The Family Under Attack Don Leone Chap. 10 a

41VAKxjdgfLPart III
From the Theological Perspective

Chapter 10

THE CHURCH TEACHES THAT SEXUALITY BELONGS WITHIN MARRIAGE ALONE, so let us proceed by first giving a brief summary of the Church’s theological doctrine on marriage as contained in the Roman Catechism, and then considering sexuality outside of marriage.

1. Marriage as Instituted by God

In the discussion of the ends of marriage we have considered certain passages from Genesis I and II concerning the creation of man and woman. The Roman Catechism quotes them to show the divine institution of matrimony. The first passage it quotes is Genesis I 27-8: ‘God created them male and female, and blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply’. The second passage is Genesis II 18:’And the Lord God said: ‘It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.’ The third passage is Genesis II 20-4: ‘But for Adam there was not found a helper like himself…[and after the account of the creation of Eve from his rib] wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. The Catechism concludes: ‘These words, according to the authority of the Lord Himself, as we read in St. Matthew, prove the divine institution of Matrimony.’ The Catechism refers to Mt. 19.6 which (with its two preceding verses) reads as follows: ‘…Have you not read that he who made man from the beginning made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man put asunder.’

We see here how God instituted marriage for the two ends of procreation and mutual assistance. Moreover the Council of Trent, quoted here by the Catechism, declares that God rendered it perpetual and indissoluble: ‘What God hath joined together, says Our Lord, let no man put asunder.’ As to the unity of marriage, the Catechism explains in a later section that it is expressed by Our Lord’s ‘Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.’

The two main ends of marriage, together with its two properties, were present from its institution then, whereas, since the Catechism states that marriage was instituted before the Fall, we can conclude that its third end, the remedy for concupiscence, existed only at some time subsequent to its institution, namely after the Fall with the onset of concupiscence. This third end is expressed by the words of St. Paul as follows (I Cor. VII 2): ‘For fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband’, and, after recommending temporary abstinence, the Apostle adds: ‘Return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.’As the Catechism notes in a later section on the blessings of marriage, marriage renders sexual relations ‘right and honourable.’

2. Marriage as a Sacrament

The Catechism explains that marriage as a natural union ‘was instituted from the beginning to propagate the human race,’ it was used by the holy Patriarchs ‘to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God’, and it was raised to a sacramental dignity ‘in order that a people might be begotten and brought up for the service and worship of the true God and of Christ Our Saviour’(as we might add: in the Church on earth and ultimately in Heaven, by means of the transmission of natural and above all supernatural life, and by an education above all moral and spiritual118). Matrimony is in short ‘a work that is not human but divine.’ Christ takes it as a sign of the ‘intimate union that exists between Him and His Church, of His immense love for us, and the divinity of such an ineffable mystery’. These elements are expressed by the fact that the marriage-tie is the closest of all human relations, that it involves the greatest affection and love, and that it is holy.

To demonstrate the sacramentality of marriage, the Catechism quotes Ephesians V 28-32 which refers to the passage above and concludes: ‘For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall adhere to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church.’ The Catechism here relies on Tradition and the Council of Trent (s.24) adding: ‘Itis indubitable, therefore, that the Apostle compares the husband to Christ, and the wife to the Church; that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; and that for this very reason the husband should love his wife and the wife love and respect her husband. For Christ loved His Church and gave Himself for her (Eph. V 25), while as the same apostle teaches, the Church is subject to Christ’(Hebrews XIII 4).

Since the Church’s teaching on the husband’s authority over the wife has become unpopular in recent times, one would do well to recall that every society needs some form of authority in order to direct the activities of that society towards its common good (Summa I q. 96 a 4); that God has chosen the man for this function; that Christian authority is not imperious or egoist, but involves service and devotion in the example of the Son of Man ‘Who did not come to be served but to serve’ (Mt.22.25-28); and that the spouses are equals as to their rights, and collaborators as to their common yoke (conjugalis)119.

In a later section the Catechism delineates the duties of the husband and wife. The husband must treat his wife generously and honourably: she is his companion like Eve to Adam. He should earn a livelihood for the family and keep it in order, also in the moral sense. The wife should obey her husband, possess ‘the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit’ (cf. I Peter 3.1-6), train the children, look after the home, and love and esteem her husband above all others after God.

Finally, the Sacrament of Matrimony signifies and confers Grace (which are the two marks of every Sacrament), as the Council of Trent declares: ‘By His Passion, Christ, the Author and Perfecter of the venerable Sacraments, merited for us the grace that perfects the natural love (of husband and wife), confirms their indissoluble union, and sanctifies them.’(L.c.)

3. Christ restores Marriage to its Primitive Qualities

After the Fall, marriage had fallen from its primitive unity and indissolubility: many of the ancient Patriarchs had several wives at the same time, while under the Law of Moses it was permissible to divorce one’s wife. As to the second point, Christ states: ‘But from the beginning it was not so’(Mt.9.8). He restores to marriage its unity and indissolubility by declaring the spouses to be one flesh and by forbidding their separation (Mt.19.5-6 as quoted above). He expressly forbids polygamy and divorce by the statement; ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery’ (Mk.10.11-12 cf. Mt.19.9, Lk.16.16-8). [We note here that the phrase in Mt.19.9 and Mt.5.32: ‘whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication’ does not permit divorce on this condition, although the Protestant and Orthodox have interpreted it in that way.120The phrase should rather be interpreted as permitting the ‘separation of bed and board’ (with the prior approbation of the Church)121.] The Apostle confirms that the bond of marriage may be dissolved by death alone: ‘A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband die, she is at liberty; let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord’(I Cor.7.39, cf. I Cor.7.10).

4. The Three Blessings of Marriage

Marriage confers three blessings, or goods: children, fidelity, and the Sacrament122. Such blessings compensate for the inconvenience referred to by the Apostle in the words: ‘Such shall have tribulation of the flesh.’ (I Cor.VII 28). They recall the two principal ends and the properties of marriage, one might say, now seen in a Christian context and elevated by Grace.

The first blessing is to be understood of course ‘not only of bearing children but also of bringing them up and training them to the practise of piety.’ The Catechism quotes I Tim II 15: ‘The woman shall be saved by bearing children if she continue in faith’; and Eccl VII 25:’Hast thou children? Instruct them and bow down their necks from childhood.’(We note here that the Church has always also had a high regard for virginal marriages, where the spouses agree to abstain from their marital rights, thus relinquishing the primary end, or first blessing, of marriage in favour of mutual assistance and companionship.)

The second blessing is ‘the fidelity which binds wife to husband and husband to wife in such a way that they mutually deliver to each other power over their bodies (cf. I Cor. VII 4), promising at the same time never to violate the holy bond of Matrimony…Matrimonial fidelity also demands that they love one another with a special, holy, and pure love; not as adulterers love one another but as Christ loves His Church (cf. Eph.5.25)…and surely [Christ’s] love for His Church was immense; it was a love inspired not by His own advantage, but only by the advantage of His spouse.’

The Catechism returns to marital love at the end of the section on Matrimony, indicating that this love should be moderate and modest123: ‘They that have wives, let them be as though they had them not’(I Cor.VII 29); St. Jerome says: ‘The love which a wise man cherishes towards his wife is the result of judgment, not the impulse of passion; he governs the impetuosity of desire, and is not hurried into indulgence. There is nothing more shameful than that a husband should love his wife as an adulteress.’(Contra Jovian I). Furthermore, ‘as every blessing is to be obtained from God by holy prayer, the faithful are also to be taught sometimes to abstain from the marriage debt, in order to devote themselves to prayer.’

The third blessing is the Sacrament: ‘that is to say the indissoluble bond of marriage…And truly, if marriage as a Sacrament represents the union of Christ with His Church, it also necessarily follows that just as Christ never separates Himself from His Church, so in like manner the wife can never be separated from her husband in so far as regards the marriage-tie.’ Indeed the bond of marriage is but a symbol of that union which God desires to contract with each human soul. Moderation in sexuality is equivalent to chastity.

The Catechism concludes its exposition of marriage with the following paragraph: ‘Thus will they [the faithful] find the blessings of marriage to be daily increased by an abundance of divine Grace; and living in the pursuit of piety, they will not only spend this life in peace and tranquillity, but will also repose in the true and firm hope,’which confoundeth not,’(Rom.V 5) of arriving, through the divine goodness, at the possession of that life which is eternal.’

A final word may be said concerning the various ways in which marriage can be analyzed. We have considered the three motives, ends, or finalities of marriage: procreation; companionship and mutual assistance; and the remedy against concupiscence; we have considered the two properties of unity and indissolubility; and the three blessings (or goods) of children, fidelity, and the Sacrament. In more recent times, as in the declarations of Pius XII, marriage is analyzed more simply in terms of two goods: the bonum prolis and the bonum conjugum: the good of the offspring and the good of the spouses. For the purpose of this distinction, the procreation and education of children is taken as the first good, and all the other elements are taken together as the second good. In yet more recent times we have seen an analysis in terms of procreation and love, where no further mention is made of the priority of ends, but where love is typically placed first and lacks the detailed presentation which the good of the spouses has received in Tradition.

Radio Interview On Traditional Catholicism

Here in Phoenix Arizona there is the Radio Family Rosary that began broadcasting programs for over 30 years.  I was invited by Joseph Kestner to give 3, five minute talks on the Latin Mass.

IMG_3641As you know, my vocation now is to do anything possible to promote the Holy Latin Mass, Latin Sacraments, appreciation of the Sacred Vessels of Chalices and Patens used to hold The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus in the Host and Precious Blood, Sacred Traditional Art, Gregorian and Latin Music, Sacred Architecture, Sacred statues, Traditional Prayers and Vestments.

Thank God the talks went very well.  It will be broadcasted on the Catholic Radio sometime in April.  I talked about the sacredness, sacrifice, prayers, orientation toward God, kneeling for Holy Communion, Chapel veil, modesty and much much more.  It is amazing what can be said in 15 minutes.

On Saturday March 14th, they will be having a fundraiser Dinner at:

St. Paul Parish Hall  330 W. Coral Gables Dr.  Phoenix.  For more info call: 602 840-8185

Affordable Care Act And Big Brother

I received this notice from the Firm that is going to help me file my income tax this year.  Here comes Big Brother checking on everyone to see if they are getting their health Insurance.  There is a one year of “grace” where the form 1095-B or C is optional for this first year.  One of the huge cost to the ACA was the hiring of thousands and thousands of IRS employees to check on all citizens of the USA to enforce the mandatory health Insurance Affordable Care Act.


Affordable Care Act

The biggest issue that taxpayers and tax professionals will have to work with this year is the ACA or the Affordable Care Act.

If you have obtained insurance through the Marketplace, you will get a form 1095-A from the Marketplace. We MUST have that form in order to complete your taxes.

If you have private insurance or insurance through your employer, you may get a form 1095-B or 1095-C. These forms are optional for this tax year, however, if you have received one of these forms please bring it along.

If you are covered under a private insurance policy or a policy through your employer and did not receive one of the above mentioned forms, please make sure to bring the insurance cards of all family members with you to your appointment. If you are dropping your taxes off, we will make copies of the cards for our records.

If you are exempted from the minimum essential coverage, please make sure to apply for your exemption number at least a month before your appointment. You can find the application at we will have copies of the applications in our office.

Continue to pray for our government and all governments to convert and be under God’s insurance plan.

St. Gabriel Of Our Lady Of Sorrows Feb 27

gabriel19St. Gabriel was born in Assisi Italy in 1838 and had great intellectual gifts.  As a young man, when by the gift of God’s mercy had already been called to a more perfect life, he fell ill and began to weary of the vanity of this world.  Guided by Our Lady, he entered the Passionist congregation and chose the name Gabriel of the Sorrowful Virgin, in order to keep in mind continually both the Joys and Sorrows of the Virgin Mary.  Honoring her in every way, he was accustomed particularly to contemplating here as worn out and afflicted by Jesus’ sufferings, with such sorrow that he shed a flood of tears.

He kept his virginity intact and following the strict usage of his congregation, he lived wholly crucified to the world, and for God alone.  Thus he completed his short life in the exercise of all virtues; consumed by the fire of charity rather than by the force of his illness and refreshed by the aid of God’s Mother, he went to heaven at the age of 24.

Prayer To St. Gabriel

O angelic young Gabriel, who, with your ardent love for Jesus Crucified and your compassion for Our Lady of Sorrows, were on earth a mirror of innocence and an example of every virtue; we turn to you full of confidence to implore your aid. Oh! How many evil things and afflictions O how many dangers, assail our young people from every side, seeking to make them lose the faith. You, who lived always a life of faith, who amongst the temptations of the world maintained purity and virginity; turn your eyes to us, cast us a compassionate and pitying glance! Help us to have the grace to persevere in faith; we invoke your name; we cannot doubt the effactiousness of your patronage! In full confidence of our hope in you, we pray, O Sweet Saint, to obtain this particular grace for the greater glory of God and for the good of souls (here mention your request). Finally, obtain for us from Jesus Christ Crucified, through Mary, Our Lady of Sorrows, resignation and peace so that we might always live the Christian life, throughout all the times of this present life, so that we might one day be happy with you in the presence of our Heavenly Father. Amen

Bible Reading For Lent, Ember Friday

Ember Friday of Lent, 2 small meals and one ordinary, no meat. Ember Sat 2 small meals and one normal meal with meat.
Ezech. 18:10-28
Thus saith the Lord God: The soul that sinneth, the same shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son: the justice of the just shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath committed, and keep all my commandments, and do judgment, and justice, living he shall live, and shall not die. I will not remember all his iniquities that he hath done: in his justice which he hath wrought, he shall live. Is it my will that a sinner should die, saith the Lord God, and not that he should be converted from his ways, and live? But if the just man turn himself away from his justice, and do iniquity according to all the abominations which the wicked man useth to work, shall he live? all his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: in the prevarication, by which he hath prevaricated, and in his sin, which he hath committed, in them he shall die. And you have said: The way of the Lord is not right. Hear ye, therefore, O house of Israel: Is it my way that is not right, and are not rather your ways perverse? For when the just turneth himself away from his justice, and committeth iniquity, he shall die therein: in the injustice that he hath wrought he shall die. And when the wicked turneth himself away from his wickedness, which he hath wrought, and doeth judgment, and justice: he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth and turneth away himself from all his iniquities which he hath wrought, he shall surely live, and not die.
Mt. 12:38-50
At that time there was a festival day of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is at Jerusalem a pond, called Probatica, which in Hebrew is named Bethsaida, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of sick, of blind, of lame, of withered; waiting for the moving of the water. And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond; and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water, was made whole, of whatsoever infirmity he lay under. And there was a certain man there, that had been eight and thirty years under his infirmity. Him when Jesus had seen lying, and knew that he had been now a long time, he saith to him: Wilt thou be made whole? The infirm man answered him: Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond. For whilst I am coming, another goeth down before me. Jesus saith to him: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk. And immediately the man was made whole: and he took up his bed, and walked. And it was the sabbath that day. The Jews therefore said to him that was healed: It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed. He answered them: He that made me whole, he said to me, Take up thy bed, and walk. They asked him therefore: Who is that man who said to thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? But he who was healed, knew not who it was; for Jesus went aside from the multitude standing in the place. Afterwards, Jesus findeth him in the temple, and saith to him: Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee. The man went his way, and told the Jews, that it was Jesus who had made him whole.

The Family Under Attack

41VAKxjdgfLChapter 9 ‘PRO-CHOICE’

TO BE ‘PRO-CHOICE’ IS TO HOLD THAT A WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE whether to proceed with, or to terminate pregnancy. In this chapter let us examine this proposition in general, then in detail, and then investigate its underlying motivation.

The proposition is sometimes accepted as a self- evident truth on one of two grounds. One ground is that proceeding with a pregnancy and abortion are neither objectively right nor objectively wrong, but morally indifferent, morally neutral, options between which the woman has a right to choose as she wishes. This is however untrue if in the previous chapter it has been validly argued that proceeding with a pregnancy is objectively right, and abortion is objectively wrong.

The other ground for accepting the proposition as a self-evident truth is that (again) the two options are neither objectively right nor objectively wrong, but options to which it is the woman’s prerogative to give moral content: in other words it is for the woman to determine which option is right and which is wrong. It must be replied that any serious moral thought reveals that it is not the sentiments or deliberations of a given individual that make certain actions right (such as showing compassion to one who suffers) and certain actions wrong (such as destroying an innocent, defenceless life) but that (again) they are right or wrong objectively.

From the Catholic standpoint this second ground may be expressed in one of two ways: the claim to the moral autonomy of the conscience and the claim to the moral autonomy of man. These two claims are addressed in detail in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

With regard to the first claim, the Church teaches that man must act according to the moral law. It is this moral law which is revealed in the conscience with respect both to general principles of conduct and to particular actions. As is observed in Veritatis Splendor s.54 quoting from Gaudium et Spes: ‘In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience…’ The judgments of conscience are, however, not infallible and should be corrected if in conflict with the moral law, because ‘Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil. Rather there is profoundly imprinted upon it a principle of obedience vis-à- vis the objective norm…’ (Veritatis Splendor s.60 quoting from Dominum et Vivificantem). With regard to the second claim, Veritatis Splendor 232

s.35 quotes from Genesis 2:17: ‘Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat’, and comments as follows: ‘With this imagery Revelation teaches that the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man but to God alone’. For man to abrogate moral autonomy to himself, for him to constitute himself the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong is to disobey this commandment of God, and to seek to ‘be like God’ but ‘without God, before God, and not in accordance with God’ (St. Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua: PG 91, 1156c). It is not just a sin: it is the prototype of sin.


What particular factors are thought to give a woman the ‘right to choose’? Let us now evaluate in the light of the remarks in the previous chapter the most popular feminist116 arguments for abortion. These include the slogans referred to in that chapter.
1. ‘Our Body Our Choice’

The slogan suggests that the unborn:

  1. (a)  is part of the mother’s body;
  2. (b)  is located within the mother’s body;
  3. (c)  cannot exist outside the other’s body (the so-called ‘viability’ argument).

As Romano Amerio notes in Iota Unum (s.90): ‚Feminism…in its last unfoldings…is…the negation of marriage and the family‘.

(a) is untrue: the unborn has a body of his own; (b) is true; (c) is true up to about 6 months from conception.

Can (b) and (c) to the extent that it is true, justify abortion? Does the unborn’s location within the mother and dependence upon the mother justify killing him? Not if, as has been argued in the previous chapter, the unborn is a human being (rather than a noxious parasite), a person, with dignity in himself, created in the image and likeness of God.

In illustration: take an invalid dependent on another person for life. His dependence clearly does not justify killing him, wherever he may be located.

2. ‘A Woman’s Right to Choose’
What factors might this slogan be thought to cover other than factors (a)-(c)?

(d) The woman’s self-sacrifice in proceeding with a pregnancy, in addition to trauma if it resulted from rape;

  1. (e)  The trauma of giving a child into adoption;
  2. (f)  The self-sacrifice involved in bringing up a child especially if the child is disabled.

This trauma and self-sacrifice involved in these cases is undeniable, but must be seen in the light of the rewards of giving birth to and bringing up a child (particularly a disabled child) if this is undertaken with love.

Now in line with the considerations adduced in the previous chapter, any sufferings here do not clearly outweigh the sufferings involved in abortion, whether to the mother or to her progeny, but in any case cannot justify killing an innocent human being. In short, the fact that a person causes one suffering unintentionally does not justify one to kill that person.

In illustration: one’s suffering in carrying for an invalid does not justify one to kill the invalid.
3. The prospective suffering of the child in being born disabled or unwanted

Now, disabled children do, perhaps, suffer more than other children in general but as experience shows, if they are brought up in a loving family, can lead a fulfilled life. Unwanted children may be adopted; it is not evident that adopted children suffer greatly.

In any case it must be said again that any suffering that may be experienced by the child does not clearly outweigh the suffering involved in abortion, and cannot justify killing an innocent human being. With regard to the second point: the possible future suffering of a person does not justify one in killing that person.

In illustration: imagine an invalid who is not at the moment suffering; the possibility of him suffering in the future does not justify one in killing him now.

4. No Return to Back-Street Abortions

This slogan is thought to justify abortion under the present law as preventing ‘backstreet’ abortions. The slogan expresses the following position: Abortion under the present law, which involves relatively little suffering for the mother (being largely untraumatic and hygienic) is preferable to ‘backstreet’ abortion – which involves much suffering to the mother (being traumatic and not invariably hygienic).

This argument is also invalid because although under the present law the circumstances of the operation are less traumatic, there are many more women and children involved so that in fact there is both more suffering and more killing.

It may be added here that it would appear117 that the quantity of women who died after ‘backstreet’ abortions in Britain had been vastly over-estimated and was in fact already diminishing before the Abortion Act was passed.


As remarked earlier, it is suffering that gives weight to the principal pro-choice arguments, as has been seen in varying degrees in these four arguments. The appeal to suffering is a feature of that hedonism which has been discussed above, an approach to moral reasoning which prescribes the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain or (in its slightly more sophisticated version) the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of suffering.

It has been argued in the previous chapter that hedonism is a shallow philosophy and hence defective. Just as its shallowness was seen before in its failure to respect dignity of man, so its shallowness is shown here by its failure to respect the importance, the gravity of suffering. (Indeed, as suggested before, the two types of failure are related).

A human being has objective dignity and the fact of his suffering is important and grave: any philosophical or religious system of depth recognises these truths. Suffering is not an enemy to be avoided at all costs but something to be accepted and born patiently and an occasion for learning compassion. A right response to suffering is essential for a life of integrity and spiritual growth: ‘whoever does not know how to suffer does not know how to live’. (Human Life Under Threat by Josef Cardinal Ratzinger) The deepest understanding of suffering is clearly the Christian understanding: namely, that suffering is the highest vocation of all for it is the vocation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is for man humbly to accept his sufferings as sent by God, to offer them to Him as a loving gift, and as the completion of ‘what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His Body, that is, the Church’ (Colossians 1.24).

Suffering does not give the woman the ‘right to choose’, then; it may, however, give her the belief that she does have this right. In other words it is not so much a rational as a psychological ground for this belief. It may be noted here that an individual’s philosophical outlook often reflects his or her psychological make-up: atheism, for example, typically results from anger that finds its origin in disappointment, suffering or oppression, especially during childhood.

The typical psychological antecedents for the pro- choice stance may perhaps be described as follows: The motivation for abortion is hedonistic (issuing from considerations of pain, suffering or self-interest – see the last chapter), and will typically flow from a hedonistic sexual relationship. Such a relationship treats persons as objects. The woman, who is often the more sensitive party, feels this more deeply: in short, she feels maltreated and abused. If she then conceives and the man refuses to care for her or to take responsibility for their child, and especially if he abandons her, she feels still further maltreated and abused. Her natural response is to become angry and to assert herself as the sole arbiter of her future: she has the right, she feels, to choose abortion, or pregnancy, childbirth, and the raising of the child, together with the concomitant transformation of her entire life. If, in addition, she is told that abortion is wrong and that she must alone bear the life- transforming consequences of the sexual act, and particularly if she is told this by a male and/or in an unsympathetic manner, she will feel a victim yet again of ‘male domination’ and self-interest and all the more justified in her pro-choice stance. We see, then, how this stance is grounded in the woman’s suffering. We also see the role played by anger (which explains the militant nature of the pro-choice movement) and the principle role played by aggression: the aggressive behaviour of the male leading to the aggressive stance of the female, leading in turn to the supremely aggressive act of abortion.

Aggression leads to aggression, machismo leads to feminism (as Cardinal Ratzinger points out in ‘Human Life under Threat’), conduct unworthy of a man leads to conduct unworthy of a woman. What is required in place of aggression is first that the man love, respect, and honour the woman. She will then respond in like manner. When a woman becomes pregnant and, perhaps because unmarried, becomes confused and afraid, she deserves again to be accorded the same love, respect, and honour. She deserves to be helped to fulfil her deepest needs, namely by being given support and care during pregnancy, childbirth, and the raising of her child.

The shallow response to the woman’s suffering is to advocate and facilitate abortion, to be led by compassion in regard to an evil that one can see to bring about an evil that one cannot see. For abortion does not merely serve to terminate the woman’s immediate suffering but exchanges it for greater suffering and for death: the suffering and death of the child together with the long-term suffering and sometimes even the suicide of the mother.

In short, abortion is wrong, and in the words of Pope John Paul II in ‘Crossing the Threshold of Hope’ (p.205): ‘It is not possible to speak of the right to choose when a clear moral evil is involved, when what is at stake is the commandment ‘Do not kill!’ Rather (p.206) ‘in firmly rejecting ‘pro-choice’ it is necessary to become courageously ‘pro-woman’ promoting a choice that is truly in favour of women… who if they enjoy our support are… capable of heroism’.

Traditional Catholic Exorcist Cont.

FireContinuation of the true account of the real exorcism done on a 14 year old Rob from Jan. 15, till April 19, 1949.  From this real account, we know for sure that we do not want anything that has to do with sin, the devil, or hell.

On Feb 26, letters were scratched on Rob’s body by claws.  His mother was from St. Louis and thought that a change to return there would be good for her son.  The first was word written on the boy’s ribs in deep red was ‘Louis’ and ‘Saturday’ on his hip.  And on the boy’s chest was written ‘3 1/2 weeks’.  This writing appeared with no motion of Rob’s hands and caused him great pain.  HIs parents were concerned about sending him to school and the writing appeared ‘No’ appeared on his wrist and a large ‘N’ on both legs.  Rob could not have done this writing since it sometimes was on his back.  At this point his mother was afraid to disobey the devils orders written on her son.

Bible Readings For Thurs. First Week Of Lent

Ezech. 18:1-9
In those days, the word of the Lord came to me, saying: What is the meaning? That you use among you this parable as a proverb in the land of Israel, saying: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge. As I live, saith the Lord God, this parable shall be no more to you a proverb in Israel. Behold all souls are mine: as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, the same shall die. And if a man be just, and do judgment and justice, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel: and hath not defiled his neighbour’s wife, nor come near to a menstruous woman: And hath not wronged any man: but hath restored the pledge to the debtor, hath taken nothing away by violence: hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment: Hath not lent upon usury, nor taken any increase: hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, and hath executed true judgment between man and man: Hath walked in my commandments, and kept my judgments, to do truth: he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God.
Mt. 15:21-28
At that time Jesus went from thence, and retired into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And behold a woman of Canaan who came out of those coasts, crying out, said to him: Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David: my daughter is grieviously troubled by the devil. Who answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying: Send her away, for she crieth after us: And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel. But she came and adored him, saying: Lord, help me. Who answering, said: It is not good to take the bread of the children, and to cast it to the dogs. But she said: Yea, Lord; for the whelps also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters. Then Jesus answering, said to her: O woman, great is thy faith: be it done to thee as thou wilt: and her daughter was cured from that hour.

Rend Your Heart For Lent

Lent is an excellent time to watch out for what our hearts desire.  Jesus says it clearly:

For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also. Matt. 6:21

Sacred-Heart-of-Jesus-1In these days of going to daily Latin Mass, praying, reading the Holy Bible, reflecting on the true condition of our soul and fasting, it is wise to watch what temptations come up.

The devil uses our weaknesses to tempt us.  He watches what we like and incites those desires and passions.

He tried to incite in Jesus’ heart the desire to fill His stomach with bread when He was hungry.

He tried to get Him to avoid all suffering, especially on the cross, by inciting His ability to do miracles and to not suffer no matter what would happen by falling off the top of the Temple.

He tried to incite in Him the easy way of bringing about His Kingdom by quickly adoring the devil and then getting on with His Good Kingdom.

Temptation of_JUAN DE FLANDESSo what are the areas that your heart longs for?  Where is your heart and treasure?

  • Is it food?
  • Is it sex?
  • Is it dirty pictures and books?
  • Is it being loved?
  • Is it shopping?
  • Is it alcohol?
  • Is it drugs?
  • Is it wanting to rest all the time?
  • Is it wanting to be liked by everyone?
  • Is it wanting to be affirmed?
  • Is it being better than others?
  • Is it wanting a lot of money so that you can be happy buying what ever you think will make you happy?
  • Is it working too much to make a lot of money?
  • Is it getting always your way?
  • Is it vanity?
  • Is it dressing sexually so that you are desired by others?
  • Is it making quick money by gambling?
  • Is it winning video and computer games?
  • Is it watching television and soap operas to avoid living our own lives?
  • Is it watching and talking about sports?
  • Is it talking about others so we do not have to look at your own defects?

Anthony Abbot_Temptation of_VOS, Marten deJesus tells us that our evil desires, that lead into sin and away from Him is our heart.

For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. Matt. 15:19

The prophet Joel reminds us that Lent is about changing the heart from which come our thoughts and then the will puts those desires into action.

Now therefore saith the Lord: Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning.  And rend your hearts, and not your garments, and turn to the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, patient and rich in mercy, and ready to repent of the evil.  Who knoweth but he will return, and forgive, and leave a blessing behind him, sacrifice and libation to the Lord your God?  Blow the trumpet in Sion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly, Gather together the people, sanctify the church, assemble the ancients, gather together the little ones, and them that suck at the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth from his bed, and the bride out of her bride chamber. Joel 2:12-16.

So, if this lent we can fall more in love with God and Mary, our hearts will want their love and trust their advise.  It will be easier to not sin.  Only then, can our hearts rest in God and Mary.

Other desires never give final rest.  The transitory pleasures that our hearts desire never last.   We all know this.  We have experienced it a thousand times. But for some reason, we keep on falling for the same old trick of our flesh and the devil.   If I just could have this sexual experience, buy this, have this person love me, eat that, go there, make more money, have that perfect job, house, spouse, children; then I will be happy forever.

So again, this lent let us watch carefully what our hearts desire.  Let us redirect our desires toward God, Mary and the eternal things that fulfill and last for ever.

We are so blessed to be traditional Catholics to know this and to be encouraged to let go of passing worldly pleasures and put our hearts set on those of Heaven and God’s love.

The Family Under Attack Don Leone Chap. 8

41VAKxjdgfLIII Hedonism

Let us now turn to hedonism. In so doing we move from an objective to a subjective system of morality. In the definition of the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (op. cit.), hedonism, or ‘ethical hedonism’, ‘affirms that only pleasure is intrinsically desirable and that displeasure (or pain) is intrinsically undesirable…other philosophers have thought that happiness is the only thing that is intrinsically desirable’. We may thus understand this system to teach that the only good is pleasure or happiness, the only ill is pain or suffering.

In denying objective good, the hedonist denies the existence of that objective good which is God, or that objective good which is the object of rational love, or the will. In so doing he renders himself incapable of any adequate description of reality, morality, and the meaning of life.

To the hedonist, the human being is not good in himself, he has no dignity, no objective or intrinsic dignity, but only a derivative value, or utility (see the beginning of the section on the Dignity of the Person above) according to the pleasure or pain he might give or enjoy. For this reason the human being is to be treated as no more than a body: he is to be treated as an object or thing, like any other. The hedonist does not see that it is morally good to visit an invalid: he sees it as a means to relieve the invalid’s pain or to satisfy himself. He does not see that suffering is a mystery, that it has a meaning which cannot fully be comprehended by the intellect: he sees it simply as something to be ended. The hedonist proposes that the human being should be motivated by pleasure or at best by happiness: he reduces rational love to sensible love, he understands man on the model of the beasts.

The hedonist offers an inadequate description, a severely impoverished and debased conception, of reality, and of morality. The hedonist is shallow. In the first chapter of the book (p. 9) it was stated that this book is not addressed to the shallow man. The reason for this may be seen in its fullness with regard to the hedonist: there is no common ground for discussion between a hedonist and a man of good will. All that a man of good will can do is to show that the hedonist either denies, or is unable to explain, those things, which are the deepest, and the most important in human existence.

According to the criteria given in the first chapter, hedonism is in virtue of its shallowness a severely defective approach to moral reasoning – even more so indeed than humanism. Its deficiency is, moreover, evident in the logical incoherence of much of its argument, including its argument on abortion. The unsettling significance of this logical incoherence is elucidated in chapter thirteen.

Let us look at the hedonistic argument for abortion, which ranges from the weak to the invalid.

Let us distinguish between two types of hedonism: egoism, and utilitarian hedonism. Egoism concerns the individual’s pleasure or happiness, pain or suffering. Utilitarianism concerns the maximisation of goods (under some description) and/or the minimisation of ills (under some description). Utilitarian hedonism in particular concerns the maximisation of pleasure or happiness, and/or the minimisation of pain or suffering.

Let us consider these two types of hedonism, first with regard to an early period of pregnancy, the first two months, then with regard to a later period of pregnancy, the period subsequent to the first two months.

During the early period, the egoist argument for abortion is weak, because it is not clear that abortion does on balance spare the mother pain or suffering, for many women suffer remorse or regret as a result of abortion.

During this same early period, the utilitarian argument for abortion is weaker still, for it is even less clear that abortion minimises the combined pain or suffering of the mother and the unborn: not only is there the possibility that the mother may suffer remorse or regret, but there is also the possibility that the unborn may suffer extreme pain in being destroyed, for as early as the second and third weeks from conception certain of the structures necessary to the perception of pain, such as the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are in the process of development.

During the later period, the egoist argument is weaker than it was before, and becomes progressively weaker the further the unborn develops, for, as noted above, as early as one month from conception the unborn resembles a born human being rather than any other organism, and the longer the pregnancy continues, the more closely he comes to resemble a born human being. Consequently one might reasonably suppose that the mother is more likely to suffer remorse at two months from conception than before, and that the further the unborn develops, the more likely is she to suffer remorse.

During this later period, the utilitarian argument is simply invalid, for there is no ground for saying that abortion at two months or later minimises the combined suffering of the mother and the unborn: not only is there a substantial possibility that the woman will suffer remorse, and the more developed the child the more substantial the possibility, but it is also an irrefutable fact that all the structures necessary to the perception of pain are in existence from the tenth week from conception, so that we may infer that the unborn is able to experience pain and suffering from the beginning of the tenth week from conception at the latest.

Pain and Suffering

We have compared the pain or suffering of the mother in proceeding with her pregnancy with her pain or suffering in undergoing abortion and with the pain or suffering of the unborn. Let us now consider the nature of these forms of pain and suffering in detail, and consider the pain and suffering that motivates abortion in relation to the other factors that motivate abortion.

Abortions may be divided into those that are deliberately intended and those that are not. Typically, the former comprise surgical abortion and late chemical abortion, the latter comprise early chemical abortions (whether by the use of vaccines, implants, or ‘contraceptive’ pills) and abortions resulting from the use of intrauterine devices and from in vitro fertilization.

A certain proportion of those abortions that are intended are undertaken from a consideration of the mother’s suffering. Consider, for example, the woman who has become pregnant unexpectedly and is confused, frightened, unprepared for a child, and who is perhaps not assured of the support of the man, who, by contrast tries to coerce her into abortion; or consider the woman who has conceived as the result of rape, or who is expecting a severely disabled child (in which case the prospective suffering of the child is also relevant).

It is typically on grounds of suffering or the human’s ‘well-being’ (In ‘Our Right to Choose: Toward a New Ethic of Abortion’ by Beverly Wildung Harrison, Beacon Press Boston, 1983.) that the proponents of abortion defend the practice and charge those who oppose it with a lack of compassion. It is principally on grounds of suffering that the current law permits abortion: risk to the physical or mental health of the mother, risk of a severely handicapped child (chapter 7); it is suffering that gives weight to the slogans ‘Our Body Our Choice’, ‘A Woman’s Right to Choose’, ‘No Return to Backstreet Abortions’ (chapter 9).

It must, however, be most clearly emphasized that suffering, or the expectation of suffering, accounts for the motivation of only a small proportion of abortions: what accounts for the other abortions, which constitute their vast majority, is not in fact suffering but self-interest.

As for the greater proportion of abortions that are intended: pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood are considered intolerably burdensome, particularly in circumstances of financial difficulty, a demanding or rewarding career, or an unstable non-marital relationship. To label such phenomena as intolerably burdensome, to view them simply as occasions of pain and suffering, is possible only on the shallowest, hedonistic attitude towards these phenomena.

As for those abortions that are not deliberately intended, a small proportion would appear to be motivated by considerations of pain and suffering, as when circumstances of dire poverty or the risk of congenital disease motivates the use of abortifacient ‘contraceptives’ or when the suffering of childlessness motivates in vitro fertilization. The majority of unintended abortions would appear by contrast to be motivated by self-interest.

The attitude of parents towards any unintended abortion that they might cause may be categorized more fully as either pure ignorance, total disregard for, or sheer indifference to, the destruction of the unborn. Typical of the first category are abortions resulting from the use of abortifacient ‘contraceptives’ prior to sexual intercourse where the parents are ignorant that the ‘contraceptives’ that they use have the capacity of acting in an abortifacient manner. They do not intend to destroy a human life; they merely intend to prevent a human life coming into existence. Typical of the second and third categories are abortions resulting from the use of abortifacient chemicals at an early stage of pregnancy, from the use of intrauterine devices, or from in vitro fertilization. The motivation for all these forms of abortion is self-interest: in the case of in vitro fertilization it is the desire to ‘have a child at all costs’ (Evangelium Vitae 23), in the other cases it is the desire for what one might term ‘sterile sexual intercourse’.

We have seen then, that only a small proportion of abortions are undergone from a consideration of pain and suffering, but that the vast majority are undergone out of self-interest. We have seen the nature of the pain and suffering that motivates abortion. The pain and suffering that is the actual or potential result of every abortion both for the mother and for the child is, by contrast, of a different order altogether.

A woman who undergoes abortion is prey to the experience of what has been described as ‘post abortion trauma’ whereby she undergoes deep depression and, often unable to reconcile herself to her action, is driven towards despair and even suicide. A vivid account of the trauma is given in the powerful work ‘Will I Cry To-morrow?’ by Susan Stanford; a brief summary of the symptoms, which may persist for many years, is given in ‘The Divine Remedy’ by Madeleine Beard: ‘emotional distancing and numbing, feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, sadness, sorrow, lowered self-esteem, distrust, hostility towards self and others, regret, sleep disorders, recurring distressing dreams, nightmares, anniversary reactions, alcohol and/or drug dependencies and abuse, sexual dysfunction, insecurity, painful unwanted re-experiencing of the abortion, relationship disruption, communication impairment, isolation, self-condemnation, flashbacks, uncontrollable weeping, eating disorders, preoccupation, memory and/or concentration disruption, confused and/or distorted thinking, delusions, bitterness, an enduring sense of loss, survivor guilt with an inability to forgive oneself, psychological distress associated with physical complications.’(Quoted in ‘The Christian Order’ Volume 38. Number 4. See also Nancy Michels: Helping Women Recover from Abortion, Minneapolis, Bethany House 1988, p. 30-1)

What of the suffering of the unborn? We have already noted that the infanticide that follows induced labour and which is deceitfully described as ‘abortion’ is accomplished by means of starvation, poisoning, drowning, or mutilation.

As for abortions proper, it has already been stated above that all the structures necessary to the perception of pain are in existence from the tenth week of conception. Indeed, the extremity of the suffering as the unborn is dragged out of the womb feet first and disgorged of the brain, or poisoned, cut to pieces, crushed to death, or mutilated to death by a vacuum machine may readily be imagined. This suffering is manifest in the victim’s desperate struggle to resist abortion and attempts to scream (as may be witnessed on the ultrasound film ‘The Silent Scream’).

So far we have been considering only the physical suffering of the unborn. It is however evident that they also undergo sufferings of a mental/psychological nature. These sufferings have been attested by psychoanalytical observation of the foetus; their nature may be inferred from the experience of the born infant.

Considering the foetus first, we refer to the acclaimed work: ‘From Foetus to Child: an observational and psychoanalytic study’ By Dr. Allessandra Piontelli, Routledge 1992.. The author presents case studies on some 18 children, showing the deep effects of pre-natal experiences on their psyches. ‘Case no. 18 – Thomas’ describes the deep traumas of a child whom his parents attempted to abort. Let this brief quotation from the case study suffice: ‘He spent most of his sessions in almost complete immobility and silence inside the bin…curled up in the foetal position. The end of each session was almost invariably met with desperate, terrified screams. I tried to pull him out of his hiding-place. Rather frequently, though, Thomas also mimed repeated aggressions with all sorts of potentially sharp objects… penetrating and stirring his secluded space. Such sharp persecutors seemed aimed at starting him from his hiding, bringing him to the open, and reducing him to a bloody pulp.’

Turning now to the born infant, observation reasonably suggests that he experiences an absolute dependence of his life on the life of his mother. (See the work of Donald Winnicott e.g. ‘Home is where we start from’ W.W. Norton and Co. 1986, and the description of his work in The Companion of Psychology, Routledge 1994 vol. II, e.g. p. 1267: ‘The earliest stage in the infant’s experience is one of undifferentiated fusion with, and attachment to, his/her primary object, most likely the mother…’.) One might say in other words that the born infant is unable to dissociate himself from his mother or from his emotions. For these reasons he experiences the forceful or unloving sundering from his mother as a sundering of the inmost being, and as absolute – which is why it leaves life-long wounds.

Let us return to the unborn infant and to the nature of his experience of abortion: The physical relationship is even closer, to the extent that the child is actually connected to the mother and exists within her, so that one would be inclined to say that the born infant’s experience of union was not quite absolute, that his emotions were not quite absolute, but that those of the unborn child in fact are. It would follow that this experience of being sundered from the mother would approximate even more closely to the experience of being sundered in the inmost being, and be all the more terrifying because it is violent and fatal; and that this experience of sundering, and the terror, and the experience of actual destruction would be absolute.

Let us note here that the typical surgical abortion takes place in the third month from conception (it having taken time to verify pregnancy, and procure abortion) and therefore involves all the physical sufferings and arguably all the mental sufferings as well that have been described in the preceding three paragraphs.

During the early stages stage of pregnancy it may be argued that the physical structures necessary for sensation, or for intense sensation, are not yet formed. In reply, as was stated above in the discussion of the nature of the unborn in chapter seven, as early as the second and third weeks from conception certain of the structures necessary to the perception of pain, such as the brain, spinal cord and nervous system are in the process of development. Therefore even at this early stage the possibility of pain cannot be excluded.

Even if the unborn at any stage of pregnancy does not react visibly to stimuli, it does not follow that such stimuli do not cause him pain; it only follows that they do not cause a motor response in him. Finally it should be said that since there is no logical connection between development and (intensity of) sensation, it is reasonable that the embryo be given ‘the benefit of the doubt’. In other words, just as we have said of the destruction of the embryo that even the risk that it constitutes the killing of a person makes it wrong, so too we may say that even the risk that it constitutes the infliction of pain or suffering on a person makes it wrong.