Is It Permitted For Catholics To Support Abortion 2?
Please listen carefully to what Bishop Sanborn said from 9:20 to 13:01 in the video interview premiered Apr 23, 2024, and you will agree that the arguments presented in my previous article Is It Permitted For Catholics To Support Abortion? are absolutely correct.
9:20
You don't see little babies in the womb, so they can be vacumed down, just like vacume dirt on a floor. You don't see them. It's not blood flowing in your house, or any thing like that. But if you make principles, and he just made the will of the people can establish any kind of morality or immorality is the case may be, you just open this country up to absolute moral chaos and decline and beeing overrun by its enemies. Moral decline is always preceeds the fall of a nation.
10:25
No. First of all it does pretend to the states. The protection of a human life is a state thing, you don't go to before Federal Court for murdering somebody, it is a state thing. But that is mean that a states can do whatever they please, that is a moral law. If you detatch a moral law from civil law, a country sinks, I mean it goes into insanity, you could shoot whomever you want. Things that we considering absolutely unacceptable a hundred years ago in the civil law. It's now defended as a right. It's like handing insane person a gun. So, what he is saying it is so dangerous. But yet it is a reflection of the American culture unfortunately. And it is the result of both Reformation and the French Revolution, and the American Revolution which was just a prefiguration of the French Revolution which completely destroyed all of the Catholic establishment in Europe, and made it Europe what it is today.
11:43
Yes, he wants the women to their shame, seems like most of them to heir shame are in favor of killing babies. So he has to be two (here is a word I cannot understand) in favor killing babies. And again, if it's alright up to fifteen weeks or thirty weeks whatever it should be, then you blow up the whole baloon, the whole moral baloon in this sence that either it's right or it's wrong. Either abortion is murder or it isn't, either the woman has a right over the child or she does not. So the time element means nothing, even they want (here is a word I cannot understand) rights of the child are in place, they want (here is a word I cannot understand) the chicken (here is a word I cannot understand) those rights are there. So that's say: well it's okay up to first years of your marriage you can shoot your wife. That's about what it is. Then you get a trouble after that. I mean it's absurd, it's totally absurd and really I mean the left just takes that they take that logically and say: who are you to even put a limit on? And this no answer to that."
When I listened to Bishop Sanborn's above answers I agreed with every one of his word because this was a Catholic explanation and I really hoped that the answer to this question "Is it permitted to vote for a limited abortion candidate?" and this one: "Why is that permitted to choose, because people might hear evil and say I don't have to do with that?" would be a predictable double "NO".
But when he answered: "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", and "the limitation of abortion is better than the complete liberation of abortion, you could say that, it's less evil", he, so to speak, aborted everything what he said just a few minutes ago, because these answers were completely contrary to Catholic teaching.
For his advice to be truly Catholic, he simply had to say, 'Catholics are not obliged to vote for a limited abortion candidate'. But for some reason, contrary to his own previous explanations, he said: “the limitation of abortion is better, etc.”
I think that this was simply an unfortunate mistake, and he soon realized it, because after video interview of April 23, 2024, he tried to correct this mistake by giving a more detailed explanation in the Most Holy Trinity Seminary newsletter of May 2024. He presented those same arguments which can be found in my article. For example, he wrote the following:
"No man or woman has the right to terminate the development of the conceived child, which has been created by God and belongs to God. It would violate the supreme right of the Creator. Consequently abortion is intrinsically evil, and may be permitted under no circumstance. This is true even if one wants to assert that the fetus is not human until after a few weeks. The point is that the entire reproductive process belongs to God, and man and woman are mere secondary participants in His creation."
"By taking God out of the “chain” of reproduction and rearing of children, the right to life of human beings becomes subject to the will of the people, that is, subject to human laws which can change with time as man “evolves.”
So murder could be justified, even mass murder. We are horrified by the thought of a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Mao slaughtering millions of people. But if these peoples’ right to live is subject to the State and not to God, then why not? So just as farmers might kill millions of chickens because of bird flu, or cremate millions of cattle because of hoof and mouth disease, so the reduction of the human right to life to merely human law logically results in mass murder.
Consequently, our United States has become a mass-murdering nation based on the logic which I have just described, namely the removal of God from the chain of the reproductive process, starting with matrimony, then the proper use of sex, then the gestation of the child, birth, upbringing, and finally maturity. If you remove God from even one step, one link, from this chain, then, like a house of cards, the entire thing falls apart. What we are left is that our lives are subject to the “will of the people.”
The only difference is that he is talking about the problem of one specific country, and I am talking about the same problem, which, unfortunately, is common for all human beings.
Fr. Valerii
|
