|
Financial Assistance requested
Post Office Box 850307 Mobile, Alabama 36685-0307 Phone/FAX: (251) 639-7456 Lifeline: (251) 344-MARY December 12, 1993 "You Shall Not Murder" versus "Justifiable Homicide" The following, with my commentary > in italicized form with bold lettering <, is the best Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb, DD, PhD can offer after approximately three and a half months of examining the issue and getting all possible commentary available concerning the question of "Justifiable Homicide." This is a refutation of his correspondence and accompanying documents concerning the concept of "Justifiable Homicide." He entitled his document, "You Shall Not Murder" (Ex. 20:13; Dt. 5:17). It is presented s "A Pastoral Instruction on this Moral Teaching of the Catholic Church." Since I use the term liberal in my commentary--and many people highly react to the use of such labels--I want to define what I mean by the terms conservative, liberal, middle-of-the-road, orthodox and traditionalist. A conservative is seen as one who takes whatever he has learned in his early years as being absolute unchangeable truth. He is reliant on the teaching he acquired early in life and is generally subject to the authority figures he sees as agreeing with these teachings, most especially the Pope. He generally tends to be narrowly focused and does not readily accept change. His greatest handicap is his reliance on teachings presented to him as truth which in fact are not always real truth. A traditionalist is a variant of the conservative mentality that focuses on some point in the Church's history as being authentic and dependable. This applies most particularly in reference to liturgical practices. A liberal begins with a very open mind. He sees problems, has concerns and wants to resolve them. He starts with the teachings of the Church that suit his purposes and then throws the rest of them out. To use an expression, he throws the baby out with the bath water. He does not know where to stop as he does not understand authoritative teaching. He does however have a good grasp of what pleases people. In simple terms he is a humanist. Once he is established in position, the position in which he is personally most comfortable, he becomes the most close minded of all. He will not honestly discuss any of his beliefs and practices with those who are apt to challenge them. He often even refuses to directly discuss his positions because, at least subconsciously, he knows he will be unable to support or defend his position against authentic teachings. When confronted with legitimate opposition he is apt to "bluster" considerably and come forth with "pretentious defense" which confuses the untrained. A middle-of-the-road person is one who is willing to accept any teaching or practice which gives him security. With him most anything is acceptable so long as it doesn't cause him problems with what he wants to do. This category can however be sub-divided into two groups. Those who are truly confused as to what is authoritative and what is not and those who are true fence straddlers and really don't care about much of anything. The confused, perhaps the largest of all categories, believe they have a job to do and can succeed despite existing conflicts. The true fence straddlers are generally the worst of the lot. They probably don't really care about much of anything except their own position and security. These are the ones referred to in Rev 3:15-16 "I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." Orthodoxy is a term most will try to apply to themselves but very few succeed in doing if they follow the following parameters. It should be kept in mind that some may well be orthodox by intent but are not so in fact. Those acting in faith who truly make an effort to follow the teachings of the Church are orthodox by intent. Those who actually know the true teachings of the Church by hierarchial order and are subject to them in faith and properly understand love are orthodox in fact. Generally speaking all of Sacred Scripture, the Universal Councils of the Church and all other Universally proclaimed Papal instructions on Faith and Morals are together the highest ranked teachings. When properly understood they are never in conflict with each other. They have full integrity and can never be changed. Such teachings may be further explained but may never be downgraded in any fashion. The governing statement to be used for an accurate interpretation would be the most clear and direct statement available on any given topic. All other statements must be interpreted in light of such statement. Interpretations must always be made in the light of all universal teachings. They may never be taken out of the context of the whole and given an independent contradictory meaning. All other levels of teaching and all members of the Church, regardless of rank, are subject to these teachings. Further development of this thematic is not the purpose of this writing. I am truly sorry that the conditions of the Church and the world are such that this refutation is deemed necessary. There is no intent to belittle anyone. My apologies if this is interpreted as an attack on the archbishop. It should be understood as a needed method to get a necessary point across to those who have been misled in recent years. I believe fully in all just authority and see just authority as necessary for the development of the Church and the world. My hope and efforts are toward the protection of the innocent unborn which I believe will only occur when the Church is dynamically unified and active in this cause. Jesus wants us to be one as He and the Father are one. I dedicate this document of rebuttal, to Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb's position statement against "Justifiable Homicide", to all the children who have been murdered by abortion, and to those who are still not to be given the opportunity for birth because of the indifference, the callousness of our human world. Because of these false believers they are not being given a chance to learn to serve God in this life as He intended. For these false believers the death of "Jesus Crucified" has no meaning. This defense of unborn life commemorates the activities of "Our Lady of Guadalupe." She is known as the patroness of the Americas and was responsible for the conversion of large numbers of murdering heathens who were offering human sacrifice to false gods in 1531. She appeared in four apparitions from December 9th to the 12th. She was known to the Aztecs as Tecoatlaxope, meaning, "she will crush the serpent of stone." Father David C. Trosch NOTATION: If after reading this whole presentation you are in agreement with the concept of "Justifiable Homicide", you are asked to consider signing the following declaration--as of this date four Catholic priests, a variety of Christian ministers and a number of private individuals have already signed. Paul J. Hill, the Director, is a former Presbyterian minister now active in the defense of those who are aggressive against abortionists: ACTION P.O. Box 2243, Pensacola, FL 32513-2243 Paul J. Hill, Director We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn children. Therefore he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him.
Reverend David C. Trosch Dear David: I am truly sorry that matters between us seem to be worsening rather than otherwise. Yet another unfortunate interview on your part which was highly publicized in last week's Register prompted the need for me to make a more public response to your situation than I have hitherto. I regret that, and the door is still open--but not on your terms. > He has already failed to keep to his terms and commitments and expects me to sit idly back doing nothing to prevent the deaths of the innocent unborn.< It is still my hope and prayer that you will return to St. Bernard Abbey, the last official assignment and mission > It was not part of my training that a bishop was authorized to assign or send on mission one of his priests to another bishop's diocese, most especially without the priest's approval or acknowledgement from that bishop. The reality seems to be closer to the concept that he sent me into hibernation.< that I gave to you as an active priest in the Archdiocese. If the hyperbole you used in your interview truly represents your conviction about my reason for providing you with a period of time and space for reflection at St. Bernard, then things are truly at a standstill. I ask you to reflect to see if I have ever put anyone "on ice" indefinitely. My purpose was then, and is now, an effort to help you understand something of the richness and complexity of Catholic theological teaching on moral issues > My current purpose coincides with his stated purpose, plus some.< which you seem to reduce to very fundamentalist readings of "proof" citations from Sacred Scripture. > As will be seen later in this document he uses very fundamentalist "proof" citations when it serves his purposes, even though out of context with the rest of Scripture, but has never been able to demonstrate that I have ever done such. In essence he is guilty of doing that of which he accuses me.< I know it is hard for you to accept, but, in fact, an authentic interpretation of Catholic teaching coming from a bishop in union > de jure but not de facto < with the Holy See does represent "authoritative" teaching. It should not have to be necessary for one to recur, in every instance, to the backup that you seem to require from the Holy See in the exercise of the ordinary magisterium that is my responsibility. In the hope that it will be yet of assistance, I am enclosing with this correspondence a copy of the other material that I told you I was seeking from a moral theologian of national stature. > within the liberal community of the Church in America.< I asked him explicitly to concentrate on those dimensions of "authoritative" teaching that you might find pertinent, and, I pray, persuasive. Father Boyle, a classmate of mine who has been a professional theologian, served the Church faithfully in his home diocese of Davenport, and has acted as a valued collaborator in the work of the Committee on Doctrine of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops has more than met my expectations. > very liberal expectations.< In fact, the material he presented I find so indicative of good teaching > It agrees with what he believes very strongly.< that I plan to make it my own as a pastoral instruction on the question you have raised. The enclosed document will be published in The Catholic Week, if all of the mechanical requirements for such a move fall into place. I wanted you to have it prior to such a presentation to the general public. I do not say lightly that I pray for you every day David, and I ask for your prayers in return. Faithfully in Christ,
/s/ Oscar
Most Reverend Oscar H. Lipscomb Enclosure
Because you need to know. . . What Kind of Kingdom? by Archbishop Lipscomb There is no more powerful description of the Kingdom of Christ which we celebrate this weekend than that found in the Preface for the Mass of Christ the King: . . .a kingdom of truth and life, > Truth, life, grace, justice, love and peace are great concepts, but they must be understood from the perspective of God, not the humanness of mankind.< In contrast to earthly kingdoms and the history of violence that has too often been their hallmark, the Kingdom of Christ, drawing from His victory over sin, is, above all, a peaceable kingdom. > If this refers to the having of a peaceable life in this earthly life, I believe a referral to Mat 10:34-36 is in order. "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household."< For sinful men and women this is not easy. Indeed, alone we would find it impossible. But we are not alone. It is the love of the King for us that enables us to overcome hatred, even the hatred of those we sometimes cast as "enemies." The challenge is to make God's ways our ways. > A great statement, but one must know and understand God's will and ways.< Recently there has been much publicity given to an erroneous teaching > From the viewpoint of humanists.< about the Kingdom--as if it could be somehow defended by violence > To defend a teaching by violence is not the problem. The concern is to defend helpless, innocent human beings.< against others, even "enemies." > The enemies, the abortionists and the indifferent, are not my enemies, but are the direct enemies of the unborn.< In response to the position that taking the life of abortionists is "justifiable homicide," I am issuing a pastoral instruction on the moral evil of murder > Even 1st graders know that murder is a moral evil, a pastoral instruction on this topic serves no useful purpose.< in all its forms. It may not be easy reading at times but it is the authentic teaching of our faith > From the viewpoint of left wing liberals.< and, I feel, necessary for a particular need in its present form with appropriate grounding in the Bible and our Church's magisterium. > When interpreted very liberally.< I am particularly indebted to the work of a priest classmate, Father John P. Boyle, a nationally known theologian, from whom I requested assistance. His notes, ideas and research have so completely responded to my request that, with gratitude, I have almost entirely made them my own. > Two kindred liberal spirits agree! Isn't that unusual?< This week, on November 16th, I will mark the thirteenth anniversary of my ordination to be your archbishop. As part of that ceremony with many of you present Archbishop May gave me the following charge: "Proclaim the message > It would be great if bishops personally, openly and seriously instructed in a moving fashion the evils of abortion--and other evils--and that abortion is truly murder.< whether it is welcome or unwelcome; correct error with unfailing patience and teaching." I offer you such proclamation, "You Shall Not Murder" a pastoral instruction on this moral teaching of the Catholic Church. There is a maxim in the Church that the best antidote to bad teaching is good teaching, sound teaching. I offer this sound teaching > Not truly very sound as it is directed at saving the lives of murderers (abortionists) at the expense of the truly innocent.< to you as a sign of Christ's Kingdom and an invitation to become more completely a member in it. "YOU SHALL NOT MURDER" (Ex. 20:13; Dt. 5:17) > This pastoral is not really worth the paper it is written upon, but is sufficient to confuse the unwary and to give support to those who have already lost their way to the eternal kingdom.< The 1973 Roe and Doe decisions of the United States Supreme Court effectively stripped unborn children of the protection of law for their lives everywhere in the United States. The decision posed an unparalleled challenge to the teaching of the Catholic Church, of many other religious groups, and to the conviction of millions of men and women of good will that each human life > His emphasis throughout this document clearly serves the purpose of protecting, of defending the lives of abortionists, murderers.< created by God is sacred and inviolable. The Second Vatican Council proclaimed the Church's conviction that: ...from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes (GS 51). > It would have been better here if the document had stated that abortion and infanticide are cold blooded murder and warrant the death penalty--a penalty in which, unfortunately, he does not believe.< Many Americans promptly organized opposition to the Roe and Doe decisions within the framework of law {a}. Our laws {b} support the freedom of every American to oppose a decision of the Supreme Court {c}, to seek to limit it, and finally to overturn it. At the same time the law {d} guarantees the public order necessary for each citizen to exercise that freedom. > Here he obviously does not include the preborn babies who will never have the chance to exercise that freedom.< Since 1973 the Catholic bishops of the United States have tirelessly denounced > Rarely denounced and then only when the occasion calls for it. Bishops should get serious and get realistic.< the moral evil of abortion and sought to form the consciences of the Catholic faithful in the face of strong forces which seek to equate abortion on demand with human freedom--especially for women. American Catholic lay men and women in large numbers > Over 99% of lay "Catholics" do little more than pay lip service to the moral evil of abortion. An unfortunately high percentage of "Catholics" believe there are at least some legitimate reasons for having an abortion. Many believe there is nothing more wrong with having an abortion than there is in practicing birth control with the contraceptive mentality.< have joined with other persons > A higher percentage of Catholics are active against abortion than any other group. This means that very few in any group are truly opposed to abortion in their hearts.< of good will in political and legal initiatives. They have urged > Urging public officials to change their practices can be equated with urging children to avoid alcohol, drugs, smoking, sexual activity and to do their homework. Such urging has little effect unless reinforced with positive guidance. More than urging is clearly required.< the Congress and the state legislatures to limit the spread of abortion > There is no interest in limiting the spread of abortion--to make it grow at a slower rate--the interest, by true believers, is in stopping the practice of abortion to the greatest extent possible.< and to refuse public funds to pay for it. Strenuous efforts > By very few people and only a small percentage of bishops.< have been made to reverse the Roe and Doe decisions by a constitutional amendment. The Catholic bishops of the United States have strongly supported these efforts. > It is my belief that if the bishops had truly, strongly supported such efforts, there would be no legal abortion in this country or in most of the rest of the world.< While there have been some significant successes, > I am not familiar with successes particularly attributable to the Catholic bishops of the United States of America, and the successes by anti-abortion organizations are being minimized under the Clinton/Gore administration. These men and the pro-abortion Democratic party would not be in office if the Catholic bishops had, with sincerity, actively opposed their elections. Catholic bishops are morally obligated to actively oppose the election to public office, any person or political party that is pro-abortion. Any Catholic individual holding public office and publicly proclaiming that he/she is pro-abortion should be publicly excommunicated from the Church. The concept of automatic excommunication is not properly understood by the average Catholic and leaves significant doubt in his/her mind as to its actual occurrence. Clear public excommunication carries with it a clear message.< opposing the spread of abortion > Again let it be stated that opposing the spread of abortion is not the concern. Stopping procured abortion is the concern.< in the United States since the Roe and Doe decisions has been difficult and often frustrating. > To my knowledge only one bishop of this country has found the condition of abortion in this country difficult and frustrating, and, he has been to jail as evidence of his frustration. His reward in Heaven will be great. It is doubtful that there will be many other bishops of this age in Heaven sharing in his reward.< Despite great efforts > Of a very limited number of people< in the past twenty years, abortions still take the lives of more than 1.6 million unborn children each year in the United States. Some zealous opponents of abortion have been moved by these difficulties to replace efforts to limit its spread within the framework of law {e} > Again he seems to only want to limit the spread of abortion and is willing to wait for politics and civil law to solve the problem of preborn children being torn limb from torso, etc.< with direct action against abortion taken in violation of the law {f}. > His concern here is with violations of civil law, not with God's law.< Some abortion clinics have been destroyed; persons providing or receiving abortions have been harassed. But most alarming has been violence against physicians known for performing abortions. In this area, Dr. David Gunn, was murdered in Pensacola, Florida, by an opponent of abortion. > Abortion clinics destroyed, murderers harassed, violence against murderers, one murderer is terminated in opposition to one billion of God's children having been slaughtered. What scale for justice does the liberal "Catholic" Church of America use to make these actions such horrible crimes? It seems he wants complete peace (Lk. 19:42 Jesus said, "If this day you only knew what makes for peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes.) in this life for everyone except the preborn.< Some persons, even some priests, have attempted to defend such killing as "justifiable homicide." They appeal to traditional Catholic moral teaching on self-defense and the defense of others to support their position. > He apparently believes that these traditional Catholic teachings are, for some unexplained reason, now obsolete. What does he find offensive in traditional Catholic moral teachings? This seems to be the blustering of a true liberal.< As quickly as such claims came to my attention, I judged it my duty as Archbishop of Mobile to reject them publicly as erroneous.1 > He sees it as his clear duty to immediately stop violence against murderers. Happy the day when he takes such quick action against violations of God's laws and the laws of God's Church and sees to it that the perpetrators are given such quick justice.< But a fuller statement of Catholic teaching on the taking of human life and the right of self defense and other issues is needed now. > Now that visible human beings are being threatened.< This pastoral instruction therefore sets out the teaching of the Church on the sacredness of human > abortionist < life, the obligation of every person to respect human life, and the teaching of the Church about the defense of one's own life and goods or those of others. > The buildings and equipment of abortionists.< It also sets out the teaching of the Church on the role of public authority {g} in the protection of human life. > With obvious emphasis on those already born and grown up.< > It has always been understood by legitimate Catholic scholars that Scripture quotes and all other official Church teachings are defined within their whole context. They should never be extracted and held separately in an attempt to prove a point when the context is necessary for proper understanding.< Catholic teaching begins with the familiar words of the Fifth Commandment: "You shall not murder." The meaning of the commandment is set out in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church approved by Pope John Paul II.2 The Catechism declares: > Note his professed reliance on the new "Universal Catechism" and the number of times he will refer to it in order to try to prove his points when later he discredits it when it goes against his beliefs.< Human life is sacred, because from its beginning it involves the "creative act of God" and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, > No doubt the Creator does have some type of special relationship with those going to Hell, but I doubt that was the concept intended. Unfortunately for many the concept of Hell being a reality is another "Traditional Catholic" outdated belief.< who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning to its end: no one can in any circumstance claim. . .the right to destroy directly an innocent human being. > A known abortionist is not an innocent human being. He or she is a murderer.< [CDF Instruction Donum vitae, intro., n. 5; cf. John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, III] [Catechism, n. 2258] The Catechism goes on to point to an even more specific biblical text: Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in
the fifth commandment: "Do not kill the
innocent and those in the right." > Is an
abortionist either "in the right" or
"innocent." Earlier in this document he
called abortion an unspeakable crime (GS
51).< (Ex: 23:7) The willful murder of an
innocent person > Since an abortionist in the
sight of the True Church is not an innocent
person by reason of his being guilty of a grave
and unspeakable crime, his termination
cannot be termed murder. Rather, it is
"Justifiable Homicide."<
You have heard that it was said to those in ancient times: "You shall not murder" and "whoever murders shall be liable to judgment. But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment" (Mt. 5:21-22). The Catechism thus reminds us of Jesus' condemnation not only of murder but of anger, hatred and vengeance as well. > Anger, hatred and vengeance should clearly be rationally controlled in this life and reserved for their proper use by God on judgement day or whenever and however else He chooses to vent His justified wrath.< Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, > The innocent preborn children are hidden from their enemies sight. They could not benefit from this evidence of faith even if they freely chose to "turn the other cheek."< to love their enemies > The abortionists are not my enemies. They are the enemies of my innocent preborn neighbors. It is these neighbors who are daily being torn asunder with their life blood contaminating the cities of their doom. The citizens of these cities have been and are inactive and indifferent to their painful and untimely deaths. This contamination will soon bring God's wrath upon cities that do not repent and expel the evil from their midst.< (Mt. 5:44). Christ did not defend himself and told Peter to sheathe his sword (Mt. 26:52; Catechism, n. 2262). > Jesus' mission in life was necessarily to be completed by His suffering and death. These were to serve as convincing witness to His complete acceptance of the authority of God the Father. Only this type of witness would draw large numbers of men to salvation. Such witness would allow only those through the Heavenly gates, He opened, who accepted His witness and followed in His footsteps.< The Fifth Commandment then, when taken with the words of Jesus in the New Testament, forbids not only the killing of innocent human beings > The archbishop is frequently, in this document, referring to abortionists as innocent human beings while elsewhere calling abortion a grave evil. The Church clearly believes that life begins at conception and such life is given one or more immortal souls. [The number of souls depends upon whether it is a single or multiple conception.] Each soul is created for the purpose of sharing eternal happiness with God in Heaven and will determine its own destiny, by exercising free will, in a manner appropriate to the opportunities it receives. The greatest crime is that for each child aborted there are possibly billions of progeny lost to the eternal kingdom.< but also hateful attitudes > To defend the lives of ones innocent neighbors by taking the lives of their unjust aggressors are acts of love of neighbor, not acts of hatred against abortionists.< toward others that might make murder thinkable or that at least make it impossible to live by the injunction to love even one's enemies. Catholic teaching insists that the killing of innocent human beings > See appropriate prior notes.< is wrong always and everywhere, and it keeps the words of Jesus in mind even when dealing with justified killing. > The archbishop most certainly intends this reference to dealing with "justified killing" as an intro to the next section. He assuredly does not mean to imply that there is "justified killing" when the words of Jesus clearly to him in all circumstances are, "Thou shalt not murder."< The covenant law in the Book of Exodus permits killing in defense of one's own life or as punishment for serious violations of the law. > Here he is saying that abortion is not a serious violation of the law! Whose law is he referring to, God's or man's?< But the Catechism points out that the legitimate defense of individuals or societies is not really an exception to the prohibition of killing. St. Thomas Aquinas, like St. Augustine before him, insisted that it is not permissible to intend the killing of another, even in self-defense. > There should be unquestioned certainty that neither St. Thomas nor St. Augustine had the atrocity of socially and politically approved mass procurement of abortion, under present day conditions, in mind when writing in regard to visible thieves and other such criminals. Further, the theological opinions of even doctors of the Church, no matter how highly regarded, are not to be presented as doctrine unless and until they have been incorporated into formal teachings of the Church.< Both doctors of the Church took very seriously the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. St. Thomas explains: Defense can encompass two actions: the preservation of one's own life and the aggressor's death....The first is intended, the second not. > In regard to the question of "Justifiable Homicide" the death of an abortionist is not the intended goal in the sense that it is desired, rather, it is seen as the only reasonable means of accomplishing the sought after end, the saving of innocent human lives. However, in this "undeclared war" and considering the unusual circumstances in which this war must be fought, it should also be understood that to risk the possibility of permanently maiming an abortionist is to leave oneself open to a personal injury lawsuit, which could deprive ones family of their rightful entitlements in this life. < [ST II, II, 64, 7, cited in Catechism, n. 2263] St. Thomas appeals to what Catholic moral theology calls the Principle of Double-Effect to explain how one may indeed intend to defend oneself but one may not intend to kill another. So one's intention in self-defense must be to ward off the attack, not to kill another human being. > In the principle of double effect (an evil (the killing of abortionists) may not be done to produce a good end (the saving of innocent human lives)). My position is simple. In the light of the evil which exists in civil government today, which protects murderers, there is no choice but to individually return to God's command to shed the blood of killers of the innocents. This command should never have been diminished and should only be considered as a good, not as an evil. Note: in today's parlance, in view of God's command to defend the innocent from the gravest of injustice it is the necessary means which justifies the required end. As many years of experience has demonstrated, there is no known and practical other solution that will work. In this country it is twenty years of historical witness which attests to this fact. Keep in mind that in this "thus far" one sided "undeclared war" on the unborn, 50,000,000 babies die each year while waiting for other solutions. The few able and moral opponents--the babies are not able--in this war should not have to be concerned with trying to break a leg or cutting off the arms of the torturers, the aggressors. They would only be sued for every penny they have by the live witnesses they left behind. They would also be put into prison because they loved and defended their innocent neighbors.< The Catholic Church also teaches that each person has the right and sometimes the duty to defend one's own life or the lives of others for whom one is responsible. > This reference implies that we are not responsible for our neighbor, the innocent baby, but only for our natural child or perhaps one who is our legal dependant. Note: It is the parents by nature who normally deliver their babies to abortionist butchers who then sometimes sell their parts for research or medications. Many do so because of the influence of our immoral and indifferent society. Who is my brother? Are we each not responsible for our innocent brothers as related in the story of the "Good Samaritan."< For that purpose one can use deadly force in a moderate way, i.e., in a way that is proportionate to the threat, > The horrible deaths of the unborn are not a threat, they are an existing reality. The proportion has exceeded the value of the lives of these mass murderers. They have already taken uncountable lives. Only highly inaccurate estimates in excess of one billion can now be made.< even if such defense results in the death of the aggressor. Those who hold public office {h} or who have assumed responsibility for the safety of others, e.g., as law enforcement officers, have a serious > Moral, even if not civil < duty to defend others' lives, and the common good of the family or the state. > Is there any greater common good than to save the lives of the innocent. It will at least help to avert God's wrath; His just anger!< [Catechism, nn. 2264-2265] The Catholic Church also recognizes in principle the right of the state {i} to defend the common good against aggressors by imposing capital punishment on those who commit especially grave crimes. > Does the archbishop mean to include abortionists and those who participate in abortion, or is abortion not a grave enough crime?< Similarly, public authorities {j} can repel unjust aggression against the state by force of arms. [Catechism, nn. 2266-2267]3 But while it is true that one may defend against attack on self or others for whom one has responsibilities, > Do we all not have personal responsibility for the protection of the unborn? How will each one who does not do all within their power to protect the unborn be judged on the final day?< one may not sink into anger or hatred. The Fifth Commandment and the teaching of Jesus not only forbid taking the life of an innocent person, they also forbid murderous anger and hatred. In our present, often angry, situation this teaching of the Catechism is timely and important. > If I were to have anger or hatred for anyone, it would more apt to be directed against those who procrastinate and pontificate while the human holocaust not only continues but promises to worsen. It would not be against those who merely sin by reason of the human weaknesses of greed, selfishness or ignorance and have been misled--most particularly--by the indifference of others.< First, the Catechism reminds us that murderous anger and hatred are immoral. Anger is a desire for vengeance, > Anger may well lead to a desire for vengeance but is not automatically a desire for vengeance. Defense of the unborn in a just, albeit undeclared, war has nothing to do with anger, hatred or vengeance. Its soul purpose is to give to the unborn the justice demanded by God, the right to experience life outside the womb.< and it is illicit even if it is directed at someone deserving of punishment for wrongdoing: >Here he seems to be saying that those already deserving of punishment may not be stopped from doing more evil.< Anger deliberately seeking to kill or seriously wound a neighbor is a grave and mortally sinful offense against charity. > Here he is equating an abortionist to a neighbor. A neighbor is one who is to be befriended as in the story of the "Good Samaritan."< The Lord says, "If you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment" (Mt. 5:22). > O.K.! No problem. But, to terminate a murderer when it is the only feasible method currently available to stop him or her from committing additional murders has nothing to do with anger.< Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of neighbor > An abortionist/murderer he is here referring to as a neighbor to be loved and to have compassion for.< is a sin which consists in deliberately wishing evil on another; > He has missed the point. Evil is not wished upon a murderer. It is something he/she receives as a consequence of his/her actions.< it is a serious sin when one deliberately wishes a serious wrong. > Permanently ending the murderous actions of an abortionist cannot properly be termed any type of wrong.< For the Lord says: "But I say to you, love your enemies > Does anyone really believe that Jesus means for us to love murderous abortionists? If so, then let it be understood that in love they are being terminated in order to keep them from acquiring a deeper place in Hell. The earlier their termination, the less the suffering to be received because their number of sins would be fewer. Know that in justice God does not let anyone die before their final relationship with Him is unchangeable.< and pray > for those who are terminating pregnancies instead of terminating their activities. Isn't he saying to let the killing of the innocents continue and pray for their murderers?< for those who persecute you, >Babies are being persecuted by abortionists and those who want them dead. It is the archbishop and those who agree with his position who are persecuting me because of the position I have taken. Note: I do regularly pray for the archbishop whenever I say mass and I now make it my intention to automatically include all those who are in agreement with his present position.< so that you will be children of your Father in heaven" (Mt. 5:44-45). [Catechism, nn. 2302-2303] Therefore such anger and hatred is wrong, > See Rev. 6:9-10 for a different understanding.< even if it is directed at persons who do wrong--even so serious a wrong as abortion > How serious of a wrong does he believe it to be? Does he consider it cold blooded murder? Does he consider it an abomination?<--which the Catechism describes as "gravely against the moral law" [n. 2271]. The gravity of such hatred > Why is the archbishop obsessed with the concept of anger against sin and hatred of evil?< is greater if the evils wished upon the one we hate is serious. > Death itself is not an evil, for we all will one day die. The evil which is received following death is a direct consequence of the condition of our relationship with God at the time of our death. A condemnable relationship is brought about by one's refusal to recognize the need for change in one's life, to repent of sin and to seek God's mercy while the opportunity is available.< For a private person to claim a right to take the life of someone who has done evil is a serious matter indeed. > Are there not God given duties given to us by God? Isn't it our responsibility to see to it that justice is granted to the not yet dead unborn?< It is the teaching of the Catholic Church, repeated in the new Catechism [n. 2273], that the responsibility for protecting human life from harm rests with public authority. {h} > He is saying that individuals do not have a responsibility in regard to the protection of innocent human beings, no matter the age.< The Catechism cites a paragraph from a 1987 instruction by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: The inalienable rights of the person > of openly advertised murderers and their accomplices< must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. {l} These human rights > Here he is right. The rights in regard to abortion have been granted at the human level. They are not rights granted by God.< 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 > He appears to mean that active known condemned criminals never loose rights. Or perhaps he should clearly define the rights he is referring to and not rely on broad general statements which can virtually imply anything.< by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his or her origin. Among such fundamental rights is every > innocent< human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death. [Donum vitae, III, cited at n. 2273] > Great, but now let us acknowledge without equivocation that at least a billion innocent human beings have already lost their fundamental right to life and each day there are more who will loose their lives.< But what if the civil and political authority {m} fails to protect human rights and punish those who violate them? >The objective of "Justifiable Homicide" is not to punish the violators. The objective is to stop the perpetrators from continuing their violence against the defenseless.< Can individuals then undertake that responsibility, even to the point of killing those who take the lives of others? > The proper concept is to terminate the activities of those who terminate pregnancies. It is understood that one may only act in proportion to the degree of the seriousness of the crime in question in order to stop it from being committed.< St. Thomas Aquinas raises that very question in his Summa Theologiae II, II, 64, 3: Can a private person kill someone who has sinned? > Take note of the reference to the past tense of "has sinned." The term "sinned" covers many activities other than future willful murder of innocent persons.< Thomas begins his response with a citation from St. Augustine's City of God: ...he who kills malefactors > The definition of malefactor is one who is either an evil doer or a criminal. Crimes, committed by criminals, can be either felonies or misdemeanors and these are considered either regrettable or deplorable. Murder of innocent children is of far greater consequence than something which is regrettable. Deplorable could easily refer to the attire, or lack thereof, of people at the beach.< without public warrant > "Justifiable Homicide" is a legal defense in every state and in the teachings of the Church. By immutable teachings of the unchangeable God--in regard to faith and morals in the Old Testament--"Justifiable Homicide" was clearly demanded by God.< is to be adjudged guilty of homicide, and all the more so since he has been temerarious enough to usurp authority which God has not granted him. > As a safeguard to protect the innocent, Laws were established to give civil authorities--neutral, non personally involved judges--the responsibility to try, judge and sentence alleged criminals according to the just standards of natural law. Clearly today civil authorities are not living up to their responsibilities. What is obviously being proposed is that tens of millions more people should be cruelly put to death because unjust civil authorities--put into office by an immoral society (a society which is in existence because religious leaders have failed in their responsibility to faithfully teach the "entirety" of the word of God)--have failed in their task of serving truth and justice. Religious leaders have failed to evangelize as instructed in order to make the populous true disciples of Christ.< [I, 26] The Catholic Church, faithful to its understanding of the Fifth Commandment reaching back through St. Thomas to St. Augustine, teaches today that taking the life of someone who has done wrong can be justified only if it serves the common good. > Here Archbishop Lipscomb is clearly implying that protecting the innocent unborn does not serve the common good.< Not only must imposing capital punishment > See his "footnote 3" to gain a clearer understanding of his belief concerning capital punishment in opposition to the clear immutable Word of God expressed in Gen 9:6 which was verified throughout the rest of Sacred Scripture and approved and practiced throughout the Christian era up to the present age.< clearly serve the common good, but the way in which the decision for capital punishment is made in a particular case must be such that it can be clearly seen that justice is served > Again you are directed to footnote 3. He and the voting majority of the American bishops apparently do not believe that justice is ever served by capital punishment.< and the rights > Acknowledged abortionists have, at least morally, already lost their rights, including the "right to life." (Gen 9:6)< both of the accused > Publicly advertised terminators--murderers--of human lives.< and of society > The obvious implication here is that preborn babies--not yet dead but dying by the millions--are not part of society and are not subjects to be protected.< will be protected. [ST, II, II, 64, 3, ad 3] As St. Augustine makes clear, to take the life of a wrongdoer > Note how the archbishop habitually fails to use the term murderer when speaking of an abortionist. Repentant women who have had an abortion have no such problem. Once women have had an abortion and complete their period of denial, which takes an average of 8.7 years, they acknowledge, at least to themselves, that they have murdered their children. These children will most often be named by them as they dwell on what has taken place. They will acknowledge to themselves for the rest of their lives that they are murderesses. Many of these women have now gone public in their defense of the unborn. They are fully willing to give testimony to the atrocity they have committed before any judge here on earth, for they know they have already acknowledged this to God, the Supreme Judge, the profundity, the greatness of their sin both in their hearts and in their minds. Even though much of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and other spiritual leaders in the world, are still in denial as to the fact of abortion being murder, these women will now willingly and readily acknowledge the seriousness and the exactness of their crime against God and His children. These women acknowledge they have gone against the great commandment of God that applies to all women who have sexual activity with men. "A woman's salvation is through the bearing of children." (Paraphrased - 1 Tim 2:15) < without being authorized by public authority {o} is to commit a homicide, an unjustified killing. > The extermination of a professed abortionist--mass murderer--is justified by natural law which is a reflection of divine law. St. Augustine is undoubtedly rolling over in his grave in justified agony at the abuse of his teachings now being proffered as his.< The reason for such strong insistence upon proper authorization {p} > by immoral civil politicians, lawyers and judges--Nazi Germany fell into this category.< is clear--and unfortunately something we already experience: human beings cannot live together in peace and harmony > Only pure humanists want to live together in peace and harmony when a portion of society, the innocent preborns, are excluded by being forced to undergo a horrible form of death. A death that if visibly and publicly was perpetrated upon twenty to fifty year old adults would bring instant revulsion and action.< if responsibility for the enforcement of law {q} and the punishment of wrongdoers is not carefully defined and circumscribed by law {r}. Respect for law {s} > Even though it has clearly been proven to be immoral?< and for the rights of others > Abortionists/murderers.< is not compatible with a spirit of vigilantism and private vengeance. > He blindly and obstinately continues to miss the point. He is a perfect example of what Jesus was referring to in the Gospels - The blind leading the blind.< Church teaching on this point has been clear for centuries: responsibility for the enforcement of laws {t} and the punishment of those who violate the law {u} rests with properly constituted public authority {v} and not with self-appointed "enforcers." 4 > He means here that one must not stop grievous evil activity even if it is within his power to do so. One must wait for an immoral and indifferent police force to be converted to God's will and then let them, hopefully some day, do something about the evil which has already taken place--this doesn't seem feasible. Never mind the huge numbers who could have been protected if righteous people had followed the dictates of their hearts instead of waiting upon unjust civil law to accomplish a goal which does not coordinate with their indoctrination. (Note: A truly righteous person is one who acts according to the will of God without hesitation. A self-righteous person is one with a defective conscience who believes he is good.< But today the question is asked: what becomes of the rights of each person if public authority {w} itself cannot or will not protect even so fundamental a right as that to life--especially the life of an innocent child in its mother's womb? The solution to such a situation cannot be to loose armed private persons to wreak vengeance on abortionists. > The archbishop repeatedly fails to accept that preventing further murderous activity is not a question of anger, hatred, vengeance or vigilantism.< Nor can it be to permit private persons > I wonder what the archbishop's opinion, with his doctorate in history, is in regard to those who started the "Revolutionary War" for independence.< to take up arms to prevent abortions. > to prevent MURDER.< In a democracy, {x} > Which encourages and even pays for the deaths of the unborn.< the responsibility for defending the common good, > of sinners.< which includes the good of individual citizens within a society, > Is he here referring to the good of the murderers or the good of the out of sight unborn babies?< remains with those elected to a public office {y} which includes responsibility for defending the right of all citizens to be secure in their lives and possessions, > This can only refer to the security of the lives and the possessions of murderers. The preborn have not yet had the opportunity to acquire possessions.< regardless of age or status. > This of course refers to the age and status of those already born!< Officials {z} who fail in their duty should be removed and replaced in ways provided by law. {aa} > These ways have been unsuccessful for twenty years. 30 million babies have been butchered during this period of time and with the political situation worsening it is possible that twice that number of pregnancies will be terminated. It should be understood that many of these could have lived had they been delivered by cesarian section.< Such a democratic process {ab} provides a clear solution > A solution which may never occur.<--the replacement of public officials {ac} negligent of their duty to the common good and the right to life of each individual with others who will defend the right of everyone to life. > Adolf Hitler was an elected public official who was negligent. It took World War II to stop the murderous activities taking place under his authority from continuing. "Only 16,000,000 people" were butchered during his reign of terror. The mass slaughter was rarely visible to the average citizen of the state. Because it was out of sight and they were able to diminish the atrocities in their minds they did little if anything to stop the evil from happening. For the most part, their inactivity was more excusable than the inactivity of free democratic societies of today. Hitler had developed a band of follower cut throats to keep him in power by suppressing those who opposed him. It would seem that in this country and other democratic nations the cut throats are being protected by religious leaders and those who follow their way of thinking. God will help the innocent who will die with the guilty, but they will depart from this life none-the-less.< That is the solution > That has not, and promises not to work for the protection of the unborn.< which preserves the common good > Only of the born, and if we get realistic it would be clear, from the escalating violence committed by and against children, even the common good of the born is decaying. This is because the overall value of human life has been diminished through the continued acceptance of abortion.< and avoids the spirit of private vengeance. > How he equates the saving of innocent human life with the spirit of private vengeance is to me not comprehensible. Is this more liberal blustering, or is it a pretentious defense.< The Church has an important and appropriate role to play in this difficult situation. > A true statement but of no value when the role is only to be paid lip service and is otherwise inactive. The testimony of thirty million dead babies gives this fact clear witness. Too many members of the Catholic Church blindly support a political party which stands for little else than immorality. Certainly right reason is not part of its program. Their goal is to appeal to the base instincts of the human race and get re-elected. They promise much and accomplish little for the long term good of mankind in this life and do even less in regards to man's spiritual good. Churchmen, no matter how much they are praised by themselves and their followers, have not fulfilled their roles.< It is the duty of the Church > A duty few churchmen have attempted to accomplish.< to form the consciences of believers by proclaiming repeatedly the clear message of God's law forbidding murder. > Of born people but he does not seem to accept that abortion is murder. What of other sins like rape, fornication, adultery, birth control, sexual promiscuity, indecent apparel, non canonical annulments, sodomy, pedophilia and other child abuse, spousal abuse, failure to provide and care for children, etc.< The Church must also proclaim that the prohibition includes those human beings not yet born. > He keeps dancing around the point that abortion is cold blooded murder.< It is the duty of the Church to proclaim that message so persuasively that all who hear it--both Catholics and other persons of good will--will be moved not only to refrain from taking the life of another but will join their fellow citizens in replacing the public policies which now permit taking the lives of innocent unborn human beings with laws which truly will serve the common good by protecting the life of every human being. > It is the acknowledged duty of the Church to do these things, but when is a persuasive message going to be heard? As of this date I have never heard of the archbishop giving any moving presentation, or for that matter any public spoken defense of the unborn. Words proclaiming what should be done are good, but if they are not put into practice they mean nothing. Present public policies on abortion should be replaced, but loyal believers will not wait very long for the present minimal efforts to succeed. If however one loses ones own life, in the effort to save others it should be understood that they are walking in the footsteps of Jesus and will spend eternity in complete happiness giving glory to God. While hanging on the cross Jesus granted eternal happiness to the thief who repented. How much greater will be the happiness for one who dies because they put their faith into action. Does the archbishop truly believe that it is for the common good to protect murderers now, and babies later?< It is the duty of all of us to work for such a solution to the problem of abortion. > Abortion is much more than a problem. The concept of problem connotes that something is of minor concern. To people of faith abortion is considered to be of immense concern. People of faith are handicapped and weakened because of lack of real leadership concerning abortion. Role models are necessary for true spiritual growth. Too many "role models" are being convicted of the grave crimes of adultery, fornication, sodomy, pedophilia and going against public trust. People are seeking reliable models who will help them on their pilgrimage to Heaven. They do not need "obstructionists."< The same solution will remove any pretext for private persons to resort to killing in the name of preserving life. Otherwise violence employed to control violence will only add to the evil of violence all too prevalent in our world today. > Violence which has been commanded by God is not evil. Considering the plight of the unborn, which can only get worse, we can only expect far worse violence at the hand of God unless we quickly change our ways and terminate those who are freely terminating pregnancies.< November 21, 1993 +Oscar H. Lipscomb 1 Archbishop Lipscomb's statements of 8-16-93,
8-17-93, and 8-23-93 as published in The Catholic
Week; and Letter to the Editor, Mobile Register, 9-3-93.
2 References to the Catechism are to the provisional English text which awaits confirmation by the Holy See. The texts cited have been compared with the French version Cate-chisme de l'eglise Catholique (Ottawa: Canadian Catholic Conference, 1993). > Archbishop Lipscomb uses 18 references to the authority of the "Universal Catechism." He generally uses these references out of context to strengthen his position. Unfortunately as seen in the next footnote and response he only uses the authority of the "Catechism" when it seems to serve his own purposes.< 3 The Catholic bishops of the United States have further specified church teaching on both capital punishment and justified war. On just war see the pastoral The Challenge of Peace: (Washington: USCC, 1983). On capital punishment, see the statement of the NCCB in 1974, calling for the abolition of capital punishment in the United States. [Origins 5(1974) 373]. See "Capital Punishment" in New Catholic Encyclopedia, III (1967), PP. 79-81 (D.R. Campion), and XVII (1977), pp. 71-72 (E.J. Dillon). The bishops' conference did publish in 1976 a study of the topic by the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace [Origins 6 (1976) 389-392]. In 1980 the NCCB issued a fuller statement on capital punishment which concluded that under the circumstances of the time, capital punishment could not be justified. [Text in Origins 10 (1980) 373-377]. For the current discussion, see John Langan, S.J., "Notes on Moral Theology: Capital Punishment" in Theological Studies 54 (March, 1993) 111-124. Since 1980 a number of state Catholic conferences and individual bishops have spoken out against capital punishment. > Archbishop Lipscomb seems to consider any reference to Gen. 9:6 a fundamentalistic understanding of Sacred Scripture even though he has never offered a reasonable contextual position which allows for a different interpretation. He also believes that God is either not immutable or that He made an error when giving the command. When I quote Scripture and he disagrees with what I quote, he believes that I am being fundamentalistic. Example Gen 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. See footnotes to his teaching in regard to capital punishment. Commentary on "Transfiguration": His pastoral instruction on "You Shall Not Murder" is written in regard to the question of "Justifiable Homicide." It refers largely to the taking of lives of abortionists. Abortionists are murderers of innocent human beings while they are in their preborn phase of life. He attempts to use the new Universal Catechism to support his positions but at the same time, in regard to capital punishment, he prefers the teachings of the NCCB to work against the truly more authoritative teachings of the new "Universal Catholic Catechism." He hypocritically makes reference to the new Universal Catechism when he believes it is serving his purposes, but goes against it in reference to capital punishment when it does not serve his purposes. In lay terms: Killing generally means death by an outside agency. Homicide generally refers to death which comes at the hands of man. Murder refers to the unwarranted death of an innocent person at the hands of man. In religious terminology when the terms killing, homicide and murder are used in reference to sinful acts, i.e. immoral and unjust acts, they always refer to taking the life of an "innocent" person. This is established through the framework of the whole context of Sacred Scripture and other true Church teachings in proper hierarchial order. This framework dates back to the time of Noah following the experience of the great flood and is carried through the Mosaic covenant. Capital punishment has traditionally been accepted in practice throughout the history of the Catholic Church. This acceptance includes the present century. In recent years an "enlightened few" have began to go against the "unchangeable teachings of the all knowledgeable and infallible God." The taking of guilty human life is perhaps more properly referred to using the terms: termination, execution and elimination. A clear understanding in regard to meaning of terminology can be obtained by examining Pope John Paul II's latest encyclical, "The Splendor of Truth", wherein he says that all homicide is intrinsically evil. However, in an earlier reference he states, "While it is morally illicit to kill an innocent human being, it can be licit, praiseworthy or even imperative to give up one's own life (cf. JN 15:13) out of love of neighbor or as a witness to the truth." Note his reference to the killing of "an innocent human being" as being morally illicit, not the killing of any human being. It should be noted that Pope John Paul II used the Feast of the Transfiguration of Jesus as the date of honor for proclaiming this encyclical. If the term "homicide" is used to refer to the taking of any life by man--rather that life is innocent or guilty--as being an intrinsically evil act, as many would like to believe, then we are faced with a very serious conundrum concerning those present at the Transfiguration of Jesus. Present was Moses who early in his adult life killed an Egyptian soldier for beating an Israelite. Moses hid the body and with this act makes it clear that he acted without lawful civil authority. According to wrongful belief he committed an intrinsically evil act and therefore did something extremely sinful. Also it was through Moses that the wrath of God was raised up against the Egyptians and thousands of their "First Born" were slain. On different occasions Moses was the instrument of bringing the wrath of God in the form of death to thousands of his fellow Israelites by using other Israelites to carry out the "executions." These capital punishments took place because people worshipped a false God, picked up wood on the Sabbath, etc. Was Moses evil or did he act out of love for God and his neighbor as he properly understood. Then there was Elijah who was also present at the Transfiguration. He personally slit the throats of 450 prophets of Baal. Because of this act he would have to be considered intrinsically evil by those who hold to a fundamentalistic definition of these terms. The prophets of Baal received capital punishment for the crime of professing faith in false gods and calling upon them to light a fire. Also present at the Transfiguration of Jesus was Peter who later in the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus was being betrayed, attempted to kill a Roman soldier who was only acting on the authority of his superiors. Peter was obviously a bad swordsman, but this did not change his intent to kill in order to protect his master Jesus, no matter the consequences. On another occasion, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, Peter spoke the words of death to Ananias and his wife Sapphira who withheld money--from the sale of property--they had promised to the Church. This was capital punishment for the crime of not living up to one's word. The Son of David was also present. David, because of his great love of God, was given the particular honor of having Jesus to be called his descendent. David's first public act was to kill Goliath because he was insulting the people of Israel. There were songs sung about him having killed "his tens-of-thousands" of men. In these actions he was considered a faithful servant of God. In one case he was even guilty of having committed murder by having the husband of the woman with whom he committed adultery killed. For this act he was temporally punished through the death of the son of his adulterous union. He deeply repented of his evil acts and was forgiven. Thereafter he was much more faithful in his relationship with God. On other occasions when he was not faithful he brought about great suffering and death to his people. But, he continued to repent when his error was made clear to him. Note: He never repented of having taken the life of Goliath or his tens-of-thousands. Jesus himself, Son of God, Son of David, is eternally responsible for the, to some, unbelievable act of condemning uncountable millions, perhaps trillions, to what is called the permanent death, the never ending suffering of those sentenced to Hell for all eternity. Jesus is the one who sentences unrepentant sinners to the agony which never ceases. This type of death is far worse in the human sense than bringing about the mortal death of a person. Eternal life and eternal death are terms selected to portray the extreme contrast between the possible happiness or the possible suffering which each one is going to be subject to in the next life. This type of death--of murder, homicide or killing of the soul--has consequences far beyond the human acts which have these labels. On judgement day Jesus will either say,"sit on my right", or, "sit on my left." Those who are told to sit on His left (sentenced to Hell) are those who failed to take care of the needs of their innocent neighbors. Unfortunately today most, including priests, are in a state of denial concerning the existence of Hell. Many priests, not remembering that the beginning of wisdom is "fear of the Lord", fail to teach the reality of Hell's existence. They are thereby responsible for the loss of many souls, including their own. Are there differences in the terminology we use in temporal life and what is required to be used for spiritual life? Quite clearly, when the above is understood, there are. Notice in the document how motivation changes the acceptability of terms. In the "New American Bible" translation, approved for use in the Church in the United States of America, in the Old Testament the Commandment is clearly, "Thou shalt not kill." (Ex. 2:13; Dt. 5:17) In the original version of the "New American Bible" in the New Testament, when Christ was talking to the rich young man, it was stated as, "You shalt not murder." (Mt. 19:18) In the revised version of the "New American Bible" the term has been downgraded to, "Thou shalt not kill." Archbishop Lipscomb, to serve his own purposes in his writing, has now upgraded the term "kill" to "murder" for both his Old and New Testament references.< 4 See A. Tanquerey (+1932), who did not hesitate to call a private person's taking the life even of someone condemned to death by legitimate public authority a "lynching," a practice he knew of from his years of teaching at St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore. It should be kept clearly in mind that Catholic moralists have no doubt of the objective evil of "executions" carried out by private persons, whatever their motivations. > A "lynching" as stated above refers to someone taken by mob rule from the hands of truly just lawful authority who are spiritually and legally fulfilling their obligations. Such a reference has no bearing on the present situation.< > The small letters enclosed as follows {a} indicate the position and number of times he places great importance on lawful (civil) authority. His excessively high regard for civil law tends to illustrate a preference for human law instead of God's law. A position which any bishop or man of God should carefully avoid taking.< I am in great debt to Archbishop Lipscomb because he has so strongly opposed the concept of "Justifiable Homicide." He has thus provided me with yet another opportunity to establish a practical position to end the atrocity of abortion. If you have read this far and accept what has now been presented, I ask you to please help me meet the costs I have thus far incurred. Due to my being cast out of my parish assignment I have lost even my meager stipend. I have incurred additional expenses by setting up facilities to continue the struggle to defend the preborn and do mailings in their defense. Additional help is also needed to offset continuing mailings and operational expenses in relationship to the defense of the innocent unborn. Recent expenses and debt have now exceeded thirty thousand dollars and are continuing to rise even though volunteer help is being utilized. Any help you can give will be greatly appreciated by the saved children and their descendants. God's blessings will come upon you if additionally you turn to Him and seek His mercy for your sins, particularly for any sin of indifference to abortion which is still present in, and approved by our society. All donations are tax deductible if made out to "Life Enterprises Unlimited", an established non-profit corporation which for the past ten years has continually worked against the crime of abortion. Mail your donation to P.O. Box 850307, Mobile, Alabama 36685-0307. Large donations or a large number of donations will be needed to get me out of debt and help me to continue this "Justified" struggle. When reflecting about the size of the donation you are considering, remember the story of Jesus, Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem being told there was no place in the inn for them to stay. The people of today are telling preborn children there is no place in this world for them to stay. They are not wanted. Your generous donation may well make the difference. It will help make them wanted. You may call our "Lifeline" phone number for a full audio message given to those who call and are concerned or inquiring about abortion. A hard copy is available on request. Please include either a stamped self-addressed return envelope or a donation. Credit: Cartoon "Swenson Slam" from Oct. `93 Life Advocate magazine and is reprinted with permission. Advocates For Life Ministries, Publisher of Life Advocate, has taken the position that any defense that is allowable for born persons is justified for unborn persons. If you'd like to keep up with the "use-of-force" debate and news about pro-life activism you may obtain this monthly publication by sending a donation of $30.00 to Life Advocate, PO Box 13656, Portland, OR 97213. 
Reverend David C. Trosch December 10, 1993 Most Reverend Oscar H. Lipscomb, DD, PhD Dear Archbishop: As you well know I am in total disagreement with you in regard to the question of "Justifiable Homicide." I have been willing to personally discuss the issue with you at any time, but you have chosen to insist that I leave the diocese before such a discussion can take place, and then only when you apparently feel that I have repented of my position. I have been told that instructions were issued to the editor of the Catholic Week long before this question arose that anything I submitted was not to be printed. Since "Justifiable Homicide" has become an issue, I have again attempted to present a sound position and allow it to be open for general discussion. But, again this attempt to communicate was thwarted. No priest of the diocese has made an effort to contact me to discuss this issue. In addition you have felt the need to issue a "pastoral instruction" which has been printed in our diocesan newspaper, "The Catholic Week." At this point I want to thank you for perhaps giving me my best opportunity for establishing the position of "Justifiable Homicide." The enclosed is in response to your cover letter and official position statement alleging to represent the teaching of the Catholic Church. Copies are being mailed to all cardinals of the Church; all bishops of the United States of America; to the priests of the Archdiocese of Mobile; to a limited number of selected priests and theologians; to select Pro-Life organizations; to select Catholic, Christian and secular news media; to select government officials; and to a variety of private individuals throughout the diocese and the world. It is my opinion that you have not acted in a manner becoming of a bishop of the Catholic Church. You have acted arbitrarily and unfairly in my regard, and most importantly you have been instrumental in handicapping the efforts of those who have been active in the saving of the most innocent of human life, the unborn. I have always made myself available to you. You and your office staff have always known how to reach me. If you would, publicly or privately, be willing to have an open minded two way discussion on this issue or any other issue of the Catholic faith always feel free to contact me. Know always that everything I am doing I do in love of you and all mankind. I believe that I am acting in the service of God. If after all of this you still believe that I am in error, please start formal proceedings against me that I may learn in the grace of God. Sincerely in Christ,
fr. David C. Trosch P.S. I believe that your removal of my faculties to say public mass, to hear confessions and removal from my parish as administrator (another injustice on your part) was without due canonical process. I will soon be initiating formal canonical process against you.  Editor
|
seriously contradicts the dignity of the human
being, > Does he here mean the abortionist?
Perhaps he kills in a dignified manner.< the
Golden Rule > If I were in my mothers womb,
I would want someone to protect me from
being mutilated and killed no matter the
method used to defend me. I would not want
to depend on civil laws to change in time for
me to be saved.< and the Creator's holiness. >
The Creator's holiness is confirmed by efforts
to eradicate evil in His Name! Phinehas killed
with a lance an Israelite man and a Moabite
woman. And the Lord said: (Nm 25:11)
"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." (Ezekiel 28:22)
"Thus says the Lord GOD: See! I am coming
at you, Sidon; I will be glorified in your midst.
Then they shall know that I am the LORD,
when I inflict punishments upon it and use it
to manifest my holiness." (Amos 4:2) "The
Lord GOD has sworn by his holiness: Truly
the days are coming upon you when they shall
drag you away with hooks, the last of you with
fishhooks"; (2 Cor 7:1) "Since we have these
promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves
from every defilement of flesh and spirit,
making holiness perfect in the fear of God."<
The law forbidding it is universally valid: it
obliges each and everyone, always and
everywhere. [Catechism, n. 2261] The
Catechism also recalls the words of Jesus:
