Daily Archives: January 22, 2013
The Supreme Court of Alabama issued aninteresting sentence concerning the life of the unborn. Two pregnant women took drugs, gravely endangering the health of their babies, and were sentenced as a result. With the usual callousness of pro-choice people, they argued the babies are not persons, merely clumps of tissues, and therefore to damage them is really not an issue at all, much less a criminal offence.
The Alabama Supreme Court answered along the lines that the exact contrary is the case, and an unborn baby is treated by the law as a life worthy of protection in a range of issues, including of course the one of their health having to be protected from their mothers’ actions. In actual fact, they said, the only matter in which an unborn baby is not protected as a person is the issue of abortion, and this only because of Roe vs Wade.
Notice here the main point: Roe vs Wade is in opposition to the way the US legal system as a whole sees the unborn baby; a (though this is not explicitly said) monstrous creation of judicial activism going not only against the legal conception of an unborn baby, but (and this I add myself) elementary common sense. I do not know anyone who does not refer to the unborn baby as a “baby” instead of a lump of cells. Even the girl informed of an unwanted pregnancy will not say to her girlfriends she has been informed a lump of cells is growing within her; on the contrary, she will refer to him as “baby” even if she wants to abort him, and she will inform a certain boy or man that he is the…. Father, which implies a son, rather than the co-agent in the triggering of the rapid growth of tissues which, like a tumour, will soon have very unpleasant consequences unless properly expunged.
In fact, the way so-called pro-choice activists want us to see an unborn baby is exactly this: they want us to see an unborn baby like a tumour ready to metastasise unless treated promptly and decisively, with the removal and complete elimination of the dangerous excrescences threatening the health of the, er, well, mother.
Hitler is among us. But now he has millions of faces.
Reading here and there, I sometimes have the impression that there is some misconception about what a catechism is.
Particularly the younger generations (those grown up in the doctrinal vacuum of the Paul VI – JP II era) must be under the impression that the one issued under Pope John Paul II is the Catechism, either believing that there was no catechism before it or that this catechism made everything that came before it superfluous.
I would like to point out to a couple of concepts and give the reader some background and reading hints.
1) A catechism is not infallible. Every catechism is nothing more than an attempt at explaining Catholic teaching in a way easily digestible for the non theologically trained laity. Similarly, no catechism is mandatory. There is an official catechism, but every catechism approved by ecclesiastical authority (particularly if in tempi non sospetti, as we…
View original post 1,268 more words