Guest commentary by Kortney Blythe

I recently visited the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Of course, as an abortion abolitionist, I thought of the subject often as I viewed each display. But certain areas of the museum sparked stronger parallels to the abortion battle.

Many Hollywood movies have been made chronicling the stories of Holocaust survivors. Some have even documented the rescuers and heroes during this time (Schindler’s List, Defiance). A scarce few, however, highlighted the impact that the church—both Protestant and Catholic—had on the rescue efforts.

As I perused the “Rescue and Resistance” section of the museum, I couldn’t help but notice a pattern. Many of the prominent rescuers were priests, pastors, nuns and religious people with strong convictions for the sanctity of human life.

If you’ve never heard of Sophie Scholl and The White Rose, look it up or rent the movie Sophie Scholl: The Final Days. Sophie and her brother, Hans, were college students compelled by their Christian faith to speak out against Hitler and the Nazi agenda through non-violent means. Their leaflets influenced thousands, and they were martyred for their courage. They quoted extensively from The Bible and unequivocally challenged people to wake up from their indifferent slumber.

When I visited the Holocaust museum’s web site, I found further evidence of the church’s impact during the Holocaust (emphasis mine):
 

Some European churches, orphanages, and families provided hiding places for Jews, and in some cases, individuals aided Jews already in hiding … In France, the Protestant population of the small village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon sheltered between 3,000 and 5,000 refugees, most of them Jews. In France, Belgium and Italy, underground networks run by Catholic clergy and lay Catholics saved thousands of Jews.
 

Two ministers led the residents of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon in the effort to hide Jews, provide forged I.D. cards and help them escape to safety, even though some residents were arrested and one murdered by the Gestapo. The Yad Vashem, a Holocaust remembrance organization, recognized the town with the title, “Righteous Among the Nations.” The gratitude Yad Vashem feels towards recipients of this award is best summed up this way:

Attitudes towards the Jews during the Holocaust mostly ranged from indifference to hostility. The mainstream watched as their former neighbors were rounded up and killed; some collaborated with the perpetrators; many benefited from the expropriation of the Jews property. But in this world of moral collapse there was a small minority who mustered extraordinary courage to uphold human values.

At the end of the museum tour is a section called "From Memory to Action: Meeting the Challenge of Genocide." Its purpose is to direct the righteous anger and indignation (elicited from viewing the horrors of the Holocaust throughout the museum) from emotions to action. Thus, the display encourages visitors to fight modern genocides in the world.

As you might’ve guessed, abortion is never mentioned.

In the feedback notebook provided for guests, I implored the museum to include abortion in its genocide display. In my note, I referenced Deuteronomy 30:19, which is prominently displayed on a wall in the museum. It reads, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.”

Choose life that your offspring may live.

As I exited the museum, the heroes section lingered in my mind; specifically, the overwhelming presence of the church in the rescue efforts. I thought of the slavery abolitionist movement. It was Christians who ran underground railroads, preached anti-slavery sermons that shifted the culture and infiltrated the government with pro-personhood legislation.

 I said to my mom, “If the churches in America stood united against abortion, we would see an end to it.”

Instead, the Episcopal, Presbyterian (USA) and United Methodist denominations have official  pro-abortion stances. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development undermines Catholic teaching by supporting pro-abortion organizations. Groups such as the YWCA and the Salvation Army have distanced themselves from their Christian heritage and shifted their positions on the plight of the preborn.

As for the majority of American churches, abortion is a taboo subject. There may be one or two pro-life activists in a congregation, but they are just the token radicals.

Many Christians have become apathetic and indifferent, letting a few passionate individuals do the work that all Christians should be doing. Jesus is supposed to be our example, and he was radical. His message of caring for the “least of these” is for all Christians. He didn’t proclaim ear-tickling messages. He made people uncomfortable in their complacency. He never backed down from the Truth, and eventually, he was crucified.

William Wilberforce, one of the most influential slavery abolitionists in England, whose story was captured in the film Amazing Grace, said, "If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow-creatures is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics ever permitted to be at large."

Most church leaders do not hesitate when asked to collect food for the homeless or fill shoeboxes for Christmas. But when they’re asked to pray outside an abortion mill or allow a pro-life speaker to make a presentation, it’s a whole different story. No one gets upset when a church collects a special offering for Haiti, but bring up abortion and you may very well have controversy. So be it. The 50 million children dead from abortion deserve our passion.

In the past, when the body of Christ, the Church, rose up in opposition to an injustice, earth-shaking things happened. Slaves were freed, rights were restored and killings ended.
 
The first leaflet of the White Rose asked something that Christians in a country with decriminalized abortion should ask themselves every day: "Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes—crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure—reach the light of day?”

May the Christian churches remove the veil from its eyes and expose the horrible crime against humanity that is abortion. Only then will it end. 

Kortney Blythe is the chapter and street team coordinator for American Life League’s Rock for Life project,  which brings the human personhood message to youth through music, education and human rights activism.

Guest Commentary By Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

Most issues in medical ethics require a sound understanding of “human personhood.” While the issue of personhood itself is a philosophical question and cannot be determined empirically, it is possible to determine with empirical and scientific accuracy when the material aspect of a human being begins to exist.

Scientifically, for over 100 years, it has been documented empirically that, in human sexual reproduction, the material aspect of a human being begins to exist when the sperm makes first contact with the oocyte at the beginning of the process of fertilization. In human asexual reproduction, a human being begins to exist when the DNA in a cell and its other cell constituents are “appropriately reorganized,” i.e., are “reorganized” within the cell in such a way that the cell becomes a new human organism—a new human being.

Philosophically, a human person is defined properly as a human being who possesses a rational soul, and that rational soul must always include all three powers of the soul simultaneously—i.e., the sensitive, vegetative and rational powers of the soul cannot be separated. No power of the soul can exist alone, and no whole soul can exist alone without the human body.  There is no “soul/soul” split and no “soul/body” split. Therefore, there is no delay between when a human being and when a human person begin to exist. The human being and the human person refer to the same being and must always exist simultaneously.

Since we can know empirically when the material aspect of a human being begins to exist, we can therefore reason back to when that human person begins to exist. Thus, the human person must begin to exist immediately when the human being begins to exist.

When discussing medical ethics questions that involve when a human being begins to exist, it is crucial that the starting point of our inquiry is empirically based, i.e., based on the accurate scientific facts of human embryology. The need for scientific accuracy becomes particularly clear when addressing the legal protection of the right to life of all human beings. However, there are some—including some Catholics—who do not understand the need for accurate language.

And yet Catholics should understand this need more than anyone else, for the following reason: To make a scientific error at the beginning, in determining when a human being begins to exist, will automatically cause an error in determining philosophically when a human person begins to exist—which, in turn, will destroy our understanding of the foundation of the natural law and the moral law. And that will ultimately bring to an end the moral authority of the Catholic Church and her teachings on the value and dignity of the human person.

Don’t believe it? Consider this:

1. If the scientific definition of a “human being” and when he/she begins to exist is scientifically false, then the philosophical definition of a “human person” and when he/she begins to exist is automatically false and therefore invalid. This is especially a problem when false scientific “facts” are used as false empirical starting points for the purpose of falsely claiming that there is a delay or “split” between the human being and the human person.

Erroneous definitions of a human person can be (and already have been) applied to virtually every bioethical question.  Instead of understanding that there is only one human soul that possesses three different powers—the vegetative, sensitive and rational powers—many bioethicists claim that there are three human souls—the vegetative, sensitive and rational souls— and that they are added to the human body one at a time.  That is, they claim that first the human body possesses the vegetative soul, then later the sensitive soul is added, and even later the rational soul is added.  It is the rational soul, they claim, that confers personhood on that human being. 

So, in the view of these bioethicists, before the rational soul is present, certain actions are ethically justified because there is no person there—e.g., abortion, the use of abortifacients, infanticide, destructive human embryo and fetal research, human cloning, human genetic engineering, etc. 

They also apply those erroneous bioethical concepts of the soul to the end of life. Thus, they claim, first the rational soul leaves the body (and thus personhood is lost), then the sensitive soul leaves the body, and finally there is nothing left there but a human vegetative soul—the very basis of their claim that there is a “vegetative state.”  This erroneous belief allows them to justify withholding/ withdrawing food, hydration and oxygen; withholding /withdrawing medical care and other forms of euthanasia; physician-assisted suicide; erroneous definitions of death; illicit organ transplantation, etc.

2. If the philosophical definition of a human person and when he/she begins to exist is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the definition of “human nature” is also automatically false and therefore invalid. This will necessarily have a deleterious effect not just on medical ethics, but also on related fields such as philosophy, theology, law, social theory, etc., since human nature is synonymous with human personhood.

3. If the definition of human nature is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the definition of the “natural law” is automatically false and therefore invalid.

The natural law is a philosophical concept derived through the use of reason alone. It is based on an empirically derived concept of human nature—i.e., what we observe is common among all human persons as human persons.  All human persons possess the same kind of human nature. Among the many things common to their human natures is when and how they begin to exist.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (section 1954), “The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin … [T]his command of human reason … [is] the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.”

Section 1956 explains that the natural law “expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.”

4. If the definition of the natural law is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the definition of “moral law” in Catholic theology is also automatically false and therefore invalid.  The moral law is grounded in the natural law, but perfected through divine revelation and the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority).

The Catechism (section 1950) tells us, “The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom…. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God.”

The Catechism (section 1959) also explains the moral law’s relationship to the natural law: “The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community.”

5. If the definition of the moral law is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the Catholic Church’s teachings based on the moral law are automatically false and therefore invalid.
Among the Church’s moral teachings is its prohibition of all forms of murder, at all stages of life: “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” (CCC, section 2270, emphasis added).

6. If the Church’s moral teachings are automatically false and therefore invalid, then the Church’s moral authority is automatically false and therefore invalid.

“To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles … and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls” (CCC, section 2032).

The Catholic Church has always done more to protect human beings from harm than any other institution. But such protection gets in the way of evil agendas. Thus, how to overcome the positive and life-affirming influence of the most powerful institution in the world? Destroy it, one level at a time.

Do you now see how all the levels fall, one after the other—like dominoes—when you start with a false definition of a human being and when he/she begins to exist?

For a more detailed explanation of the numerous and far-reaching ramifications of scientifically inaccurate definitions and language, visit www.lifeissues.net to see Dr. Irving’s comments on “Pennsylvania Researchers Turn Stem Cells to Egg Cells” by Nicholas Wade, published in the May 2, 2003 New York Times (http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_02comment001.html).

Dr. Irving is a professor of the history of philosophy and medical ethics and former career-appointed bench research biochemist/biologist for the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute. She earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in philosophy from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

Copies of this commentary are available in brochure form by calling our resources department at 1-866-538-5483.

Responses

In Fitchburg, Massachusetts, there is little respect for Natural Law as the abortion debate heats up and Christianophobia has heated up:
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2010/03/christianophobia-in-fitchburg-and.html
Ann Duclos | March 19, 2010

---

Guest commentary by ALL's Michael Hichborn

Today is St. Patrick’s Day, a day filled with drinking, parades, lots of green, corned beef and cabbage, and too many karaoke versions of “Oh Danny Boy.” Like a shamrock shake, these are all good things, and such a celebration at the halfway point of Lent is a welcome reprieve from the fasting we impose upon ourselves in anticipation of the Passion and Resurrection of Our Blessed Lord.

But lost in the revelries of the day that recalls so many legends about this great saint is the real life Patrick lived, which led to his salvation and won the love of an entire nation. So humble and giving was Patrick that he likely would be horrified to learn of the excesses celebrated in his name. And were he present for comment on the celebrations and the politicians leading them, I can imagine that what he would say would not be much different from the words he had for a Celtic prince named Coroticus.

There are only two documents in existence today that were written by Patrick: Confessio and his letter to Coroticus. Coroticus was a bloodthirsty warlord who preyed upon the weak. He sent his soldiers to slaughter Christian converts, take their possessions and sell the survivors into slavery. Patrick described the situation this way:

The day after the newly baptized, anointed with chrism, in white garments (had been slain) — the fragrance was still on their foreheads when they were butchered and slaughtered with the sword by the [soldiers] — I sent a letter with a holy presbyter whom I had taught from his childhood, clerics accompanying him, asking them to let us have some of the booty, and of the baptized they had made captives. They only jeered at them. Hence I do not know what to lament more: those who have been slain, or those whom they have taken captive, or those whom the devil has mightily ensnared. Together with him they will be slaves in Hell in an eternal punishment; for who commits sin is a slave and will be called a son of the devil.

The letter identifies three categories of people easily identified today as we continue to fight for full protection of preborn children. Patrick speaks of the innocent who were slaughtered in their white baptismal garments. These innocent people are no less than the same innocent we know are slaughtered by the thousands every day in this country, violently torn from their mothers’ wombs. Patrick also spoke of those taken captive and sold into slavery. Millions of women in this country have been sold into the slavery of sin, held captive by the lies of Planned Parenthood. And the third group Patrick refers to is “those whom the devil has mightily ensnared.” These poor souls are the abortion doctors, abortion lobbyists and pro-abortion politicians who make sure their multi-million dollar industry continues to receive government protection. The words Patrick had for Coroticus and his soldiers ring ever true:

Wherefore let every God-fearing man know that they are enemies of me and of Christ my God, for whom I am an ambassador. Parricide! Fratricide! Ravening wolves that "eat the people of the Lord as they eat bread!" As is said, "the wicked, O Lord, have destroyed Thy law," which but recently He had excellently and kindly planted in Ireland, and which had established itself by the grace of God.

These strong words can only emanate from a man deeply in love with Christ and His Holy Church. The courage it takes to send such a harsh condemnation to a man wielding great earthly power is so hard to find today, especially among many of the successors to the apostles.  Patrick spoke with strength, authority and near-reckless abandonment to Divine Truth and justice. He poured himself out on the feet of a tyrant the way Mary Magdalene poured out the precious oils on the feet of Our Divine Lord. There was no careful calculation about the number of innocents to be saved. There was no strategy consultant or review of poll numbers. There was no concern for the preservation of his position or even his own life. He gave it all up in the name of Christ for all those in need of His mercy.

Patrick’s letter was addressed to Coroticus, but he was speaking to all of us. Carrying the analogy to today’s fight against abortion, pay close attention to Patrick’s words:

I make no false claim. I share in the work of those whom He called and predestinated to preach the Gospel amidst grave persecutions unto the end of the earth, even if the enemy shows his jealousy through the tyranny of Coroticus, a man who has no respect for God nor for His priests whom He chose, giving them the highest, divine and sublime power, that whom "they should bind upon earth should be bound also in Heaven."

Do our bishops think that pro-abortion politicians have any respect for them or for God? The following words from Patrick’s letter are no less applicable today than they were when he wrote them:

Wherefore, then, I plead with you earnestly, ye holy and humble of heart, it is not permissible to court the favor of such people, nor to take food or drink with them, nor even to accept their alms, until they make reparation to God in hardships, through penance, with shedding of tears, and set free the baptized servants of God and handmaids of Christ, for whom He died and was crucified.

"The Most High disapproves the gifts of the wicked ... He that offers sacrifice of the goods of the poor, is as one that sacrifices the son in the presence of his father. The riches, it is written, which he has gathered unjustly, shall be vomited up from his belly; the angel of death drags him away, by the fury of dragons he shall be tormented, the viper's tongue shall kill him, unquenchable fire devours him." And so — "woe to those who fill themselves with what is not their own;" or, "What does it profit a man that he gains the whole world, and suffers the loss of his own soul?”

It would be too tedious to discuss and set forth everything in detail, to gather from the whole Law testimonies against such greed. Avarice is a deadly sin. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." "Thou shalt not kill." A murderer cannot be with Christ. "Whosoever hates his brother is accounted a murderer." Or, "he that loves not his brother abides in death." How much more guilty is he that has stained his hands with blood of the sons of God whom He has of late purchased in the utmost part of the earth through the call of our littleness!

Today’s politicians court the favor and contributions of organizations like Planned Parenthood. They receive their honors, speak at their banquets and defend their terrible arts. Patrick was clear; it is impermissible to participate with them in such a way. And yet, there are Catholics who do these very things for the murderers of children, and they continue to receive the sacraments uninhibited and undeterred.

Today, join with St. Patrick in the prayer of petition he offered 1,600 years ago. As he prayed for the release of captive women, held in bondage by the designs of Coroticus, we should pray for the women held in the chains of slavery to sin by the designs of Planned Parenthood and its cohorts. St. Patrick closed his letter with these words:

Where, then, will Coroticus with his criminals, rebels against Christ, where will they see themselves, they who distribute baptized women as prizes — for a miserable temporal kingdom, which will pass away in a moment? As a cloud or smoke that is dispersed by the wind, so shall the deceitful wicked perish at the presence of the Lord; but the just shall feast with great constancy with Christ, they shall judge nations, and rule over wicked kings forever and ever. Amen....

I ask earnestly that whoever is a willing servant of God be a carrier of this letter, so that on no account it be suppressed or hidden by anyone, but rather be read before all the people, and in the presence of Coroticus himself. May God inspire them sometime to recover their senses for God, repenting, however late, their heinous deeds — murderers of the brethren of the Lord! — and to set free the baptized women whom they took captive, in order that they may deserve to live to God, and be made whole, here and in eternity! Be peace to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Amen.

In the 18th chapter of Luke, Our Blessed Lord told His disciples a parable about an old widow and an unjust judge. In speaking of faith and the answer to prayer, Jesus said, “Will not God then secure the rights of his chosen ones who call out to Him day and night? Will He be slow to answer them? I tell you, He will see to it that justice is done for them speedily. But when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?” Patrick knew this and truly lived as His missionary. But now, after nearly 40 years of abortion, it seems that faith is all but gone. With renewed vigor and inspiration from the man whose courage and faith transformed all of Ireland, may we follow his example and fight to defend the innocent as Patrick did.

Michael Hichborn is director of ALL's Canon 915 project. Learn more by visiting www.canon915.org.

We frequently forget about the impact that young people can have on the world, on the Church and on those deeply involved in defending the most vulnerable in our midst. Among them was a very dedicated, prayerful college student named Angela Baird. Known as the “Princess of the Unborn,” Angela died after a hiking accident in November 1997.

I knew about her through a staff member of American Life League, Kate Fitzgerald. Kate was engaged to Angela’s brother, Bryan. I never had the good fortune of meeting Angela, but her inspiration was immense. It was difficult to ignore the impact she had made on her peers, not to mention the rest of the pro-life community. Over the past 13 years, I didn’t think of her as frequently as I did in the days following her untimely death. This fact saddens me now, for I should have. Individuals like Angela don’t come along that often, and we should never forget them.

Recently, a good friend in Wisconsin sent a poem my way that rekindled my thoughts of Angela, not to mention my prayers for her family. As the family web site dedicated to Angela tells us:

As she lie waiting and dying, Angela prayed for two intentions specifically; aborted babies and her dad. She did not complain of the pain, she merely prayed the rosary and to her guardian angel. The students, rescue workers, and medical staff who were with Angela in her last hours all were amazed at her courage and peaceful demeanor, despite the pain from a broken back, pelvis, arm, two legs and massive internal injuries and bleeding. As rumors came down from the mountain that a student had fallen, students quickly filled up the school chapel in prayer. John Finley and Mark Kretschmer, upon hearing of the accident, climbed up the trail to Angela, bringing what medical supplies that were on hand at the campus.
The paramedics carried her out of the ravine to a place where she could be lifted to the helicopter and flown to nearby Ventura County Hospital. Angela was still alert, with Jon's rosary still in her hand. At the hospital, Father Bartholomew de la Torre, a TAC chaplain, administered the Last Sacraments, and she was wheeled into surgery. Her heart stopped on the operating table and could not be revived. It was 1:00 a.m. on November 6th.

LifeSiteNews recalled Angela’s inspiring pro-life spirit on the sixth anniversary of her death, November 6, 2003, reporting,

Apart from her studies and a ministry to female prison inmates with whom she shared the Good News, Angela was a pro-life leader at the college. She went weekly to the local abortion clinic, Family Planning Associates, to offer sidewalk counselling to women seeking abortions. Angela loved the unborn greatly and always asked other students to go with her. On the Thursday that she died, over 100 students went to her usual spot outside of the abortion clinic and prayed.

So, today I want to share this poem with you as a unique way of reminding each and every one of us that there could well be an angel in our midst at any moment. Sometimes, we don’t take the time to look around and marvel at the good works of one of our coworkers, our neighbors or perhaps a sibling in our own family. And, after all, it occurs to me that with all the doom and gloom engulfing this world today, it sure wouldn’t hurt to consider a bit of sunshine and blessedness once in a while.

It is never out of season to remind the world of a single human being’s life that inspired so many and continues to do so amidst all the anger, suffering and pain that occurs daily. So, I present to you a beautiful tribute to a remarkable young woman whose legacy lives on and whose life should be an inspiration to us all. It was written by William Dunn. He knew Angela when she attended Aquinas College. I would never be so bold as to suggest that there is another as strong, as dedicated or as fervent in her love for the preborn child as Angela. But I would suggest that in our midst are many angels. It is my hope that each of us will not be in such a hurry or so busy that we overlook someone as special, as loving, as Christ-like as Angela Baird.

With sincere gratitude, it is my privilege to present this poem of love, admiration and praise:

Angela Baird, Defender of the Unborn
The name that God had given her
Foretold she was His messenger;
She left us when her life began—
Too soon can end time’s running sand.

Her college life had just begun
When autumn days more quickly run,
When students wander by the sea
At night when waves break tenderly.

One night we formed upon the shore,
And gathering wood far waters bore,
We built a fire upon the sand
And weighed with words the worth of man.
 
Her voice beside the flickering light
Began to speak within the night;
It blended with the ocean’s sound
Which filled the darkness all around:

Onetime there was eternal night
With nothing, till God’s lovely Light
First formed the seas and stars above
Forever destined through His love.

Before the world its birth received
Within God’s mind we were conceived;
We walk an hour beside the shore,
Our place here sees us nevermore.

For when our earthly moorings fail
To distant shores our souls shall sail—
For even those whom prison scars
Were made for Light beyond the stars.

Life’s grief may dim life’s mystery—
Will we still hold its sanctity?
The Ocean listens by the shore
And holds our answers evermore.

She then was silent, as were we
Upon these sands beside the sea;
She soon would leave our thoughtful band—
Too soon can end time’s running sand.

When wandering far one fated night
To camp upon the mountain’s height
She slipped upon a rocky ledge
All covered by a leafy hedge.

Then far below she sadly fell
Upon the rocks where sorrows dwell.
Her friends nearby soon ran to her
To help her as her end drew near.

Though many went to comfort her
She was to be their comforter;
In greatest pain she ne’er complained
But on her face compassion reigned.

For those unborn, not for herself
She prayed in perfect death of self.
She prayed then for her father dear
Whose courage all men now revere.

She prayed to Her whose prayer saves—
The Starlight of the ocean waves—
The gentle Mother meek and mild
Who prays for every wounded child.

She prayed that all young mother’s wombs
Might ne’er become untimely tombs;
That children here might savor time,
That all be spared King Herod’s crime.

Though rocks could then her body break
Her soul was kept for God to take;
Life’s greatest trial her heart withstood—
She bravely bore her Cross of wood.

In life she had stood up for life
Enduring opposition’s strife;
In death for life she still had stood—
Her death declared all life is good.

And now she waits beyond the grave
The children whom her prayers will save:
True handmaid of that Mother mild
Who bore for us God’s saving Child.

Now with her voice may earth unite,
For children’s lives may all men fight,
And Mary’s prayers each day employ
Till Rachel’s tears are turned to joy.

We knew she was God’s messenger—
An Angel all remember her;
She left us when her life began—
Too soon can end time’s running sand.

Poem reprinted with permission of Saint Austin Review.
 

On January 25, we reported on the case of baby Isaiah James May. He was born oxygen-deprived, because the umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck, and he suffered brain damage as a result. A legal battle ensued, pitting his parents, Isaac and Rebecka May, against the hospital, after they were informed that his ventilator would be removed. The Mays went to court and obtained two rulings that permitted Isaiah to remain on the ventilator until March 12, while they sought an independent medical assessment of Isaiah’s chances of recovery. As it happened, Isaiah died on March 11, in his parents’ arms and surrounded by aunts, uncles and grandparents.

Alberta-based disability advocate Mark Pickup commented in his blog,

The Mays wanted to give Isaiah 90 more days to see if he would improve but the hospital wouldn’t budge. ... [With the help of the justice system,] Isaac and Rebecka sought an independent second, third and fourth medical opinion of baby Isaiah's prognosis. They overturn[ed] every stone of possibility to give their baby a chance. It was only when Isaiah's hopeless situation became clearly evident, with independent medical input kindly presented to them, did they finally agree to let Isaiah's respirator be turned off.

And then, this past Friday, LifeSiteNews reported the following from the Mays: 

“We held out hope that there would come a time when we might see [Isaiah's] smile and hear his laugh,” the Mays related in a statement, read yesterday by their lawyer, Rosanna Saccomani. “Over these last four months, we have cherished every moment with our son. We have marvelled at the perfection of his hands and feet and face... at the color of his eyes and the shade of his hair. We have wondered who he most resembled.”

“All along it was our hope that Isaiah's condition would brighten and improve. It has not,” they continued. 

“The decision that has now been made may be incomprehensible. But it has been made knowing that we did everything possible to find meaningful answers to our questions and that all reasonable alternatives were fully explored and carefully considered.”

“We very much believe that life is a gift from God and that our son's inherent value and worth as a human being is not diminished by the number of days recorded in this world,” they added.  “Isaiah has reminded all of us once again that life is very precious and fragile.”

“We have set our tiny miracle free and he is now home in the arms of the angels.”

Dr. Paul Byrne, a Catholic neonatologist, past-president of the Catholic Medical Association, author and expert in the subject of brain death, had been advising the Mays. He told LSN that he believes the hospital did not provide appropriate care for baby Isaiah, and it is for reasons we should all be made aware:

The Mays were told shortly after arriving at Stollery, he said, that Isaiah was “brain dead,” and that he would no longer be treated. Dr. Byrne pointed out, as one example, that despite the standard practice of performing a tracheostomy when a patient is intubated for more than a week or so, the hospital had refused the Mays' request for the procedure.

Dr. Byrne also observed that the diagnosis of “brain death” often “is made, first of all, to get organs.” “The diagnosis of brain death is made to stop treatment, and the parents continued to say that they wanted their baby treated,” he said. “I think that the culture is such that the parents had to be strong, and they have to be loving parents to be strong in the culture of death in which we live.”
 

A Facebook page that the family set up to share their experience now relays heartbreak, but also a deep faith in God. On Saturday, a post from a family friend read,

I spoke with Becky [Rebecka May] this morning as they prepared to go to Isaiah's funeral. Becky and Isaac are both being so strong. Becky had prepared a letter to read at the funeral, and we thought it would be nice to share it with everyone who had shared this experience with them, from family and friends to complete strangers (who have since become like family). So many people opened up their hearts to Isaiah, Becky and Isaac, offering support and prayers. It is truly overwhelming. So here it is, in Becky's words:

When Isaiah passed and we started planning the funeral arrangements I knew that I wanted to write something to say at the service. But what? What do you say at your baby's funeral? What can you say? So I'm writing from my heart to say how much I love him.
Isaiah, from the moment I knew that you were inside of me I cherished you. And as you grew and I got to feel every little move, every hiccup and stretch, it all meant so much. ... I never thought that I would lose you, and even if I knew, I wouldn't change having you, knowing you and loving you. I will miss you so much, my angel. You took a piece of my heart, but I know that I have a piece of yours. Will you wait for me at the gates? Will you tell God that I loved you and still do? Will you ask Him questions about me? ... Know that I love you so much, and I will miss you forever. I will miss your chubby cheeks and tiny toes, your little round chin and button nose.

Isaiah James, you were named after your father, and he loves you so much. He sends a kiss and a hug to you from his heart. Isaiah, you only lived a little while, but wow, what you did. Your name means Gatherer of People, God's Helper, Salvation, and that you did ....
 

Please send e-mail notes of sympathy to prayersforbabyisaiah@gmail.com.

By Kortney Blythe

While watching American Idol recently, a commercial came on that caught my attention. An amateurish-looking home video showed two giddy, laughing teenage girls jumping on a trampoline, acting goofy.

Then a voiceover said, “I love my life. I’m not gonna mess it up with a pregnancy.”  And a web site address flashed on the screen: StayTeen.org.

Being the abortion abolitionist that I am, I immediately opened my laptop to check it out. At first, I was pleasantly surprised. The web site, which is funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, strongly advised waiting to have sex.

Among the various messages were myths about sex, lists of compelling reasons why abstinence is best and even a mention of how TV and movies portray sex as having no repercussions. In addition, I was impressed by the fact that the site differentiated between lust and love, and recognized the physical and emotional consequences attached to sex.

According to the site’s bullet points, “not everybody is doing it” [having sex]. Nearly 70 percent of teens wish they had waited to have sex and 94 percent want a strong abstinence message.

But, as I expected, that was the end of the good news. After leaving the “abstinence” section and perusing the rest of the site, I came upon the “help and advice” section. What took the top spot, among the first three resources listed for three separate topics?

Planned Parenthood.

Yes, that bastion of abortion, libertine sex (for the young and old) and the undermining of parents and purity. To appease parents and the general public, Planned Parenthood occasionally uses the word “abstinence” in its propaganda. But it is almost always followed with a “but” and some nonsense about the need to realize how unrealistic abstinence is, thus undermining the whole purpose of promoting it. 

It’s disturbingly contradictory for a web site that claims to want to prevent teen pregnancy and promote abstinence to send young people to Planned Parenthood for questions about “sex, protection, contraception …STDs … [and] emergency contraception.”

Once again, our government (and whoever else was involved in this site) fails to grasp the mixed messages they are sending to kids who view such a web site.

A show like American Idol is watched by families with kids of varying ages. Many of them will visit StayTeen.org because of the captivating commercial. Unfortunately, the site perpetuates the false message that “abstinence is good, but since it’s probably not realistic, use contraception.” Until parents start consistently teaching their children and teens the importance of lifelong chastity, the rates of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and premarital sex at increasingly younger ages will continue to rise.

And no amount of confusing web sites, such as StayTeen.org, will change those statistics. 

Kortney Blythe is the chapter and street team coordinator for American Life League’s Rock for Life project,  which brings the human personhood message to youth through music, education and human rights activism. This commentary appeared in the March 5, 2010 issue of the RFL e-newsletter. You can also view it on RFL's blog page.

Since so many Catholic politicians are currently supporting the Obama administration’s pro-culture of death agenda, and more and more bishops are backing away from enforcing Canon 915, it is probably a good idea to address this subject anew.

A fundamental truth of Catholic teaching is that Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist.  Thus it is the obligation of those who administer this sacrament to protect Christ from sacrilege. When it comes to this truth, I am a take-no-prisoners sort of woman. How anybody—including a lot of bishops— “feels” about this obligation is irrelevant; what matters is whether the obligation is fulfilled.

What is the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law? And what does it say regarding this matter? In his introduction to the revised Code of Canon Law, issued in 1983, Pope John Paul II described the Code this way: 

As the Church’s principal legislative document founded on the juridical legislative heritage of revelation and tradition, the Code is to be regarded as an indispensable instrument to ensure order both in individual and social life, and also in the Church’s own activity. …

As a matter of fact, the Code of Canon Law is extremely necessary for the Church. Since the Church is organized as a social and visible structure, it must also have norms: in order that its hierarchical and organic structure be visible; in order that the exercise of the functions divinely entrusted to it, especially that of sacred power and of the administration of the sacraments, may be adequately organized; in order that the mutual relations of the faithful may be regulated according to justice based upon charity, with the rights of individuals guaranteed and well-defined; in order, finally, that common initiatives undertaken to live a Christian life ever more perfectly may be sustained, strengthened and fostered by canonical norms.

Finally, by their very nature canonical laws are to be observed. The greatest care has therefore been taken to ensure that in the lengthy preparation of the Code the wording of the norms should be accurate, and that they should be based on a solid juridical, canonical and theological foundation.

Contained within this seven-volume set of the laws governing the Catholic Church (in Book IV, Part 1, Title III, Chapter 1, Article 2)  is Canon 915, which states,

“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” (emphasis added)

There is nothing confusing about this language. And it applies to any Catholic who, based on his or her public record, is known to be publicly persevering in manifest grave sin such as the promotion, encouragement, approval or performance of abortion. Such public figures should not be admitted to Holy Communion. Certain individuals who fall into this category and come immediately to mind are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Vice President Joseph Biden and MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews, among others.

Since the language of this particular canon is not confusing, one wonders why so many Catholic prelates refuse to enforce it. One of my favorite commentators, who writes under the pen name of Diogenes, may have hit on the answer to this question when he wrote, 

Two more American archbishops have joined the list of prelates who would prefer to try gentle persuasion on pro-abortion Catholic politicians rather than impose canonical discipline.

Leaving aside the obligation that canon law imposes on Eucharistic ministers, let’s ask a cold practical question. We’ve been working this moral-suasion angle for 37 years now. Can anyone point to one success? One case in which a bishop has persuaded a politician to abandon the “pro-choice” rhetoric and embrace the pro-life cause? One?

There’s more. Archbishop Dolan says that he doesn’t know just where Andrew Cuomo stands on abortion. Funny; nearly everyone else in New York knows. Meanwhile Archbishop Listecki says: “It’s very difficult for me to see how somebody can be pro-choice knowing the teachings of the Church.” Perhaps it follows, then, that a politician who espouses the “pro-choice” philosophy must be ignorant of Church teaching.

The politicians are the only ones who don’t know what the Church teaches about abortion, and the bishops are the only ones who don’t know what the politicians are saying. What a coincidence!

Diogenes’ comments on the lengths to which so many Catholic bishops will go to avoid enforcing Canon 915 are heartbreaking, but also true. 

Even though Archbishop Dolan told a television news commentator  that he prefers to follow the lead of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who, he claims, said it was better to try to persuade public sinners than to impose sanctions, he doesn’t seem to remember the rest of what the Holy Fathers have said.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI, sent a memorandum to the American bishops regarding the enforcement of Canon 915. In this memorandum, titled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion—General Principles,” he did not suggest that gentle persuasion was a remedy, but rather one step within the enforcement process . He wrote, 

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

Are we to believe that Cardinal Ratzinger, then prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued this memo without the concurrence of his immediate superior, who was none other than Pope John Paul II? Of course not!

Are we to believe that, now that Cardinal Ratzinger has become Pope Benedict XVI, he has changed his mind? Of course not!

So what is it about the Ratzinger memo that so many American Catholic bishops seem to find confusing? Archbishop Raymond Burke, now prefect of the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura, the Church’s highest ecclesiastical court (the Church's equivalent of chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) understands the import of Canon 915 and the requirement that all deacons, priests and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion obey Church law. And so should every Catholic bishop, but I think there is something else afoot in these matters.

If we take Archbishop Listecki at his word, and if we accept what Archbishop Dolan has said about “Catholic” pro-abortion zealots such as Cuomo, then we can conclude that one of two things has happened in the U.S. Catholic Church. Either the Code of Canon Law has become nothing more than a set of books collecting dust on a shelf, or the politics of empowerment has seduced many Catholic bishops into believing that it is more important for them to be liked and be kindly toward those who advocate child killing than it is for them to be heroic white martyrs for the faith.

I have pondered this for some time while watching numerous Catholic prelates dismiss their solemn obligation to protect Christ from sacrilege, and to deny Christ’s body and blood in Holy Communion to Catholics who refuse to repent for their public support of heinous sins such as abortion. Indeed, what we need are more white martyrs such as Archbishop Raymond Burke; we need men of faith who put Christ first and foremost in their lives.

While it is obvious that a red martyr is someone who dies for the faith, in today’s world, perhaps it is sometimes even more challenging to be a white martyr. White martyrdom

is a total offering to God, a “dying” to the world and its allurements. A white martyr willingly gives up worldly concerns and makes his or her life a perpetual pilgrimage. A white martyr lives a life of heroic devotion for Him alone, eagerly uniting that devotion with Christ’s sufferings.

During this Lenten season, we are confronting the culture of death’s masterpiece, so-called health care reform, and the arrogance of more and more public figures who claim to be Catholic but do all they can to advance evil. I believe, with all my heart, we should be praying for our bishops, and asking God to give each bishop, along with his priests and deacons, the courage to be white martyrs for Christ.

The “gentle persuasion” and persistent cajoling are failing. There is no justice for the preborn or for Christ Himself in the Holy Eucharist when flagrant violators of Church teaching continue to scandalize the faithful and commit sacrilege by receiving the sacrament unworthily. 

While some might disagree with me by arguing that we must be charitable toward our enemies, it can also be argued that, as Pope Benedict XVI has said, “Charity without justice is not charity, but a counterfeit.”

Responses

Dear Judie, would it be wrong to assume that if the Obama "healthcare" passes, that if it is determined that there is a physical ailment of an unborn child, that the birth would not be covered by insurance, because they would say it is a cost-saving method of not letting anyone be born that would cost more money to the "system".
Mary
Mary | March 11, 2010

---

There may be progress, judging from Cardinal O'Malley's passing the buck to the Pope. At least he did not dispute that there is a problem.
David Volk | March 12, 2010

---

Another great, poignant article, Judie. I fully believe we all must stop giving money to the diocesan bishops, stop enabling them to continue error and scandal. Give to our parish only, usually the first collection, but don't give a cent to any bishop's collection or campaign.
barb Kralis | March 12, 2010

---

Mary

This is a question that can only be answered once and if the bill passes but my guess is since the bill is so loaded with culture of death language that killing the preborn will become much more of a standard practice in obstetrics/gynecology.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | March 18, 2010

---

David

What kind of a shepherd is it who passes the buck to the very Holy Father who as prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Faith made it crystal clear when he wrote "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion!"

Cardinal O'Malley has not made progress.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | March 18, 2010

---