18.06.2024
Головна » 2024 » Май » 23 » Is It Permitted For Catholics To Support Abortion?
11:08
Is It Permitted For Catholics To Support Abortion?

Is It Permitted For Catholics To Support Abortion?

Also: Is It Permitted For Catholics To Support Abortion 2?

First of all, I would like to emphasize that elections and voting in a broad sense are not the subject of this article.

Here I will comment on Bishop Sanborn's statement on "the limitation of abortion" he expressed in the following video interview premiered Apr 23, 2024: Questions for the Rector | Ep. 17: Trump on Abortion

Answering Stephen Heiner's question, why it is permitted for Catholics to vote for a "limited pro-abortion candidate" - who says that implementing a law according to which abortion at early stages of pregnancy would be for common good - Bishop Sanborn answered that "it is permitted to vote...but they are not obliged to".

Stephen Heiner: Do you think that President Trump could be considered a pro-life candidate after these things?

Bishop Sanborn: No, he is a pro-abortion candidate, but he just for a limited abortion.

Stephen Heiner: So, that's we are in the United States now choosing between a total abortion candidate and a limited abortion candidate?

Bishop Sanborn: Yes, yes.

Stephen Heiner: So, the following question in election year, for the Catholics who are watching and listening to this, Your Excellency, is it permitted to vote for a limited abortion candidate?

Bishop Sanborn: Well, you have the choice of two evils, it is permitted to choose the lesser of two evils, unless...yes, it is permitted, but you are not obliged to.

Stephen Heiner: Can you explain, Your Excellency, why is that permitted to choose, because people might hear evil and say I don't have to do with that?

Bishop Sanborn: Well, the limitation of abortion is better than the complete liberation of abortion, you could say that, it's less evil, you might say.

From the context of this interview, another more important question logically arises: Is it permitted for Catholics to support abortion? And if you know the correct answer to this question, then it will not be difficult for you to answer the question: Is it permitted to vote for a limited abortion candidate?

And since Bishop Sanborn's statement was done in the context of the elections, I will comment on voting as well. However, I want to emphasize that I am not calling for voting/not voting for a specific person, but I am only talking about the principles themselves.

Well, let's begin.

I agree that Catholics are not obliged to vote for a "limited pro-abortion candidate". But I disagree that (1) it is permitted for Catholics to vote for "a limited abortion candidate", and that (2) "the limitation of abortion is better than the complete liberation of abortion".

According to the teachings of the Catholic Church - explained below - Catholics are not only not obliged to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, but are obliged to vote against such a candidate, and abortion itself is always a mortal sin that cries for vengeance from Heaven.

Also, since Bishop Sanborn clearly stated that "the limitation of abortion is better than the complete liberation of abortion...it's less evil", I find it to be correct to disagree with his statement, because actually he says that the limited murder of children is better than unlimited murder. And this means that he explicitly encourages Catholics to perform deliberately limited murder of innocent children. That is why his claim is very dangerous and, therefore, must be unequivocally rejected.

The general teaching of the Church is that Catholics are obliged to vote for an unworthy candidate in a case when only another less worthy is available and there is no good one, because it is better for the country to have an evil ruler, than to have no ruler at all. I do not refer to specific authors, since this teaching is unquestionable for my opponents.

On the other hand, the Church teaches that Catholics are not obliged to vote for a candidate who explicitly says that he recognizes/promotes a law according to which babies can be killed at a certain stage of pregnancy for the common good. By the way Bishop Sanborn also said "they are not obliged to". And when it is clear that it is not simply a choice between two unworthy candidates, but that Catholics actually are voting for voluntary killing of babies at a certain stage of pregnancy, the human law of voting ceases to oblige, because the higher one, i.e., Natural Law and Divine Law that prohibits to kill, takes precedence.

Propaganda for the deliberate killing of babies is also a manifestation of indifference or contempt for the moral teachings of the Church and hostility towards the Christian religion itself.

Rev. Francis Spirago teaches that it is "better not to vote at all than vote for one who is hostile to religion."

THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED
Rev. FRANCIS SPIRAGO:


Catholic electors ought not to return as their representative one who is only a nominal, not a practical Catholic, who regards with indifference or contempt the teaching and ministers of the Church. Before going to the ballot they should ascertain the views of the candidate upon education, marriage, the observance of Sunday, etc.; better not to vote at all than vote for one who is hostile to religion.[1]

By not fulfilling the human law of voting for a pro-abortion candidate, who promotes and is ready to impose the law of deliberate killing babies, Catholics don't endanger their souls and don't commit neither grave sin nor venial one, but they keep their hand pure of the blood of innocents.

According to Moral Theology all human laws cease to oblige when it is morally impossible to observe them.

Moral Theology
REV. HEREBERT JONE, O.F.M. CAP., J.C.D:


69. - 2. Moral impossibility.

a) Negative or prohibiting natural laws never cease to oblige in case of moral impossibility.
Such laws forbid actions that are intrinsically evil...
b) All other laws cease to oblige when it is morally impossible to observe them.
This includes the affirmative natural laws, some divine positive laws and all human laws (my emphasis).
70. - 4. In a conflict of obligations the higher one takes precedence. Duties conflict when two laws apparently oblige simultaneously and only one can be observed. As a matter of fact only the more important one actually obliges. Thus, the natural law takes precedence over the positive law. Among the laws of nature a law that prohibits precedes a law that commands. Divine positive law takes precedence over human legislation.[2]

Also, Pope Pius IX in THE SYLLABUS condemned the proposition n. 42: "In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails."

A HANDBOOK OF MORAL THEOLOGY
THE REVEREND ANTONY KOCH:

It goes without saying that divine laws rank higher than purely human laws and that, all other things being equal, the religious precepts imposed by the Church involve a heavier obligation than purely civil ordinances. {4}
{4} Cfr. Acts IV, 19; V, 29. - The Syllabus of Pius IX condemns the proposition (n. 42): "In conflictu legum utriusque potestatis ius civile praevalet." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1742).[3]

There are the conflicting laws enacted by the two powers in the case we are talking about: the Divine Law prohibiting killing vs the civil law allowing killing. Hence it is clear, that the condemnation of Pope Pius IX falls upon those who say that the civil law permitting murder prevails and that it is permitted for Catholics to take part (by voting) in the promotion of a "less evil" law in order "to save more children" by "killing less children''. Sorry, but such a motivation is abomination.

Also, according to Moral Theology we must not commit murder to save the State, and any relatively great difficulty or serious inconvenience which constitutes moral impossibility excuses from the observance of the human law:

A MANUAL OF MORAL THEOLOGY
REV. THOMAS SLATER:

WHAT EXCUSES FROM OBSERVING THE LAW

1. THE natural law continues to have binding force even though its observance entails great inconvenience. We must not commit murder to save the State, nor are we allowed to tell a lie in order to preserve human life. Positive law, however, does not bind with the same rigour. Our Lord taught us (Mt. 12:5) that even the positive divine law does not bind men when great inconvenience would follow from its observance. It is an axiom that necessity has no law. This is all the more true of positive human law, which must be accommodated to the moral strength of the majority of the people, otherwise it will be impossible to observe it, and nobody can be bound to do what is impossible. So that not only physical impossibility excuses from the observance of the law, but also any relatively great difficulty or serious inconvenience which constitutes moral impossibility (Can. 2205).[4]

But you may say that you are excused if you vote for a pro-abortion candidate and his plan to introduce a law of "the limited murder of children" out of fear, necessity or grave inconvenience.

Yes, fear, necessity or grave inconvenience reduce the imputability of crimes, but they do not take them away and can never be declared entirely immune from criminal imputability, because voting for "the limited murder of children" is an intrinsically evil act itself or an act which implies contempt of faith and injury to souls.

A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW
THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE:

Par. 3. Si vero actus sit intrinsece malus aut vergat in contemptum fidei vel ecclesiasticae auctoritatis vel in animarum damnum, causae, de quibus in par. 2, delicti imputabilitatem minuunt quidem, sed non auferunt.

Paragraph 3 of can. 2205 states that an intrinsically evil act or an act which implies contempt of faith or ecclesiastical authority or injury to souls may be excused on the grounds of grave fear, necessity, and grave inconvenience, but can never be declared entirely immune from criminal imputability.[5]

Therefore, it is clear that by fulfilling a human law of voting for a pro-abortion candidate, Catholics voluntarily take part in the promoting of a law of deliberate killing of babies, and they become responsible for every torned into shreds innocent baby and every raped motherhood, and become remote accomplices (inducers) in direct foeticide.

In other words, common good cannot be achieved by murder of innocent babies, and this is the axiom.

Further, you can read in The Moral Obligation of Voting, A DISSERTATION BY REV. TITUS CRANNY, that citizens are bound to vote against candidates who support birth prevention.

The Moral Obligation of Voting

REV. TITUS CRANNY:

There may be added obligation of voting on special issues or against persons who support them. For example, if a state attempted to put through a bill authorizing the appropriation of funds for birth prevention literature, methods, facilities, etc., then the citizen would be bound in conscience to opose such a neasure at the polls. I a candidate were known to advocate birth prevention, mercy killing, easy divorce law, and like and it were known that he would use his influence to push bills or legislation on such matters, then the citizen would be bound to vote against this candidate.[6]

Also, anyone who promotes killing of children as “the limitation of abortions” and "lesser evil” should know that according to Can. 2350, he is actually an inducer (seducer or mandantes) and an accomplice in direct foeticide, and he incurs the same excommunication as a principal agent reserved to the Ordinary. This Canon also clearly states that "clerics must, besides, be deposed":

CANON 2350, 1. "Those who procure abortion; the mother not cxcepted, after the effect has followed, incur the excommunication latae sententiae, reserved to the Ordinary; clerics must, besides, be deposed."

Commenting on the above canon Rev. P. Chas Augustine explains that "the mandantes are without doubt to be reckoned among the procurantes":

2. The different kinds of abortion must be judged by the act that produces abortion. This is called procuratio and its agents procurantes. To procure an abortion means to bring it about purposely and intentionally. This may be done in a twofold way: (a) by seeking abortion directly and for its own sake, in which case it is purely and simply criminal, or (b) as a means to a higher end, for instance, to preserve the life of the mother. In both cases abortion is sought and intended directly as a means to an end.
Mandantes are those who order an abortion to be committed and in whose name it is perpetrated, for instance, the mother who commands the physician to perform an operation the direct effect of which is abortion; or the father or seducer, provided, of course, the woman consents; for it is she who has to give the final permission always provided she is in a physically and mentally normal condition. The mandantes are without doubt to be reckoned among the procurantes.[7]

Also, REV. HEREBERT JONE in Moral Theology explains on latae sententiae penalties and that anyone may incur the penalty as an accomplice:

439. - 7. Whoever procures an abortion, if the effect is produced (C. 2350).
...It is immaterial what method is used or by whom (the pregnant woman herself or anybody else) the abortion is procured. Abortion due to carelessnes would not entail the censure. - If the mother is induced to the crime out of grave fear she does not incur the censure (Cf. 426). Anyone may incur the penalty as an accomplice (Cf. 424).

424.

2. Accomplices incur the same penalty as the principal agent even though they are not expressly mentioned in the law, provided they really conspire and physically concur in the execution of the offense, or provided the offense is of such a nature that it requires an accomplice, or if without their co-operation the offense would not have been commited (C. 2231).

Therefore, if one induces another ... to undertake an abortion (C. 2350), he incurs an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary, if without such inducement these sins woulf not have been commited.[8]

Also, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in accordance with Holy Scripture, that he who strikes a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, he will not be excused from homicide, especially seeing that death is the natural result of such a blow.

THE SUMMA THEOLOGICA
OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS:

OF THE VICES OPPOSED TO COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE, AND, IN THE FIRST PLACE, OF MURDER.

Q. 64. Art. 8

Obj. 2. Further, It is written (Exod. xxi. 22): If...one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed..., if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life. Yet this may happen without any intention of causing her death. Therefore one is guilty of murder through killing someone by chance.
Reply Obj. 2. He that strikes a woman with child does something unlawful: wherefore if there results the death either of the woman or of the animated foetus, he will not be excused from homicide, especially seeing that death is the natural result of such a blow.[9]

Also, Rev. Arthur Devine says: "God gave the child life, and whoever robs it of life sins against its Creator" and "No one can starve, or hurt, or kill any baby without becoming answerable to the law".

THE COMMANDMENTS EXPLAINED
REV. ARTHUR DEVINE:

Wilful murder is one of the sins that cries to heaven for vengeance. Blood is a loud and clamorous cry, and the first that ever was shed was heard as far as from earth to heaven.

3. The prohibition of not killing extends to all human beings - that is, not only to adults, but to infants, and to the children in their mother's womb. A recent writer thus speaks on this subject: Every child coming into this world has a right to live. God gave the child life, and whoever robs it of life sins against its Creator. So in Christian lands the law extends its protection to the tiniest baby. No one can starve, or hurt, or kill any baby without becoming answerable to the law.[10]

How after such a clear teaching you can say that the limited killing of babies in the mothers' wombs is "lesser evil", and that you are excused from homicide when you promote the "limited" killing of babies?

Also, those who say that they don't commit grave sin by material cooperation in another's sin of abortion, are wrong, because it is never lawful to cooperate materially with the sin of another when the action of the secondary agent is itself wrong. Murder of the living foetus at the mother's womb at any stage of pregnancy is itself wrong.

REV. THOMAS SLATER in A Manual Of Moral Theology teaches that even material cooperation is called diabolic scandal, when it is intended precisely in order that another may fall into sin. When we are speaking about material cooperation in the promotion of a law on murder of babies, isn't that a manifestation of the intention that another may fall into grave sin?

Also, REV. THOMAS SLATER teaches: "the foetus is a human being, with a human soul...infused into it by God at the moment of conception; it has, then, as much right to live as anyone else, and it certainly is innocent of all personal crime. To deprive it directly of the medium in which alone it can live is to kill it directly, just as to deprive a man of air by plunging him under water is to kill him directly. The direct procuring of abortion, then, is never allowed, inasmuch as it is the direct killing of the innocent, and intrinsically wrong."

So, when you cooperate, at least materially in promoting of the law of direct killing of babies, you are actually encouraging others to commit direct foeticide which is intrinsically wrong action, and since the effect of your material cooperation is fatal fall of others, you are, therefore, guilty of both diabolical scandal and mortal sin of murder.

A MANUAL OF MORAL THEOLOGY
BY REV. THOMAS SLATER:

ON SCANDAL
1. SCANDAL in its theological sense is any word or action which has at least the appearance of evil and is the occasion of sin to another. This is the received definition of active scandal. Passive scandal is the sin which another is led to commit through active scandal. It is quite immaterial whether passive scandal be a sin of the same species as the scandal which caused it or not; a priest who gets drunk may cause scandal by inducing others to follow his example, or by causing others to speak ill of priests or of the Catholic Church.
Scandal is direct when it is foreseen and intended. If it is intended precisely in order that another may fall into sin, it is called diabolic; if it is intended on account of the advantage it will bring to him who gives it, it is simply direct scandal. p. 129.
ON CO-OPERATION IN ANOTHER'S SIN
1. CLOSELY connected with scandal is the subject of co-operation or participation in the sin of another; indeed, they are often treated of together, but on account of the importance of the latter it seems desirable to devote a special chapter to it.
Co-operation, then, may be formal or material. Formal co-operation is concurrence in the bad action of another and in the bad intention with which it is performed.
Material co-operation is the concurrence in the external action of another but not in the evil intention with which it is done. Co-operation is proximate or remote according as the action of the secondary agent is more closely connected with the action of the principal agent or less so.
One is said to co-operate positively when he does something which influences the action of the principal agent; one is said to co-operate negatively when he does not hinder a bad action which he is bound to prevent.
2. It is never lawful to co-operate formally with another's sin, for it is obviously to wish evil, which is always sinful. Nor is it lawful to co-operate materially with the sin of another when the action of the secondary agent is itself wrong, as is also clear. p. 132.
ON KILLING THE INNOCENT
1. IT is never lawful directly to kill the innocent, or, in other words, it is never lawful to kill the innocent when the death is intended in itself, or when it is inflicted as a means to the attaining of some other object. Such an act is expressly forbidden by God: "The innocent and just person thou shalt not put to death." [Exod. xxiii 7]. Reason, too, teaches us the same truth; for if ever it were lawful directly to kill the innocent, it would be so when such a death would be of great advantage to the commonwealth. But even to save the State an innocent man's life must not be taken directly, for the State exists that good men may lead honourable and peaceful lives; the State is for the good citizens, not the good citizens for the State. Not even the good of the State, then, makes it right to take an innocent man's life, and if that does not justify the act, nothing does.
4. It is usual to treat here of abortion, and of certain surgical operations concerned with child-bearing. Abortion is the premature ejection of the living foetus. The human foetus reaches maturity about nine months after conception, but it is capable of living even if born a considerable time before maturity. A child may live when born at seven months or even somewhat earlier, especially if artificial means are taken for preserving its life. When the foetus is ejected at such a time that in the judgement of a skilled medical man it will probably live, this is called acceleration of birth rather than abortion in the strict sense. We are here concerned with the lawfulness of procuring abortion and of performing such operations as craniotomy and embryotomy, which destroy the life of the foetus. There is only question of the living, not of the dead, foetus, as is obvious.
5. Inasmuch as it is never lawful directly to kill the innocent it is never lawful directly to procure abortion at a time when there is no probability that the foetus can live outside the mother's womb. This is clear, for the foetus is a human being, with a human soul, which, as is commonly held by theologians, is infused into it by God at the moment of conception; it has, then, as much right to live as anyone else, and it certainly is innocent of all personal crime. To deprive it directly of the medium in which alone it can live is to kill it directly, just as to deprive a man of air by plunging him under water is to kill him directly. The direct procuring of abortion, then, is never allowed, inasmuch as it is the direct killing of the innocent, and intrinsically wrong. In the same way, anticipated homicide and a grievous sin are committed whenever means of whatever sort are taken to prevent conception. pp. 201, 202.[11]

There is also a long but very important quote that is worth reading in its entirety.

THE CASUIST VOL. IV:

Nunquam licet dlrecte procurare abortum. An abortion is the removing from the mother of a child that is not yet viable, i.e., before the seventh month of gestation has been completed.
It is never allowed, because such a removal is tantamount to killing the child, and it is never permitted directly to cause the death of an innocent person. Even though the unviable foetus could be delivered alive and baptized, and thus its soul's salvation procured at the same time that the mother's life is preserved, it is strictly forbidden by the Holy See. The end cannot justify the means. A child that is not seven months cannot live outside its mother's womb. To remove it thence is to kill it. To kill it is to kill the innocent without justification. That is murder. Therefore there is a long list of prohibitions by the Holy See declaring the unlawfulness of directly procuring abortion, even though it be the only means of saving the mother's life, and the unborn child is doomed to die by nature in any case. Both the mother and child must be left to die, since it is not lawful to save the mother by destroying the child.
In the latest edition of his Moral Theology, 1910, Father Lehmkuhl says concerning this matter: "In former editions I endeavored to bring forward reasons that might probably justify the violent invasion of the unviable foetus and its vital element as a last resort for saving the mother's life. And although I proposed the matter as doubtful, not trusting to my own judgment in so grave a matter, still I thought that the considerations which I presented might have some weight in rendering less sure an obligation that created the very greatest hardships both for physicians and mothers. The reasons I advanced were these: The unviable foetus has a right to its vital element, namely, to dwell in its mother's womb, since nature has created this element for the child. But when special circumstances arise (as, for instance, when the mother's life is in jeopardy), the child's right to dwell in its mother s womb must give way to a prior right, namely, to the mother's right to preserve her own life. In this conflict of rights the child may be supposed to waive its right in favor of its mother. Living in its mother's womb is a condition extrinsic (bonum vitae extrinsecum) to the real life of the child, and therefore, for just and sufficient reasons, the child may sacrifice it, as a shipwrecked man may waive his right to a plank in favor of his friend, and trust himself to the waves, which speedily swallow him up. Indeed, it may be affirmed that the child does, in as far as it can, waive its right to dwell in its mother's womb, since the right has become wholly worthless, owing to circumstances, and not being necessary as a condition for procuring the child's baptism, since the child's baptism will be surer in the event of an abortion. And if dwelling in the mother's womb be considered as an intrinsic part of the child's life, bonum vitae intrinsecum, still any attack on the child's existence in the womb does not seem to be an attack on the child itself, but rather an attack on something common both to mother and child, to which the mother has as much right as the child, and in this dilemma the child yields its precarious right to its mother, just as one person might yield to another, where there is not air enough to keep both alive."
These were some of the considerations that led Father Lehmkuhl to say, in the earlier editions of his Moral Theology, that it was not clearly and beyond all doubt immoral to cause a premature delivery of an unviable child, when the same held out the only possible hope of saving the mother's life.
But all this notwithstanding, the Holy Office has repeatedly declared that artificial premature delivery, or abortion, is the same as craniotomy, is a direct killing of the child, and always and under all circumstances forbidden by the law of God. And Father Lehmkuhl admits that the reasons he brought forward in favor of artificial abortion speciosiorcs sunt quam veriores (Theol. moral. I., n. 1007). In regard to the case under discussion, it is quite evident that if the woman was already past the seventh month of her pregnancy, artificial delivery might be resorted to to save the mother's life.[12]

Therefore, it is clear that abortion itself always is a mortal sin of direct killing of the innocents and is the transgression of God's Commandment "Thou shalt not kill", and is never allowed and is never licit.

Hence, so-called "the limitation of abortion" is in no way less evil than "the liberation of abortion", because both are mortal sin, and as RIGHT REV. BISHOP HAY OF EDINBURGH says that mortal sin "is the greatest of all evil, because infinitely opposed to the infinite goodness of God" and "is the parent both of the devil and of hell; for hell was only made for mortal sin", and "it banishes the grace of God from our souls, renders us hateful and abominable in the sight of God, and worthy of eternal punishment".

WORKS OF THE RIGHT REV. BISHOP HAY:

Q. 8. What are the effects of mortal sin?
A. It banishes the grace of God from our souls, renders us hateful and abominable in the sight of God, and worthy of eternal punishment. For this reason it is called mortal, because it kills the soul in this life by depriving it of the sanctifying grace of God, which is the spiritual life of the soul, and condemns it to eternal death in the life to come.
Q. 9. Is mortal sin a great evil?
A. It is the greatest of all evil, because infinitely opposed to the infinite goodness of God. It is a bottomless pit, which no created understanding can fathom; for as none but God Himself can fully comprehend His own infinite goodness, so none but God Himself can perfectly comprehend the infinite malice and enormity of this opposite evil. It is the parent both of the devil and of hell; for hell was only made for mortal sin.[13]

Those who, despite clear teaching of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, say that it is permitted for Catholics to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, should keep in mind this Apostle's teaching: "We ought to obey God rather than men" THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 5:29.

And one more explanation by St. Thomas Aquinas.

THE SUMMA THEOLOGICA
OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS:

Q. 96. Art. 4
THE POWER OF HUMAN LAW

Whether Human Law Binds A Man In Conscience?

Objection 1. It seems that human law does not bind a man in conscience. For an inferior power has no jurisdiction in a court of higher power. But the power of man, which frames human law, is beneath the Divine power. Therefore human law cannot impose its precept in a Divine court, such as is the court of conscience.
Obj. 2. Further, the judgment of conscience depends chiefly on the commandments of God. But sometimes God's commandments are made void by human laws, according to Matth. XV. 6: You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. Therefore human law does not bind a man in conscience.
Obj. 3. Further, human laws often bring loss of character and injury on man, according to Isa. x. i et seq.: Woe to them that make wicked laws, and when they write, write injustice; to oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble of My people. But it is lawful for anyone to avoid oppression and violence. Therefore human laws do not bind man in conscience.
I answer that, Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Prov. viii. 15: By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.
...On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above...
...Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in Acts v. 29, we ought to obey God rather than men.
Reply Obj. 1. As the Apostle says (Rom. xiii. i, 2), all human power is from God...therefore he that resisteth the power, in matters that are within its scope, resisteth the ordinance of God; so that he becomes guilty according to his conscience.
Reply Obj. 2. This argument is true of laws that are contrary to the commandments of God, and which go beyond the scope of (human) power. Wherefore in such matters human law should not be obeyed.
Reply Obj. 3. This argument is true of a law that inflicts unjust hurt on its subjects. The power that man holds from God does not extend to this: wherefore neither in such matters is man bound to obey the law, provided he avoid giving scandal or inflicting a more grievous hurt.[14]

Perhaps you may appeal to this part of Reply Obj. 3: "neither in such matters is man bound to obey the law, provided he avoid giving scandal or inflicting a more grievous hurt".

Well, but I'm wondering how, by not voting for a so-called "limited pro-abortion" candidate, you would give a scandal or inflict a more grievous hurt? And how do you think killing babies in the early stages of pregnancy “saves” more children?

On the contrary, common sense and reality speak themselves that, according to Natural Law, the longer a pregnant woman carries a child in her womb, the more she becomes a mother and the more she realizes that by abortion she will kill her son or daughter. On the other hand, the shorter a woman carries a child in her womb, the less she recognizes herself as a mother and may think that by having an abortion she is simply cutting off an unnecessary “piece of meat.” Therefore, more abortions are performed in the early stages of pregnancy.

Conclusion

  • The answer to the question "Is It Permitted For Catholics To Support Abortion?" is NO, because abortion is a direct killing of the child, and always under all circumstances forbidden by the law of God;
  • If all candidates openly promote the murder of babies in the mother's womb, then Catholics are faced not to choose the lesser of two evils; they have no choice at all;
  • Abortion at any stage of pregnancy (don't confuse it with artificial delivery after the seventh month of pregnancy) is murder, and any human law that promotes abortion is contrary to the commandments of God and, therefore, should not be obeyed. By disobedience to such laws, Catholics don't give scandal nor inflict a more grievous hurt;
  • On the contrary, by taking part in promotion of the human laws of killing babies Catholics are giving scandal and inflicting a more grievous hurt;
  • So-called "the limitation of abortion" is in no way better than the complete liberation of abortion, because it is the same evil - Nunquam licet dlrecte procurare abortum - and, therefore, must be rejected by Catholics;
  • There is only a morally safe and lawful option for Catholics: “Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou, and preach the kingdom of God." St. Luke 9:60 and "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such." ST. MATTHEW 19:14

Fr. Valerii

[1] THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED, FROM THE ORIGINAL, OF Rev. FRANCIS SPIRAGO, professor of Theology. EDITED BY Rev. RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J., New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: BENZIGER BROTHERS, Printers to the Holy Apostolic See, 1899, Nihil Obstat: Thos. L. Kinkead, Censor Librorum, Imprimatrur: +MICHAEL AUGUSTINE, Archbishop of New York. New York, August 8, 1899, p. 377.

[2] Moral Theology BY REV. HEREBERT JONE, O.F.M. CAP., J.C.D, Nihil Obstat: PIUS KAELIN, O.F.M. CAP. Censor Deputatus, Imprimi Potest: VICTOR GREEN, O.F.M. CAP. Provincial, July 2. 1955, Nihil Obstat: RICHARD GINDER, S.T.L. Censor Librorum, Imprimatur: JOHN FRANCIS DEARDEN, D.D. Bishop of Pittsburg, August 15, 1955. p. 30.

[3] A HANDBOOK OF MORAL THEOLOGY BY THE REVEREND ANTONY KOCH, D.D. Professor of Theology, Adapted and Edited by ARTHUR PREUSS, VOLUME I, B. HERDER BOOK CO. 17 SOUTH BROADWAY, ST. LOUIS, Mo. AND 68, GREAT RUSSELL ST., LONDON, W.C. 1918, NIHIL OBSTAT Sti Ludovici, die 17 Maji, 1918 F.G. Holweck, Censor Librorum, IMPRIMATUR Sti. Ludovici, die i8 Maji, +Joannes J. Glennon, Archiepiseopus Sti. Ludovici. pp. 213, 214

[4] A MANUAL OF MORAL THEOLOGY, BY REV. THOMAS SLATER, SJ. VOL I, LONDON, BURNS OATES & WASHBOURNE LTD. PUBLISHERS TO THE HOLY SEE, 1925, NIHIL OBSTAT:H. DAVIS, SJ, IMPRIMI POTEST: GULIELMUS BODKIN, SJ, NIHIL OBSTAT: J. R. McKEE, C.O., Censor deputatus, IMPRIMATUR: EDM. CAN. SURMONT, Vicarius generalis, WESTMONASTERII, Die 1 Decembris, 1924, p. 65.

[5] A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, By THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE, O.S.B., D.D. Professor of Canon Law, VOLUME VIII BOOK V, W. E. BLAKE & SON, LIMITED CATHOLIC CHURCH SUPPLIES US CHURCH ST. TORONTO, CANADA, 1922, NIHIL OBSTAT Sti. Ludovici, die 25. Aug., 1922, F. G. Holweck, Censor Librorum, IMPRIMATUR Sti. Ludovici, die 25. Aug., 1922. +Joannes J. Glennon, Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici, pp. 38, 41.

[6] The Moral Obligation of Voting, BY REV. TITUS CRANNY, S.A., S.T.L. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C. 1952, IMPRIMI POTEST: ANGELUS F. DELAHAUNT, S.A. Pater Generalis, NIHIL OBSTAT: FRANCIS J. CONNELL, C.Ss.R., S.T.D. Censor Deputatus, IMPRIMATUR: +PATRICK A. O'BOYLE, D.D. Archiepiscopus Washingtoniensis, July 24, 1952, pp. 97-98.

[7] A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, By THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE, O.S.B., D.D. Professor of Canon Law, VOLUME VIII BOOK V, W. E. BLAKE & SON, LIMITED CATHOLIC CHURCH SUPPLIES US CHURCH ST. TORONTO, CANADA, 1922, NIHIL OBSTAT Sti. Ludovici, die 25. Aug., 1922, F. G. Holweck, Censor Librorum, IMPRIMATUR Sti. Ludovici, die 25. Aug., 1922. +Joannes J. Glennon, Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici, p. 400.

[8] Moral Theology BY REV. HEREBERT JONE, O.F.M. CAP., J.C.D, Nihil Obstat: PIUS KAELIN, O.F.M. CAP. Censor Deputatus, Imprimi Potest: VICTOR GREEN, O.F.M. CAP. Provincial, July 2. 1955, Nihil Obstat: RICHARD GINDER, S.T.L. Censor Librorum, Imprimatur: JOHN FRANCIS DEARDEN, D.D. Bishop of Pittsburg, August 15, 1955. pp. 303, 291, 292

[9] THE SUMMA THEOLOGICA OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, PART II. (SECOND PART) LITERALLY TRANSLATED BY FATHERS OF THE ENGLISH DOMINICAN PROVINCE, R. & T. WASHBOURNE, LTD. PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON AND AT MANCHESTER, BIRMINGHAM, AND GLASGOW BENZIGER BROTHERS: NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, 1918, Nihil Obstat: Fr. INNOCENTIUS APAP, O.P., S.T.M.. Censor Theol. Imprimatur: EDUS. CANONICUS SURMONT, VICARIUS GENERALIS, Westmonasterii. APPROBATIO ORDINIS, Nihil Obstat: Fr. VINCENTIUS McNABB, O.P., S.T.M., Fr. AELREDUS WHITACRE, O.P., S.T.L. Imprimatur: Fr. BEDA JARRETT, O.P., S.T.L., M.A. Prior Provincialis Angliae, Londini, die 1 Maii, 1918, Vol. 10, p. 211, 212

[10] THE COMMANDMENTS EXPLAINED, BY REV. ARTHUR DEVINE, R. & T. WASHBOURNE, LTD. 1, 2 & 4 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON And 248 BUCHANAN STREET, GLASGOW BENZIGER BROS. : NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, AND CHICAGO, Nihil Obstat: GULIELMUS L. GILDEA, S.T.D., Imprimatur: HEREBERTUS CARD. VAUGHAN, Archiep. Westmonast. Die 7 Martii, 1897, pp. 304, 305

[11] A MANUAL OF MORAL THEOLOGY, BY REV. THOMAS SLATER, SJ. VOL I, LONDON, BURNS OATES & WASHBOURNE LTD. PUBLISHERS TO THE HOLY SEE, 1925, NIHIL OBSTAT:H. DAVIS, SJ, IMPRIMI POTEST: GULIELMUS BODKIN, SJ, NIHIL OBSTAT: J. R. McKEE, C.O., Censor deputatus, IMPRIMATUR: EDM. CAN. SURMONT, Vicarius generalis, WESTMONASTERII, Die 1 Decembris, 1924, pp. 129, 132, 201, 202

[12] THE CASUIST, A Collection of Cases in Moral and Pastoral Theology, VOLUME IV, NEW YORK JOSEPH F. WAGNER, Nihil Obstat REV. REMIGIUS LAFORT, D.D. Censor, Imprimatur JOHN CARDINAL FARLEY Archbishop of New York, NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 12, 1912, pp. 40-42

[13] WORKS OF THE RIGHT REV. BISHOP HAY OF EDINBURGH, IN FIVE VOLUMES, VOL. I. THE SINCERE CHRISTIAN : VOL. I., A NEW EDITION EDITED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE RIGHT REV. BISHOP STRAIN, RINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS EDINBURGH, 1871, p. 262.

[14] THE SUMMA THEOLOGICA OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, PART II. (FIRST PART) LITERALLY TRANSLATED BY FATHERS OF THE ENGLISH DOMINICAN PROVINCE, THIRD NUMBER (QQ. XC-CXIV.) R. & T. WASHBOURNE, LTD. PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON AND AT MANCHESTER, BIRMINGHAM, AND GLASGOW, BENZIGER BROTHERS : NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, 1915, Nihil Obstat: F. INNOCENTIUS APAP., O.P., S.T.M., Censor Theol. Imprimatur. EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, ViCARius Generalis. Westmonasterii. APPROBATIO ORDINIS. Nihil Obstat: F. H. RAPHAEL MOSS. O.P., S.T.L., F. V. J. McNABB, O.P., S.T.B. Imprimatur: F. HUMBERTUS EVEREST, O.P., S.T.B. Prior Provincialis. LONDINI, Die 7 Martii, 1915. pp. 69, 70, 71

Категорія: Articles in English | Переглядів: 151 | Додав: