On What Catholics Believe about the Inspiration of Scripture

Introduction

The last time I talked about authority to speak on the Catholic position compared to those who misunderstand what we believe and make claims based on that misunderstanding. Now we need to write about what Catholics do believe about the authority of Scripture and about the Church herself.

In light of what I said earlier about irrelevant authority, let me state that as a member of the laity, my only authority of what I say is linked to my ability to accurately express what the Church teaches about herself. To the best of my knowledge I have done so, but if there is any divergence between what the Pope says and what I say, I would offer my submission to the authority of the Pope. Hopefully the answer to why I do so will become clear below.

I also wish to stress that while I am doing my best to explain the Catholic view of why Scripture is inspired, I do not claim infallibility and I recognize this article may be inadequate, or have blind spots I overlook. Please do not assume that any undetected errors in this attempt reflect errors in the teachings of the Church.

The reader should note that I am primarily dealing with the New Testament here, though what I say does apply to the Old Testament as well, with Moses and the Prophets filling a similar role in the Old Testament as the Apostles do in the New Testament.

Preliminary Note: Read before Posting Comments

Because I am speaking to Christians who believe in the Divinity of Christ, I am beginning with this assumption as true. (When physicists meet, they don’t start by proving matter exists. It’s a given). (See HERE, in the section labeled “True or False?” to see the different starting points of discussion based on who believes what). So comments that I haven’t “proven” the existence of God will be considered a Red Herring fallacy in terms of this article and will probably be deleted on grounds of trolling (in the sense of attempting to derail the discussion).

Caveat: I DO Believe Scripture is Inspired

Anyone who reads this article and assumes I am denying the Inspiration of Scripture or putting it on par with other documents misses the point of this article.

I want to make clear that in discussing the authority of Scripture, I understand it would be a circular argument to assume Scripture is inspired. I need to give a demonstration of why Catholics actually believe the Scriptures are inspired. We do not believe that “The Bible is inspired because God says so, and God is all powerful because the Bible says so.”

The reason I am not starting with the assumption that Scripture is inspired is because the reason Scripture is seen as inspired seems to be different between Catholics and Protestants, and thus is the issue being debated. Since some people make false assumptions of what we believe, this article is aimed at explaining why Catholics believe Scripture is inspired. Since we are often accused of arguing in a circle (See below, “The Common Misunderstanding”) this is important to discuss.

We, as Christians, do start with the belief that God exists, and is all powerful[*]. From there, we have to assess the claims of Christ and His teachings. The Bible is consulted as a historic work, but at this stage it is not assumed to be inspired. Instead we say, “Jesus said this… so what follows from our belief He said these things if we look at it as a historical book?”

The Common Misunderstanding: Scripture and Infallibility as a Circular Argument

This is important to remember when we get into the idea of what the Catholic Church believes about Scripture and Infallibility.

For example, there is an old misrepresentation on the Catholic teaching on the Inspiration of Scripture which still gets repeated by respected non-Catholic theologians, such as Sproul and Gerstner[†], and this is the misrepresentation which claims the Catholic teaches the following:

1. The Catholic Church infallibly defines Scripture as Inspired.
2. The Catholic Church points to Scripture to prove infallibility.

The Catholic Church does not teach this, and in fact formally rejects this misrepresentation in the Vatican I document, Dei Filius (chapter II, #7). The fact that the Catholic Church formally repudiated this view demonstrates that those who repeat such a claim are uninformed about what we believe.

A Caveat: I am Not Judging the Intentions of Those Who Misrepresent Us

Far be it from me to claim that those who speak falsely about the Catholic Church automatically do so from malice. Some may simply assume that what they were taught (wrongly) is true and don’t question the truth of what they assume to be true.

It is not for me to judge the motives of those who repeat such stories. I merely assert they do speak wrongly about us, and the commandment against false witness demands that the person who would speak against the Catholic Church verifies that he or she verify that what they claim is true.

The reason I have used the example of Sproul and Gerstner is that they seem to be non-Catholic theologians of renown and respect among those who have heard of them. I have no doubt they are examples of highly educated theologians who have sincere faith — yet they do misunderstand the Catholic faith and oppose us on grounds of this misunderstanding.

Whether they have any moral responsibility for their misunderstandings is something God will judge, not I.

Christ is the Source of the Catholic Claim to Authority

Anti-Catholic views generally come from the claim that the Catholic Church wrongly claimed for herself the authority to create “new doctrines.” The assertion is generally that The Church invented claims of authority and Catholics follow blindly what the Church says.

However, we do not believe that “The Church says it, therefore it must be true.” Rather, we believe the Church is to be followed because of Who gave her the authority.

What the Church believes is that Jesus came and taught His disciples and commissioned them with the authority to teach in His name. The Vatican II document Dei Verbum describes this as follows:

Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts. (Dei Verbum #7).

This is important because, even if Scriptures were not considered as being inspired (remember: inspiration not yet being assumed at this point, though we believe it is), we have a record in Scripture — as a historical document — which claims that Jesus established a Church and entrusted to this Church the authority to preach His word to the whole world.

This brings us to the first principle to consider, if one rejects the authority of Christ to begin with, they won’t accept the authority of the Church. However, if one does accept the authority of Christ, then what He teaches and who He grants authority to is indeed important.

Even if one rejects the idea of Scripture being inspired and inerrant (which would be heterodox among Catholics and Protestants alike), the acceptance of the New Testament as a historical document which tells us what Jesus required of His apostles points to Christ, not to the Bible which tells us of what He said and did.

So the second principle, which all Christians should accept, is: Jesus gave His disciples a command to His disciples to bring His teaching to all the nations and gave them the authority to teach in His name.

Of course the question remains what authority Christ had to begin with. Human beings merely have authority based on what they appeal to after all. If we are free to pick and choose from what Christ taught, we are free to accept or reject those who He selected to teach in His name. However, if He is more than just another man, His teachings are not merely optional.

Aut Deus Aut Homo Malus

From the point of accepting that Jesus gave His disciples authority to bring His teaching to the nations, we need to then look at on why we should consider His claims as something that is not merely optional.

This is where CS Lewis’ aut Deus aut homo malus comes into play. The argument essentially requires people to recognize from the following points:

1. Good men do not claim to be God [or to be more than they are]
2. Jesus claimed to be God [Which is certainly to claim to be more than He is, if this is not true].
3. Jesus is not a good man if He claimed to be more than He was.
4. However He is generally not believed to be a bad man intellectually or morally[‡].

So, if Jesus was a good man (generally accepted — except by diehard anti-Christians), and He made claims to divinity, it follows He cannot merely be a good man. Rather, we have to either accept His claims as true, or else reject Him as either insane or evil for claiming such authority[§].

Christians accept that Jesus was good, demonstrated wisdom and did not speak falsely. So when it comes to deciding on God or Bad Man, we believe He speaks truly when He says He is God.

Now, again, we are not yet assuming Scripture is inspired. Instead, we are recognizing this fact, which can be our third principle: Faithful Catholics and Protestants believe Jesus is the Son of God, and not a bad man or merely a good man.

Of course, we do need to consider that the Apostles believe what they pass on to us — that Jesus Christ is Divine and not merely a human teacher passing on wisdom. As witnesses to Christ, who knew Him on Earth and believe Him to be risen, what we know of Christ and His teachings come to us through the Apostles.

The Empty Tomb and the Appearance to the Apostles

The easiest way to debunk the claim of the Resurrection would be for the Sanhedrin or the Romans to produce Jesus’ body. This would be the easiest way to debunk the new religious movement that was arising in Jerusalem. The Apostles claim to have been witnesses to the Resurrection. That is to say, they claim to have seen Jesus, alive and risen from the dead.

Now I won’t get into all the arguments about the Apostles being deluded or lying, or that their claims were interpreted later in a way they did not intend. (I’ve dealt with those in the past). The point is, we have an empty tomb, and we have the Apostles claiming to have seen Him alive.

If there was a body to be found, the Apostles could have immediately been demonstrated to be fools or liars. However, the point is, there was no body to be found, and we must ask what the significance of this is.

The empty tomb makes an important point about Jesus being who He said He was. If Jesus was a bad man, or even merely a good man, why is the tomb empty? Moreover, if the Apostles were deluded or intended merely in some sense of “alive in the memories of the apostles,” then why is the tomb empty? Claims that the Apostles somehow stole the body or that Jesus wasn’t really dead to begin with require proof if they are to be considered anything more than “Resurrection is impossible, therefore there must be another explanation.”

Not an Argument from Silence

DON’T call this an Argument from Silence (that is: We don’t know where the body is, therefore He is risen). We believe the witness of the Apostles who claim to have seen Him alive. We believe them to be credible witnesses and that their character reflects that credibility — they do not act like fools or liars.

That is where the negative evidence of the Empty Tomb moves to the positive evidence of the accounts of history that the Apostles went out to preach the good news that Christ had died and risen from the dead for the for our Salvation.

Remember, the Apostles were the ones not expecting Jesus to rise again. They thought the account of the women who saw Him alive was nonsense. What they found was an empty tomb. They were in hiding, fearing arrest. They had run away when He was arrested.

Yet 50 days after the Resurrection, we see a dramatic change. They were publicly speaking, enduring persecution and hardship to preach the risen Christ, and were even martyred for their belief. Certainly they gained no physical benefit for proclaiming what they said they were to pass on to the world (see Matt 28:19-20, John 20:21-23 for example).

Cui bono? A Potential Objection and Why It is not likely

The point is the Christian believes the Apostles to be credible witnesses[**]. One arguing that the Apostles claiming Jesus gave them power sounds suspiciously convenient needs to answer the police maxim, Cui bono? ([to] whose benefit?). The phrase cui bono:

Refers to a question which inquires as to the beneficiary of a certain action or object. Knowing for what or whom something is of benefit (i.e., “good”) is often helpful for determining the inherent worth of the issue or object under discussion. Cui bono also can be used as a principle to help indicate probable responsibility for an act or event by looking to determine the one who would stand to gain most from this act or event.[††]

So, if one wants to say, “This is convenient how the Apostles claim they were left in charge by a dead man who claimed to be God,” we can ask them for the evidence they can offer for the question cui bono — especially what they gained for their claim.

1. The Apostles gained nothing from their actions from a human perspective. Indeed, they suffered hardship and eventual martyrdom for their actions.
2. Yet they continued to preach the Gospel, considering themselves bound to do so.

So the person who says the Apostles were doing this for their own gain needs to answer the question, what gain? The person who claims them to be deluded or their accounts to be false must answer the question, what proof?

What Follows from Jesus Being God and Giving His Apostles Authority

However, this objection (based on denial of the Christian message and not based on any evidence) does require the Christian to recognize what their faith in Jesus leads to.

Since Christians believe the Apostles were witnesses to the Resurrection, we have to look at what this signifies. While others may not believe that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, the Christians do believe this and recognize that what He teaches has authority.

This is the beginning of the faith which was preached. What we know of Christ is what the Apostles have preached to us. Deny the authority of the Apostles to teach and the Bible is merely a book which is claimed ipse dixit to be inspired without even a legend to say how it was given to us.

This brings us to our fourth principle: The teaching of the Apostles is the teachings given them by the risen Christ and it is only through the teaching of the Apostles that we can know Christ.

What We Know of Christ’s Teachings Comes from the Apostles

Also remember: What was written down in Scripture is what the Apostles taught. The Bible is not a book like the Koran or the Book of Mormon — both of which are claimed by their followers to be given directly by God, and we have to take solely on the claim of Mohammed and Joseph Smith respectively.

What Jesus taught to the Apostles and commanded them to teach predated the Gospels and the Epistles. Jesus was crucified and rose again in AD 33. The first Epistle was written in AD 51. The earliest dates proposed for the Gospels were about AD 58, while the Gospel of John was believed to been written sometime between AD 81 and AD 95.

That means for a minimum of 18 years, we have nothing written down to be a New Testament, and the last item was not written for 50-60 years after Jesus died and rose again. So in theory, one could accuse the Apostle John of “adding to the teachings of Christ,” since His gospel was believed to be written sometime between AD 81 and 95. Yet, this was not a problem for the early Christians. They accepted the Gospel of John.

This brings us to our fifth principle which lays out the line which begins to demonstrate the difference between Catholic and non-Catholic views: Before the Apostles wrote any Epistle or Gospel, we have the Apostles proclaiming the Good News to all the nations.

A Summation of the Five Principles

So we have these five principles, which Christians need to accept about their faith:

1. If one does accept the authority of Christ, then what He teaches and who He grants authority to is indeed important. (If we claim to be followers of Christ, we must follow those to whom He gives His authority)
2. Jesus gave His disciples a command to His disciples to bring His teaching to all the nations and gave them the authority to teach in His name. (Jesus did give His authority to the Apostles)
3. Faithful Catholics and Protestants believe Jesus is the Son of God, and not a bad man or merely a good man. (We believe Jesus is God)
4. The teaching of the Apostles is the teachings given them by the risen Christ and it is only through the teaching of the Apostles that we can know Christ. (We believe this teaching about Jesus Christ is passed on from the Apostles)
5. Before the Apostles wrote any Epistle or Gospel, we have the Apostles proclaiming the Good News to all the nations. (The teaching authority of the Apostles exists before the writing of the New Testament).

Denial of any of these principles leaves us with no way of knowing the teaching of Jesus Christ.

In other words, we believe that Jesus had an authority which we follow. We believe that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to teach in His name. We believe this authority is divine and not merely human. We believe His teaching was made known to us through the Apostles and their successors, and we believe that teaching predated the written New Testament.

Conclusion

So the reader might at this time wonder what all this has to do with the Inspiration of Scripture. The answer is, Catholics believe that Christ gave His Church the authority and the responsibility to pass on the faith and promised to protect His Church from the gates of Hell. The Church could not do these things apart from Christ. Nor could Christ’s promise be true unless He protected His Church from error.

Thus, when it comes to what the Apostles taught about Christ, we believe God protected them from error. This protection applies both to what they said and to what was written down in Scripture. Furthermore, we believe that God inspired the Apostles to teach what He wanted to make known to the world.

Does this mean that whatever Pope Benedict XVI says is placed on the same level as the Gospel of John? Does this mean that Sts. Augustine and John Chrysostom are just as authoritative as Christ?

No. The Apostles knew Christ and were witnesses to His resurrection. They passed on what Christ gave to them directly. The Bishops are successors to the Apostles yes, and they have the authority and responsibility to determine whether a view is in keeping with what the Apostles taught. However, Pope Benedict XVI (or any other Pope) does not claim to have a revelation from Christ which was not given by the Apostles.

The Patristics, the Medieval Church, the Popes today all bear witness to the authentic interpretation of how the teachings of Christ given to us by the Apostles are properly understood.

What the Catholic belief of Inspiration can be summed up as is this:

We believe that God protected those to whom He gave His revelation from teaching error about His revelation. Thus, we believe that God protected Moses, the Psalmist, the Prophets and the Apostles from misrepresenting what He revealed to them. This protection pertained to both their spoken teachings and their written word.

Thus we are assured that we have from the words and writings of Moses, the Psalmist, the Prophets and the Apostles the revelation of God as He intended it to be revealed, and we have no fear of corruption of that teaching through the ages.

---

[*] I would recommend St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Contra Gentiles as a good (if difficult) work to understand the philosophical understandings of what an all-powerful God means.

[†] Sproul and Gerstner, in repeating this long refuted claim, tend to demonstrate the problems with assuming they know what the Church believes and never verifying for themselves. Because the Church specifically repudiates what they accuse us of, they cannot be considered knowledgeable of Catholic teaching, and the appeal to men like Sproul and Gerstner falls under the fallacy of irrelevant authority.

[‡] The person who does claim Jesus was a bad man (intellectually or morally) is required to demonstrate this to be true.

[§] We need to recognize here the view that some put forward: That Jesus was speaking in a way similar to the Eastern Mystics. Peter Kreeft refutes this view in Between Heaven and Hell, by pointing out that Jesus could not be a good teacher if He could not recognize His disciples (who were Jews) were failing to understand him. He also points out the absurdity of how people misunderstood him for two thousand years and only now certain people figured out what He really meant.

[**] To say they were deluded because the dead do not rise is to beg the question. It merely assumes something which needs to be proven.

[††] Bretzke, J. T. (2000, c1998). Consecrated phrases : A Latin theological dictionary : Latin expressions commonly found in theological writings. "A Michael Glazier book." (electronic ed.). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Understanding Who Can Be Considered An Authority

Preliminary Notes

While this is related to the previous series on infallibility, I figured that discussing some of the difference between Catholics and those who disagree with them should be dealt with in a new series.  This is not meant to be triumphalism or seeking to “bash” other religions.  Rather this is being written to show why Catholics do disagree with certain non-Catholic beliefs.

It is my hope that people will recognize this series is being written to explain and not to “bash.”  I apologize in advance for any blind spots where I do not recognize certain things as perhaps lacking charity.

Introduction

Before discussing the Catholic understanding on why Scripture is held to be sacred and without error, we need to make some distinctions. What the Catholic Church believes is often misunderstood, and thus misrepresented. The reader needs to be aware of these misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and not assume that what they think we believe is correct.

Before going on to the objections Catholics have with claims like Sola Scriptura, I decided to begin with the Catholic teaching on Sacred Scripture because it is often misunderstood or misrepresented. If one assumes that a non-Catholic view must be correct, it is easy to miscast the Catholic view of the rejection of Sola Scriptura as a denial of Biblical authority.

There is an old story, used as an illustration, about how the Treasury trained people to detect counterfeits. The story goes that they have these people handle real money, becoming accustomed to how it looks and feels. Because one becomes experienced in what the real money is, counterfeit money when introduced, is detected because it differs from the real currency.

Whether this story is true or a myth, I don’t know (I can find no confirmation of this). However, it does serve as an illustration of the point I want to get across here: If you know what Catholics do believe, a misrepresentation shows up as a jarring contrast.

The Fallacy of Irrelevant Authority

With this in mind, the non-Catholic reader needs to be aware of using non-Catholic sources as an authority to denounce the Catholic Church. To speak for someone requires being a recognized authority[i]. For someone who is not a recognized authority, their only relevance is dependent on whether they speak accurately on the subject. If such a person does not speak accurately, the things he or she says is irrelevant.

For example, I can say Protestants have an idolatrous relation to the Bible. However, it is only relevant if Protestants do have such a relationship to the Bible. If I am wrong, then it does no good to cite me as an authority and to point out my degrees and knowledge. Wrong is wrong.

When a person makes reference to the authority of a person to speak on a subject, certain things are assumed:

1. The person is assumed to be knowledgeable on the subject
2. If the person is cited as a spokesman, he or she is assumed to be qualified to make statements which speak for the group, or is accurately representing authoritative statements a group makes about itself.
3. The person is representing the position of the group accurately and not making false statements (knowingly or not) or confusing opinions about the position with the position itself.

If any of these conditions are false the person cannot be considered an authoritative witness. And we will be justified in rejecting the authority of such a person as an expert.

This is common sense. You don’t ask a heart surgeon about car repair, and you don’t ask a mechanic about heart surgery. Likewise, you don’t ask a member of NOW to explain the motivations of Operation Rescue (and vice versa) if you want to understand what members of the group stand for. You ask someone who has knowledge and authority to speak, not one opposed to the values of the group.

If it can be demonstrated that a person does not speak accurately or authoritatively on a subject, to cite him becomes an appeal to irrelevant authority.

The fallacy of irrelevant witness is a common problem when it comes to misunderstanding the Catholic faith. Often people take as their sources men or women who are either in opposition to the official teaching or else lack knowledge to make an accurate explanation.

It is reasonable that one consults authoritative Catholic sources to understand what the Catholic Church believes, and not on what one thinks they believe by personal interpretation of a Catholic work (many cite the documents of the Council of Trent out of context, for example) or by what a dissenting or uneducated Catholic claims on a subject.

So if one wants to cite an RJ Sproul or a Hans Küng as a source of what the Catholic Church believes, one must recognize that neither is a relevant authority on the subject, and it is meaningless to cite them where their views go against what the Church teaches about herself.

Conclusion

With this being said, I hope to move next into the discussion of what Catholics believe about Scripture so that the reader may see that the rejection of certain non-Catholic views is not the rejection of Scripture itself.

---

[i] This is the problem with discussing “Protestant” beliefs. Since many denominations disagree with each other, it is difficult to make statements of “All Protestants believe [X].”

Understanding Who Can Be Considered An Authority

Preliminary Notes

While this is related to the previous series on infallibility, I figured that discussing some of the difference between Catholics and those who disagree with them should be dealt with in a new series.  This is not meant to be triumphalism or seeking to “bash” other religions.  Rather this is being written to show why Catholics do disagree with certain non-Catholic beliefs.

It is my hope that people will recognize this series is being written to explain and not to “bash.”  I apologize in advance for any blind spots where I do not recognize certain things as perhaps lacking charity.

Introduction

Before discussing the Catholic understanding on why Scripture is held to be sacred and without error, we need to make some distinctions. What the Catholic Church believes is often misunderstood, and thus misrepresented. The reader needs to be aware of these misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and not assume that what they think we believe is correct.

Before going on to the objections Catholics have with claims like Sola Scriptura, I decided to begin with the Catholic teaching on Sacred Scripture because it is often misunderstood or misrepresented. If one assumes that a non-Catholic view must be correct, it is easy to miscast the Catholic view of the rejection of Sola Scriptura as a denial of Biblical authority.

There is an old story, used as an illustration, about how the Treasury trained people to detect counterfeits. The story goes that they have these people handle real money, becoming accustomed to how it looks and feels. Because one becomes experienced in what the real money is, counterfeit money when introduced, is detected because it differs from the real currency.

Whether this story is true or a myth, I don’t know (I can find no confirmation of this). However, it does serve as an illustration of the point I want to get across here: If you know what Catholics do believe, a misrepresentation shows up as a jarring contrast.

The Fallacy of Irrelevant Authority

With this in mind, the non-Catholic reader needs to be aware of using non-Catholic sources as an authority to denounce the Catholic Church. To speak for someone requires being a recognized authority[i]. For someone who is not a recognized authority, their only relevance is dependent on whether they speak accurately on the subject. If such a person does not speak accurately, the things he or she says is irrelevant.

For example, I can say Protestants have an idolatrous relation to the Bible. However, it is only relevant if Protestants do have such a relationship to the Bible. If I am wrong, then it does no good to cite me as an authority and to point out my degrees and knowledge. Wrong is wrong.

When a person makes reference to the authority of a person to speak on a subject, certain things are assumed:

1. The person is assumed to be knowledgeable on the subject
2. If the person is cited as a spokesman, he or she is assumed to be qualified to make statements which speak for the group, or is accurately representing authoritative statements a group makes about itself.
3. The person is representing the position of the group accurately and not making false statements (knowingly or not) or confusing opinions about the position with the position itself.

If any of these conditions are false the person cannot be considered an authoritative witness. And we will be justified in rejecting the authority of such a person as an expert.

This is common sense. You don’t ask a heart surgeon about car repair, and you don’t ask a mechanic about heart surgery. Likewise, you don’t ask a member of NOW to explain the motivations of Operation Rescue (and vice versa) if you want to understand what members of the group stand for. You ask someone who has knowledge and authority to speak, not one opposed to the values of the group.

If it can be demonstrated that a person does not speak accurately or authoritatively on a subject, to cite him becomes an appeal to irrelevant authority.

The fallacy of irrelevant witness is a common problem when it comes to misunderstanding the Catholic faith. Often people take as their sources men or women who are either in opposition to the official teaching or else lack knowledge to make an accurate explanation.

It is reasonable that one consults authoritative Catholic sources to understand what the Catholic Church believes, and not on what one thinks they believe by personal interpretation of a Catholic work (many cite the documents of the Council of Trent out of context, for example) or by what a dissenting or uneducated Catholic claims on a subject.

So if one wants to cite an RJ Sproul or a Hans Küng as a source of what the Catholic Church believes, one must recognize that neither is a relevant authority on the subject, and it is meaningless to cite them where their views go against what the Church teaches about herself.

Conclusion

With this being said, I hope to move next into the discussion of what Catholics believe about Scripture so that the reader may see that the rejection of certain non-Catholic views is not the rejection of Scripture itself.

---

[i] This is the problem with discussing “Protestant” beliefs. Since many denominations disagree with each other, it is difficult to make statements of “All Protestants believe [X].”

When A Priest Stumbles

A friend of mine brought to my attention the case of Fr. Euteneuer from Human Life International and the reasons for his resignation in August of 2010.  Evidentially, since the time of this resignation people have made claims resulting in the statement from Fr. Euteneuer clarifying why he stepped down.

What are we to make of this?

First of all, we must not make excuses.  If a thing is bad for a priest to do, then we cannot justify or explain away that bad thing by the other good the priest has done.

Second, we must also remember that the attitude of the sinner is to be considered.  The priest who falls is deeply repentant, we must remember we are commanded by Christ to forgive Seventy times Seven. 

Third, we must remember that it is false witness to accuse anyone of something without proof. 

Finally, the sins of Fr. Euteneuer do not negate the positions he stands for.  That would be an ad hominem attack, irrelevant to the truth of what he professes.

I am reminded of the 1955 Alec Guinness movie, The Prisoner.  In it, Alec Guinness plays an unnamed Cardinal arrested by the state.  I am not trying to draw parallels between the character and Fr. Euteneuer here of course (the problem with analogy is that people can draw a conclusion different than you intend).  What comes to mind is that eventually he does behave in a way which is terribly demoralizing to the people… and then he is released.

As he is leaving he says to one individual, “Try not to judge the priesthood by the priest.”

I think this is a key thing to remember here.  Whether the man who is ordained is totally immoral or a well meaning man who has a moral lapse, it is not right to judge the whole by the part.  That is stereotyping.

We don’t judge the priesthood by the fall of Fr. Euteneuer.  We feel sorrow he had fallen.  We see his repentance and we forgive.  We pray for him and for all priests that they might be strong.

When A Priest Stumbles

A friend of mine brought to my attention the case of Fr. Euteneuer from Human Life International and the reasons for his resignation in August of 2010.  Evidentially, since the time of this resignation people have made claims resulting in the statement from Fr. Euteneuer clarifying why he stepped down.

What are we to make of this?

First of all, we must not make excuses.  If a thing is bad for a priest to do, then we cannot justify or explain away that bad thing by the other good the priest has done.

Second, we must also remember that the attitude of the sinner is to be considered.  The priest who falls is deeply repentant, we must remember we are commanded by Christ to forgive Seventy times Seven. 

Third, we must remember that it is false witness to accuse anyone of something without proof. 

Finally, the sins of Fr. Euteneuer do not negate the positions he stands for.  That would be an ad hominem attack, irrelevant to the truth of what he professes.

I am reminded of the 1955 Alec Guinness movie, The Prisoner.  In it, Alec Guinness plays an unnamed Cardinal arrested by the state.  I am not trying to draw parallels between the character and Fr. Euteneuer here of course (the problem with analogy is that people can draw a conclusion different than you intend).  What comes to mind is that eventually he does behave in a way which is terribly demoralizing to the people… and then he is released.

As he is leaving he says to one individual, “Try not to judge the priesthood by the priest.”

I think this is a key thing to remember here.  Whether the man who is ordained is totally immoral or a well meaning man who has a moral lapse, it is not right to judge the whole by the part.  That is stereotyping.

We don’t judge the priesthood by the fall of Fr. Euteneuer.  We feel sorrow he had fallen.  We see his repentance and we forgive.  We pray for him and for all priests that they might be strong.

Apologia: We May Not Do Evil So Good May Come

Preliminary Notes

apologia ■ n. a formal written defence of one’s opinions or conduct.[*]

I make no apologies, in the modern understanding of the term, for standing with the Catholic Church of course. However, I do offer this apologia to defend what I believe as a member of the Catholic Church.

Let me say this upright to those who would comment on this article: Comments which strike me as being uncivil or anti-Catholic will be deleted and their author will be banned from the site. I recognize that some people will disagree with what Catholics believe, but there is no excuse for behaving in a rude manner or making wild accusations.

Also it is important to understand that while this article is based on explaining why Catholics must oppose abortion, abortion is not a “Catholic” issue. There are non-Catholic pro-lifers out there, and I have even encountered some atheist pro-lifers. (A good philosophical discussion of abortion can be found HERE).

While some non-Catholics (or heterodox Catholics) may deny the premise that the unborn child is a person, Catholics accept the premise as true, and it is important to remember this in understanding this.

Preliminary Doctrine

It will help to understand the Catholic understanding about abortion if one keeps in mind these beliefs of the Catholic Church

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."⁵⁶
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."⁵⁷ Therefore "it is right not to … do anything that makes your brother stumble."⁵⁸

—Catechism of the Catholic Church

Non-Catholics may not agree with these principles. However, people professing to believe the Catholic faith do (or at least are required to) hold to these principles. Recognizing that Catholics do hold to these beliefs will help understand why some things must be held as absolutes and why the Catholic Church must sometimes say “No,” when the world says “Yes.”

Introduction

While the secular anger over Bishop Olmstead's action continues, it seems very little based on the issues he had to deal with (the hospital refusing to agree to certain conditions), and tends to focus more on the attack on the Catholic position on abortion in general.

The typical response is to blame the Catholic Church of being indifferent to the suffering of the mother, and being unreasonable in opposing abortion in such conditions.

This is unjust and maligns us.  However, not all opposition is based on bigotry, and I write this to the men and women of good will.

Now there are two types of attacks I have seen.  The first is based on not knowing why the Catholic Church teaches as she does.  The second is based on an intolerance which assumes any position contrary to one's own must be held out of ignorance and/or bureaucratic indifference.

Now of course it is generally futile to try to explain to the intolerant why we hold what we do.  The intolerant person generally refuses to understand any view other than their own[†].  However the person who is merely uninformed about what we believe and is willing to understand us even if he or she disagrees with us is a person with which dialogue is possible.

It is to the second type of person to whom I address this apologia.

What is Abortion?  Why Does the Catholic Church Condemn It?

Abortion is the direct termination of a human life by the destruction of the unborn child.  Secular and non-Catholics may disagree with this, but this is the Catholic belief.

The Catholic Church teaches:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

So we have a belief that because human life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception.  It follows from this belief that a human person (born or unborn) may not be deliberately killed for the benefit of the mother.

Two things follow:

1. We condemn the deliberate killing of the child to save the mother
2. We condemn the deliberate killing of the mother to save the child

Medical treatment to save the mother is of course required when possible.  However, the killing of one life to save another is not morally permissible, and this is exactly what the "Life of the Mother" cases of abortion are.

So we can put it in a syllogism, showing that Catholics believe:

1. It is [forbidden] to [Kill an innocent person to save another] (All A is B)
2. [Abortion] is [Killing an innocent person to save another] (All C is B)
3. Therefore [Abortion] is [Forbidden] (Therefore all C is A)

When one looks at it this way, one can see that Catholics cannot justify abortion to save the life of the mother on the grounds that it is the direct killing of an innocent person.

Doing Evil vs. Suffering Evil

Since we believe "One may never do evil so that good may result from it," we are sometimes faced with the problem of tragedy.  The common objection is this: “Since both the mother and child will die, you are guilty of both deaths by refusing abortion.”

This is false.  Since abortion chooses to kill one life in favor of another life, abortion means an active choice to do something evil with the intention that good may come of it.

So when it comes to doing evil (committing abortion) vs. suffering evil (recognizing the mother may die), we believe we may not do evil.

This is hardly a new issue.  It came up in the times of persecution under the Roman Empire, where some would argue that to admit to being a Christian would lead to hardship and even death.  Some heretics argued it was all right to deny the Christian faith because of the evils which would be suffered.  St. Augustine pointed out that this was in fact a case of doing evil before evil could be done to you.

In other words, the principle we reject is, "Do unto others before they do unto you."

If we accept the idea of "doing wrong to prevent wrong being done to you," as a moral premise, then we open up a Pandora's Box of moral evil.  Can the state make this decision to sacrifice an innocent citizen for the sake of the nation?  Can we condemn a innocent man for a crime he did not commit to avoid a riot?  The Catholic Church would say no to both, and say so on the same grounds she condemns abortion: We may not do evil to achieve a good end.

This is something which exists today. When the New York Times and the ACLU hold that Catholic hospitals should be forced to administer abortions, Catholic hospitals may be forced to close their doors rather than cooperate with evil. This would not be “permitting people to die because of a dogma.” This would be saying: If you say we must perform evil actions to run a hospital then you effectively make it impossible for us to run a hospital.

In other words, if the ACLU gets its way, Catholic hospitals may have to suffer evil by being shut down instead of doing evil by deliberately taking human lives. However, the evil being done would be done by the ACLU and the government, not the Catholic hospitals forced to shut down by this denial of our First Amendment rights.

What about Double Effect?

Double Effect is a principle which is often misunderstood. I have seen it misapplied to the Catholic Church to indicate that because she permits certain things, she is being arbitrary in not applying things universally.

So let’s start with what Double Effect is, and how it applies to pregnancy and illness.

Double Effect recognizes that there is an action which is intended. An unintended effect may be to cause harm to innocent bystanders. However, this evil is not intended and would not be done if it were possible to avoid it. Moreover, the good done must outweigh the unwanted evil.

So, for example, let us imagine an enemy is discovered flying over New York with an atomic bomb and must be shot down before he detonates the device. However, since he is flying over the heart of the city, if he is shot down, the wreckage will no doubt fall down and injure or kill people.

With this, we have the following:

1. The direct intent is to shoot down the enemy to protect the innocent
2. The unintended and unavoidable consequence is that some innocent person may be killed by the wreckage of the plane being shot down.
3. The killing of the innocent is not directly intended and would be avoided if possible (that is, if it were possible drive the plane away from the populated area and then shoot it down, they would choose that action).
4. The direct intent is not morally wrong in itself (defending the innocent by shooting down the plane)
5. The good outweighs the unintended evil

In such a case it could be licit to shoot down the enemy plane if there was no other choice. However, it would not be licit to radio the pilot and tell him “We have your wife and children and we will kill them unless you turn back. Why?

In the second case, the direct intent is to kill the innocent to deter the guilty.  This evil is directly intended as a means of stopping the attack.  Therefore it is not a moral means and may not be used.

Now in this day and age, after 9/11/2001, many people might think this is an acceptable tradeoff under the concept of utilitarianism (putting the emphasis on benefitting the greatest number of people while harming the fewest). However, since the Catholic Church believes one may never directly intend do evil so good may come of it, the utilitarian concept is unacceptable.

Double Effect and Abortion

Now when it comes to abortion, we have the following situation.

1. The good intended is to save the life of the mother.
2. The means chosen is to directly kill the unborn child.
3. Since this is directly intended to sacrifice one life to save another, this is not double effect.
4. Since the Catholic believes the unborn child is innocent and believes that the willful taking of innocent life is always evil, it follows she must oppose things which directly intend an evil so good may come of it.

Since the death of the unborn is directly intended, we cannot call it an unintended effect, and since Catholics believe the means in this case is evil, we are not free to do this as a means to the end.

This is where the objections come in about the Catholic Church permitting the removal of a uterus from a pregnant woman (a Hysterectomy) and asking why abortion can’t be done instead. Isn’t it the same thing?

No.

The concept of the Hysterectomy is that a diseased organ must be removed to save the mother’s life. The unborn child may be attached to the diseased uterus, but in this case the death of the fetus is not directly intended and if it were possible to save the unborn child, it would be done.

The difference is: One directly intends to kill the unborn child. The other does not.

Self Defense and Abortion

Self defense is the principle that one is permitted to use force necessary to protect one’s life from an unjust attacker. The Catholic Church has this to say on the subject:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."⁶⁵

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.⁶⁶

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Some have made the point that abortion to save the life of the mother, or in the case of rape falls under the principle of self defense. The argument is that being made pregnant by a rapist or becoming gravely ill during a pregnancy is an attack on the mother and abortion is justified on the grounds of self defense.

The Catholic Church cannot accept this.  The idea of the unjust attacker being defended against must be directed to the person who unjustly attacks.  Not another person related to the unjust attacker (this rejects the idea of abortion in the case of rape/incest).  Nor is the fact that a person existing is harmful to the mother justifiable in doing abortion.  Just because the unborn child exists does not mean the unborn child is unjustly attacking the mother who is suffering.

Because of this, the Catholic cannot accept the appeal to Self Defense as anything other than legalism, distorting the intent to justify something which is not self defense in any sense of the term.

Conclusion

The key points here are that Catholics believe that in order to be faithful to Christ, we must behave in a way which seeks to do good and realize we may never do what we believe to be evil. Therefore:

1. We may not choose an evil means to achieve a good end.
2. The unborn child is a human person with human rights
3. Abortion directly intends to end the life of the unborn child.
4. Deliberately choosing to end an innocent human life to achieve an end is evil
5. Because abortion directly intends to end an innocent human life, Catholics must consider it an evil act and may never participate in the act.
6. The Catholic Church recognizes the life of the mother is also sacred, and the Church does not prefer one life over the other. We believe that all reasonable means which are not evil must be employed to save lives.
7. Therefore it is false and scurrilous to accuse us of not caring about the life of the mother.

As a result, though individuals, groups and governments may hate us, revile us, seek to litigate against us or seek to restrict our rights as human beings by denying us our rights under the First Amendment to practice our faith without interference, we are required to obey God rather than man.

Since we believe we are forbidden to do evil, since we believe that the deliberate killing of an innocent person is evil, and since we believe abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person, we are obligated to stand up and say, “We will not do this evil you demand of us.”

---

[*] Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[†] By “understand” I do not mean to automatically “accept.” Rather, I mean understand in the sense of knowing what we believe and why we believe it, even if one disagrees with us.

Apologia: We May Not Do Evil So Good May Come

Preliminary Notes

apologia ■ n. a formal written defence of one’s opinions or conduct.[*]

I make no apologies, in the modern understanding of the term, for standing with the Catholic Church of course. However, I do offer this apologia to defend what I believe as a member of the Catholic Church.

Let me say this upright to those who would comment on this article: Comments which strike me as being uncivil or anti-Catholic will be deleted and their author will be banned from the site. I recognize that some people will disagree with what Catholics believe, but there is no excuse for behaving in a rude manner or making wild accusations.

Also it is important to understand that while this article is based on explaining why Catholics must oppose abortion, abortion is not a “Catholic” issue. There are non-Catholic pro-lifers out there, and I have even encountered some atheist pro-lifers. (A good philosophical discussion of abortion can be found HERE).

While some non-Catholics (or heterodox Catholics) may deny the premise that the unborn child is a person, Catholics accept the premise as true, and it is important to remember this in understanding this.

Preliminary Doctrine

It will help to understand the Catholic understanding about abortion if one keeps in mind these beliefs of the Catholic Church

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."⁵⁶
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."⁵⁷ Therefore "it is right not to … do anything that makes your brother stumble."⁵⁸

—Catechism of the Catholic Church

Non-Catholics may not agree with these principles. However, people professing to believe the Catholic faith do (or at least are required to) hold to these principles. Recognizing that Catholics do hold to these beliefs will help understand why some things must be held as absolutes and why the Catholic Church must sometimes say “No,” when the world says “Yes.”

Introduction

While the secular anger over Bishop Olmstead's action continues, it seems very little based on the issues he had to deal with (the hospital refusing to agree to certain conditions), and tends to focus more on the attack on the Catholic position on abortion in general.

The typical response is to blame the Catholic Church of being indifferent to the suffering of the mother, and being unreasonable in opposing abortion in such conditions.

This is unjust and maligns us.  However, not all opposition is based on bigotry, and I write this to the men and women of good will.

Now there are two types of attacks I have seen.  The first is based on not knowing why the Catholic Church teaches as she does.  The second is based on an intolerance which assumes any position contrary to one's own must be held out of ignorance and/or bureaucratic indifference.

Now of course it is generally futile to try to explain to the intolerant why we hold what we do.  The intolerant person generally refuses to understand any view other than their own[†].  However the person who is merely uninformed about what we believe and is willing to understand us even if he or she disagrees with us is a person with which dialogue is possible.

It is to the second type of person to whom I address this apologia.

What is Abortion?  Why Does the Catholic Church Condemn It?

Abortion is the direct termination of a human life by the destruction of the unborn child.  Secular and non-Catholics may disagree with this, but this is the Catholic belief.

The Catholic Church teaches:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

So we have a belief that because human life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception.  It follows from this belief that a human person (born or unborn) may not be deliberately killed for the benefit of the mother.

Two things follow:

1. We condemn the deliberate killing of the child to save the mother
2. We condemn the deliberate killing of the mother to save the child

Medical treatment to save the mother is of course required when possible.  However, the killing of one life to save another is not morally permissible, and this is exactly what the "Life of the Mother" cases of abortion are.

So we can put it in a syllogism, showing that Catholics believe:

1. It is [forbidden] to [Kill an innocent person to save another] (All A is B)
2. [Abortion] is [Killing an innocent person to save another] (All C is B)
3. Therefore [Abortion] is [Forbidden] (Therefore all C is A)

When one looks at it this way, one can see that Catholics cannot justify abortion to save the life of the mother on the grounds that it is the direct killing of an innocent person.

Doing Evil vs. Suffering Evil

Since we believe "One may never do evil so that good may result from it," we are sometimes faced with the problem of tragedy.  The common objection is this: “Since both the mother and child will die, you are guilty of both deaths by refusing abortion.”

This is false.  Since abortion chooses to kill one life in favor of another life, abortion means an active choice to do something evil with the intention that good may come of it.

So when it comes to doing evil (committing abortion) vs. suffering evil (recognizing the mother may die), we believe we may not do evil.

This is hardly a new issue.  It came up in the times of persecution under the Roman Empire, where some would argue that to admit to being a Christian would lead to hardship and even death.  Some heretics argued it was all right to deny the Christian faith because of the evils which would be suffered.  St. Augustine pointed out that this was in fact a case of doing evil before evil could be done to you.

In other words, the principle we reject is, "Do unto others before they do unto you."

If we accept the idea of "doing wrong to prevent wrong being done to you," as a moral premise, then we open up a Pandora's Box of moral evil.  Can the state make this decision to sacrifice an innocent citizen for the sake of the nation?  Can we condemn a innocent man for a crime he did not commit to avoid a riot?  The Catholic Church would say no to both, and say so on the same grounds she condemns abortion: We may not do evil to achieve a good end.

This is something which exists today. When the New York Times and the ACLU hold that Catholic hospitals should be forced to administer abortions, Catholic hospitals may be forced to close their doors rather than cooperate with evil. This would not be “permitting people to die because of a dogma.” This would be saying: If you say we must perform evil actions to run a hospital then you effectively make it impossible for us to run a hospital.

In other words, if the ACLU gets its way, Catholic hospitals may have to suffer evil by being shut down instead of doing evil by deliberately taking human lives. However, the evil being done would be done by the ACLU and the government, not the Catholic hospitals forced to shut down by this denial of our First Amendment rights.

What about Double Effect?

Double Effect is a principle which is often misunderstood. I have seen it misapplied to the Catholic Church to indicate that because she permits certain things, she is being arbitrary in not applying things universally.

So let’s start with what Double Effect is, and how it applies to pregnancy and illness.

Double Effect recognizes that there is an action which is intended. An unintended effect may be to cause harm to innocent bystanders. However, this evil is not intended and would not be done if it were possible to avoid it. Moreover, the good done must outweigh the unwanted evil.

So, for example, let us imagine an enemy is discovered flying over New York with an atomic bomb and must be shot down before he detonates the device. However, since he is flying over the heart of the city, if he is shot down, the wreckage will no doubt fall down and injure or kill people.

With this, we have the following:

1. The direct intent is to shoot down the enemy to protect the innocent
2. The unintended and unavoidable consequence is that some innocent person may be killed by the wreckage of the plane being shot down.
3. The killing of the innocent is not directly intended and would be avoided if possible (that is, if it were possible drive the plane away from the populated area and then shoot it down, they would choose that action).
4. The direct intent is not morally wrong in itself (defending the innocent by shooting down the plane)
5. The good outweighs the unintended evil

In such a case it could be licit to shoot down the enemy plane if there was no other choice. However, it would not be licit to radio the pilot and tell him “We have your wife and children and we will kill them unless you turn back. Why?

In the second case, the direct intent is to kill the innocent to deter the guilty.  This evil is directly intended as a means of stopping the attack.  Therefore it is not a moral means and may not be used.

Now in this day and age, after 9/11/2001, many people might think this is an acceptable tradeoff under the concept of utilitarianism (putting the emphasis on benefitting the greatest number of people while harming the fewest). However, since the Catholic Church believes one may never directly intend do evil so good may come of it, the utilitarian concept is unacceptable.

Double Effect and Abortion

Now when it comes to abortion, we have the following situation.

1. The good intended is to save the life of the mother.
2. The means chosen is to directly kill the unborn child.
3. Since this is directly intended to sacrifice one life to save another, this is not double effect.
4. Since the Catholic believes the unborn child is innocent and believes that the willful taking of innocent life is always evil, it follows she must oppose things which directly intend an evil so good may come of it.

Since the death of the unborn is directly intended, we cannot call it an unintended effect, and since Catholics believe the means in this case is evil, we are not free to do this as a means to the end.

This is where the objections come in about the Catholic Church permitting the removal of a uterus from a pregnant woman (a Hysterectomy) and asking why abortion can’t be done instead. Isn’t it the same thing?

No.

The concept of the Hysterectomy is that a diseased organ must be removed to save the mother’s life. The unborn child may be attached to the diseased uterus, but in this case the death of the fetus is not directly intended and if it were possible to save the unborn child, it would be done.

The difference is: One directly intends to kill the unborn child. The other does not.

Self Defense and Abortion

Self defense is the principle that one is permitted to use force necessary to protect one’s life from an unjust attacker. The Catholic Church has this to say on the subject:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."⁶⁵

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.⁶⁶

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Some have made the point that abortion to save the life of the mother, or in the case of rape falls under the principle of self defense. The argument is that being made pregnant by a rapist or becoming gravely ill during a pregnancy is an attack on the mother and abortion is justified on the grounds of self defense.

The Catholic Church cannot accept this.  The idea of the unjust attacker being defended against must be directed to the person who unjustly attacks.  Not another person related to the unjust attacker (this rejects the idea of abortion in the case of rape/incest).  Nor is the fact that a person existing is harmful to the mother justifiable in doing abortion.  Just because the unborn child exists does not mean the unborn child is unjustly attacking the mother who is suffering.

Because of this, the Catholic cannot accept the appeal to Self Defense as anything other than legalism, distorting the intent to justify something which is not self defense in any sense of the term.

Conclusion

The key points here are that Catholics believe that in order to be faithful to Christ, we must behave in a way which seeks to do good and realize we may never do what we believe to be evil. Therefore:

1. We may not choose an evil means to achieve a good end.
2. The unborn child is a human person with human rights
3. Abortion directly intends to end the life of the unborn child.
4. Deliberately choosing to end an innocent human life to achieve an end is evil
5. Because abortion directly intends to end an innocent human life, Catholics must consider it an evil act and may never participate in the act.
6. The Catholic Church recognizes the life of the mother is also sacred, and the Church does not prefer one life over the other. We believe that all reasonable means which are not evil must be employed to save lives.
7. Therefore it is false and scurrilous to accuse us of not caring about the life of the mother.

As a result, though individuals, groups and governments may hate us, revile us, seek to litigate against us or seek to restrict our rights as human beings by denying us our rights under the First Amendment to practice our faith without interference, we are required to obey God rather than man.

Since we believe we are forbidden to do evil, since we believe that the deliberate killing of an innocent person is evil, and since we believe abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person, we are obligated to stand up and say, “We will not do this evil you demand of us.”

---

[*] Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[†] By “understand” I do not mean to automatically “accept.” Rather, I mean understand in the sense of knowing what we believe and why we believe it, even if one disagrees with us.

Something for the People who claim Christmas is Pagan

Source: How December 25 Became Christmas - Biblical Archaeology Review

Fascinating article, which points out the lack of basis for the "Christianity stolen from Pagan" crowd.

Something for the People who claim Christmas is Pagan

Source: How December 25 Became Christmas - Biblical Archaeology Review

Fascinating article, which points out the lack of basis for the "Christianity stolen from Pagan" crowd.

Neroulias' Intolerance Masquerades As Moral Outrage

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong."

—GK Chesterton, The Catholic Church and Conversion

Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.

—1983 Code of Canon Law

Sources: Ariz. Bishop to Pregnant Women: Drop Dead (Rather than Abort) - Belief Beat, Bishop Olmstead's Statement, American Life League article on Healthcare West and their disobedience, Canon Law #216

Preliminary Note: For those coming here from my original comment on the website of the article, yes I am aware I made some typos in that comment.  I attribute that to a lack of coffee at the time.

Introduction

A friend linked me this article, which he quite accurately called a "rather disgusting piece of trash writing," and asked me for my thoughts about it  The article, written by Nicole Neroulias, essentially accuses Bishop Olmstead of being willing to sacrifice a mother to doctrine:

Apparently, the hospital should have allowed her to die, rather than return to her four children at home. Or, perhaps St. Joseph's could have transferred her someplace that wouldn't have to answer to religious authorities. God forbid -- literally -- we leave medical decisions to the doctors and patients.

Unfortunately Ms. Neroulias is either unaware of or is indifferent to the Catholic beliefs and why we might disagree with her views.  As a result she tries to smear us with the charge that we do not care what happens to the life of the mother.  Thus she speaks falsely about us.

Summary of Some Catholic Moral Principles

So here are some principles of Catholic moral theology on the issue.

1. The Catholic Church believes that the unborn child is human.
2. The Catholic Church also believes that abortion is the willful termination of this human life.
3. The Catholic Church believes that the willful terminating of an innocent human life is a grave evil
4. The Catholic Church believes it is wrong to do evil so that good may come of it
5. The Catholic Church recognizes the life of the mother is also sacred, and the Church does not prefer one life over the other.
6. However, if it comes to a choice between doing evil and suffering evil, we are called to endure evil and not do evil
7. An institution which lives in opposition to what the Catholic Church believes cannot call itself Catholic

When one recognizes that the Catholic Church believes these things, then one must recognize that Bishop Olmstead had every right to do what what he did in declaring that St. Joseph's Hospital can no longer call itself Catholic.

St. Joseph's Hospital remains a hospital.  It just can no longer call itself Catholic when it openly acts in a way contrary to the beliefs of the Church it claims to be a part of. 

The Logical Errors of Ms. Neroulias

Her rather repugnant article demonstrates Ms. Neroulias is either grossly ignorant of the issues or grossly intolerant of views differing from her own.  Her article employs  several fallacies: the Red Herring, the appeal to emotion and the personal attack being most notable while demonstrating no comprehension of what we believe, nor of what the issue is.

Error #1: The Red Herring 

First of all, the Red Herring.  Ms. Neroulias casts this as a case of being the patient vs. the Church with the hospital stuck in the middle.  This is not the case, and it indicates that she is, at best, ignorant of the real issue.

The issue is that the hospital has been documented as constantly acting in contradiction to what the Catholic label describes.  Multiple cases of the distribution of contraceptives, taking part in voluntary sterilizations multiple abortions.  In other words, this is not one case where the bishop is being unreasonable.  Rather the hospital has shown consistent defiance, rather than comply with a deadline to agree to adhere to the following:

1. agree that the termination of a pregnancy at the hospital in late 2009 violated the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" and "so will never occur again" there.
2. to agree to "a review and certification process" concerning its compliance with the ethical directives
3. for the medical staff of St. Joseph's to receive "ongoing formation" on the directives, overseen by the National Catholic Bioethics Center or the diocese's medical ethics board.

So we can see the issue is not "Bishop Olmstead blackballed a hospital because the hospital performed an abortion."  The issue is the hospital refused to admit they did wrong and refused to acknowledge they would make sure these wrongs will not happen in the future.

Error #2: The Appeal to Emotion

The appeal to emotion in this case is to create repugnance for a situation where the woman in question is cast in opposition to the Catholic Church

Ultimately her issue is with what we as Catholics believe about abortion.  She does disagree with us, as does a significant portion of the United States.  However, in her attack upon our beliefs, she assumes what needs to be proven: That abortion is not a moral issue or is an issue less than the issue of the life of the mother. 

Based on this assumption, she labels Bishop Olmstead as being indifferent to the life of the mother.  Now we've already pointed out this is not the issue.  That abortion happened a year before this.  But the emotional appeal to "woman vs. gigantic Church" is designed to have the reader feel pity for the woman (and the hospital) and anger towards the Church for not agreeing with the hospital.

The problem is, the emotional appeal does not change the issue: An institution cannot call itself Catholic if it behaves contrary to the Catholic faith.

While Ms. Neroulias has cast this as an issue of a woman being forced to die if she did not have an abortion, this is a dishonest appeal used to attack the Church and make it appear to be in the wrong, because frankly nobody wants the woman in question to suffer.

However, Catholics believe one should try to save both lives if possible, but one may not terminate one life in favor of another.  Because St. Joseph Hospital (ironically named after the saint who was the protector of the life of our Savior) insisted on doing what the Catholic Church has called an evil, it cannot be called Catholic — especially when it refuses to guarantee such behavior will never happen again.

Error #3: The Personal Attack

The personal attack ignores the reasoning for a thing and instead attacks the person making the claim

By attacking the Catholic Church instead of looking at why they did as they did, Ms. Neroulias is making a personal attack.  Whatever she may think of the Church (and a perusal of her past articles indicates a hostility to the Church), her feelings are irrelevant.  It is the issue of the right of a hospital to call itself Catholic while doing things in defiance of the Catholic faith.

We should look at the text of the Bishop's decree and not rely on the second hand analysis of the media.  The text of his decree reads:

After much time and effort in cooperation with the leadership of Catholic HealthCare West and having studied the matter carefully with the assistance of experts in medical ethics, moral theology, and canon law, it has been determined that the aforementioned organization no longer qualifies as a "Catholic" entity in the territory of the Diocese of Phoenix. For the benefit of the public good, particularly amongst the Christian Faithful, I decree that the organization listed above may not use the name Catholic or be identified as Catholic in the Diocese of Phoenix.

The reason for this decision is based upon the fact that, as Bishop of Phoenix, I cannot verify that this health care organization will provide health care consistent with authentic Catholic moral teaching as interpreted by me in exercising my legitimate Episcopal authority to interpret the moral law.

This Decree of Removal of my consent goes into effect as of this day, and will remain in effect indefinitely, until such time as I am convinced that this institution is authentically Catholic by its adherence to the Ethical and Religious Directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in addition to the standards of Catholic identity set forth in official church documents, Catholic theology, and canon law.

In other words, the behavior of this hospital cannot be guaranteed to behave in accordance with Catholic moral teaching.  Therefore the bishop cannot permit the hospital to call itself Catholic until it demonstrates convincingly that it will comply with Catholic teaching.

This is quite reasonable, but Ms. Neroulias in saying, "God forbid -- literally -- we leave medical decisions to the doctors and patients," is not addressing the issue.  She is instead attacking the Church because the Church cannot do otherwise without being unfaithful to what we believe Christ requires of us.

Conclusion

This is unfortunately a common form of hostility to the Catholic Church.  It is one I have seen from secular and religious sources.  The Catholic Church is attacked by those who disagree with it, but instead of looking into why the Church must do as she does, the idea of the "heartless institution which focuses on rules" is attacked instead.

That one disagrees with the Catholic Church is unfortunate.  The Church must "^proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching (2 Tim 4:2)" all the same.

However one's disagreement with the Catholic Church becomes intolerance when one refuses to consider the impossibility of having misunderstood the issue, and believes one's opponent must be wrong simply because he or she disagrees with the view being expressed.

Neroulias' Intolerance Masquerades As Moral Outrage

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong."

—GK Chesterton, The Catholic Church and Conversion

Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.

—1983 Code of Canon Law

Sources: Ariz. Bishop to Pregnant Women: Drop Dead (Rather than Abort) - Belief Beat, Bishop Olmstead's Statement, American Life League article on Healthcare West and their disobedience, Canon Law #216

Preliminary Note: For those coming here from my original comment on the website of the article, yes I am aware I made some typos in that comment.  I attribute that to a lack of coffee at the time.

Introduction

A friend linked me this article, which he quite accurately called a "rather disgusting piece of trash writing," and asked me for my thoughts about it  The article, written by Nicole Neroulias, essentially accuses Bishop Olmstead of being willing to sacrifice a mother to doctrine:

Apparently, the hospital should have allowed her to die, rather than return to her four children at home. Or, perhaps St. Joseph's could have transferred her someplace that wouldn't have to answer to religious authorities. God forbid -- literally -- we leave medical decisions to the doctors and patients.

Unfortunately Ms. Neroulias is either unaware of or is indifferent to the Catholic beliefs and why we might disagree with her views.  As a result she tries to smear us with the charge that we do not care what happens to the life of the mother.  Thus she speaks falsely about us.

Summary of Some Catholic Moral Principles

So here are some principles of Catholic moral theology on the issue.

1. The Catholic Church believes that the unborn child is human.
2. The Catholic Church also believes that abortion is the willful termination of this human life.
3. The Catholic Church believes that the willful terminating of an innocent human life is a grave evil
4. The Catholic Church believes it is wrong to do evil so that good may come of it
5. The Catholic Church recognizes the life of the mother is also sacred, and the Church does not prefer one life over the other.
6. However, if it comes to a choice between doing evil and suffering evil, we are called to endure evil and not do evil
7. An institution which lives in opposition to what the Catholic Church believes cannot call itself Catholic

When one recognizes that the Catholic Church believes these things, then one must recognize that Bishop Olmstead had every right to do what what he did in declaring that St. Joseph's Hospital can no longer call itself Catholic.

St. Joseph's Hospital remains a hospital.  It just can no longer call itself Catholic when it openly acts in a way contrary to the beliefs of the Church it claims to be a part of. 

The Logical Errors of Ms. Neroulias

Her rather repugnant article demonstrates Ms. Neroulias is either grossly ignorant of the issues or grossly intolerant of views differing from her own.  Her article employs  several fallacies: the Red Herring, the appeal to emotion and the personal attack being most notable while demonstrating no comprehension of what we believe, nor of what the issue is.

Error #1: The Red Herring 

First of all, the Red Herring.  Ms. Neroulias casts this as a case of being the patient vs. the Church with the hospital stuck in the middle.  This is not the case, and it indicates that she is, at best, ignorant of the real issue.

The issue is that the hospital has been documented as constantly acting in contradiction to what the Catholic label describes.  Multiple cases of the distribution of contraceptives, taking part in voluntary sterilizations multiple abortions.  In other words, this is not one case where the bishop is being unreasonable.  Rather the hospital has shown consistent defiance, rather than comply with a deadline to agree to adhere to the following:

1. agree that the termination of a pregnancy at the hospital in late 2009 violated the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" and "so will never occur again" there.
2. to agree to "a review and certification process" concerning its compliance with the ethical directives
3. for the medical staff of St. Joseph's to receive "ongoing formation" on the directives, overseen by the National Catholic Bioethics Center or the diocese's medical ethics board.

So we can see the issue is not "Bishop Olmstead blackballed a hospital because the hospital performed an abortion."  The issue is the hospital refused to admit they did wrong and refused to acknowledge they would make sure these wrongs will not happen in the future.

Error #2: The Appeal to Emotion

The appeal to emotion in this case is to create repugnance for a situation where the woman in question is cast in opposition to the Catholic Church

Ultimately her issue is with what we as Catholics believe about abortion.  She does disagree with us, as does a significant portion of the United States.  However, in her attack upon our beliefs, she assumes what needs to be proven: That abortion is not a moral issue or is an issue less than the issue of the life of the mother. 

Based on this assumption, she labels Bishop Olmstead as being indifferent to the life of the mother.  Now we've already pointed out this is not the issue.  That abortion happened a year before this.  But the emotional appeal to "woman vs. gigantic Church" is designed to have the reader feel pity for the woman (and the hospital) and anger towards the Church for not agreeing with the hospital.

The problem is, the emotional appeal does not change the issue: An institution cannot call itself Catholic if it behaves contrary to the Catholic faith.

While Ms. Neroulias has cast this as an issue of a woman being forced to die if she did not have an abortion, this is a dishonest appeal used to attack the Church and make it appear to be in the wrong, because frankly nobody wants the woman in question to suffer.

However, Catholics believe one should try to save both lives if possible, but one may not terminate one life in favor of another.  Because St. Joseph Hospital (ironically named after the saint who was the protector of the life of our Savior) insisted on doing what the Catholic Church has called an evil, it cannot be called Catholic — especially when it refuses to guarantee such behavior will never happen again.

Error #3: The Personal Attack

The personal attack ignores the reasoning for a thing and instead attacks the person making the claim

By attacking the Catholic Church instead of looking at why they did as they did, Ms. Neroulias is making a personal attack.  Whatever she may think of the Church (and a perusal of her past articles indicates a hostility to the Church), her feelings are irrelevant.  It is the issue of the right of a hospital to call itself Catholic while doing things in defiance of the Catholic faith.

We should look at the text of the Bishop's decree and not rely on the second hand analysis of the media.  The text of his decree reads:

After much time and effort in cooperation with the leadership of Catholic HealthCare West and having studied the matter carefully with the assistance of experts in medical ethics, moral theology, and canon law, it has been determined that the aforementioned organization no longer qualifies as a "Catholic" entity in the territory of the Diocese of Phoenix. For the benefit of the public good, particularly amongst the Christian Faithful, I decree that the organization listed above may not use the name Catholic or be identified as Catholic in the Diocese of Phoenix.

The reason for this decision is based upon the fact that, as Bishop of Phoenix, I cannot verify that this health care organization will provide health care consistent with authentic Catholic moral teaching as interpreted by me in exercising my legitimate Episcopal authority to interpret the moral law.

This Decree of Removal of my consent goes into effect as of this day, and will remain in effect indefinitely, until such time as I am convinced that this institution is authentically Catholic by its adherence to the Ethical and Religious Directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in addition to the standards of Catholic identity set forth in official church documents, Catholic theology, and canon law.

In other words, the behavior of this hospital cannot be guaranteed to behave in accordance with Catholic moral teaching.  Therefore the bishop cannot permit the hospital to call itself Catholic until it demonstrates convincingly that it will comply with Catholic teaching.

This is quite reasonable, but Ms. Neroulias in saying, "God forbid -- literally -- we leave medical decisions to the doctors and patients," is not addressing the issue.  She is instead attacking the Church because the Church cannot do otherwise without being unfaithful to what we believe Christ requires of us.

Conclusion

This is unfortunately a common form of hostility to the Catholic Church.  It is one I have seen from secular and religious sources.  The Catholic Church is attacked by those who disagree with it, but instead of looking into why the Church must do as she does, the idea of the "heartless institution which focuses on rules" is attacked instead.

That one disagrees with the Catholic Church is unfortunate.  The Church must "^proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching (2 Tim 4:2)" all the same.

However one's disagreement with the Catholic Church becomes intolerance when one refuses to consider the impossibility of having misunderstood the issue, and believes one's opponent must be wrong simply because he or she disagrees with the view being expressed.

Lincoln Said It Best: Reflections on the EU-Ireland Abortion Case

Source: CNS STORY: European court says Ireland's abortion laws breach European rules

I always find the use of the "Pro-Choice" label rather ironic, since it makes the assumption that regardless of whether a fetus is a child (which is never asked by one who supports abortion), the mother should always have the right to kill it — In other words have laws imposed which are in accordance with their beliefs.

Meanwhile, the people who believe the unborn is a child do not have the right to pass laws in accordance with their beliefs.

I think Abraham Lincoln, though he was speaking about the United States, speaks wisely about this conflict between those who believe abortion is a right and those who know it is wrong.  His words go far beyond American borders and far beyond slavery:

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

You can read the full address HERE.

The reason I find this address, from 1858, to be enlightening on the world situation and abortion today is we have two mindsets.  One which holds that the act of abortion is an act which kills a human life.  The other is a view which holds that regardless of whether or not the abortion takes a human life, it should be kept legal, so that any woman who thinks she has a "need" for it can do so.

This latter group believes there should be no restrictions whatsoever.  People within this group may feel a twinge of unease over reasons (such as sex-selection abortions) or methods (such as Intact Dilation and Extraction — AKA "Partial Birth Abortion"), but remain firm in insisting it should be kept legal.

The point is, the legal system cannot accommodate both views.  We cannot be half in favor of and half opposed to laws legalizing abortion.  Those nations with legalized abortions act on the assumption it is a "civil right" and look on those nations which oppose it as violating said rights.

Thus, those people who believe that abortion ends a life will be forced to endure a system which says it is legitimate to have access to abortion.  Then we will cover it up with banal slogans like "If you're against abortion, don't have one!"

Such a slogan is meaningless.  Just replace one cause in the slogan with another and you can justify anything (this is an example of a reductio ad absurdum).  In this case, we could say the slave owner could use this slogan to say If you're against slavery, don't own a slave!

See how the cheap slogan evades the issue?  The issue then was whether it is moral to own slaves to begin with.  The issue now is whether it is moral to kill the unborn child to begin with.  Yet this is the issue which is ignored, and instead "choice" is pushed into its place.

Court cases like this one requires us to ask hard questions: Who is really against "rights" and "freedom"?  The person who believes that the unborn person is human and therefore has human rights?  Or the people who force abortion laws into being law of the land in nations where the belief in the rights of the unborn exists?

Lincoln was right.  A divided system will not work, and supporters and opponents of abortion "rights" both recognize this.  This is why we must continue to support the right to life, even in nations where this right to life is recognized.  No nation can be half legal abortion and half illegal abortion.  It will become all one or all the other, and those nations where it is believed to be a "right" will continue to seek to impose it on nations where the right to life is recognized… unless we can halt its further spread and place it in the public mind that it ought to be extinct.

Lincoln Said It Best: Reflections on the EU-Ireland Abortion Case

Source: CNS STORY: European court says Ireland's abortion laws breach European rules

I always find the use of the "Pro-Choice" label rather ironic, since it makes the assumption that regardless of whether a fetus is a child (which is never asked by one who supports abortion), the mother should always have the right to kill it — In other words have laws imposed which are in accordance with their beliefs.

Meanwhile, the people who believe the unborn is a child do not have the right to pass laws in accordance with their beliefs.

I think Abraham Lincoln, though he was speaking about the United States, speaks wisely about this conflict between those who believe abortion is a right and those who know it is wrong.  His words go far beyond American borders and far beyond slavery:

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

You can read the full address HERE.

The reason I find this address, from 1858, to be enlightening on the world situation and abortion today is we have two mindsets.  One which holds that the act of abortion is an act which kills a human life.  The other is a view which holds that regardless of whether or not the abortion takes a human life, it should be kept legal, so that any woman who thinks she has a "need" for it can do so.

This latter group believes there should be no restrictions whatsoever.  People within this group may feel a twinge of unease over reasons (such as sex-selection abortions) or methods (such as Intact Dilation and Extraction — AKA "Partial Birth Abortion"), but remain firm in insisting it should be kept legal.

The point is, the legal system cannot accommodate both views.  We cannot be half in favor of and half opposed to laws legalizing abortion.  Those nations with legalized abortions act on the assumption it is a "civil right" and look on those nations which oppose it as violating said rights.

Thus, those people who believe that abortion ends a life will be forced to endure a system which says it is legitimate to have access to abortion.  Then we will cover it up with banal slogans like "If you're against abortion, don't have one!"

Such a slogan is meaningless.  Just replace one cause in the slogan with another and you can justify anything (this is an example of a reductio ad absurdum).  In this case, we could say the slave owner could use this slogan to say If you're against slavery, don't own a slave!

See how the cheap slogan evades the issue?  The issue then was whether it is moral to own slaves to begin with.  The issue now is whether it is moral to kill the unborn child to begin with.  Yet this is the issue which is ignored, and instead "choice" is pushed into its place.

Court cases like this one requires us to ask hard questions: Who is really against "rights" and "freedom"?  The person who believes that the unborn person is human and therefore has human rights?  Or the people who force abortion laws into being law of the land in nations where the belief in the rights of the unborn exists?

Lincoln was right.  A divided system will not work, and supporters and opponents of abortion "rights" both recognize this.  This is why we must continue to support the right to life, even in nations where this right to life is recognized.  No nation can be half legal abortion and half illegal abortion.  It will become all one or all the other, and those nations where it is believed to be a "right" will continue to seek to impose it on nations where the right to life is recognized… unless we can halt its further spread and place it in the public mind that it ought to be extinct.

Augustine on Devotion to the Saints

Doing the Office of Readings for today, I found an excellent selection from St. Augustine on the distinguishing the difference between honoring the saints and giving worship to God.  For those without access to the Liturgy of the Hours, you can go here to see the reading in question [though the site uses a different version of the psalms].

(Faustus was a Manichean who accused the Church of things like idolatry and pointed to abuses within the Church as if they were the belief of the Church).

I share this because I think it is relevant today given the misunderstanding which exists over how Catholics honor saints.

Reading
The treatise of St Augustine against Faustus

We celebrate the martyrs with love and fellowship

We, the Christian community, assemble to celebrate the memory of the martyrs with ritual solemnity because we want to be inspired to follow their example, share in their merits, and be helped by their prayers. Yet we erect no altars to any of the martyrs, even in the martyrs’ burial chapels themselves.

No bishop, when celebrating at an altar where these holy bodies rest, has ever said, “Peter, we make this offering to you,” or “Paul, to you,” or “Cyprian, to you.” No, what is offered is offered always to God, who crowned the martyrs. We offer in the chapels where the bodies of those he crowned rest, so the memories that cling to those places will stir our emotions and encourage us to greater love both for the martyrs whom we can imitate and for God whose grace enables us to do so.

So we venerate the martyrs with the same veneration of love and fellowship that we give to the holy men of God still with us. We sense that the hearts of these latter are just as ready to suffer death for the sake of the Gospel, and yet we feel more devotion toward those who have already emerged victorious from the struggle. We honour those who are fighting on the battlefield of this life here below, but we honour more confidently those who have already achieved the victor’s crown and live in heaven.

But the veneration strictly called “worship,” or latria, that is, the special homage belonging only to the divinity, is something we give and teach others to give to God alone. The offering of a sacrifice belongs to worship in this sense (that is why those who sacrifice to idols are called idol-worshippers), and we neither make nor tell others to make any such offering to any martyr, any holy soul, or any angel. If anyone among us falls into this error, he is corrected with words of sound doctrine and must then either mend his ways or else be shunned.

The saints themselves forbid anyone to offer them the worship they know is reserved for God, as is clear from the case of Paul and Barnabas. When the Lycaonians were so amazed by their miracles that they wanted to sacrifice to them as gods, the apostles tore their garments, declared that they were not gods, urged the people to believe them, and forbade them to worship them.

Yet the truths we teach are one thing, the abuses thrust upon us are another. There are commandments that we are bound to give; there are breaches of them that we are commanded to correct, but until we correct them we must of necessity put up with them.

Augustine on Devotion to the Saints

Doing the Office of Readings for today, I found an excellent selection from St. Augustine on the distinguishing the difference between honoring the saints and giving worship to God.  For those without access to the Liturgy of the Hours, you can go here to see the reading in question [though the site uses a different version of the psalms].

(Faustus was a Manichean who accused the Church of things like idolatry and pointed to abuses within the Church as if they were the belief of the Church).

I share this because I think it is relevant today given the misunderstanding which exists over how Catholics honor saints.

Reading
The treatise of St Augustine against Faustus

We celebrate the martyrs with love and fellowship

We, the Christian community, assemble to celebrate the memory of the martyrs with ritual solemnity because we want to be inspired to follow their example, share in their merits, and be helped by their prayers. Yet we erect no altars to any of the martyrs, even in the martyrs’ burial chapels themselves.

No bishop, when celebrating at an altar where these holy bodies rest, has ever said, “Peter, we make this offering to you,” or “Paul, to you,” or “Cyprian, to you.” No, what is offered is offered always to God, who crowned the martyrs. We offer in the chapels where the bodies of those he crowned rest, so the memories that cling to those places will stir our emotions and encourage us to greater love both for the martyrs whom we can imitate and for God whose grace enables us to do so.

So we venerate the martyrs with the same veneration of love and fellowship that we give to the holy men of God still with us. We sense that the hearts of these latter are just as ready to suffer death for the sake of the Gospel, and yet we feel more devotion toward those who have already emerged victorious from the struggle. We honour those who are fighting on the battlefield of this life here below, but we honour more confidently those who have already achieved the victor’s crown and live in heaven.

But the veneration strictly called “worship,” or latria, that is, the special homage belonging only to the divinity, is something we give and teach others to give to God alone. The offering of a sacrifice belongs to worship in this sense (that is why those who sacrifice to idols are called idol-worshippers), and we neither make nor tell others to make any such offering to any martyr, any holy soul, or any angel. If anyone among us falls into this error, he is corrected with words of sound doctrine and must then either mend his ways or else be shunned.

The saints themselves forbid anyone to offer them the worship they know is reserved for God, as is clear from the case of Paul and Barnabas. When the Lycaonians were so amazed by their miracles that they wanted to sacrifice to them as gods, the apostles tore their garments, declared that they were not gods, urged the people to believe them, and forbade them to worship them.

Yet the truths we teach are one thing, the abuses thrust upon us are another. There are commandments that we are bound to give; there are breaches of them that we are commanded to correct, but until we correct them we must of necessity put up with them.