|
Financial Assistance requested
UNJUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: I have great belief in the Roman Catholic Church. It is therefore with great sadness that I find it necessary to openly oppose those who have been given special responsibility for leadership. I do so only with and through the realization that a person who fills an office is sometimes not qualified for the office acquired.
In the Catholic Church it is known, though often not understood or accepted, that priests, bishops, and yes even popes have been unqualified for the office they are in. It is also known that at times these men have served Satan rather than God.
However, the office is not the person and the person is not the office. Once this qualification or limitation has been integrated in faith, then one is capable of determining, through sincere reflection, that obedience to the office is not the same as obedience to an office holder. It is with this understanding that I continue to refute the position that Archbishop Lipscomb and many other bishops have taken in opposition to effective means of defense of innocent people -- the innocent unborn.
Archbishop Lipscomb and too many others have turned a deaf ear to truth. They do not listen to the presentation of fact any more than did the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' time. In general bishops have ignored truths presented and have worked within their own phantasy world. Thus far I have never received a direct response to the positions I have presented. Without having justification for their position they have chosen the defense of silence. Can this situation be remedied?
It is hoped that if Catholics who are open to truth become knowledgeable, in a proper perspective of faith, they will be enabled to encourage otherwise weak bishops to follow God's universal teachings which are not subject to change. As an additional step in this process I am presenting the pro-life "Keynote Address" of Archbishop Lipscomb for evaluation. It is hoped that enough will come to understand the weakness of his --and other bishops-- position so that realization of their flawed thinking will become manifest. Perhaps then a process of renewal can begin.
I would directly present detailed opposition to the below "Keynote Address" of Archbishop Lipscomb but realize that he does not have an open mind in my regard. Indeed I believe I have already correctly opposed every one of the arguments he uses in defense of his action in removing me from office. These appear in many different forms in prior published articles. He has always been in receipt of a copy of everything I have published. He has not responded except by omission. I also admonish him for his failure to take effective action against flagrant sin. To be realistic, it seems that he doesn't even try to take action against evil in any meaningful sense.
On Wednesday August 14, 1996 at 7:00 pm I met with him in his office on Government Street in the hope of starting a productive dialog. He stated that he believed that neither he nor I would change
and therefore nothing would be accomplished. He did however refer to the below "Keynote Address" as being his best presentation to date and that it might be useful as a starting point of dialog --he did not offer to use his previous pastoral document which I had thoroughly rebutted. He said that he would send me another copy of the "Address" with some additional comments so that a dialog could begin. However, when I said that I believed that he had written it while he was angry, in response to my recent public appearances, he must have decided not to proceed. I have not heard from him since in this regard. The following are presented as initial references for reflection as you read through Archbishop Lipscomb's presentation. The intention here is to remove the rhetoric surrounding what he is saying and put his arguments into perspective.
The above encompasses about one-fifth of Archbishop Lipscomb's speech. Additional comments can easily be made by any realistic, open minded, and halfway intelligent person of faith. If you so choose you may write the archbishop at the address on his letterhead. Please keep in mind that there has been no bishop, or other religious leader, who has spoken effectively against abortion. The practice continues unabated. The newer evils of euthanasia and infanticide are growing in popularity. Older evils are increasing in volume and novelty. How soon God will take a hand is unknown. How great the destruction will be is predicated on the just activity of men to whom God has entrusted the care of and responsibility for this life. Each person should first think, then pray, then act upon the answers given to him by God. Keep in mind that neither indifference nor neutrality to evil has the approval of God. Inactivity, i.e., doing nothing, is not meritorious. the Justifiable Defense of "Human Beings"
Reverend David Trosch Post Office Box 850307 Mobile, Alabama 36685-0307 Dear David: Thank you for your latest material sent to myself, and others, on the question of justifiable homicide in the case of killing abortionists. I thought by way of return to supply you with the text I prepared for the Florida State Conference for pro-Life on September 9, 1994. In a particular way I offer for your reflection Section 1, "Killing an abortionist is not a proportionate response to the evil of abortion." It contains the depth and complexity of some of the nuancing for correct Catholic moral teaching as it bears on your views with respect to the use of "self-defense" and "just war" theory. It is the kind of basis I had hoped might form part of a dialogue between us had you remained at St. Bernard's Abbey. I regret, but do not apologize for the remarks concerning yourself on pp. 9-10. They represent your situation and competence in my honest opinion and evaluation. Let us continue to pray for each other.
/Oscar/ Most Reverend Oscar H. Lipscomb Archbishop of Mobile Keynote Address: . . . . . . Florida Conference of Pro-Life Coordinators Pensacola, Florida
September 9, 1994 Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb UNJUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE Introduction. The Catholic Church's opposition to abortion is rooted in its deep and abiding belief in the dignity and worth of each and every human being--from conception to natural death. This dignity and worth is clearly enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Its affirmation of the right to life is foundational to all other rights. Until 1963 the legal tradition of our nation built solidly upon such a foundation. The right to life is called inalienable for it follows from human nature itself and is conferred by our Creator upon each and every one of us. Life is God's first love-gift to us. At all times, but above all at its beginning, life is intended to be a sign of our love for each other. Any genuine pro-life stance, and certainly ours, rejects all forms of unloving, all forms of hatred or violence. Such attitudes or actions serve only to obscure, disrupt and ultimately destroy our sense of shared humanity. The Catholic Bishops of the nation have stated, in no uncertain terms, that violence in the name of pro-life makes a mockery of the pro-life movement. The widespread effort to recognize and hence safeguard human life in the womb is caused by a violence that daily causes the deaths of 4,400 unborn children in the United States alone. A true pro-life commitment fights this violence to the unborn, but not by doing violence to the already born. The gift of life is that precious! Recent shootings of abortionists must be condemned and rejected by all who would call themselves pro-life. In the Catholic tradition there is a clear presumption against vigilantism. This happens whenever a private individual assumes the role which properly belongs to public authority. Killing an abortionist does not qualify as an exception to this presumption against the private use of violence. Nor does such killing advance the cause of the unborn; it rather strengthens the support for abortion as an institution in these United States. Furthermore, there is a deep conflict in the idea of killing for life. The danger to pro-life is real as the general public perceives this incongruity. When someone who claims to be pro-life kills an abortionist, the entire pro-life movement risks the loss of a credibility that nonviolent witness, often heroic, has justly won for it. 1. . . . KILLING AN ABORTIONIST IS NOT A PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE . . . . . TO THE EVIL OF ABORTION. Our tradition has long taught that private individuals should not take the law into their own hands. For example, Thomas Aquinas held that it is not lawful for a private individual to harm another individual, much less kill, even if this person were an evildoer whose actions hurt the community.[1] Thomas speaks for the Catholic tradition when he says that the decision to harm someone intentionally is a decision which belongs to those who have proper authority in service to common good. It does not belong to a private individual. In our nation, we have a representative government which is entrusted with care of the common good. Our government enacts and enforces laws with a view to promoting the common good. Our society depends on the rule of law and thus on respect for the law. Because respect for law is so important for the common good, Thomas Aquinas argued that even in the case of an unjust ruler and unjust laws, one may be morally obligated to obey the unjust ruler and laws if by disobeying the unjust law one would cause scandal.[2] Scandal for Thomas is not just that which is shocking, but more importantly, that which sets a bad example leading others into sin.[3] The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines scandal as "an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter."[4] 1 . . Summa theologiae IIII, q. 64, a. 3, ad 3. 2 . . Summa theologiae IIII, 104, 6, ad 3. 3 . . Summa theologiae IIII, 43, 1. 4 . . Catechism of the Catholic Church 2284 (p. 550). In disobeying an unjust law, one could give such scandal by inducing other persons to disobey other laws. Disobeying the law, then, even if it is an unjust law, could have the effect of diminishing the authority of law in general. The resulting detriment to the common good and hence the endangerment of private goods is captured nicely by an interchange between William Roper and St. Thomas More in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons: Roper: . . . . . . So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: . . . . . . Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: . . . . . . I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: . . . . . . (Roused and excited) Oh? And when the last law was down, and the devil turned round on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down--and you' re just the man to do it--d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.[5] 5 . . Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons (New York Vintage; 1962). pp. 3738.
One must think very carefully about the possible consequences before one disobeys even an unjust law, because the authority of law is crucial for the protection of all human rights. 6 . . Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2309, p. 555.
Even more sad than abortion's legal status is its societal reality; it has become socially acceptable to too many in our country. Polls show that great numbers of Americans are opposed to abortion on demand and are even willing to call it murder. But there still exists a high degree of tolerance for this evil, whether from a misguided sense of individual rights or a fear of government intrusion into the lives of citizens. The only successful solution, painful but powerful, long term but long lasting, is to change hearts by witness to the truth of every human life and the love God intends to accompany it. Our society needs help to be called to a conversion to respect and love life. Violence will only serve to deafen ears and harden hearts. Without such a conversion the killing of an abortionist is not going to achieve its stated end of saving the unborn. Someone who kills an abortionist has no guarantee that he has even stopped the abortions that the abortionist planned to do, since the abortionist is only one element, and usually not even the decisive one, in each abortion tragedy. Those seeking abortions may go elsewhere to have them, possibly even with a police escort to protect them. What is guaranteed, however, is that rather than saving the lives of the unborn, whoever kills an abortionist will instead do serious damage to the effort to convert our society to an attitude of respect for life. Such conversion is the only sure way to end the crisis in our democratic society. For those of us who are Christian believers, there is an even greater resource for our witness to life. The Lord Jesus Christ taught us to have a profound preference for nonviolence over violence. He did not even permit violence in defense of his own life--a perfectly innocent life--saying that those who live by the sword will die by it. This is a hard teaching. Yet we cannot forget that as Christians we are called to overcome evil by good, hatred by love, violence by turning the other cheek. Abortion is certainly an evil that should be resisted and resisted with all the strength we can muster. But because it is so deep-seated in our land, it is not unlike those special demons of which the Lord Himself said: "This kind does not leave but by prayer and fasting." (Matt. 17, 21) It was through such means, and the witness of their martyrdom, that the first disciples and earliest Christians in a relatively short time conquered an empire. An impossible task achieved not through might of arms but by word and example. As the crisis in the heart is overcome in favor of life, the crises in the ballots, in our laws and in their application will disappear. II. . . . KILLING ABORTIONISTS DOES NOT ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF THE . . . . . UNBORN, BUT STRENGTHENS THE SUPPORT FOR ABORTION IN THE U.S. Because of the killing of abortion doctors by anti-abortion activists, pro-abortion spokespersons have sought to persuade the public all opponents of abortion are infected with a murderous fanaticism that has no respect either for the law or for the rights of others. Those who proclaim their opposition to abortion because of their support for life are cast as hypocrites. The way is open for advocates of abortion to assert that in reality the opposition to abortion has nothing to do with support for life, that abortion foes have a hidden agenda for which the pro-life rhetoric is merely a front. The charge is frequently heard that opponents to abortion really want to punish sexual freedom, to impose a repressive Puritanism and to maintain the subjugation of women in society. The credibility of the pro-life movement is at added risk because of such misrepresentation. This credibility is crucial, as I have noted, since the only effective means of advancing the interests of the unborn in this country is by persuasion, by changing people's minds and hearts. Only if we can convince people that abortion is wrong will it stop. Killing abortionists not only is ineffective it severely inhibits the effectiveness of the one method that has a possibility of success--persuasion. Again I repeat: a true pro-life witness against violence to the unborn can never condone violence to the born. III. . . . CONCLUSION: A DEEP CONFLICT IN THE IDEA OF KILLING FOR LIFE Abortion advocates hold that the direct, intentional extermination of human life already in existence though yet to be born can be justified by circumstances. A pro-life witness believes that such killing can never be justified, and rejects violence against other human beings as a legitimate means to other ends. Those who, in their opposition to abortion, would resort to violence or encourage others to do so, effectively accept the premise of abortion advocates that circumstances make violence acceptable. Hence they reject the premise which gives the pro-life movement its strength and moral authority. Most people do not have to proceed through a series of rational arguments to discern the fundamental conflict between violence and a pro-life commitment. Rather, they recognize this almost instantly, as if by instinct, for they perceive the deep contradiction contained in the very idea of killing in witness for life. On behalf of the Church I urge all, and in a particular way, all Christians to renounce the use of violence as a means of pro-life witness. I also wish to emphasize the clear difference between peaceful public witness against abortion and the type of activity we have condemned. No citizen can be denied his or her right to assemble peaceably. Nor must anyone be dissuaded from pursuing an effective means of witness and reparation such as public prayer at abortion clinics merely because some refuse to distinguish responsible opposition from extremism. I wish to say something concerning the attention paid by the news media to David Trosch, a Catholic priest who advocates killing abortionists. The media have restored to him the pulpit that I, as his archbishop, have denied him. Trosch is not a news-maker in any legitimate sense. In stating his views, he represents no one but himself. Immediately upon learning through a news release of this priest's views, publicly I corrected him in the name of the Church. Subsequent discussions and efforts to invite him to understand and accept Catholic moral teaching have failed. He has progressively been deprived of status as a teacher in the Church, stripped of faculties to function as a priest and, as a result of disobedience removed from his office as administrator of a parish. I can think of no greater punishment for a priest or his opinions than to exclude him from the exercise of his public ministry. Media calls for excommunication are being made by people who do not know the Canon Law of the Church or understand the purpose of its penalties, which always includes a desire to go beyond punishment to healing. If and when Father Trosch changes his opinions, reconciliation is possible. Meanwhile let no one be fooled by media hype about "defrocking" or "excommunication" into thinking that Father Trosch's views on killing abortionists have been anything but repudiated by me, his bishop, and through me by the Catholic Church. Despite Trosch's repeated claims to the contrary, I know of no authority in the Church that has concurred with his fundamentalist, simplistic and erroneous presentation of Scripture and the Church's moral teaching, especially with respect to his use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As I have written in the past, he is wrong--terribly wrong. Why, then, should the media give this priest the kind of coverage he currently enjoys? Apparently, the sensationalism of a man in a Roman collar advocating killing is reason enough. That should not be so. David Trosch has never held any position of leadership in the pro-life movement. Indeed, its leaders have repudiated his opinions. The media need to reexamine standards that permit them to ignore the many pro-life leaders, representing millions, who speak compassionately and sensibly in the pro-life cause, while giving enormous publicity to a figure on the fringes, in fact, beyond the fringes. As advocates of life, we must pray always for the strength and courage to resist and overcome temptations to violence. Toward this end, we recall our Lord's command always to return good for evil, to pray for those who oppose us. The most powerful force we have in our struggle against abortion is not an angry word or a man-made weapon of destruction; it is the truth about God's beautiful gift of life--and through it love. In the end life and love will win despite the pain and the heartache for the millions of lives lost through abortion Even so, they are not totally gone. The same faith that bids us to look to the source of all parenting for our sharing in it, offers a word of consolation for those whose human parents fail the test. Within the mysterious but very real universal love of God for all His children rests the eternal destiny and happiness of each unborn child. But the pain and heartache of the human loss of just one such child finds an echo in the life and love of all who, for whatever reason, undergo the call to joy and experience the anguish when life starts, and stops, within the womb. It is the most basic cry from the heart of our common humanity. Joined to our own prayer and witness God will use it to open hearts and minds to their true dignity and destiny. And, where needed, He will open the way to healing all hurts. Let me close with the story of one such experience and love. It is not, thank God, the story of an abortion, but of the powerful reality of the life of, and the love for, an unborn child. It was shared with the wider community by Jay Grelen, a columnist who writes for the Mobile Press Register, and his wife, Cindi: The second time, I understood the french fries. The first time Cindi learned she was pregnant, two days after Valentine's Day 1989, she telephoned and invited me to lunch. She told me her news. I sat there stunned, she says, and inhaled the fries. So it's a week after Valentine's Day in 1992. We had moved from Denver to Lexington, Ky. Cindi had gone to the doctor, who diagnosed a sinus infection. And something else. Instead of antibiotics, she came home with a bag of french fries for me and a huge grin on her face. This time, our 2-year-old daughter helped inhale. The Friday that Cindi learned she was pregnant, we began to dream and plan. Where to put the new baby? When to tell Samantha? We couldn't have loved this new member of our family more if the baby were already in the crib. Four days later, on Tuesday, Cindi went for an ultra-sound, which confirmed our happy news. On Wednesday, she began to bleed and cramp. We went to the doctor's office. Cindi sat there thinking, "I'm losing my baby." All the while, from another room, came a strong, regular "ka-thump": It was a monitor, picking up and broadcasting the heartbeat of another baby in its mother's womb. But our news was good. No dilating. Uterus slightly swollen. Blood test better than expected. "I'm still off my feet," Cindi wrote in her journal that day, "but ever so much more hopeful." Thursday, 9 p.m. Cramps and bleeding worsen. Half-past midnight. "I'm in great pain--physically and in my soul," Cindi wrote. "I'm losing my baby." Friday, 6:30 a.m., one week after the positive pregnancy test. Suddenly, the pregnancy was over, the baby gone. "Guilt and horror sweep over me," Cindi wrote later of that moment, "and I can't fathom to do." Cindi endured that dark night alone. I slept through it. And for many days, she felt she was alone, that I was emotionally asleep. I had my cry later that morning, in the rocking chair in our first-born's room, and then I was through. But Cindi knew, in a way that only a mother can know, what had been inside. She had felt the new life sprouting, the hormonal surge, the joy. And Cindi knows, in a way that only a mother can, what we lost. But joy and life do return. Three months later, Cindi was pregnant again. Now, our second daughter nears her first birthday. We have seen life come, we have seen it go. We see life running--or in the baby's case crawling--circles around us. Because of what we can cradle, and because of what we can't, we understand more fully the miracle of life, whatever the stage.[7] 7 Mobile Press Register, February 22, 1994 issue. Permissions granted for non-profit purposes.  Editor
|
