|
Financial Assistance requested
Reverend David C. Trosch August 22, 1994 TO: Priests of all Ecclesiastical Titles in the Roman Catholic Church RE: Admonishment of de Jure Catholic Bishops concerning the Legitimate Defense of the Unborn. Dear Clergyman, As a response to the truths which Jesus spoke, the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees replied with silence. They were not only in error but were also obstinate in their error. The answers Jesus gave to their questions--truly challenges to Jesus' knowledge--were incontestable. They could not accept that their understanding of beliefs and traditions, they held to be precious, were not correct. They feared that if the beliefs which they held, and had taught to be true, were proven to be wrong, they would loose face and possibly, with a significant change in approach to faith, loose their exalted positions. They did not want to accept the teachings which Jesus had presented with clarity. Because they were agitated with the words Jesus spoke, they were angry with Him and sought His death. They were literally willing to do anything to keep their precious beliefs and positions intact. You bishops individually and collectively have a responsibility to all within your jurisdiction to promote justice in their regard through your teaching authority. Each one of you has personally failed in your duty in regard to each of the following: 1. People who are facing capital punishment charges, i.e., possible execution, like Paul Hill, have a right to receive the utmost moral clarity in regard to their actions. 2. Those who would act in a similar action to Paul Hill's have the right to a formal clear statement concerning such action. 3. The defenseless unborn have the right to have perfect and definitive clarity in regard to any action that may be used in their defense. The following is from the Encyclical, "Splendor of Truth": 116. "As bishops, we have the "grave obligation" to be personally vigilant that the "sound doctrine" (1 Tim 1:10) of faith and morals is taught in our dioceses." 119. "It is the task of the Church's Magisterium to see that the dynamic process of following Christ develops in an organic manner, without the falsification or obscuring of its moral demands, with all their consequences. The one who loves Christ keeps his commandments (cf. Jn 14:15)." St. Thomas Aquinas fully supports the defense of the innocent. He fully supports reasoned justifiable homicide. CCC 1902 STh 2a2ae, 58.1; 2,2,120,1;2a,2ae,64.7 The opinion of de Lugo is the most commonly held position on defensive action. He states that one may intend whatever is necessary for self-defense, even the death of the assailant. This is direct killing and is justifiable on the basis of collision of rights. The New Catholic Encyclopedia under Self-defense Universal Catholic Church teachings support full defense of the unborn. The problem consists in the fact that there is not a specific direct formal statement which uses the terms: procured abortion, abortionists, accomplices and justifiable homicide in the same sentence. The conditions of your minds, your souls, which allows you to maintain a modicum of neutrality in this regard is reprehensible. Demigods acted as you are acting. You seem to believe yourselves to be super persons who are not subject to any form of control. You use people to further your own ends by deceptive teachings which mollify those who are acting offensively to God. You seem to like being treated as quasi idols. The Ninevites put on sackcloth and ashes following their condemnation by Jonah in the hope that God might see the sincerity of their change of heart. Should the nations of this world do less? Will the bishops, the lawful spiritual leaders of the world, do less? Carefully read, slowly re-read, then, with much reflection, read a third time the attached documents. Think about what you have read for the balance of the day. The morning following receipt of this document you should be willing to act if you are a person of faith and lover of truth and justice. The time is short. Do not procrastinate. I will be happy to enter a dialog with whoever is interested and with however many are interested. This could be your last opportunity for salvation. Do not hesitate, act soon. The first document is entitled the, "Legitimate Defense of Unborn and Admonishment of de Jure Catholic Bishops." It answers many questions and presents patterns for action. The second document is a letter written to MARC who opposes violence in defense of the unborn. It also answers questions which have troubled a significant number of people. All who receive this letter are asked to individually respond. Either state your agreement or disagreement with the enclosed. If you agree and have additional references or points of logic to advance the position please so state. If you disagree state your references and/or logical reasons for your disagreement. For the sake of your souls do not remain neutral on this question of defense of the innocent unborn who are so important to God. God created the world for man. Mankind is killing many of those for whom it was created. May your minds and hearts be open to truth so that through you God's mercy can be made manifest. sincerely in Christ, /s/fr. David C. Trosch Enclosures: Legitimate Defense of Unborn and Admonishment of de Jure Catholic Bishops dated 8/15/94. P.S. A list of documents concerning the position of "Justifiable Homicide" is available on request.
Fr. David C. Trosch, P. O. Box 850307, Mobile, Alabama 36685, FAX/Ph: 205-639-7456 - - - 22 August 1994 No one has the moral right to choose to commit murder, i.e., the direct and willful killing of innocent human beings. A woman does not have the right to choose to have her baby killed in or out her womb. An abortionist does not have the right to choose to be an assassin for hire. Abortionists and their accomplices 8. are guilty of the great crime of murder, 3&12. a crime which warrants the death penalty. 2. There is a moral obligation to defend innocent human life. 6&9. Deadly force may be used when it is reasonably deemed necessary to save innocent human lives. 5&7. The application of the principle of double effect is as follows: The intention is to defend an innocent person who is incapable of defending himself. The method necessary to accomplish this morally obligatory end--determined by the well established pattern of previous occurrences of known murders of innocent persons, in this category, imminently doomed to violently die--is to eliminate the aggressor(s), i.e., the abortionist, and/or his direct accomplices. Deadly force is not only acceptable, but in consideration of the public knowledge, public protection, gravity and history of the offense this may readily and legitimately be deemed necessary since a de facto war has been immorally declared on the unborn. A parallel can be seen in the act of Phinehas which is quoted elsewhere. Num 25:6-13 As publicly known, regularly scheduled, mass murderers they are already subject to the death penalty by moral law. 2. In the present day circumstance of unjust civil law, which provides police, FBI agents, ATF agents, etc. to protect the murderers of a defenseless class of people, it is practically speaking impossible to defend the innocent using any method other than the elimination of the guilty at any available opportune time and place. This means that even though the deaths of known murderers may be planned, i.e. the secondary effect seen as the available means to the just end which is the primary effect, the primary direct intention is to immediately save innocent people from imminent violent murder by active unrepentant sinners with the only proven reasonable means available. Conclusion: Paul Hill acted in a justifiable manner in taking the lives of Dr. John Britton and escort James Barrett, if in fact he is the one who pulled the trigger that brought about their deaths. All legal actions being taken against Paul Hill should be set aside and he should be set free. He should be reimbursed for all expenses he and his wife have incurred as part of their long effort to defend innocent persons against the crime of abortion. Because of his willingness to act as he allegedly did he has saved the community of Pensacola and perhaps the world from at least some of the pending wrath of God which is justly due. He acted in a righteous manner after long and careful reflection. Bishops of all ranks of the Roman Catholic Church are guilty of the sin of omission 18. by their failure to accept and/or practice the teachings of the Church they have made a commitment to believe in and practice. Further, their commitment by ordination was to accept the formal universal teachings of the Church. This includes, subject to universally authoritative interpretive explanation, the whole of Sacred Scripture as well as all papal universally proclaimed and/or approved Church teachings. These teachings have always been made with proper consideration of natural law and are always in regard to matters of faith and morals. Unfortunately most clergy place more faith in the written opinions of modern day theologians than they do in authentic teachings of the Church. "Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me. If I say to the wicked man, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death. If, on the other hand, you have warned the wicked man, yet he has not turned away from his evil nor from his wicked conduct, then he shall die for his sin, but you shall save your life. If a virtuous man turns away from virtue and does wrong when I place a stumbling block before him, he shall die. He shall die for his sin, and his virtuous deeds shall not be remembered; but I will hold you responsible for his death if you did not warn him. When, on the other hand, you have warned a virtuous man not to sin, and he has in fact not sinned, he shall surely live because of the warning, and you shall save your own life."Eze 3:17-21 Because of the error of bishops in failing to carefully examine and consider the importance of these innocent human beings to God and to the entire world, and failure to take correspondingly appropriate action, they are, at the least, indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions, tens of millions, and even hundreds of millions of human persons. Note: a persons appearance, location or relative size does not effect the reality of his existence. By Church definition the ontology, or process, of being does not come into question. The priests, including the high priest, of Jesus' time acted much the same as the those of Jeremiah's time: The priests and prophets said to the princes and to all the people, "This man deserves death; he has prophesied against this city, as you have heard with your own ears." Jeremiah gave this answer to the princes and all the people: "It was the LORD who sent me to prophesy against this house and city all that you have heard. Now, therefore, reform your ways and your deeds; listen to the voice of the LORD your God, so that the LORD will repent of the evil with which he threatens you. As for me, I am in your hands; do with me what you think good and right. But mark well: if you put me to death, it is innocent blood you bring on yourselves, on this city and its citizens. For in truth it was the LORD who sent me to you, to speak all these things for you to hear."Jer 26:11-16 Are the priests of today truly any different than those in days long past? How many priests have meditated on these words of Sirach? You will remember me as sweeter than honey, better to have than the honeycomb. He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; He who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail." Sir 24:19-21 Bishops, as chief shepherds, have committed a grave sin of omission by not adequately speaking out to defend preborn people. The extreme consequences of, and the public nature of their omission requires not only that they publicly acknowledge their guilt, but also perform public penance over a prolonged interval of time. Their sincerity and their lack of delay in the beginning of such penance may well determine their long term relationship with God. It is my understanding that it is my duty, according to the teachings God proclaimed through the priest Ezekiel, that with the knowledge I have if I fail to admonish bishops, and through them their assistant priests and the world, I will share in the eternal damnation which will surely otherwise be theirs for not informing them of their sin and subsequent consequences. This admonition applies to all who have failed to seriously take an active part in the defense of innocent humans. It should be understood that the common lip service paid by many bishops, and others, to the evil of abortion was both minimal and irresponsible action on their part. Such minimal response to this great evil reveals their lack of faith and trust in the word of God, Jesus Christ. Some of the reasonable means which have always been available to defend the unborn, at least to all free world bishops, are as follows: 1. The organizing of mass public protests at abortion facilities and/or at government offices. 2. Personally participating, at least occasionally, in demonstrations at above locations thereby giving strong emphasis to the graveness of the evil and the importance of being active in opposition to the evil. 3. Openly declaring opposition to public officials running for public office who have supported, to any degree and under any pretext, legalized abortion. This can legally be made known by declaring them morally evil persons, out of grace with God, who cannot under any circumstance be voted for without committing mortal sin. People should be castigated for the spiritual sickness of voting because of political affiliation instead of for moral issues following a clearly established priority list. Congregations should be told there is no circumstance in which they can vote for a candidate who favors named moral evils such as abortion and sodomy. 4. Bishops should publicly excommunicate Church members known to be supportive of murder by abortion and other grave evils. 5. Bishops should actively encourage Church members to organize campaigns to write to public officials concerning the evil of abortion. Further, he should publish letters in the diocesan newspaper he has written to the media on behalf of the unborn. 6. He should encourage people of faith to run for public office. 7. He should encourage people of faith to run for political party district representatives. This is a position for which almost every person has available time. 8. Encourage members to write letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. Bishops should write, send, and publish in diocesan newspapers letters they themselves have written. 9. Encourage members to form private committees for political affairs separate from local churches. 10. Make known to congregations that it is a serious moral offense to God to buy insurance from companies that will pay for procured abortion, sterilization, or other morally objectionable procedures. Insurance companies should be examined to see if they accept claims which use medical terminology which is or could be deceptive, i.e., was a D&C procedure certified as necessary and not being used for the purpose of an abortion. The fact that a policy is written with an exclusion for abortion, sterilization, etc. is not sufficient reason to deal with them. 11. Tell members to disassociate from and/or not buy products or services from businesses that are supportive of procured abortion. Names of such businesses should be published in churches within a substantial radius of their location(s). 12. Make the admonitions of Scripture clear which state that love of God is more important than any human relationship or tax status. Such admonitions should be repeated at regularly established intervals. It should be made clear that while individuals are subject to the just laws of civil governments, there is no requirement which obliges one to freely submit to unjust laws. Further, manifestly unjust or immoral laws are to be opposed by all reasonable means. This could include forfeiture of ones own life under certain circumstances. 13. Promote the death penalty for certain crimes, including the murder of the innocent unborn, according to the clear command of God in Gen 9:5-6 which is by its nature unchangeable and infallible. This is confirmed in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church." 2. In Acts 25:11, 28:18, and Romans 1:32, Paul, at least indirectly, acknowledged the validity of the death penalty for just reasons. The false pacifism which is currently prevalent in the hierarchy of the Church is founded on unsound interpretations in the New Testament which are similarly used by small Protestant churches such as the Mennonites, Quakers, etc. These interpretations fail to use basic principles of exegesis: 1. God is always just, unchangeable, totally consistent and willing to grant mercy only to those who sincerely turn from their evil ways and do good for the remainder of their lives. 2. On matters of faith and morals He does not teach differently to separate generations. 3. Even though social conditions have improved and science has greatly advanced, human nature has not changed from the time of Adam and Eve. What was necessary to reach the minds and hearts of people in Old Testament times is still necessary in our own. This will perpetually be true. 4. Interpretations of Scripture must be based upon the most clearly stated position of God. All other references must be interpreted subordinately. 5. The Old Testament is the sound basis for the New Testament and except for certain disciplinary laws clearly changed by Jesus in the New Testament all other teachings remain in full force and are obligatory. The only bishop to my knowledge who has both actively participated in public demonstrations and has made a written public statement concerning strong defense for the unborn is bishop Austin Vaughan of New York. It is my belief that a day of reckoning, because of the failure of bishops and society to act, will soon be upon us. This period of reckoning is expected to bring much suffering and death throughout the world. How clearly and quickly bishops act will determine the degree of destruction this world receives by the hand of God. The statement that "The floors of Hell are littered with the skulls of bishops" is attributed to St. John Crysotystom, 300-360 A.D. The amount of time you have to respond to these admonitions is minimal. Too many bishops have failed to take to heart the true meaning of loving ones neighbor as oneself. The giving of false hopes and beliefs, to individuals and congregations, while focusing on liturgical practices, in place of solid instruction in the word of God, has been the cause of the loss of many souls. This type of false love is extremely harmful to one's neighbors and brings condemnation upon oneself. Bishops throughout the world have failed to properly associate and include the preborn baby with the requirement for loving ones neighbor. The innocent baby in the womb is by all Church theology a neighbor. These babies have not only been set aside, but, they have been almost totally forgotten. The Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," should be a clear enough statement as to how God will act in your regard on judgement day since you have allowed the innocent to be slaughtered. The innocent who have been violently murdered will testify against you. According to the Gospel of Luke 1:42-49, Jesus was fully present in the womb of His mother Mary less than two weeks following her visitation by the angel Gabriel. Each bishop and each person should reflect on the following and examine their consciences. Would you have personally defended Jesus, at this stage of development, while keeping in mind that if Jesus had not been protected and allowed to be born no one would ever be able to enter Heaven? Would you have been willing to use whatever means was necessary even at the risk of your own life and even if it meant that one or more other lives would have been taken? According to the teachings of Luke 1, Jesus was fully present in Mary's womb at the very most just a few days following her visit with the angel Gabriel when she was greeted by Elizabeth. The words, "the mother of my Lord" were said in the present tense and was affirmation of the full presence of Jesus in Mary's womb. Other passages for consideration from the first chapter of Luke in regard to human life in the womb follow: "the Most High will overshadow you; hence, the holy offspring to be born will be called Son of God." Gabriel "I am the maid servant of the Lord. Let it be done to me as you say." BVM "blest is the fruit of your womb." Elizabeth "But who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Elizabeth "the baby leapt in my womb for joy." John the Baptist (Tissue does not have joy.) "My being proclaims the greatness of the Lord," BVM (Present tense) "God who is mighty has done great things for me," BVM - Jesus is already present (Past tense) How do you think you would be judged if you had been in a position to save Jesus' life--while in the womb--from an unjust aggressor and had not made the effort? How do you think you will be judged if you tell others it is not alright to defend innocent human beings, by whatever means is necessary, who are intended to be brothers and sisters of Jesus through all eternity? When Peter was admonished by Jesus for using the sword it was because Peter had failed to understand the mission of Jesus and the prophesies concerning His death. Peter, still thinking in terms of the flesh, had more concern for temporal human values than he did for long term eternal spiritual values. It was for this reason he was admonished by Jesus. This is further made clear by these words of Jesus to Peter, "Put your sword into its scabbard. Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?" John 18:11 Peter should have understood that Jesus had a mission to accomplish and that His capture, suffering and death was necessary for the long term good of mankind. He should not have attempted to interfere with Jesus' mission. When one uses quotations to attempt to prove a point he should be sure to evaluate its meaning from examining, in context, the whole of Scripture so as not to quote with false interpretation. One should also understand that the unshakable foundation for Christianity was established in the Old Testament. If one were to remove all books of the Old Testament that contained a reference to violence approved by God there would be little foundation left to support the New Testament. Many, perhaps all, of the books from which Jesus quoted would have been eliminated. Most principles of faith and morals recorded in the Old Testament were well established. Others Jesus further developed, explained or specifically rescinded such as dietary laws. There was no need however for Jesus to rehash undisputed teachings and practices. There were many lessons given to the Hebrews by God which enforced injunctions to govern with justice according to the decrees received through Moses. When the leaders sinned and God felt it necessary to take a hand in human affairs the chastisements were very severe. Jesus stated, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Mat 5:17-20 In the above passages, Jesus was attempting to make clear that the weight of law was being expanded for those who were not already living according to the spirit of God. An example of this is seen in the extension of the commandment against adultery which now includes adultery committed in the mind as well as that committed by physical act. Concerning the woman caught in adultery and brought before Jesus. This woman was not stoned because of any change of law. She was set free precisely because of the exactness of the law. The accomplice in her adultery had been set free. The men who set the adulterer free became accomplices to the crime of adultery and therefore were legally guilty of the crime they had been accusing the woman of committing. They realized that if they testified against her, they also would be recipients of the death penalty. For this reason, when each had read what Jesus had written on the ground, they left the area. With good reason the witnesses against the woman decided not to testify. Jesus was not personally a witness and therefore was not qualified to testify against her. If one were to argue that Jesus, as God, was witness to her guilt, it should also be understood that, by Jewish law, there had to be at least two eyewitnesses in order for anyone to be executed. No just person has ever inferred that Jesus did not perfectly know and perfectly understand all Jewish teachings and law. Jesus was always obedient to all true Jewish law for He knew better than anyone else that it originated from His infallible Father. Had both the adulterer and the adulteress been brought before Him for judgement He would have been obedient to the already proclaimed will of His Father. The adulteress received an opportunity to reform her life because of the unjust act of the accusers. The directive of Jesus to the woman, "Go and sin no more" gave her an extra opportunity to be repentant and save her immortal soul. What was probably written on the ground were the Hebrew equivalent of questioning words of Jesus which asked, "Where is the man?" This question reveals the sin they were immediately guilty of when He made the statement, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." With the following words Jesus made it clear that He came to increase conflict, even deadly fighting, in the world, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword." Mat 10:34 "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Mat 26:52 When Jesus said these words to Peter He was admonishing him for acting according to his human desires and not from a spiritual motivation developed from a proper understanding of the mission of Jesus. Today the invective applies against abortionists et al, i.e. those who are murdering innocent human persons and their accomplices. They have taken to the sword by killing innocent preborn babies and they are to die by the sword, have their lives taken violently from them. Anyone who acts from the perspective of saving innocent human life, or for other justifiable reasons, is to be considered a righteous person and is guilty of no crime against God or man. The proof of this statement is found in the following passages. "Yet a certain Israelite came and brought in a Midianite woman to his clansmen in the view of Moses and of the whole Israelite community, while they [the Israelites] were weeping at the entrance of the meeting tent. When Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, and taking a lance in hand, followed the Israelite into his retreat where he pierced the pair of them, the Israelite and the woman. Thus the slaughter of Israelites was checked; but only after twenty-four thousand had died. Then the LORD said to Moses, `Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned my anger from the Israelites by his zeal for my honor among them; that is why I did not put an end to the Israelites for the offense to my honor. Announce, therefore, that I hereby give him my pledge of friendship, which shall be for him and for his descendants after him the pledge of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous on behalf of his God and thus made amends for the Israelites.'" Num 25:6-13 History testifies to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. This destruction and the scattering of the Hebrew nation is accepted as a consequence of the Jewish denial of Christ and His subsequent suffering and death. "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one." Luke 22:36 These words of Jesus make it even more clear that there will be times when it will be necessary to enter into offensive against evil. One may always protect himself or another innocent person from the common thief and murderer. However, to choose to give witness to one's faith by being willing to die for it is a response to a totally different set of circumstances. As certified in the new "Catechism of the Catholic Church" every innocent person has the right to be defended by another. 6. Further there has also been established a clear obligation to defend those who are innocent. 9. No mother has any more right to kill a baby in her womb than the virgin Mary would have had the right to kill her Son, Jesus, in the womb. The National Organization of Women used this chant at a rally held in Pensacola, Florida the week following the deaths of Dr. John Britton and his escort James Barrett: "Stop the violence." This should have been a prolife slogan referring to the violence perpetrated upon the innocent babies in the womb. "Stop the hate." The NOW people, abortionists, and those of similar ilk certainly must hate God, the innocent, and the righteous. Pro-life people are not acting out of hatred. They are acting out of true love for the innocent according to God's will. "We won't go back." They are determined not to have to go back to being called sinners and having to sin in secret. They prefer to mock Christians and others by openly displaying their evil deeds. Tolerance for evil has come into existence through the extreme liberalism and false pacifism which is now in vogue. The Pro-abortion diversionary slogan, "Pro-choice", is intended to misdirect people into the belief that a woman has the right to make choices in regard to all things concerning herself in this life. The point is overlooked that the slogan really refers to her having the right to choose to have her children murdered upon any whim. The use of this slogan is the product of a very spiritually sick mentality. By both medical and moral definition, the baby in her womb is intrinsically a complete individual. A preborn baby, even though in the womb, is extrinsic to the mother, i.e., not a part of the mother. He is receiving nourishment, shelter, warmth and hopefully protection from the natural mother or surrogate birth mother. These are all things a born person requires. Our innocent brothers and sisters in the womb have the right to hold much against the pious hypocrites of our age. Why do so many truly expect that the gifts which they are presenting to God in His Churches have any more meaning to Him than did the multiplication of meaningless sacrifices in the Old Testament? "Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift." Mat 5:23-24 The baby in the womb is our brother and if intentionally aborted will have something against everyone who did not make sound effort to act in his defense. A question I have been asked with increasing frequency during interviews with the media is, "If your position is correct, why then do not the bishops support the position?" I have responded that I could only speculate that one of the following, or a combination thereof, would be as close as I could come to a possible explanation. Each bishop should be considered individually in regard to the following: 1. They have an ingrained position for over twenty years and have become stiff necked with hardened hearts. 2. They do not want to suffer loss of prestige by being found to be in error and incurring responsibility for the deaths of innocent millions by reason of ignorance. 3. They give precedence to retention of tax status at the expense of the innocent. 4. Involvement with personal sin or sin of omission in regard to the sacrilege of adultery, fornication, sodomy, pedophilia, etc. in regard to themselves or their friends or subordinates. 5. They are not open to different or fuller understandings of teachings because of pride. 6. Cowardice: "But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death." Rev 21:8 7. Purposeful procrastination in the hope that the problem will solve itself. 8. Excessive reliance on book knowledge which has diminished their ability to function in the absence of particular precedence. 9. Misunderstanding or proper understanding of the passages: For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Mat 7:2 "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7 10. Lack of development or rejection of good common sense. 11. Failure to love God. One loves God by sincerely pursuing truth. God is truth and when one rejects any truth they are rejecting God. The foundation of faith is truth. Once a truth is understood it must be placed into practice without reservation. 12. Failure to love neighbor and self. When one has true love of neighbor and self they give precedence to the eternal good rather than the momentary values of this life. Both priests and laity have admonished me because they see me as not being obedient to my superior, Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb. This concern should have been addressed in basic Catholic education and is answered with the following: It is the universal and perpetual teaching of the church that when the clergy, or even bishops rebel against the Pope, or the laws of God or the Church, it is not only the right but also the duty of the faithful to oppose them. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that bishops are not to be obeyed in all things, since sometimes the directives of bishops go against the law of God, and in such a case, "it is necessary to obey God rather than men." A bishop's order can directly oppose the Law, in which case, the subject is bound to obey the greater authority. Furthermore, a subject is not obligated to obey his superior "if he is given an order in a matter in which he is not subject." (Summa Theol. 2-2.104.5) The second Vatican Council expressly prescribes "reasoned obedience" to the legitimate ecclesiastical authority. How many in this age truly expect to have Jesus as an eternal brother. Certainly only a very few are acting according to His will. "For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother." Mat 12:50 And the king will say to them in reply, `Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' Mat 25:40 What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life? Mat 16:26 The passage concerning the seed that fell among thorns, i.e. the word of God mixed with the lies and deceit of Satan, refers to those who have heard the word of God, but as they progress through life, they are choked by the anxieties and riches and pleasures of life, and fail to produce mature fruit. Luke 8:14 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. Luke 9:24 Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it. Luke 17:33 I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. John 10:11 This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. John 10:17 Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, John 11:25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life. John 12:25 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. John 15:13 He said to them in reply, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it." Luke 8:21 Then the LORD asked Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" He answered, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" The LORD then said: "What have you done! Listen: your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil! Gen 4:9-10 Jesus replied, "A man fell victim to robbers as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead. A priest happened to be going down that road, but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. Likewise a Levite came to the place, and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him was moved with compassion at the sight. He approached the victim, poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them. Then he lifted him up on his own animal, took him to an inn and cared for him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction, `Take care of him. If you spend more than what I have given you, I shall repay you on my way back.' Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers' victim?" He answered, "The one who treated him with mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." Luke 10:30-37 "Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love." One must have a proper understanding of what God means by the term love before one can give fruitful meaning to the phrase "God is love." 1 John 4:8 They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Rom 1:29-32 The following are quotations extracted from the new "Catechism of the Catholic Church". This is the approved English edition translated from the original version authorized for publication, October 11, 1992. Except for the last two references, they are all taken from article 5, concerning the Fifth Commandment, "You shall not Kill." 1. 2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right to destroy an innocent human being." The witness of sacred history 2. 2260 For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (Gen 9:5-6) 3. 2261 ... "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous." The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere. Legitimate defense 4. 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor....The one is intended, the other is not." (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64,7,corp. art.) 5. 2264 ... Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: ... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. (ibid.) 6. 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for ...the common good of the family or of the state. 7. 2266 Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. Intentional homicide 8. 2268 ... The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. 9. 2269 ... The moral law prohibits ... refusing assistance to a person in danger. Abortion 10. 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an ends or as a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
11. 2273 ... "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death." "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the
equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more
vulnerable, the foundations of a state based on law are undermined....As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the
unborn child from the moment of conception, 12. 2274 ... the embryo must be defended... like every other human being. 13. 2275 "It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material." Euthanasia 14. 2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment....The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected. Peace 15. 2304 ...Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquility of order." Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity. IN BRIEF 16. 2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good. 17. 2323 Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended... like every other human being. 18. 2326 Scandal is a grave offense when by deed or omissionit deliberately leads others to sin.19. 1902 ...A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence. (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 93, 3, ad 2.) 20. 1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."  Editor
|
