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of
the unborn and patroness of the Philippines
While the RH Bill recognizes abortion
as illegal, it nevertheless allows the use of the “full range of modern family planning methods.” The RH Bill does not specify or list what these methods are;
hence, they could include the IUD (intra-uterine
device), the morning-after pills,[4]
and even manual vacuum aspirators[5]
– all of which are known abortifacients!
Copper IUDs prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the
uterus.[6]
Hormonal IUDs slow down the growth of the uterine lining thereby making it
inhospitable for fertilized eggs.[7]
Prayer Power Rally Against the RH Bill on August 4, 2012 (1:00-7:00 P.M.)
Morning-after pills, otherwise known as Plan B pills, is
described as “the
backup plan for times when your birth control method has failed, has been
forgotten, or you weren’t on any form of birth control, and you don’t want to
get pregnant. Whether you’ve missed a few pills, the condom broke or slipped
off, or you forgot to insert your diaphragm.”[8] The Plan B pill can be taken up to 72 hours after “unprotected sex.” But what happens
within 72 hours? Is it possible that the sperm has already fertilized the egg?
Yes. And what does Plan B do in that eventuality? “If the egg is already fertilized, it
prevents the egg from attaching to the uterus” (implantation).[9]
Contraceptives promoted by the RH Bill
Manual vacuum aspirators cannot hide
its pretense as a mere contraceptive. It is in fact an instrument of death – an
early abortion machine.[10]
Is this among the “full range of modern family planning methods” (Sec. 7) or
the “full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies” (Sec. 4) sanctioned
in the RH Bill? The Bill is deceptively and fearfully silent.
Plan B Pills prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus thus killing it
The above examples of contraceptives
within the RH Bill package prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum in
the uterus. Where does the Constitution come in in this regard? The
1987 Philippine Constitution categorically, unmistakably and
unequivocably
commands the State to protect the unborn “from conception.” Fr. Joaquin
Bernas
comments that “[t]he
unborn’s entitlement to protection begins “from conception,” that is, from the
moment of conception.”[11] What is the Constitutional intent? Fr. Bernas
expresses it: “The
intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that
human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at
fertilization.”[12] It is crystal
clear that the constitutional definition of conception is fertilization, not
implantation. Human life begins at fertilization;
thus the fertilized ovum has human life and the State has the
constitutional obligation to protect that life.
Instruments of death: Ipas machine vacuum aspirator
Fr. Bernas concludes that Article II,
Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution “reflects the view that, in dealing with the
protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.”[13]
The RH Bill militates against this constitutional mandate.
On August 7, 2012, when the members
of the House of Representatives make a crucial decision on the RH Bill, they
must be reminded of their oath “to uphold and defend
the Constitution.” To
vote in favor of this unconstitutional bill is a betrayal of their sacred oath
and of the trust of the sovereign Filipino people.
For a
more in-depth legal critique of the RH Bill, please see:
The 1987 Philippine Constitution is a
legacy of EDSA and CORY. We will go back to EDSA to remind the President
to honor that legacy. It is the legacy of his mother that we want to
preserve.
1/12
ReplyDeleteYES TO LIFE. NO TO RH BILL.
CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON FAMILY PLANNING AND RELATED SUBJECTS - I
Excerpts From:
CATHOLIC Q AND A - REAL QUESTIONS BY REAL PEOPLE
ALL YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT CATHOLICISM
FATHER JOHN J. DIETZEN
COPYRIGHT © 2012 BY CLARETIAN PUBLICATIONS
+++
PAGES 313 - 314
Parents Approved an Abortion
Q: I have a heavy burden on my shoulders and I need help. A short time ago, my husband and I agreed with our 15-year-old daughter when she had an abortion. Father, she still sucks her thumb, and even now I don't think she realizes what we have done. I still think we did the right thing. God says that sinners who are truly sorry will be forgiven, but the thought of going to confession scares me. Having our priest tell me I can no longer go to the sacraments is more than I can face. I am a convert, but my husband, who was born a Catholic, feels this is what will happen. What should I do?
A: Your family has suffered terribly with this experience, but the hope you are looking for is there if you will prayerfully follow a couple of suggestions. First, be sincerely honest with yourself. What you did was wrong. But considering the enormous pressures you were under, no one except God can possibly judge how guilty you may have been for what you did. However, after writing three full pages defending yourself for doing the right thing, you conclude by saying how much you need God's forgiveness for your action. You knew, for example, that loving institutions and people were available to help your daughter through the experience with much less trauma than could result from an abortion, if only you would let them. This leads us to your first and most important step to hope and healing. When we sin seriously, it is generally impossible to unravel and analyze all the good, bad and doubtful motives that influenced us. In fact, it is usually not even healthy to try to do so after the fact. God does not expect or want this. We open our hearts to his forgiving love, as did the prodigal son, by humbly and trustingly acknowledging our sinfulness and telling him we are back. This is the big part of the job. Once you do this, with the grace of God, 90 percent of your return journey is completed. As for your other question, don't stay away from the sacrament of penance any longer. Your husband is mistaken in what he expects the priest to say. Nothing will stand any more in the way of your receiving the Eucharist and the other sacraments.
+++
PAGES 442 - 444
Masturbation
Q: Several years ago because of the incapacitation of my wife, our sex life was over. We still have a warm and loving marriage of over 30 years, but during the last few years I have fallen into the habit of masturbation.
Because I was unable to control this, I no longer received the sacraments and then gradually stopped attending Mass. I despair of ever breaking this habit. Is there an answer for me?
A: I'm sure there is. The details will have to be worked out gradually, but a most important part of the answer is to return to the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist. Where there is good will, as there obviously is in your letter, the life and grace available to us in these ways is valuable and powerful.
I suggest you try to find a priest, a confessor, who is willing to take the time and give the attention to assist you. Several explanations are possible for your development of this habit.
Considering your faith and your desire to live a good life, there is serious question about how deliberate, and therefore how sinful, such actions may be on your part. A kind and willing priest will help you sort this out. Be calm and peaceful about it, do the best you can, and trust that God knows where your heart is. I'm sure that with prayer, the Mass and the sacraments, you will find a way to deal with this that will give you peace of mind.
2/12
ReplyDeleteCloning
Q: Many times in recent years I have read about "cloning," that it is causing serious moral problems. What is it, and what are the problems?
A: The word comes from the Greek word, klon, which means a twig or a cutting, and is used to designate a process which biological science has discovered for duplicating certain organisms.
It is common knowledge now that every cell in a plant or animal carries the special, unique "genetic code" of that individual. For example, the sets of chromosomes that are in the first cell, when the sperm and ovum unite in human reproduction, divide and are duplicated eventually in the billions of cells in an adult body. Certain processes guide some cells to become arms, others to become legs, and others to become blood, but all the original genetic "information" is in each cell.
Not long ago scientists began discovering that it is possible to take a cell from some living organisms and produce a new "beginning" cell that possesses the same genetic makeup as the "parent." This cell would, in effect, grow into an identical twin of the parent body.
Until now, cloning has been successful only with some plants and animals. Some scientists expect the day is not too far distant when it will be possible with humans. Then science could, for example, choose the ideal basketball player, let's say Michael Jordan, and produce 100 Michael Jordans from his own body to form "ideal" basketball teams.
The moral question, as with so many other newly discovered scientific possibilities, is: Should humankind do something just because it is possible? If so, under what conditions, and with what safeguards? Who will make the decisions? What human, spiritual, psychological, religious values are involved?
Unfortunately, as with many other modern technical developments from sperm banks to nuclear weapons, too many persons consider such concerns irrelevant, or at least superfluous. Their thought seems to be: "Let's try it and think of the consequences later." By that time, irreparable damage could be done to the bodies, psyches and social structure of the human race. For these reasons, moral theologians of all faiths are wrestling publicly and urgently with such questions.
3/12
ReplyDeleteGenetic Engineering
Q: The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly suggests that some gene-altering procedures are moral, others are not. It would appear the church accepts some prebirth surgeries, for Down syndrome, for example. Others (for left-handedness? eye color?) seem disapproved. Some day it may be possible to isolate the "gay" gene and alter it. When are such measures approved? Or when do they, as the catechism says, violate the ''personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"?
A: The same fundamental moral principles apply for prenatal surgery as for surgery on any other human person. Many questions arise. Do the benefits expected outweigh the risks? What burdens (pain, cost and others) will the surgery (or lack of surgery) entail for the patient and others? What degree of hope exists that the surgery will be successful? If it is successful, is the hoped-for result proportionate to the "defect" being corrected?
The unique delicacy, technological complexity and experimental nature of embryonic gene replacement and repair will naturally greatly affect answers. But they are still valid questions. For example, super-high-risk procedures would be more acceptable in attempting to correct the chromosomal deficiency in Down syndrome children than they would be to alter eye color.
The catechism makes this fairly clear earlier in the same section you mention. Any procedures on the human embryo are lawful if they "respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing, the improvement of its condition of health or its individual survival" (quoting the 1987 Vatican document, The Gift of Life)
We will need more information than we presently possess, I believe, especially in the fields of psychology and genetic biology, before we can properly apply these norms, for example, to altering the sexual orientation of the embryo.
4/12
ReplyDeletePAGES 446 - 452
Contemplating an Abortion
Q: I have a friend who is seriously thinking of having an abortion. To me, it's murder. But what can I say to prevent it? She says my church shouldn't dictate what she can or cannot do.
A: In my experience, when a situation of real crisis arises in an individual's life, all rational argument on this subject is pretty futile. Deep convictions, faith and the "feel" the individual has for other children and for life are what will determine her decision.
Participation in dozens of discussions, panels and ordinary bull sessions with people of all shades of opinion on the question has convinced me of one thing: Very few pregnant women, even those strongly pro-abortion, really believe they are not carrying a human baby. They know, regardless of the line they may give themselves, that what is in their womb is not just a blob, a chunk of material that is as disposable as an appendix or gall bladder; it is a baby, already a boy or girl-her child.
Seen in this light, the words of one mother are, to put it mildly, impressive: "Apart from everything else, maybe I'm just too much of a coward to have an abortion," she said. "I know I'd have to live with it till I die. I don't mean just the abortion itself; maybe I could get over that. But what will happen later? Five years from now, when I see a little girl all dressed up downtown or going to school, I will know she could be my daughter. Fifteen years from now, when I see a neighbor's boy growing into manhood, I would know mine could be just like that. And 30 years from now, when I see a young mother taking care of her home and children, I'd know she could be mine-if I hadn't ended it all before it got started. I know these thoughts would nag me for the rest of my life. And I'm afraid it would drive me crazy.
Maybe the mother who said this is unusually sensitive and perceptive. But we don't really know much about the satisfactions or regrets of women who have had an abortion, five or 25 years later, do we?
Every major city has at least one emergency counseling center helping pregnant women consider alternatives before having an abortion. These may be found in the phone book under such names as Birthright, Alternatives to Abortion, Life-Line, the Society for the Preservation of Human Dignity, Alternatives Inc., Choose Life, Birth Choice Inc., Heartbeat, Right to Life, and Catholic Social Service. Encourage your friend to make use of these services, and pray for her. If she believes in God, urge her to pray before she makes her final decision.
5/12
ReplyDeleteWhen Is an Embryo Human?
Q: I understand that for a long time the church distinguished between an animated (with a soul) fetus and an inanimate (without a soul) fetus. St. Thomas and other theologians held this view. Why did the church change its position so that a fetus is now considered animated at conception?
A: It is important first of all, in examining Christian teaching and practice, to separate the question about time of animation from that of abortion.
One of the earliest Christian documents we possess, outside of the New Testament, is the Didache, commonly called The Teaching of the Apostles. Written somewhere around the year 125, it contains an explicit condemnation of abortion and infanticide.
That condemnation, in one form or another, continued throughout Christian tradition. Not a lot was known about the formation of humans before birth; hence most of the controversies about the time of "ensoulment." But that a human being was developing somehow, and to kill it was wrong, was never disputed by any major theologian or church official.
The question you ask arises solely from the fact that, until modern times, people had very little knowledge about how new life develops in a mother's womb. They knew nothing of how sperm and ovum unite to form a human cell. All the living material of a new human (or other animal) life was believed to be in the male "seed." Females contributed only the "nest" and the material (blood) on which the seed fed and grew.
Similarly, little was known about stages of growth, especially before quickening (first feeling of movement), which everyone throughout the ages understandably viewed as a crucial stage of fetal development. I repeat, however, that even with this minimal knowledge, deliberate killing of unborn human life even in this earliest form was never considered, from any Christian point of view, a morally responsible act.
The change for the church (and for the rest of the human race) came from the discoveries of biological, genetic and psychological sciences during the past two centuries, especially in recent decades. To speak only of genetics, it is now a scientific certainty that the genetic code (DNA) which identifies each species and each individual for life is present already in the very first cells.
As the axiom goes, from the moment the first cell is formed (in the union of the sperm and ovum) until death occurs, the being "becomes what it already is, " human. From the beginning, the cells are living and growing. And the life present is obviously not that of a cat or a monkey. It is identifiable as human life. To put it another way, the church now has a clear scientific basis, not available in previous centuries, for its teaching that taking the life of the unborn is evil, and that killing children, born or unborn, is no civilized solution to any problem.
Anyone interested in more details on the history of how abortion has been viewed in the world and in the church will find much interesting and useful information in the excellent book, Abortion-The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective, by John Connery (Loyola University Press).
6/12
ReplyDeleteDouche and Abortion after Rape
Q: Several years ago in theology class, the priest told us that in case of rape, a woman may have an abortion right away. Can you tell me if this is true?
A: I'm confident the priest didn't use exactly those words. An abortion, in the sense of direct killing or rejecting a human life that is already begun, is never a morally good act no matter how early in the pregnancy it takes place.
Your teacher was probably referring to the possible use of a douche of the vagina or the uterus of the woman who was raped. After sexual intercourse it takes some time for the male seed (sperm) to pass through the vagina and the uterus and enter the Fallopian tubes where it may unite with an ovum to begin a new human life. Unless and until those two cells join, there is no human cell, and no human life.
Therefore, in the case of rape, for example, a vaginal or uterine douche may be used to attempt to wash out the male sperm before it has a chance to unite with an ovum. Doctors and theologians generally agree that this might be done up to about an hour after the attack. It is not an abortive measure since no human life is yet present.
While this procedure is morally permissible, its effectiveness is not impressive and impossible to predict. (Some research places it about 64 percent effective.) As those who have sought efficient contraceptives have discovered through the years, there's a marvelous persistence in the whole process of human generation, even down to the movement of the tiny reproductive cells after intercourse, a persistence that is not easily frustrated.
Another reason that this procedure is quite uncommon is that hospitals now utilize other pharmaceutical procedures, treating victims of rape with drugs to prevent pregnancy. Some of these are clearly abortifacient, others are not, and many are somewhere in gray areas. Catholic hospitals, and others who desire to avoid abortive measures, have established various protocols, too complicated to discuss here, attempting to assist these victims by using available technologies in a morally acceptable way.
7/12
ReplyDeleteAcceptable Abortion Laws?
Q: I am much opposed to the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion and am working with a right-to-life organization. A question has arisen about approving legislation allowing an abortion to save the life of the mother after rape or incest. What is the church's position on this?
A: The position of the church is as it has been, that deliberate killing of an unborn child is always wrong even if it is intended to save the life of the mother.
However, a Catholic could properly approve and work for legislation along the lines you mention for at least two reasons. First, it is often politically necessary, and moral, to fight for and accept legislation which is at least part of what you would like, when it's clear your entire desired package is just not possible at this time. Accepting laws that would prohibit abortion after rape or incest does not mean one approves abortion in those instances. It only accepts that a perfect law is unattainable at the present. One less perfect might still prevent countless abortions, and at least open a door for fuller legal protection of the unborn.
Second, in practice (and probably even in theory) immoral abortions "to save the life of the mother" are generally not likely to occur.
A pregnant mother may be ill with a serious disease that the doctor must treat immediately. The doctor may know that if he does what is needed to heal the mother, she will lose the baby. An obvious illustration is cancer of the uterus. If in the physician's prudent medical judgment that uterus must be removed before the baby is viable, or the mother will die (or the cancer will likely spread critically), the uterus may be removed. Naturally, with such surgery the baby will die.
Some would incorrectly call this "an abortion to save the mother." It is, however, a moral procedure. The baby is not killed, or aborted, in order to save the mother. It dies when the mother is treated as is medically necessary.
Other medical procedures may be less clear cut, but could fall into the same category.
In practice the problem hardly exists today. In the largest hospitals and clinics in the country which handle especially difficult cases, it has been years since doctors have faced a decision whether to save the mother or the child, if indeed they have ever done so in modern times. Medical management of pregnancy problems, to serve both the child and mother, has made and is still making progress.
8/12
ReplyDeleteReturning to the Sacraments after Two Abortions
Q: I was raised a Catholic and married a Catholic, though he wasn't practicing his faith. My problem is that I had two abortions, which I didn't want, but finally had. I know it was very wrong, so I haven't been able to go to confession or Communion for 25 or 30 years. It's driving me crazy now. What can I do?
A: Abortion is a very serious offense against God and humanity, since it is the taking of a human life. I realize you know this, but I want to emphasize that what I say next is not meant to minimize that fact. The first step to forgiveness is an honest acknowledgment of our sin.
I hope you talk with a priest and receive the sacrament of penance soon. One of the strange things about sin is that it frequently seems to diminish in size when we're tempted, and then afterward it looms so huge that we fear even God can't forgive or heal the hurt. In a way, that is an even bigger mistake than the sin itself.
God doesn't like the sin and certainly doesn't encourage us to ignore his commands. But he does tell us often in Scripture that he considers the forgiveness of sins the greatest of all his works. In other words, he boasts that no sin, no evil, is beyond the reach of his goodness and his mercy. That is a joyous and basic fact of Christian faith.
So, he is there, waiting for you simply to run to him and tell him you're back. Read prayerfully the story of the forgiving father (Luke, chapter 15), then go to confession and receive the Eucharist. You've been away long enough.
Mother or Baby?
Q: In my college ethics classes a thousand years ago, I understood that if there were a question of the mother or baby, the mother's life must be sacrificed. Others said that, since the baby is an unjust aggressor, the baby should be sacrificed. Who is right?
A: While my college and seminary days were somewhat less than a thousand years ago, I doubt that I'm much younger than you. The only thing I remember about that "mother or baby" question is that it is not, was not, and will not be taught by the Catholic Church as even remotely applicable to a medical dilemma during pregnancy-but there have been, and it seems always will be, people who think that's what the church believes.
The history of medical science, biology and moral theology on the subject is long and complicated, but to claim that a baby in the womb is an "unjust aggressor" in any moral sense of the word is out of the question.
Unfortunately, that term has been used sloppily on occasion in reference to other medical procedures possible during a pregnancy, and which might (or certainly will) result in the death of the unborn child. A classic, though somewhat unreal, example, which I pointed out in a previous question, is a pregnant mother with a uterus her doctor feels must be removed immediately. Such surgery would be morally permissible even though a nonviable fetus would surely die in the process.
There's an old axiom that remains true here: Good moral theology and good medicine go together, with emphasis on the word "good" in both cases. It is wrong and unnecessary to directly take the life of any innocent person, born or unborn.
9/12
ReplyDeletePAGES 453 - 458
Abortion and Excommunication
Q: I had an abortion 20 years ago and was told the priest could not give me absolution in the confessional. So I never went back because I could not face that.
The years have passed, and it bothers me more every day. I go to Mass all the time, but can never bring myself to go to a priest about it because of what I was told. I'd love to go to Communion this Easter. I hope you will be able to help.
A: I am sorry you have been away from the sacraments all these years. This is especially sad because apparently it resulted, as unfortunately so often happens, from information you received that was almost certainly false.
It is true that, according to Catholic belief, anyone who procures a completed abortion (not only the mother, but others directly involved in the act) incurs an automatic excommunication. However, several critical conditions must be met before one incurs that excommunication.
For one thing, the person must be at least 18 years old, and know when the abortion takes place that an excommunication will be incurred if the act is carried through. Many people who know that abortion is seriously wrong do not know an excommunication is incurred at the same time.
Furthermore, if circumstances surrounding the pregnancy are such as to cause grave fear and confusion in the mind of the woman, or if she is under severe pressure from family or perhaps close friends, again the excommunication would not be incurred.
Some other conditions are also required, but I hope you get the point.
The information you received that the priest was unable to deal with this excommunication in the sacrament of penance was almost certainly wrong, even 30 years ago. Even if you did incur an excommunication, which as I said is quite doubtful, a priest in your parish or a neighboring parish can nearly always take care of it immediately and finally when you go to confession. You have been away from the sacraments long enough. Please go to a priest and celebrate this Easter as you have been wanting to.
For those interested in checking references, the sections of canon law most relevant here are Canons 1398,97, 1323 and 1324. Parallel canons in the former code which would have been in effect 20 years ago are worded somewhat differently but are, in practice, basically the same as the 1983 code for this type of penalty.
10/12
ReplyDeletePost-Abortion Counseling
Q: Dear Father Dietzen:
In a column regarding abortion, the writer stated, referring to her abortion, "I live daily with the pain and shame of what I did, and six years later still pray for forgiveness."
While your response to her was excellent as far as it went in assuring her that she is not excommunicated, more needs to be said.
As a psychiatrist, I frequently see women who have been to priests repeatedly for confession following abortion, but who are unable to accept and receive the forgiveness that is offered. For women in this situation, it is often essential to have post-abortion counseling from a Christian perspective, with prayer for emotional healing.
Although many professional counselors have not received specific training in post-abortion counseling and may not know how to help, a growing number of professional counselors, psychiatrists, as well as priests and religious, are becoming educated and gaining experience in this very specialized type of counseling.
I would advise women with this type of problem to call the National Office of Post-Abortion Reconciliation and Healing at 1-800-5WECARE. Staff at this number can refer women to counselors and support groups throughout the United States.
The video Dear Children by Liguori Press is also a powerful tool to explain post-abortion syndrome, and shows through interviews with real people how forgiveness and healing can be experienced. The book Will I Cry Tomorrow? by Susan Stanford, Ph.D., tells the author's own personal experience in dealing with the pain and guilt of abortion, and shows positive steps that people can take to experience God's forgiveness and healing.
I would encourage readers with this type of problem to seek additional help if confession alone has not been sufficient to bring resolution. Although God's forgiveness is freely given in the sacrament, there are often many different emotional issues going on, and further help is necessary.
A: I am grateful to this doctor for pointing out post-abortion realities that need to be dealt with, and that can encourage women (and men) who are trying to work their way through their recovery. The specific suggestions she makes are among many excellent ones available.
11/12
ReplyDeleteAbortion after Bad Advice
Q: I need to know my standing in the church. I am the mother of two beautiful children and am approaching 40 years of age. About a year ago, I found that I was pregnant. A routine blood test indicated a higher than normal risk of Down syndrome. My doctor insisted on amniocentesis, which confirmed our fears. We explained that we were always against abortion and that I participated often in pro-life rallies.
A counselor didn't suggest abortion, but did tell us that some priests do not look harshly on women who have terminated a pregnancy because of genetic abnormalities, and under the circumstances, the church would accept the decision. She suggested we write a list of pros and cons. After soul searching, the only reason I found for not having an abortion was to save myself living with the guilt. I did what my brain said was right for my family and son. If I had listened to my heart, I would still have been pregnant.
Am I still a member of the Catholic Church? I don't feel right going to confession and asking for forgiveness when I feel that if faced with the same circumstance I would make the same decision. Please help me.
A: I was moved by your letter. Your kind of story and your feelings are repeated countless times by women who have, or have not, decided to abort their children. Lots of things could be said, but two I believe are most critical.
Assuming you reflect her words accurately, you were badly misled by the individual you approached for counseling. And I think you know that. For starters, not only some, but most priests, I hope, do not "look harshly" on women who have had an abortion. That is by no means the same as suggesting that they consider deliberate killing of any unborn human life anything but a gravely wrong and sinful action.
The church expends huge personal and financial resources to help heal and reconstruct the spiritual and emotional lives of women after an abortion. This says simply that judgment and punishment are not ours to inflict. Those belong to God alone.
In this, as in all other areas of faith and life, our duty is to teach what we believe as clearly as we can, and then try to reflect the kindness and goodness of Christ to those who for whatever reason have not measured up. Again as with our Lord, compassion should never be misunderstood as compromising what is taught to be right and wrong ways to act.
Your counselor was not only wrong about the church's teaching. Her suggested manner of reaching a decision might be acceptable if you're wondering whether to vacation in Alaska or Cancun. It is a poor and dangerous one, however, for arriving at life-or-death moral decisions such as you faced.
Are you excommunicated? From what you have said, almost certainly not. (See previous question on abortion and excommunication.)
As a practical matter, the answer to that question is not really relevant and would be taken care of anyway when you go to confession. What is important is that you get back to the full practice of your faith, including penance and the Eucharist.
You say you would do the same again. But you don't really know that. God's grace can do wonders, and your letter shows that you already have grave doubts about the wisdom of what you did. One thing is sure. Without prayer and the sacraments, you are much more likely to act in the future in ways that will make you unhappy, ways you know are wrong. Please talk to a priest soon. You have waited long enough.
12/12
ReplyDeleteForgiveness after an Abortion
Q: Last Sunday at Mass, Father spoke about God's all-forgiving love. When I was 16 years old I discovered I was pregnant. I was frightened and had no one to turn to. My family was Catholic but rarely went to Mass, and was all messed up. Our parents fought a lot, and when my sister went through a bitter divorce my mother went off the deep end and tried to kill herself. I had never discussed abortion with anyone, but my boyfriend and I felt we had no choice. I had no idea I was taking a life. I'm married now to this same boyfriend. We have two beautiful children, both baptized, and we go to Mass faithfully. Even if there's no hope for my forgiveness I'm writing hoping some parents will speak more frankly to their children, and maybe someone in my shoes will be glad I'm asking this question. Can I ever be fully accepted back into the church? Am I excommunicated? I've been through hell the past several years. I'm afraid to go to the priest in our parish, and my family knows nothing about all this. With all the publicity today, young women would probably weigh their options more heavily. If I knew then what I know now, I would never have done it. I hope parents, no matter how depressed they may be, will watch for stress in their children. Their problems can be bigger than you think.
A: In the name of all who may read this, I thank you for what must have been a painful letter to write. It will be helpful for lots of people, even for those whose spiritual fears and concerns may not be exactly the same as yours.
Yes, you can be forgiven, and accepted fully back into the church. In fact, it seems to me that has already happened. We open our hearts to God's forgiving love by trustingly acknowledging our sinfulness and telling him we are back, which you have done and are doing. Your deep regret and sorrow, and your sincere love for yourself and God and others shine through in your letter. So be calm and peaceful about it.
The way for you is simple. The first requirement for forgiveness anytime is that we accept responsibility for the wrong we have done, and desire forgiveness. Apparently you have passed this point long ago. You should receive the sacrament of penance, if not with your priest then with another. After that, return to holy Communion, and continue your Catholic life as faithfully as you are now, and grow in it.
In this process, it's not necessary to attempt to dissect the past. In fact, when we sin seriously, it's generally impossible to unravel all the good, bad and doubtful motives that influenced us. It is usually not even healthy to try to do so after the fact. God does not expect or want this.
Finally, for a variety of reasons, you have not been excommunicated. To mention only one major reason, the possible excommunication for acquiring an abortion is one of what are called automatic (latae sententiae) excommunications. No automatic excommunications apply to anyone who was under age 18 when the offense was committed. Therefore it does not apply to you. (See canons 97 and 1324.1 and .3.)
_________________________
All Catholics and God-fearing persons must have and read this book to ward off proselytizers from non-Catholic faiths:
CATHOLIC Q AND A - REAL QUESTIONS BY REAL PEOPLE by FATHER JOHN J. DIETZEN, available at NATIONAL BOOKSTORE, or:
Special Sales Department:
Tel.: (02) 921-3984 • Fax: (02) 921-6205 cci@claret.org
ccfi@claretphilippines.com
www.claretianpublications.com
1/4
ReplyDeleteYES TO LIFE. NO TO RH BILL.
CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON FAMILY PLANNING AND RELATED SUBJECTS - II
Excerpts from:
THE QUESTION AND ANSWER CATHOLIC CATECHISM
JOHN A. HARDON, S.J.
COPYRIGHT © 1981 BY JOHN A. HARDON
+++
PAGES 141 – 143:
4. Abortion and Sterilization
653. What is abortion?
Abortion is the direct expelling from the mother's womb of a living fetus that cannot live outside the womb even with the most extraordinary medical care. The Church has always held that abortion, as the deliberate killing of an unborn child, at any time after conception, is a grave sin.
654. Why must Catholics obey this teaching?
Catholics must obey this teaching because the Church is given authority to command in Christ's name. The Church is empowered by Christ to prohibit and prescribe in any area of human conduct that touches on the Commandments of God, whether derived from nature or from supernatural revelation.
655. Is the Catholic Church the only religious body that condemns abortion?
No, many other religious bodies like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Orthodox Jews, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also condemn abortion.
656. Why is abortion a grave crime?
Abortion is a grave crime because it is the homicidal intent to kill innocent human life. This is totally independent of the question of when exactly human life begins. Anyone who is willing to kill what may be human is, by his intention, willing to kill what is human. Therefore, the one who performs or consents to abortion is guilty of voluntary homicide.
657. Is abortion also gravely sinful when the unborn child is the result of rape or incest?
Yes, no matter what the cause for a child's conception, the unborn infant has a right to life and therefore to normal birth. Rape or incest as the source of pregnancy does not justify the murder of the innocent child thus conceived.
658. What is abortion on demand?
Abortion on demand is a result of legalized abortion. The law says that a pregnant woman has the "right" to kill the child in her womb whenever continued pregnancy might be injurious to her physical or mental health, or when the child might be born with a physical or mental defect. By implication she can have an abortion when she wants it.
659. What is feticide?
Feticide is the destruction of a living fetus by a variety of physical or chemical means. It is another form of abortion.
660. What is sometimes called indirect abortion?
Indirect abortion is not really abortion. In what is becoming a medical rarity, when a pregnant mother's life is in imminent danger because of some pathological condition, surgery or other radical means may be used to save her life although it is reluctantly foreseen that the unborn fetus will die. This is an application of the principle of the double effect.
2/4
ReplyDelete661. What is a therapeutic abortion?
In medical terms, a therapeutic abortion is one that safeguards either the life or the health of an expectant mother. But, morally, no therapeutic abortion is allowable except in the rare case where the mother's life is in certain and imminent danger from a pathological condition which is not simply the pregnancy itself.
662. What is sterilization?
Sterilization is the permanent or temporary removal or making inactive of any reproductive organ for the purpose of inducing sterility. Direct or contraceptive sterilization is done with the deliberate intent of avoiding conception. Direct sterilization is a grave sin because it means the unjustified loss of the sacred power of procreation conferred on a person by God. It may never be performed, either as an end, or as a means to some other good action.
663. What is therapeutic sterilization?
Therapeutic sterilization, sometimes called indirect sterilization, is done for the purpose of relieving a person of some pathological condition and, as such, is permitted.
664. What is eugenic sterilization?
Eugenic sterilization is aimed at assuring the elimination of offspring having possible undesirable traits, such as mental retardation. The Church forbids such sterilization and says that public authorities have no power over the bodies of their innocent subjects.
665. What is penal sterilization?
Penal sterilization is done to punish or deter condemned persons from committing further sex crimes. Penal sterilization is not a real punishment or deterrent because it does not deprive the criminal of anything precious in his eyes, and his vicious tendencies remain a threat to society.
PAGES 152 – 156:
3. Unnatural Sex Experience: Masturbation, Homosexuality, and Contraception
723. What sexual experiences are unnatural?
The sexual experiences that are unnatural are masturbation and homosexuality.
724. What is masturbation?
Masturbation is the act of stimulating the sexual organs by oneself for the purpose of obtaining emotional satisfaction.
725. What is homosexuality?
Homosexuality is sexual activity with a person of the same sex.
726. Why are masturbation and homosexuality contrary to the will of God?
Masturbation and homosexuality are contrary to the will of God because by their very nature they are selfish actions which cannot fulfill the divinely ordained purpose of the reproductive powers.
727. What is contraception?
Contraception is any action deliberately taken before, during, or after intercourse in order to prevent conception.
728. Why is contraception sinful?
Contraception is sinful because the conjugal act is of its very nature designed for the purpose of procreating children. Therefore, those who deliberately interfere with the natural act of procreation do that which is essentially immoral and contrary to the will of God.
3/4
ReplyDelete729. How sinful is contraception?
Contraception is seriously sinful because it contradicts the divinely ordained purpose of marital intercourse which is the fostering of procreative love.
730. In what sense is the procreation of children primary in marriage?
The procreation of children is primary in marriage in the sense that married people may not deliberately frustrate this purpose for any reason whatever; procreation is naturally primary because human nature provides the kind of care and nourishment that children require in marriage; and it is primary because one of the main reasons why people have the moral right to enter marriage is to be able to have children and rear them as the physical and spiritual image of themselves. God himself commanded our first parents, and through them tells all married people to "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it" (Genesis 1 :28).
731. What is the Church's teaching on contraception?
The Church's teaching on contraception is that direct interruption of the generative process is to be absolutely excluded as a licit means of regulating birth.
732. Why is contraception morally inseparable from abortion?
Contraception is morally inseparable from abortion because selfish indulgence of sex can become murderous. People who practice contraception are strongly tempted to resort to legalized abortion if an unwanted child is conceived.
733. Why is contraception contrary to the natural law?
Contraception is contrary to the natural law because it deliberately interferes with the divinely ordained purpose of marital intercourse.
734. Why is contraception so common today?
Contraception is so common today because there is a fear that the world population is growing more rapidly than the resources that are available. Working and living conditions, together with pressures in the economic and educational fields, have made the rearing of a large family more difficult than it used to be. The status of women is changing, with greater insistence on their freedom from the duties associated with rearing a normal family. Above all, man's progress in dominating the forces of nature now gives him a new sense of power to regulate the transmission of life on his own terms and independent of the laws of God.
735. Do these reasons justify their use?
These reasons do not justify the use of contraception. They merely help to explain the rise of the modern contraceptive society.
4. True Conjugal Love
736. Why is marital intercourse sacred?
Marital intercourse is sacred because its purpose is to deepen the mutual affection of husband and wife, and because in this way they cooperate with God in bringing new human life into the world. As Christ explained, "the two become one body" (Mark 10:8).
737. What are the two love functions of marital intercourse?
The two love functions of marital intercourse are the unitive and procreative.
4/4
ReplyDelete738. What is unitive love?
Unitive love is the selfless charity fostered between husband and wife in their physical embrace. It merits an increase of divine grace to live out their marriage in lifelong fidelity.
739. What is procreative love?
Procreative love is love communicated from husband-with-wife to their potential offspring. It is love that wants to go beyond the communion between husband and wife; it wants to raise up new human life.
740. When is conjugal love authentically Christian?
Conjugal love is authentically Christian when it is selfless and self-giving. True conjugal love must involve self-sacrifice, just as the love that Christ had for us meant a lifetime of self-oblation even to his death on the Cross.
741. When is conjugal love selfish?
Conjugal love is selfish when each spouse is seeking his or her own interests while using the other as a means to heighten one's own satisfaction. The true concept of Christian marriage excludes this selfishness. St. Paul teaches that "husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies; for a man to love his wife is for him to love himself" (Ephesians 5: 28).
5. Natural Family Planning
742. What is periodic continence?
Periodic continence is abstinence from marital intercourse, for legitimate reasons, during the days each month when the wife is naturally fertile.
743. How may Catholics limit the number of offspring?
Catholics may limit the number of their offspring by using the wife's natural cycles of fertility and sterility; provided the husband and wife mutually agree; provided they are not liable to fall into masturbation, contraception, or adultery; and they have serious justifying reasons for spacing out the children.
744. What is the difference between natural family planning and contraception?
Natural family planning makes legitimate use of what nature provides, namely long periods each month when the wife is sterile, while abstaining from intercourse when she is fertile. But contraception contradicts nature by having intercourse during fertile periods and deliberately interfering with the natural life process.
745. How is the exclusion of children justified in natural family planning?
The exclusion of children is justified because the means used are legitimate. Those who practice natural family planning renounce marital intercourse during fertile periods with a good reason. They have intercourse during the wife's sterile periods in order to manifest their affection and to safeguard their marital fidelity.
746. Why is the exclusion of children by contraception sinful?
The exclusion of children by contraception is sinful because the means used are contrary to the purpose for which God gave us the faculties of generation.
747. How can married couples grow spiritually in today's contraceptive atmosphere?
Married couples can grow spiritually in today's contraceptive atmosphere by developing deep convictions concerning the true values of life and family. This calls for education with regard to the meaning of chastity and demands growth in self-mastery. It mainly calls for the deepening of virtue through prayer and the frequent use of the Mass and the sacraments.
1/6
ReplyDeleteYES TO LIFE. NO TO RH BILL.
CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON FAMILY PLANNING AND RELATED SUBJECTS - III
Excerpts From:
THE CATHOLICISM ANSWER BOOK
THE 300 MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
REV. JOHN TRIGILIO JR., PHD, THD AND REV. KENNETH BRIGHENTI, PHD
AUTHORS OF THE BEST-SELLING BOOK CATHOLICISM FOR DUMMIES
COPYRIGHT © 2007 BY REV. KENNETH D. BRIGHENTI, Ph.D., AND REV. JOHN TRIGILIO, JR., PH.D.
+++
PAGES 136 - 137
Question 98. Are children necessary?
Saint Augustine of Hippo, a great theologian and bishop of the fourth century, came up with important aspects of marriage known in Latin as bona (goods), the ends or fruits of marriage. First and foremost, Christian marriage is for the good of the couple (both the husband and the wife). This is called the bonum coniugum in Latin. It is the very essence of the sacrament of matrimony.
Catholic theology teaches that a valid sacrament of Christian marriage depends totally on the intention of both the bride and the groom on their wedding day, specifically at the moment they exchange consent (by either saying "I do" or by saying the vows together). Both must intend to enter a permanent, a faithful, and, God-willing, a fruitful union, otherwise there will be no bonum coniugum and therefore, no marriage. Saint Augustine referred to these three intentions as bonum sacramenti (permanence), bonum fidei (faithfulness), and bonum prolis (offspring).
Children are not the only purpose of marriage, as some claim Catholicism maintains. However, procreation is one of the three essential aspects. It is crucial to point out here that it is the intention, desire, and willingness to have children that is essential. Married couples who are unable to have children, through no fault of their own, are still very much married and in a valid sacrament. Also, for certain medical reasons, couples may receive a dispensation from bearing children if the health of the mother may be in jeopardy. It is only those who purposely frustrate the overall good of the couple by intentionally excluding one or more of the three necessary goods (e.g., by habitual use of contraception or nontherapeutic sterilization) that render the union invalid.
Certainly understandable, but nonetheless still sinful, are immoral ways of procuring children, such as in vitro fertilization, egg and sperm donation and implantations, and surrogate mothers. These scientific processes involve immoral means, such as masturbation, selection of the "best" fertilized egg and abortion of the others, freezing fertilized eggs, and infidelity. Children must be brought forth in a human way between a husband and a wife, not in a laboratory. Fertility can be aided by science, such as in vivo fertilization, which involves no immoral means. When infertility is experienced by the couple, it is a cross that should be carried bravely. Though not required to, the couple is encouraged to consider adoption, a selfless act of love on the part of the married couple.
Being open to the possibility of children does not mean having as many babies as is biologically possible, either. Natural family planning is a moral and ethical way to use morally acceptable means to guide the number and frequency of pregnancies. If one or both spouses intend never to have children, this is as serious a defect as would be the intention not to be faithful or the intention not to enter a permanent relationship. Prenuptial agreements are indications that someone may not be intending a permanent bond, which invalidates the union. Equally invalidating would be those situations when people intend never to have kids lest they ruin their chances for a promising career.
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his famous papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae, in which he teaches that Christian marriage and especially the marital act of sexual intercourse are sacred and holy symbols of the unitive (love) and the procreative (life) dimensions which make up the foundation of the sacrament of Marriage. (Cont. in 2/6).
2/6
ReplyDeleteMarriage is seen as one of the two sacraments of vocation, the other being Holy Orders. Through this sacrament, the couple promises to enter a permanent bond that can only be dissolved by death, to be always faithful (in other words, exclude any other sexual partners), and to be fruitful or to be open to the possibility of children if God wills it. The last requirement comes from the Old Testament (Genesis 1:28), when God said to Adam and Eve, "Be fruitful and multiply."
IN THE CATHOLIC SENSE, MARRIAGE IS THE FERTILE GROUND NOT ONLY TO POPULATE THE EARTH, BUT EVENTUALLY TO POPULATE HEAVEN – OUR ULTIMATE GOAL IN THE ROAD OF LIFE.
(Emphasis mine: YES TO LIFE. NO TO RH BILL.)
PAGES 200 -201
Question 153. Why is contraception considered sinful?
The Catholic Church does not command couples to have as many babies as is reproductively possible. The husband and wife, as mother and father, have a right to make moral and reasonable plans in terms of the size and spacing of their children. As long as moral means are used, then it is up to the couple to decide when and how many children to have with the constant proviso that God may have other plans.
While many erroneously still call it the Rhythm Method, Natural Family Planning (NFP) is as effective as any artificial means of contraception when used properly. The only difference is that this method is extremely inexpensive, involves minimal inconvenience, and is completely moral to use. Artificial contraception is immoral for several reasons, and it can be very expensive and potentially dangerous to the woman over a long period of time.
Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968, in which he spoke of the intrinsic connection of the unitive (love) and procreative (life) faculties of marriage. He saw contraception as something which created a wall that separates the two; when that happens, the sex act is no longer a sacred sign of the covenant of marriage. Instead, it reduces the sex act between husband and wife to a purely physical-not spiritual-activity. When done within marriage as a sign of the unity of the couple and their openness to God's will should He want to bless them with new life, then human sexual intercourse is a sacred and holy act. When done purely to satisfy sexual fantasies and desires, then it reduces the couple to mere sex objects for one another.
Another concern the Church has is that many so-called contraceptives do not prevent conception; rather, they force a premature ejection of a fertilized egg. Once the sperm and egg have united, conception has taken place, and an immortal soul has been infused by God into that new human life. DNA proves that the "zygote," "embryo," or "fetus" is actually a distinct and separate human person. There are only human genes present, and this human DNA is unique from the mother and father in that it constitutes another complete human being and is not merely an extension of the mother's own tissue. Many so-called birth control pills act in reality as abortifacients, that is, they cause a very early abortion of a fertilized egg (now considered a conceived child) from the mother's womb. Conception was not prevented, but implantation was. What is ejected is very tiny, but very human nevertheless.
Finally, recent studies have shown that long-term use of birth control pills has increased the risk of breast and uterine cancer in many women. Natural Family Planning needs no prescription, has no health risk, costs nothing, and involves both the husband and wife (so that one spouse isn't taking it easy while the other assumes all the responsibility). It can be used to space out births, and to avoid pregnancy or to facilitate it, since it is based on using the unique and personal fertility cycle of the woman. (Cont. in 3/6).
3/6
ReplyDeleteThe three- to seven-day abstinence from sexual relations involved for the couple using NFP allows them to foster nonsexual but very romantic encounters to bring them spiritually and emotionally closer together while avoiding the physical intimacy of sexual intercourse.
PAGES 201 - 202
Question 154. Is abortion always wrong? What about in cases of rape or incest?
"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors ...I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral." -Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, Gospel of Life, #57.
Abortion is always considered evil, sinful, and immoral because it is the deliberate and intentional killing of an innocent human life.
The Catechism teaches, "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law" (#2271).
The ends can never justify the means, so no evil act should ever be done deliberately, willingly, and knowingly no matter how much good may come from it or how much evil may be prevented. The reason for this absolute is that if you make one exception and allow any evil to be done for whatever lofty reason, then anyone can find sufficient reason to commit almost any evil in the name of higher good or the prevention of greater evil. If murdering one man would save a hundred, then using the same moral logic, someone could murder a million to save a billion. Any exception would open the door to a Pandora's Box of moral relativism, situational ethics and consequentialism, where the outcome or circumstances determine the morality of any act.
Since it is not morally permissible to directly will or perform evil, abortion is never permitted-even to save the life of the mother or in response to rape or incest. Medically, there are few, if any, instances where a physician would even be in the situation where killing the unborn child would be the only and safest way to save the mother. If the mother is in danger, so is the child.
Rather than directly aborting and thus unjustly killing the unborn, doctors can do what is necessary to treat the mother, and if in the course of the treatment or procedure her own body causes a premature ejection of the fetus, then that is considered a natural abortion in that it was not directly willed or intended even though it may have been known to be possible, probable, or even inevitable. Once the baby comes out of the womb, everything must be done to assist him or her. If the baby happens to die anyway, it is morally acceptable because it was an act of human nature that caused the natural death, not a direct act of killing as in the case of partial birth abortions or craniotomies. Modern science and medicine do not need to directly kill any unborn child to save the life of the mother. The baby may not be viable outside the womb for too long, but a natural death is preferred to the violent, intentional killing of an innocent life.
4/6
ReplyDeletePAGE 204
Question 157. What is wrong with in vitro fertilization?
Just as contraceptive sex is wrong because it divides what God intended to be integrated (love and life; unitive and procreative), so, too, conception outside the womb is equally wrong for the same reasons. There is no absolute right to have sex whenever and with whomever, and neither is there an absolute right to become a parent. While marrieds should be open to the possibility of children, no one has an inalienable right to be a father or mother. A child is a gift from God, not a commodity or bargaining chip.
Medical procedures which enhance and promote the natural biological process within the woman to have her egg fertilized by the husband's sperm must take place within the context of the married sex act and not in a test tube or Petri dish. In vitro fertilization not only takes the eggs and sperm from the bodies of the parents and conceives a human being in a test tube, but the procedure also takes more than one egg and fertilizes it so that there are several embryos conceived artificially. Each one has an immortal soul and is a human person. In vitro uses the "best" pick of the litter and discards or freezes the remaining embryos, each of which is a unique human being.
When the Virgin Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth in Luke 1:39-45, Elizabeth was six months pregnant. Her unborn son was John the Baptist. Mary was only a few days pregnant since she "went in haste to visit her cousin." Both the unborn John the Baptist and the unborn Jesus would be considered "embryos" or "fetuses" today. Yet the unborn John the Baptist leapt in his mother Elizabeth's womb for joy since he miraculously recognized the presence of the Savior in the womb of his mother Mary.
PAGE 205
Question 159. What about cloning?
Cloning is as immoral as in vitro fertilization since it, too, separates the unitive (love) and procreative (life) faculties from married sexuality. It is not even sexual reproduction by biological duplication. The dangers of creating a race of clones that might dominate the earth is the stuff of science fiction, but the real potential for the manufacturing and distribution of clones to harvest spare body parts is macabre at best and grossly immoral at worst.
Just because science can do something does not make it morally permissible to actually do it. Genes, chromosomes, and DNA are potentially alterable, but we do not know the impact and long-term effects of tinkering with the genetic code of life itself. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document in 1987 entitled Donum Vitae (Gift of Life) which reminded Catholics not to take human life for granted and that each and every human life is a gift from God, not a product to be made or manipulated.
5/6
ReplyDeletePAGES 217 - 218
Question 168. Is murder the only Sin involved in the fifth Commandment?
The fifth Commandment actually uses the word "murder," which is rasah in Hebrew, phoneuo in Greek, and oecides in Latin as found in original Biblical manuscripts. The word "kill" would be harag in Hebrew, apokteino in Greek, or interjicias in Latin. This means that the commandment literally says, "Thou shalt not murder" and not, "Thou shalt not kill." Murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. Self-defense is not considered murder, and killing in self-defense is neither sinful nor immoral.
Murder can be premeditated (first degree in civil law), spontaneous but deliberate deadly assault (second degree), or it can be an unlawful killing of a human being without malice (manslaughter). These are all forbidden by the fifth Commandment.
Equivalent acts would also include any and all unjust killing, such as abortion or euthanasia, where the death is directly intended and achieved-regardless of the motive or consequences. Intentionally ending the life of an innocent person is always considered unjust killing and is immoral and sinful. Gross acts would be genocide, terrorism, and unjust wars, or indiscriminate use of deadly force.
Extended acts would include physical violence or abuse, verbal or emotional abuse, harboring hateful thoughts, racism, bullying, intimidation, and blackmail. Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew 5:21-22 that he who is angry with his brother is guilty of murder. What Christ is speaking of is the willingness to commit murder. The desire to murder someone is a sinful act of the will. Let's say I buy a gun and plan to kill my annoying neighbor, but someone or something prevents me from leaving the house to get to his home or, when the moment arrives and I pull the trigger, I discover there are no bullets in the gun, or that I missed the target, or that I left the safety on by mistake so the gun does not fire. All these obstacles may prevent the physical act of murder, but I have already committed the sinful desire to murder when I took the gun in my hand. I committed murder in the heart if not in the flesh. My act of the will was that I commit murder.
6/6
ReplyDeletePAGES 218 - 219
Question 169. Is sex always sinful?
Human sexuality may have some mechanical similarities to animal sexual reproduction, but remember, any act which involves the human free will makes it a human act and not just an act of man (a biological function). All human acts are moral acts. A man or woman must freely choose to have sex, and that act of the will makes this a moral act. When human sex is used properly, it is a holy and sacred sign of the covenant between husband and wife. When done to promote love (unity) and life (procreation), it is a marital act and is sacred in the eyes of God.
When unmarried people have sex, before or outside of marriage, it is the sin of fornication. When one or both persons is married to someone else, then it is the sin of adultery. When done by yourself, it is the sin of masturbation. When it involves explicit media (Internet, telephone, television, photos, videos, or text), it is the sin of pornography. When done with persons of the same gender, it is considered the sin of homosexuality. (While the sexual inclination and orientation may be inculpable, all sexual activity between individuals of the same gender is considered immoral, just as all sexual activity of unmarried heterosexuals is considered immoral and sinful.)
Any and all sexual activity outside of marriage (that is, the marriage of one man and one woman in a permanent, faithful, and fruitful union) is considered immoral and sinful. Modern culture portrays sex as a human right. The Bible and the Church say otherwise. Sex is a gift from God; what distinguishes human sex from animal sex is that human beings act morally-with their free will and not out of blind instinct. People choose to have sex, whereas animals just do it when they are so inclined.
Human sexuality is reserved for marriage alone. We reserve the consumption of alcohol for persons over the age of twenty-one. It is illegal to buy or sell dangerous drugs such as heroin, cocaine, or other controlled substances. None of these is a denial of human rights or freedom. Even married couples cannot perform the conjugal act in a public place, and no one considers that unreasonable or unconstitutional.
The Church does not see human sex as intrinsically evil or sinful. The heretical sects, like the Gnostics and Manicheans, were that fanatical. The Church merely reiterates what the Natural and Divine Laws already make clear: sex is reserved for husband and wife. Even then, spouses should not be seen or used as mere sex objects or sex toys; rather, married men and women ought to see their spouses as their beloved to whom they are covenanted for life.
1/2
ReplyDeleteYES TO LIFE. NO TO RH BILL.
CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON FAMILY PLANNING AND RELATED SUBJECTS - IV
Excerpts From:
CATHOLIC QUESTIONS WISE ANSWERS
EDITED BY MICHAEL J. DALEY
COPYRIGHT © 2002, ST. ANTHONY MESSENGER PRESS
+++
PAGES 96 -97
Can God forgive someone who has had an abortion?
God can forgive anything because God is God - because as Saint John proclaims, "God is love and he who remains in love remains in God and God in him" (1 John 4:16).
The proof of God's readiness to forgive is in all those parables in the Gospels, such as the story of the Prodigal Son and the parable of the Lost Sheep. It is in the very actions of Jesus, proclaimed in Scripture and homilies at Mass - how Jesus forgave the woman taken in adultery, Mary Magdalene, Saint Peter, the good thief, the very ones who crucified him.
How can those in the church community forgive? The community must be willing to forgive if it is to imitate Jesus, to act in his name. The apostles (disciples of Jesus) were sent forth to preach and bring the forgiveness of sins! The church's business is forgiveness! We dare not withhold mercy and forgiveness from others if we ourselves desire forgiveness. After all, do we not pray in the Lord's Prayer that God forgive us as we forgive others?
Also, if we are to imitate Jesus, we must be willing to forgive ourselves as Jesus forgives us, to accept the forgiveness that Jesus holds out to us. In its own way, to think God can not forgive is a terrible kind of pride and almost an insult to God! It is to place limits on God's mercy and forgiveness. Imagine the young woman caught up in such circumstances. Have pity on her. Imagine the fear, the shame, the despair she experiences; her sense of hopelessness; all those things that lead to such bad and regrettable decisions. If we could be moved to pity, how much more will God have pity! As with any serious sin, those who have had an abortion must strive to understand what they have done and why, and to avoid serious sin in the future.
PAGES 253 - 254
If taxes are used for an immoral purpose (such as abortion), should we stop paying?
Since there are so many taxes and taxing bodies these days, it is difficult to say exactly what taxes are used for what purpose. But after talking about taxes and the obligation of citizens to pay them, moral theologian Father Bernard Haring writes, in volume three of Free and Faithful In Christ:
[No responsible citizen can be indifferent to how legislators and administrators use the taxes collected. The burning question today seems to be: What can be done in the rich industrialized countries and in developing countries to prevent the rulers from spending more for armament than for education, medicare, rehabilitation of the handicapped and so many other humane purposes?
In a democratic welfare state where the rules of the tax game are fairly well observed, the very affirmation of democracy recognizes that tax laws must generally be observed in conscience. Of course, this does not exclude a critical mind and efforts to amend legislation and uncover frauds by legislators and the administration. There can arise extreme situations when, for instance, tax moneys are used for nationalistic military goals, where the defence budget grows because of an unjust power politics, or where tax money is used to finance abortions which have no serious therapeutic purpose. In such circumstances, public protest and eventually even tax strike cannot be categorically excluded.]
The ordinary citizen's obligation is not to refuse payment of taxes but to support and join in the efforts of our bishops and others to prevent and oppose the use of tax monies for abortion - and other immoral purposes.
2/2
ReplyDeletePAGE 254
If a baptized Catholic has an abortion, is she excommunicated from the church?
Canon 1398 of the present Code of Canon Law says, "A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."
That means a Catholic woman who has an abortion - and accomplices without whose assistance the offence would not have been committed (Canon 1329.2) - is excommunicated automatically by the law itself if all the other requirements of the code are present. Those conditions are as follows: (1) the abortion was directly intended and was successful. It was not a case of miscarriage or accidental loss of the child; (2) the woman involved knew a penalty was attached to the law forbidding abortion; (3) she was at least eighteen years old at the time of the abortion; (4) she had the full use of reason (she was not mentally retarded or psychologically disturbed); (5) she did not act out of serious fear.
If a woman (or accomplice, such as the abortionist) has incurred the penalty of excommunication, canon law (1355.2) gives the local ordinary (the bishop) power to remit it. Many bishops delegate all confessors to absolve from this excommunication without recourse to themselves - at least in the case of a first abortion.
PAGES 242 - 243
Is masturbation sinful?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that the act of masturbation in itself is serious matter for sin.
["The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved" (2352).]
Using one's sexual powers outside of intercourse within marriage is disordered. It is self-love rather than love for a spouse and the fruit of married love.
For anything to be a mortal sin, however, two other elements are required: sufficient freedom (wilfulness and consent) and knowledge or awareness. It is not always easy to judge how much freedom and consent - or awareness - are present in an act. The Catechism says:
[To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability (2352).]
1/2
ReplyDeleteYES TO LIFE. NO TO RH BILL.
CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON FAMILY PLANNING AND RELATED SUBJECTS - V
§PADRE PIO, THE SAINT, IS PRO-LIFE. HE OFFERED HIS FINAL SUFFERINGS IN REPARATION FOR THE PROTESTERS AGAINST THE POPE’S ENCYCLICAL DEFENDING HUMAN LIFE IN ITS TRANSMISSION AND AT EVERY STAGE.§
Excerpts From:
THE MARY BOOK
MOTHER OF EVANGELISM
FR. ROBERT J. FOX
COPYRIGHT © 1992 FATIMA FAMILY APOSTOLATE
COPYRIGHT © 2002 ST. PAULS PHILIPPINES
+++
PAGES 231 - 233
In the history of the Church there are about 325 recorded stigmatic cases. Some have thought that the Apostle Paul, who spoke in the Bible of bearing in his body the marks of the Lord – this Saint whom God used to write a major part of the New Testament – was also one of the first stigmatists of the Church. If so, Padre Pio was not the first priest to bear these marks of the Lord.
St. Francis Assisi, a deacon, is one of the best known stigmatists in history. Theresa Newmann in our own times had the marks of our Lord and also lived for many years without any food other than the Holy Eucharist. St. Catherine of Siena had the invisible stigmata of our Lord. Theresa Newmann and Padre Pio of modern times were repeatedly subjected to scientific medical studies, and no natural explanation could be found.
The reported charisms of Padre Pio were not limited to the stigmata. He had the gift of bilocation (appearing in more than one place at a time), perfume, prophesy, the gift to speak other languages and to heal the sick. Padre Pio had unusual gifts for understanding and seeing into souls in the confessional, and people came from all over the world to confess their sins to this priest whom many considered of unusual holiness.
If a person was insincere in his repentance, Padre Pio reportedly would detect the lack of repentance and send the sinner away until he had the proper dispositions of heart, that firm purpose of amendment needed for a good confession.
Padre Pio knew, as every good priest, religious and lay person knows, that confession will not bring God’s forgiveness and the restoration or increase of sanctifying grace, which is God’s life shared, unless the person is truly sorry, willing to do penance, and promises God to strive not to fall into the same sin again. It was not unknown, then, for Padre Pio to refuse absolution to an insincere person. His purpose always, however, was to bring the person to repentance.
This great and holy priest known as Padre Pio had a remarkable loyalty to the Holy Father, the Pope. On September I2, I968, the Capuchin monk wrote a letter to the sorrowing Vicar of Christ on earth, Pope Paul VI. It is to be noted that Padre Pio, who held it as essential to Catholic faith to obey the Pope and accept his teachings on faith and morals as coming from Christ Jesus, is the same priest whom God used for such miracles as giving sight to the blind, reading souls, bilocating even to other countries, the gift of perfume even at great distances, whereby the most exquisite flowers were smelled as from his wounds. The author of this article has personally met people who claim to have unmistakenly experienced the perfume here in the United States before and after his death.
2/2
ReplyDeleteWhy did Padre Pio write that last letter to Pope Paul? He had heard of some theologians, priests, laity, rejecting the authority of the chief Vicar of Christ when he issued his encyclical upholding the traditional moral teaching of the Church which ruled out artificial birth control and impurity for married people. Crushed himself at such disobedience and disrespect for Christ's chief Vicar, as sin had always troubled and pained Padre Pio, who resembled Christ so closely, this holy priest of God, shortly before entering sufferings that would prove final, offered himself to Christ Jesus through the Successor of St. Peter at the Vatican.
What did the stigmatist Padre Pio write the Pope just eleven days before his death and the regeneration of his 50-year-old wounds? He wrote of authentic renewal "according to the guides of the Second Vatican Council, in order to be always ready to attend to the necessities of Mother Church under the rule of your Holiness." This priest spoke of that renewal as a renewal "in the inner spirit."
To the Pope, concerning the protest to his encyclical "Humanae Vitae" (Of Human Life), Padre Pio wrote: "I know that your heart is suffering much these days in the interest of the Church, for the peace of the world, but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the high teachings that you, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, are giving us. I offer you my prayers and daily sufferings as a small but sincere contribution on the part of the least of your sons in order that God may give you comfort with His grace to follow the straight and painful way in the defense of eternal truth, which never changes with the passing of the years. Also, in the name of my spiritual children and the Prayer Groups, I thank you for your clear and decisive words that you especially pronounced in the encyclical "Humanae Vitae"; and I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated directions."
The Pope answered this final letter from Padre Pio. The Pope's letter was postmarked one day before the stigmatist's death and it brought the Pope's Approval of the Padre Pio Prayer Groups that are now appearing throughout the world.
In I959 when his illness seemed fatal and his end near, the famed stigmatist priest was suddenly and miraculously cured at the visit of the Fatima Pilgrim Virgin Statue. (Padre Pio had deep devotion to the Mother of God and took a special interest in the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima.) Almost ten years after God miraculously snatched Padre Pio from the throes of death, this time the stigmatist offers his sufferings in reparation for the protestors against the Pope's encyclical defending human life in its transmission and at every stage. This time God offered no cure but accepted the offering of Padre Pio's sufferings unto death. His last words were: "Gesu e Maria" (Jesus and Mary).
_________________________
“GESU E MARIA,” WE PRAY, “YES TO LIFE. NO TO RH BILL.”
PADRE PIO, MAY YOUR FINAL SUFFERING ENLIGHTEN THE FILIPINO PEOPLE.
TO GOD BE THE GLORY.
_________________________
TO: MR. ONESIPHORUS,
THANK YOU FOR POSTING THESE EXCERPTS WRITTEN BY THE CHILDREN OF GOD LIKE YOURSELF.
GOD BLESSES YOU FOR YOUR UNQUENCHABLE LOVE FOR HIM AND HIS MOTHER.
“GESU E MARIA”
† † †