Friday, November 21, 2008

It's Only Natural...the Law, that is

Fr. Anselm Ramelow, O.P., on Natural Law:

What do you want me to do for you?”
He replied, “Lord, please let me see.”
Jesus told him, “Have sight; your faith has saved you.”
He immediately received his sight.


"This story is counter-cultural. Far from crying out for Jesus to make us seeing, the present culture seems intent on preserving its blindness.


There is, for example, the blindness for what is called the natural law. Natural law, as its name says, is a law that is inscribed in the nature of things. There is something in how things are that tells us how they should be: If we see a cat with only three legs, we know that these are only three legs, and that the cat rather ought to have four legs. It is the nature of the cat to have that many legs.


We ordinarily do perceive these things. Yet, we are less willing to acknowledge that there is something like a nature of things, when it becomes inconvenient. The same perception should, for example, tell us something about our very own nature. For the most part, we acknowledge our nature, for example, when it comes to health care: when we perceive that we are sick, we do see that we are not how we ought to be – just like the cat with the three legs. And so we go to the doctor. We also know that we should not overeat, because it is unhealthy and leads to physical states that are contrary to our nature. People also exercise to stay healthy, although here it might already get inconvenient, and we are therefore more ready to be in denial about what our nature is.


That denial, however, becomes most pronounced when we enter the realm of sexual ethics. That certain organs and their use are made by nature for the sake of procreation seems to unduly limit our freedom. And I am not only talking about gay marriage here, but also about contraception and quite generally the promiscuity of our society. Even pregnancy is changed from the preciousness of fertility into an accident, an illness that is to be taken care of by abortion, with the help of one’s health-insurance. Here the nature of things is turned into it’s very opposite.

Any appeal to the normative demands of the natural law, which in ordinary life is unwittingly accepted, suddenly starts to become something of an outrage. We will even hear the accusation of imposing our faith on other people.


But this not about faith at all. It is natural law, i.e., it is about nature, not about grace or the supernatural. We do not need faith to see that a cat with three legs is missing something. This is something that is accessible to all people who possess reason. We are therefore also held responsible for any violation of the natural law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse; we are supposed to know.

When the man in the Gospel asks Jesus to see, Jesus tells him: your faith has saved you. Faith can indeed make us seeing, where we have become blind even to the things that we can know by nature and reason. But we ought to know them even apart from faith; that is itself part of our nature.


The natural law, I said, is a law inscribed into the nature of things. Who wrote it there? The one who made these natures. The one who made our natures, our bodies and brains as well. God himself wrote that law, and not just on the stone tablets of the 10 commandments, but into the nature of things as well as into the very flesh of our hearts, as St. Paul says. He is the lawgiver who obliges us to follow the law; but he also gives us a law that is our very own: if we break that law, we break ourselves.


If on the other hand, there is no God, if the way how cats are and how we are, is just the meaningless outcome of a Darwinist evolution, then there is no natural law. Modern science since Descartes has made an effort to describe reality in such a way, that it could be understood without God. That included the emphatic denial of something like the nature of things, i.e., of anything normative in reality. Everything therefore was open to the boundless manipulation by the new technologies that this modern science yielded.


This eliminated therefore the theoretical basis for natural law. And so we find ourselves indeed in the situation that Dostoevsky described, when he said: if there is no God, then everything is permitted. And the existentialist Jean Paul Sartre emphatically stated that this is not a bad thing, but rather the liberation of man.


What we are looking at is therefore ultimately the attempt to liberate man from God. Because if God exists, then reality has meaning, then it will reflect God’s design. There will be a nature of things that expresses the purpose of God; it will be something that we have to respect, be it in animals, endangered plant species or in ourselves. It will put limitations on what we can rightfully do with each other, with ourselves and with embryos. The very existence of God implies this.


The next battle that we will have to face will be therefore not just about abortion or gay marriage; it will be about the very existence of God himself, including our ability to teach children about him. You might think I am exaggerating. But the movement called “New Atheism” is already producing bestsellers like Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell. It is already making inroads in the academic world. Even at a “hardcore” Catholic College like Steubenville students are reported to have lost their faith after reading these books.

The authors of these books claim that religion is just an aberration of the evolution of our species that should be eliminated. One of the ways to eliminate it, is to forbid parents to teach their children any kind of religion. Dawkins and Dennett declare religious education for children to be a form of child abuse. I have no doubts that we will face even this battle in the near future. Already now God is pushed out of the public square, replaced not by something neutral – for there is no neutrality in these matters – but replaced by an atheistic faith, which is proclaimed by silence and absence.


As awful as this is, it puts the focus where it belongs: it is not about this or that moral issue, it is about the very existence of God. If there is no God, then there is no natural law that would put any limitation on our freedom. If on the other hand, God exists, then there will be ethical consequences that people are increasingly inclined to reject.


The question for us is: would we want to live in a society in which God is declared dead? Would we want to live in a society, in which everything is allowed, not just to ourselves, but also to others, including those in government? How would we live together at all, with no common nature to appeal to? And would we want to live in a society in which there is no guidance anymore regarding right and wrong, except majority votes? In other words, would we want to live in a society in which might is right?

In the name of what would we protest against injustices against the health and well-being of people, if not in the name of our nature, a nature created by God, a nature that expresses his designs and laws, a nature that wants to be well and ought to be well? The appeal to human rights becomes vacuous, if it is not concretized in natural law.


Could we even appeal to the freedom of choice of those who are oppressed? How is their will not just another part of their nature? Would it not just be another brute fact that gets in the way of our own freedom, something that can be just as well trumped by a stronger, but equally brute fact, that of the majority choice? And how about those who are too old or too young or too sick to exercise their free choice?


It would seem that the words that the first reading from the book of Revelation addresses to the Church at Ephesus are addressed to our culture as well:

Realize how far you have fallen.
Repent, and do the works you did at first.
Otherwise, I will come to you
and remove your lampstand from its place.


It would seem that we have all reason to cry out with the blind man in Jericho: Lord, please let me see! It is our gift as Catholics that we have a faith that makes us see what everyone should be able to see by the light of his conscience: the law of nature, which is an expression of God’s gracious will. It is a faith that cures us from our blindness. And by curing us it will help others to see as well: the Gospel tells us that the blind man immediately received his sight and followed him (Jesus), giving glory to God. When they saw this, all the people gave praise to God.

Those who perceive the natural law have overcome their blindness, they will follow Jesus, and they will know nothing less but God himself. And they will praise him."

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Elton John says "Marriage" is for Heterosexuals

The gay community's going to let the sun go down on Elton John soon, if it hasn't already...

(Excerpt from an article in USA TODAY, Elton John: Where Prop 8 Went Wrong: )


Sir Elton John, accompanied by his longtime partner David Furnish, had some choice words about California's Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage that passed on Nov. 4.

In December 2005, John and Furnish tied the knot in a civil partnership ceremony in Windsor, England. But, clarified the singer, "We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage."

John and Furnish, and their two cocker spaniels Marilyn and Arthur, were in town for Monday's annual benefit for the Elton John AIDS Foundation.

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," said John. "The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Straight-Talk on Homosexuality

Fr. Anselm Ramelow O.P. is a priest who takes seriously his duty to lead his flock. In these times of confusion, he is doing his part to set the record straight:

"As you are perfectly aware, the success Prop. 8 caused a lot of rebellion in this city; yesterday a group was demonstrating in front of the Cathedral, shouting obscenities, today there are demonstrations in various parts of California. Opponents still claim that “gay marriage” is a matter of rights, and they try to override Prop. 8 again, against the majority vote.
Since you will not get the Catholic position from the San Francisco Chronicle (at most they will give you a report on Catholic dissent), let me try to say something tonight (St. Leo the Great would certainly approve of this message).

The first thing is to let you know as Catholics about the teaching of the Church. Her perpetual teaching regarding homosexuality has not changed and indeed cannot and will not change:
To give you one clear statement, I am quoting n. 2357 of the CCC:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The Catechism gives several scripture references; I will only quote the passage from the first chapter of Romans to you, which relates this topic to the idolatry of pagan Rome, i.e. to a darkened sense of who God is (be prepared for some strong language; this is the word of God, though, and we need to hear it):
20 Ever since the creation of the world, his (God’s) invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. 24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 2627 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

What does this mean? It means that sexuality cannot be divorced from our view of God. As John Paul II has explained in his theology of the body, the family and the sexual complementarity of man and woman are an image of the Trinity itself. When God says: let us make man in our image and likeness and: male and female he made them, then we are invited to see divine and sacred things in sexual relations. In the NT, marriage can therefore be elevated to a sacrament, reflecting the fertile relationship between Christ and his bride the Church; the Eucharist itself is the marriage banquet that celebrates our salvation. By contrast, if we follow St. Paul’s thought, then he is saying that homosexual relationships do not express this, but that they are rather proclaiming a totally different god, demon or idol.

While this is the understanding of the Catholic faith, it is not a matter of mere faith that we would impose on other people, but something that also follows from pure reason and the natural law: “gay marriage” in so far as it claims to be marriage, is about sexual acts. I.e., it is not about the love of friendship. That kind of love, the love of friendship, can, of course, exist in all sorts of relationships. Nobody denies that this will be a genuine good, but it is not marriage. The love of marriage on the other hand is of a different kind in that it integrates these aspects into a sexual relationship. It forms a bond of a very different kind than that between friends or parents and children, or grandparents, or caretakers and those entrusted to them.
Sexual acts by their nature are designed to produce offspring. Homosexual acts cannot do that, even though they are using the organs of procreation. In other words, it is an improper use of these organs. It can certainly never represent their normal function and intended situation. This is obvious for anyone who believes that this world and our bodies and their organs were created purposefully by an intelligent and loving God.
But it is even obvious to those who deny this, i.e. those who say that everything is the outcome of random mutation and natural selection; even Darwinists would agree that sexual organs are made for procreation.

Now the state has neither right nor duty nor interest to be involved in marriage, except because marriage is the place where future generations and citizens originate. In other words: the state is involved in marriage, because marriage is procreative. “Gay marriage” by its nature does not do that; it therefore has no more claim to special political recognition than any other kind of partnership, as for example grandparents living with their grandchildren or caretakers – for these there is no marriage either, even though they might feel love and affection for each other as well.

Now I am perfectly aware that there is a growing number of countries in this world, in which I would be thrown into jail for saying this, i.e. for preaching the faith of the Church. Go and try saying this, for example, in Sweden, Canada or Colombia. Without Prop. 8, this might become an issue in California as well. Broadcasting licenses for Catholic radio stations, for example, would be revoked, if they would present this Catholic position. Also, conscientious objection to hosting gay events or marriages or renting space for such occasions, or even declining to be professional photographers at these events will be impossible. Already now courts have fined photographers and others for their conscientious objection.

What that means is: Prop. 8 is not about the rights of gay people, but about our rights of free speech and conscientious objection.

Teachers at public schools, for example, do already have to teach children about the equality of gay relationships (Senate Bill 777). But surely no Catholic teacher can comply with this; rather, today’s Gospel would speak to this situation:
“Things that cause sin will inevitably occur,
but woe to the one through whom they occur.
It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck
and he be thrown into the sea
than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.
Be on your guard!"

Without Prop. 8, this situation would extend even to Catholic schools, which would otherwise lose their accreditation.

How about teaching your very own children? You cannot refrain from warning your children about false ideas about sexuality and the implied practices. Would you not scream, if you see your children running out on the street, into the moving traffic and being run over? Would you not defy anyone who tries to stop you from rescuing your child, just because it is not politically correct, or because others choose to claim as their right to run out into the moving traffic without looking?

Catholics do believe that there is that deathly traffic out there; and much worse than this, because that kind of traffic only kills the body. In other words: we do indeed believe that there is a hell and we do believe that homosexual acts would lead you there.

We therefore have not only the right but the duty to warn people about the danger they are putting themselves in. It should be a matter of charity and care to do so, not an act of hatred or homophobia. It is in fact the very teaching of the Church that rejects persecution of people with a homosexual orientation. Let me quote from the Catechism again:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

There are, by the way, many people with same-sex attraction trying to live in this way, with the help of support groups like “Courage”, to whom I am actually one of the chaplains. We might also want to think, what we would be saying to people who are making this effort, if we were to advocate gay marriage: are we telling them that they are actually fools for trying to live according to the Gospel?

We certainly do not want to do that, as little as we want to discriminate people for their sexual orientation. But notice that the Church can say this without therefore implying a “right to marriage”, which is by its nature impossible. Much of what gay people are seeking can already be taken care of by civil union as it is. Any step beyond this would make claims on the rights of other parties involved, not the least those of children.

In other words, we are not here to take away any genuine rights or to insult anyone. But we are here to defend our own rights:
the right to disagree, i.e. the right to believe otherwise and to say so
the right to defend the salvation of our own souls through conscientious objection
the right to warn those entrusted to us, the faithful in the Church and the children at home or in our schools, through the exercise of free speech
and last, but by no means least, the right to be concerned for our brothers and sisters with same sex-attraction, who are endangering themselves, and whom we want to warn, so that they can be with us one day with God in heaven."

Fr. Anselm Ramelow, O.P.

Monday, November 10, 2008

I, for one, remain relentlessly hopeful

A few months back, after having had about all he could take, my husband looked at me from across the dining room table and said in a very matter-of-fact tone, "Why do you insist on being so relentlessly pessimistic?"

It had been "one of those days." The reality of the sinking economy, the ups and downs of the election, and some upsetting news about a friend had hit me all at once. So there at the table I let all the feelings of the day get the best of me, which took the form of contradicting just about every hopeful thing my poor husband was trying to say.

It wasn't until the next day that I came to grips with what was really going on inside of me. My husband, God help me, was right. (He's going to love hearing that!) Only I wouldn't call it "pessimism"--rather, I would say that I had lost my hope in God.

I don't blame myself for feeling down about all that's going on in this country right now. There's plenty to be depressed about. But I have everything to lose if I succumb to the feelings and forget the fact that Jesus has already conquered the darkness of this world. We are not waiting for the war against evil to be won--it has already been accomplished.

And so I, for one, choose to remain relentlessly hopeful in Jesus. HOPE is not a feeling--it is a person, and this person is God made flesh for the sake of our salvation. He is in charge of this mess we call "life on earth," and as crazy as it gets, He has a plan for it all.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love

For all we lost last night in the presidential race, we should be rejoicing in our victory—marriage between one man and one woman has been upheld in California!


California has spoken and it has said YES to traditional marriage, YES to family, YES to giving children both a mommy and a daddy, YES to protecting religious freedom, YES to protecting our schools and hospitals, YES to parental rights.


But we must also remember what California has not said...


To our brothers and sisters who experience same-sex attraction, we want you to know that we love you and wish for your happiness. Our YES vote on Proposition 8 was not a vote of “hate,” but a vote to uphold that which we treasure as sacred, and that is the union that God established to bring about new life—marriage between one man and one woman. We do not wish to take away your right to live and love as you choose. This right belongs to each of us, and is between us and God. But we do wish to keep the institution of marriage as it has always been, and to rebuild it to what it is meant to be—a permanent covenant of love between a man, a woman and God that is total, faithful, and fruitful. We do not believe it is in our capacity to change what God has created, and marriage is not a creation of man, it is a creation of God.


This victory for marriage should be celebrated, but should also be recognized for what it is—only the beginning of the work we have ahead of us. Now is not the time to become complacent. We have restored marriage for the time-being, but it hangs on a thread that if not reinforced will be easily cut.


We Christians must make some drastic changes, and make them fast. The state of marriage today is our own doing, and so it is up to us to undo it.


First and foremost, we need to drastically increase our prayer: the rosary, Eucharistic adoration, devotion to the Divine Mercy and consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus are just a few of the powerful weapons we have in our prayer arsenal. St. Paul reminds us that it is not man we are fighting against but the “principalities” and the “evil spirits in the Heavens,” and so we must put on the armor of Jesus Christ if we are to win the battle. Prayer is also essential in directing our hearts towards the will of God and giving us the power of His Divine Mercy and Love towards our brothers and sisters.


Second, we need to increase education about God's design for love and sexuality. It is without a doubt that misunderstanding and the absence of instruction on the meaning of sexuality are what have lead us to this point. We are in urgent need of leadership from our Church in this area, which will require great courage from our bishops and priests. It will not be an easy task for them, but Jesus promised us that following Him would not be easy. We need to pray for our church leaders and give them encouragement.


Third, we need to pray about how each of us can get involved in restoring marriage and sexuality, according to God's design. For those of us who are married, our first step must be to conform our own marriages to the will of God so that we may be able to speak of it to others from personal experience.


Last, but perhaps most importantly, we need to act with unfailing love and compassion towards our brothers and sisters who experience same-sex attraction. They will know we are Christians by our love, and so this we cannot compromise.


Monday, November 3, 2008

Some final thoughts before Election Day...

As we prepare to place our votes tomorrow, I leave you with some final thoughts on this election and a beautiful homily written by Fr. Anselm Ramelow O.P.:

On Proposition 8
"
Regarding Proposition 8, which is supported by the California bishops (Cardinal Mahoney spent millions on a campaign in L.A.). I think it is important to know that after the court decision to recognize gay marriage, Catholics are legally in the same category as racists. That has immediate implications for the Catholic school system. You cannot get accreditation for racist schools. Catholic schools, since they would refuse to teach anything else on this issue than Catholic morality (and natural law for that matter), are in danger of losing their accreditation. It is not surprising that the bishops are alarmed. So please, think of the school in your parish and the many other schools that might have to close. Gay marriage is not about the rights of gay people (they have those through civil union already), but about our rights of freedom of speech and conscientious objection. I am also aware that I might find myself some day in jail for preaching or teaching Catholic morality (this is not an exaggeration, it happens already in other countries in Europe and in South America and is part of a universal development).

Think also of your brothers and sisters who are working in the health care professions. It might be the end of the Catholic hospital system. I talked to a young couple this morning, who are studying to be medical doctors in Stanford; they were quite desperate about this situation that will force into a system that does not allow any conscientious objection; already now they are under a lot of pressure at Stanford. They also expressed great worry about the fact that so many Catholics do not seem to know about this. One of the reasons I am writing this letter is that I have found myself more recently in situations where I had to try and help Catholic laypeople in making difficult moral choices, and I have gained the impression that we as clergy are leaving the lay people alone with their growing ethical concerns and problems."


A Homily by Fr. Anselm on the Feast of St. Martin de Porres

"Today we celebrate St. Martin de Porres, one of the 3 great Dominican Saints in Lima, Peru in the 16./17. century. He was a simple lay brother, caring for the poor and sick and even animals. So, he was someone who had a heart for what you may call the “underdog” or disadvantaged. He himself was one of those. Being the son of a Spaniard and a black woman, he had to struggle with racial prejudice. While skin color is no reason for either rejection or election, he certainly knew about discrimination. And with all of that he can be seen as a patron of social justice.


But there are other aspects to his life. He had a great love for God in the Eucharist, and he spent long hours and nights in prayer, especially for the souls in purgatory. That is, his sense for social justice was not only of one dimension. It also was giving God his due by worshiping him, and making the just reparations for those who had not given him his due, i.e., by praying for the souls in purgatory.


So let us pause and ask for a moment: what is justice? Justice is to give everyone “his or her due” (suum cuique, as the Latins say). We owe things to our neighbor, and we owe things to God as well. God and neighbor have both rights that we need to respect and serve.


But how do we acquire those rights that make, in justice, claims on others?

Mostly through work: if I do work for an employer, I deserve a just wage. If I plough a field, I have a claim to its fruits. If I make an artifact, I have the rights to it, including things like copyright. If I pick wild berries, they are mine. But it seems that not all rights are of the kind that is acquired by work. What about the right to health or, most fundamentally, the right to life? This is most fundamental, because, if we do not live, i.e. if we do not exist, we cannot work either, or acquire rights to other things.


So where do we get that right from?


I would suggest that it is actually not we who have the right to our life, because we are not the one who have worked for it. It is God, who worked for it, when he created us. He has the right to our life, and nobody else, neither we ourselves nor the government nor anyone else. That is why murder and suicide are equally a violation of the right to life.


There is a perpetual temptation to undermine this right by playing God ourselves. That might be one of the reasons why people are so intent on making human beings in their image and likeness, by cloning, by IVF, or by genetic engineering. Because, if it seems that you have made it, then it is yours, and you can also unmake, i.e. kill it, whenever you like. It would be your property after all, and you have the rights to it. This is only one way in which particularly the culture of our age has started to invade and challenge the most fundamental right, the right to life, something that is owned by God and therefore sacred.


If you can challenge this right, you can challenge all the other rights as well. If you think it legitimate to let innocent children die, who survive abortion, what reason can you give, not to torture non-innocent adults or submit them to the death penalty? If you can kill defenseless children, why not armored soldiers even in an unjust war? That is why being pro-life is not just one issue among others, but the foundation of all of them. This is also why the U.S. bishops list the issue of abortion first in their list of priorities for tomorrow’s election. That is, why the Declaration of Independence lists them in this order "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. You cannot have liberty and happiness unless you have life first. It is also why the bishops ask us to protect the place where this life emerges, marriage and the family; the place where sacred life begins is itself sacred. This is why the bishops urge you to vote Yes on Proposition 8 tomorrow.


It is sometimes said that one should not make one issue decisive, and that there is life after birth as well. And that is certainly true; nobody will deny that. But even many issues after birth are dependent on this right to life. What happens, for example, if a Freedom of Choice Act abolishes the right to conscientious objections for health care personal? Doctors and nurses will have to choose between their job and the eternal salvation of their immortal soul. That, too, is at stake. But more fundamentally: no, actually, there is no life after birth, if there is no life before birth first! The right to life is and remains the most fundamental right, because without it there are no other rights.


We have a right and duty to speak out on these matters. One cannot accuse the Church (or Pius XII) of not speaking out enough against the genocide of the Nazis (when it was dangerous to do so) and yet ask the Church to be silent (while we still have the right of free speech) in the face of 40-50 millions of abortions since Roe vs. Wade.


These are our brothers and sisters who are killed. We might meet them some day in heaven, and they will ask us, what we have done to protect them, or whether we have rather helped those who kill them. Don’t think that it is easy for me to say these things; I would rather not have to do it. But I would have to answer these questions myself one day, if I didn’t.


St. Martin de Porres, had he lived today, would have spoken out against it. He would have known that the abortion industry of Planned Parenthood purposefully targets minorities and people of color; he would have known that the abortion rate among black people is disproportionately high. In countries like India and China especially girls are targeted, but always it is the weak, the minorities the disadvantaged and disabled who are targeted. It is for these that St. Martin de Porres would speak up. It is itself a matter of social justice.


It is the blood of our brothers and sisters that is flowing, and it is crying out to heaven – to God, who is the creator and owner of all life. It is the blood that is common to all of us who are children of God, regardless of skin color or age. It is the blood that God not only created, but which he purchased at a great prize by giving for it his own blood on the cross. It puts on us the obligation to defend it, because it is the life of those who God, through his labor, created and redeemed; and it belongs to God alone."