Fortnight 4 Freedom

The U.S. Bishops have called for a Fortnight for Freedom from June 21 to July 4, 2014. Please visit www.fortnight4freedom.org for more information on this important time of prayer, education, and action in support of religious freedom!

 

What do we mean by religious liberty?

 

In Catholic teaching, the Second Vatican Council explained in Dignitatis Humanae that the foundation of the principle of religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the human person, who is endowed with reason and free will, and therefore able to take responsibility for his or her actions. Religious liberty is protected in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in federal and state laws. Religious liberty includes more than our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home; it also encompasses our ability to contribute freely to the common good of all Americans.

"We are Catholics. We are Americans. We are proud to be both, grateful for the gift of faith which is ours as Christian disciples, and grateful for the gift of liberty which is ours as American citizens. To be Catholic and American should mean not having to choose one over the other. Our allegiances are distinct, but they need not be contradictory, and should instead be complementary. That is the teaching of our Catholic faith, which obliges us to work together with fellow citizens for the common good of all who live in this land. That is the vision of our founding and our Constitution, which guarantees citizens of all religious faiths the right to contribute to our common life together. "

Religious Liberty Is More Than Freedom of Worship

 

Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home. It is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans. Can we do the good works our faith calls us to do, without having to compromise that very same faith? Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans suffer, deprived of the essential contribution in education, health care, feeding the hungry, civil rights, and social services that religious Americans make every day, both here at home and overseas.

 

What is at stake is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil society—or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good, and how they get to do it. Religious believers are part of American civil society, which includes neighbors helping each other, community associations, fraternal service clubs, sports leagues, and youth groups. All these Americans make their contribution to our common life, and they do not need the permission of the government to do so. Restrictions on religious liberty are an attack on civil society and the American genius for voluntary associations.

 

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America issued a statement about the administration's contraception and sterilization mandate that captured exactly the danger that we face:

Most troubling, is the Administration's underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its "religious" character and liberties. Many faiths firmly believe in being open to and engaged with broader society and fellow citizens of other faiths. The Administration's ruling makes the price of such an outward approach the violation of an organization's religious principles. This is deeply disappointing.

This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue.

 

 

"All the Energies the Catholic Community Can Muster"

 

What we ask is nothing more than that our God-given right to religious liberty be respected. We ask nothing less than that the Constitution and laws of the United States, which recognize that right, be respected.

 

In insisting that our liberties as Americans be respected, we know as bishops that what our Holy Father said is true. This work belongs to "an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture."

As bishops we seek to bring the light of the Gospel to our public life, but the work of politics is properly that of committed and courageous lay Catholics. We exhort them to be both engaged and articulate in insisting that as Catholics and as Americans we do not have to choose between the two. There is an urgent need for the lay faithful, in cooperation with Christians, Jews, and others, to impress upon our elected representatives the importance of continued protection of religious liberty in a free society.

 

We address a particular word to those holding public office. It is your noble task to govern for the common good. It does not serve the common good to treat the good works of religious believers as a threat to our common life; to the contrary, they are essential to its proper functioning. It is also your task to protect and defend those fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This ought not to be a partisan issue. The Constitution is not for Democrats or Republicans or Independents. It is for all of us, and a great nonpartisan effort should be led by our elected representatives to ensure that it remains so.

 

Text taken from, and for more information, please go to:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/

 

God Bless
Nathan

White Martyrdom

You are now living in a country which is rapidly becoming secularized. Now we have a White House that begins to make distinctions between freedom of religion and freedom of worship. Freedom of religion is a right. It’s guaranteed in the First Amendment. And yet, by euphemism and turn-of-phrase, the present administration talks about freedom of worship. The Red Chinese speak about freedom of worship; the old communists and the Soviet Union spoke about freedom of worship. There is a big difference between freedom of religion and freedom of worship.

Freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by the Constitution, tells us that we have a place in the public square, that we have a right and an obligation in conscience, not given to us by a state, but given to us by Almighty God. That is our fundamental right, a right to go out and to speak the truth to power.

But instead, we hear now about a freedom of religion now called freedom of worship. What does that mean? It means you go to your little church, or synagogue, or mosque on Sunday, or Saturday, or Friday night, and you make your prayers over there quietly and don’t bother anybody. And we’ll all get along just fine in this godless, secular world that we are creating; a world in which there is no truth except the truth that man manufactures. And without a truth that comes from Almighty God, all of our rights are in jeopardy.

Will you have the courage to exercise your First Amendment right, freedom of religion? Or are you going to be satisfied with freedom of worship?—I’ll say my prayers quietly; I won’t bother anybody; I won’t disturb the society in which I live.

Right now our Church is being threatened. You don’t often think of it that way; this couldn’t happen in America. And so you hear about an administration that is forcing an HHS Mandate on us, telling us that we must provide in our Catholic institutions abortifacients, sterilizations. For us, that is a moral aberration. It is something that we cannot do. And why is it being pushed on us? Because if we do not obey, then our Catholic colleges, and our hospitals, and our Catholic outreach institutions will be fined and eventually closed down. That will remove the presence of the truth of the Church, remove the mission that Christ gave us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to give drink to the thirsty, to heal the sick. That will remove us from the public square.

This is no accident, my sons and daughters in Christ. This is well-planned. Don’t be fooled. Don’t be fooled.

You’ve heard, the Catholic Church has had one of the most successful adoption services in the country for years. And all of a sudden, in some states, and now in the District of Columbia, there’s a new human invention called same-sex “marriage.” And we are told that our adoption agencies have to supply babies for same-sex couples. This is abhorrent to Almighty God. And we cannot put children in jeopardy of losing their souls and their identity in homes that are now led by same-sex couples. And so our adoption agencies have had to close in those states because the states say that we are not practicing “equality.”

We have had one of the most successful operations to save women who are involved in sex trafficking, sex slavery. The federal government then tells us, “If you want to receive funding for your programs, you’re going to have to supply them [the women] with information for abortion, for birth control pills.” And when we refuse, they tell us, “We can’t help you anymore.” And once again, they try to remove us from the public square.

That’s the secularism that is now engulfing our country. That’s the secularism that you are going to be called to fight. Do you have the courage? Do you have the courage?

Let me tell you what will happen to you. As soon as you take a stand—if you take a stand, because some of you will not, some of you will—if you take a stand, you may not be hired by a firm; they find out that you’re pro-life. We’ve had someone in our class that has had that experience already. If you do become a part of a firm, if you are hired, you may never get promoted, you may never become a partner because you stood up for life or you spoke out against same-sex “marriage.” You may be fired from a position with a corporation because you’re telling them things that they don’t want to hear. You’re speaking about justice. And you’re speaking about the dignity of the human person before profit. And you just might not fit their profile. You may not get a raise. You may not have friends in the office. And some of you might decide you want to run for political office. Will you have the courage to say, “I’m pro-life.”? We have a congressman here now who’s had that courage and he’s been re-elected year after year. Do what’s right. Do what’s right.

But you will be tempted. You’ll be tempted to remain silent. You will be tempted to skirt around the issues. You will be tempted by fame. I want to be a famous lawyer. I want to be a judge. Power! I want to be a powerful person! I want money. But didn’t the devil tempt Jesus in exactly the same way? He’ll tempt you: “Change these stones into bread. Jump off the parapet! Kneel down and worship me!” You’ll be tempted. Like Jesus, though, you must have the courage to say, “Be gone, Satan! I will worship the Lord, my God, and Him alone!” That’s what we call “white martyrdom.”

But then there is “red martyrdom.” Red martyrdom means that you might be called to shed your blood for your faith. You say, “Oh Father, that couldn’t happen in America, could it? Now Oh Father Oh, is really going too far.” Let me tell you something:

Not even a hundred years ago, our closest neighbor to the south, Mexico, had a revolution. And godless secularists took over Mexico, a Catholic country. Churches were closed. Schools were closed. Priests, nuns couldn’t wear their habits in the street. Religion couldn’t be taught. But a movement began, the Cristeros movement, because you cannot suppress the truth; you cannot suppress the Word of God. One of the members of this movement was Father, now Blessed, Miguel Pro. (I gave you small cards with Blessed Miguel’s picture on those cards.) People were being rounded up because they didn’t obey the government. They taught religion. They worshiped. They prayed. And many of them were put before kangaroo courts —This is in Mexico, 1927! — and they were executed. Father Pro — he’s been one of my heroes for years — Father Pro knew that these people needed the ministrations of a priest before they died. And he came up with an ingenious plan. He got dressed up like a prison guard and snuck into prison numerous times. And he heard confessions and he gave the Eucharist before people met their fate at the firing squad. Eventually, Father Pro himself was captured, brought to prison, another kangaroo trial, and the next day, he was brought before a firing squad. Father Pro asked the guards a favor: could he pray before he died? Father Pro knelt down and prayed. Then he stretched out his arms, and he shouted the motto of the Cristeros movement, “Viva Cristo Rey! Viva Cristo Rey!” “Long live Christ the King!”

I gave you, attached to that card of Miguel Pro, a small crucifix. Put it in your pocket. And when the world challenges you, when the devil comes after you with all of his enticements, reach into your pocket, take out that crucifix, hold it in your hand, and recite those words, “Viva Cristo Rey! Viva Cristo Rey.” And remember what Jesus said your reward would be: The world will hate you; the world will persecute you; the world will speak every calumny against you; rejoice and be glad, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Good bye. Good luck. God love you all.

Rev. Michael Orsi is a chaplain and research fellow in law and religion at the Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, Florida.

Watch the video of his homily at
http://www.catholicwitnesses.org/2013-baccalaureate-mass-homily/

God Bless
Nathan

12 Things to Know About the HHS Mandate

On February 15, 2012 the Obama Administration published a final rule mandating contraception and sterilization coverage in almost all private health plans nationwide, with an extremely narrow “exemption” for some religious employers. In a March 21 “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” the Administration leaves this mandate unchanged, while proposing an “accommodation” under which the mandate might be applied in various ways to the employees of religious organizations that do not receive the exemption. Important points to understand:

1. The mandate forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and devices as well as contraception. Though commonly called the “contraceptive mandate,” the federal mandate also forces employers to sponsor and subsidize coverage of sterilization. And by including all drugs approved by the FDA for use as contraceptives, the mandate includes drugs that can induce abortion such as “Ella” (Ulipristal), a close cousin of the abortion pill RU-486.
2. The mandate does not exempt Catholic charities, schools, universities, or hospitals. These institutions are vital to the mission of the Church, but the Administration does not deem them “religious employers” deserving conscience protection because they do not “serve primarily persons who share the[ir] religious tenets.” The Administration denies these organizations religious freedom precisely because their religiously motivated purpose is to serve the common good of society—a purpose that government should encourage, not punish.
3. The mandate forces these institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for and facilitate things they consider immoral. Under the mandate, the government forces religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs; forces religious employers and schools to subsidize and facilitate coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces conscientiously objecting employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.
4. The federal mandate is much more sweeping than existing state mandates. Employers can generally avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that part of their coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law. The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief. HHS’ policy of mandating surgical sterilization coverage is reflected in only one state law, Vermont. HHS also chose as its model the narrowest state-level religious exemption, drafted by the ACLU and existing in only 3 states (New York, California, Oregon).
5. Many others have joined the Catholic bishops in speaking out against the mandate. Many recognize this as an assault on the broader principle of religious liberty, whether or not they agree with the Church on the underlying moral question. For example, at a February 2012 congressional hearing on this issue, testimony supporting the USCCB’s position was heard from the President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, a distinguished Orthodox rabbi, and officials and professors from several Protestant institutions of higher learning. The nation’s 2 largest non-Catholic denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, has strongly criticized the contraceptive mandate, as have leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Evangelicals for Social Action, and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. An online declaration supporting the Church’s position has been signed by about 28,000 Catholic and non-Catholic women, including many health professionals, academics and businesswomen.
6. The rule that created the uproar has not changed at all, but was finalized as is. After its initial proposal of August 2011 was widely criticized across the political spectrum as an attack on religious freedom, the Administration announced its final rule of February 15, 2012 as a compromise. But in fact that rule finalizes the original proposal “without change.” So religious organizations dedicated to serving people of other faiths are still not exempt as “religious employers.”
7. The proposed “accommodation” is not a current rule, but a promise that comes due beyond the point of public accountability. On February 15, besides finalizing its mandate without change, HHS also announced it will develop more regulations to apply that mandate differently to “non-exempt, non-profit religious organizations”—the charities, schools, and hospitals that were left out of the “religious employer” exemption. The regulations for this “accommodation” will be developed during a one-year delay in enforcement, their impact not felt until after the November election.
8. In its March 21 Advance Notice, HHS makes it clear that even the “accommodation” will do nothing to help objecting insurers, objecting employers that are not “religious” as defined by HHS, or individuals. In its August 2011 comments, and many times since, the Catholic bishops’ conference identified all the stakeholders in the process whose religious freedom is threatened—all employers, insurers, and individuals, not only those who meet the government’s definition of religious employers. It is now clear that all insurers, including self-insurers, must provide the coverage; and almost all individuals who pay premiums (whether enrolled in an individual plan or an employer plan) have no escape from subsidizing that coverage. Only organizations identified as “religious” (to be defined by later regulation) may qualify for the “accommodation.”
9. Even religious charities, schools, and hospitals that do qualify for the “accommodation” will still be forced to violate their beliefs. The mandate will still be applied with full force to all employees of these “second-class-citizen” religious institutions, and to the employees’ dependents such as teenage children. While the Administration says employees will not pay an additional charge for this coverage, ultimately the funds to pay for it must come from the premium dollars of the employer and employees. And when these organizations provide any health coverage to their employees, that will be the trigger for having the objectionable coverage provided “automatically” to all these employees and their dependents -- even if both employer and employee object to it.
10. The “women’s health” claims behind the mandate are doubtful at best. Pregnancy itself is not a disease, but the normal way that each of us came into the world – and there are other ways to avoid an untimely pregnancy than the surgical procedures and prescription drugs 3 mandated for women’s coverage here. (Neither natural family planning, nor male methods such as condoms or vasectomies, are included in the mandate.) Many studies have found contraceptive programs failing to reduce unintended pregnancies or abortions. Hormonal contraceptives have been associated with an increased risk for stroke, heart attacks, vascular disease and breast cancer, some of the greatest killers of women today. Injectable contraceptive drugs are associated with an increased risk for contracting and transmitting AIDS, a deadly disease the “preventive services” mandate is supposed to help prevent. Medical experts raising such concerns cannot be accused of waging a “war on women.”
11. This is not about any legitimate medical use for hormonal or other drugs. Contrary to some media claims, Catholic ethical directives on health care (and the health plans based on them) allow use of medications for serious non-contraceptive purposes, even if the same drugs could also be prescribed for contraception. The idea that respect for Catholic moral objections to contraception could endanger access to such drugs for use in healing disease is a red herring.
12. Beware of claims, especially by partisans, that the Catholic bishops are partisan. The bishops warned Congress about the need for clear conscience protection in the face of new health coverage mandates throughout the debate on health care reform; they were arguing against the proposed contraceptive mandate and other new threats to religious freedom in 2010. Since then they have simply continued advocating the same moral principles. The bishops did not pick this fight, or decide that it would continue into an election year—others did. The Church forms its positions based on principles—here, religious liberty for all, and the life and dignity of every human person—not polls, personalities, or political parties.

Source: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/fortnight-for-freedom/upload/Twelve-Things-Everyone-Should-Know-About-the-Contraceptive-Mandate.pdf

God Bless
Nathan

A Catholic's Guide to Voting

Catholic Voter’s Guide

 

 

per·son

 

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

 

2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

 

3. Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.

 

4. Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.

 

5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.

 

 Source:  www.dictionary.com

_________________________________________________________

In trying to figure out who to vote for in any election it’s important to know where each candidate stands on the issues of the day.  What they plan to do to help invigorate the economy, universal healthcare and what needs to be done about ongoing wars.

All of these, as well as others, are very important but to determine who is the one who better represents the people of the United States we need to figure out which subject has priority over all others.  If both candidates agree about what we believe is most important then we are to look at the subject which has second highest priority and so on.

As concerned citizen, we are obligated to elect individuals who will look out for the lives of his constituents.  Not only on the day-to-day issues but on life issues itself.  Many individuals lose their lives in the fight against our country’s enemies and many also lose their lives when they are forcibly taken out from their mothers’ womb.

Both categories are important since both involve the loss of life but which one should be our priority when two candidates disagree on both issues?  How are we to decide who to vote for when one candidate will fight to end a US war but will work to help facilitate easier abortions for all women while the other seems to want to continue armed hostilities abroad but will work to stop most abortions from being performed?

A couple of things to consider when deciding which issue should have priority.  Although you may not agree with the necessity of troops in foreign wars, they at least have the means to defend themselves.  They can either take cover, retreat or even shoot back.  The baby in the womb can do none of those, and that’s why they are considered the most defenseless.  A secondary thing to remember is the sheer number of casualties involved.  For the entire Afghan war there is a total of over 3,000 deaths as of Sept 2012[1].  In fact, the sum of all U.S. soldier deaths from all wars in U.S. history (including the Civil War, World War I and II as well as the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars) we have a total of a little over 1.3 million deaths[2].

A single death from an unnecessary war is one too many and if you are against war in general then one death during war is one too many.  But if one compares the number of deaths from ALL U.S wars put together this number comes to about equal the amount of deaths performed by  abortions in an average year!  In fact, the once special research affiliate of the abortion chain Planned Parenthood gives us national statistics that show an annual abortion rate of 1.2 million abortions[3].

The total number of deaths by abortions in the U.S. alone since its legalization is now over 54 million.  54 million living human beings, persons, allowed to be killed simply because they were unborn at the time.  Any right to choose, or any other right at all is superseded by the right to life since what’s the point of having all other rights if one doesn’t have life?

I’ll leave it to you to figure out what kind of a free democracy we really are when we allow for the killing of the most defenseless among us, of those not yet born.  What good is freedom if some aren’t even allowed to live?  Where is their choice?  Choose wisely, vote in support of the possibility of choosing for all human beings especially in choosing life.

 

Missed past week’s leaflets?  Questions?  Comments?  Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com

Prepared by a St. Denis parishioner

 

---

[1] http://icasualties.org/OEF/ByMonth.aspx

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war#cite_note-defense.gov-83

[3] http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf

Freedom of Religion

Last week we learned that destroying a growing and living human being is truly against the Will of God.  Therefore all followers of God are obliged NOT to do those things.  Our Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes St. Augustine when defining ‘sin’.  Augustine says: “Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor cause by a perverse attachment to certain goods.  It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity.  It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.” (CCC 1849)

The Catechism also defines sin thusly:  “Sin is an offense against God.  It is a revolt against God through the will to become ‘like gods,’ knowing and determining good and evil.  Sin is therefore “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”” (CCC 1850)

We know there are two levels of gravity of sin, venial and mortal, Scripture is very clear on that point (1 john 5:16).  A venial sin is an act that does not completely cut himself off from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ.  A mortal sin does indeed cut him off from God.  The Catechism defines these terms this way: “Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a great violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God”… “Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.” (CCC 1855)

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (CCC 1857)  Therefore since we know that contraception  and abortion are of a grave matter (very serious subject) then for one to deliberately (freely) and knowingly perform these or help others in performing these acts is morally evil (ie mortal sin).

It has been a tenant of our Catholic faith since the very beginning that abortion and the use of contraception is always and everywhere gravely wrong.  Whether anyone else believes this to be right or wrong is irrelevant for our purposes today.   If our conscience dictates that it is a great moral evil to use contraception or abortafacient drugs then by virtue of loving our fellow man we are also obliged not to directly help them acquire such products and services.  For example, if it is morally wrong for me to intentionally kill an innocent bystander then it is also morally wrong for me to knowingly supply the gun so that someone else can kill him.  Since 1973, ever since abortion has been legalized, federal law does not protect all of its citizens.  It currently discriminates against a class of persons not yet born and with the Healthcare services being proposed by Obama (ie, Obamacare) the government will force its citizens to pay for these deadly services whether we have religious objections to them or not.  We must make our voices heard.  The voice of reason needs to overcome or our great country will no longer be a country where freedom or religion prevails.  We must prevent our government from trampling on our right to freely exercise our religion in the public square.

Even though “unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense” as well as “the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders…” we as a society are obliged to defend our constitutional right to freedom of religion.  PLEASE, let us rise up and be heard.

Prepared by a St Denis parishoner

Birth of John the Baptist

Sexual gratification as the ultimate pleasure in our society today, as well as pagan culture from two-thousand years ago has been ingrained in us as an absolute good.  This mentality is so strong in us as a culture that whatever consequences that arrive from this mentality is a problem to eliminate, or get rid of when they should be celebrated.   If John the Baptist or even Jesus Christ been conceived outside of the life-affirming Jewish culture there is a real possibility that one or both could have been prevented from being born through abortion or murdered after birth (infanticide) if contraception failed.  Many individuals in today’s society, as well as outside Jewish culture from 2000 years ago, regard any living being before birth as something other than an actual living human being.  But what does science and the Word of God say on this subject?  Well, let’s see.

John the Baptist was born around 6 months before Jesus, was it at his birth that John can be first thought of as a living human being?  Well , we know that many babies are living human beings even when they are born premature which means that John was a human being in the belly of his mother no matter if he was born a day, a week, a month even up to almost three months premature.  As science advances we find the period of viability, where the baby can survive outside the mother’s womb, to be creeping to even earlier stages of gestation. 

Logic tells us that location does not change the nature of something.  Whether a baby is inside or outside a mother’s womb, it is still a human being.  And since it is growing then this human being, no matter how small, is alive. Logic also tells us that if something is growing then it’s not dead. 

A tumor may be an extension, or an appendage of the mother’s body but from the moment the sperm meets the egg to a full-grown fetus, this particular new entity has its own unique DNA.  Therefore the fetus is not a mother’s ‘appendage’.  It is separate although dependant on someone else to survive.  Just as dependant as newborns are separate and dependant on someone else to feed and protect them.  Just like the government protects the eggs of the endangered bald eagle in the same fashion as the bird itself, so too should we protect this newly formed living human being in the mother’s womb just as much as the newborn baby. 

Scripture is also pretty clear on this matter as well.  Few people would argue that the Bible clearly prohibits taking the life of an innocent person.  Verses like Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.”  Or even more clearly in Proverbs 6:16-19 which states: “There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood…”

In the Bible, the word used to describe a born and unborn baby is the same word.  That’s because the author of those passages, as they were inspired by God, didn’t see any real distinction between the two.  Whether they were born or not, the writers understood them to be persons.  Just a few verses earlier from our Gospel reading for today we see the word “brephos” used to describe the unborn John the Baptist “For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant[brephos] in my womb leaped for joy.”(Luke 1:44) and a little later in the Gospel of Luke, in verse 2:12 we see this same word used to describe a newborn: “And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant[brephos]  wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger.”  So in the eyes of the Scriptural writers, they believed that the living human being is a baby whether inside or outside the womb.

Since the body, without the spirit, is dead (James 2:26) and we know that the baby is alive by the simple fact that it is growing we must accept the fact that if it is alive then it has a soul/spirit.  In fact, the Nicene Creed tells us that “we believe in the Holy Spirit…the giver of life” which means that the baby receives the soul at conception when science tells us that a new human being begins its life.   Therefore we find that there is a new living person as soon as conception occurs which means that an abortion truly is the killing of an innocent person.

 The right to life is the pinnacle of all our rights because any other right is worthless if one does not have life.  To be Catholic then is to be pro-life, not only in belief but in action.  So please do not prevent the giver of life from coming to you through artificial contraception.  Or even worse, turning your back on the Holy Spirit by having an abortion which may ‘solve’ a problem but creates new ones through physical, psychological and emotional sufferings for the would-be mother.  Rachel’s Vineyard is a wonderful organization that helps women deal with most any post-abortion issues.  Please contact them at http://www.rachelshope.org for help.   No sin is larger than God’s capacity to forgive but please, let us be Catholic when the moment counts.

Prepared by a St-Denis parishioner