Abortion and Other Evils

A Biblical Defense of Traditional Marriage

The following is a post which I have been hoping to write for some time. This is about homosexuality. I propose to defend the traditional viewpoint that it is immoral from Scripture and that a marriage is specifically between one man and one woman. Before you ask, I am not writing on James Martin. I am writing on certain Protestants of what is called the “Affirmation” camp. To end all questions, the Council of Trent Session XXIV, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Matrimony, states: “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. But, that by this bond two only are united and joined together, our Lord taught more plainly, when rehearsing those last words as having been uttered by God, He said, therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.” The Council certainly does not seem to allow room for a man to cleave to his husband or a woman her wife, nor are Councils to be read exactly as Scripture since they are written in a clearer manner. Now we shall discuss what the Scriptures say about the issue. As usual, first I shall discuss the biblical passages which are used in the Affirmation camp.

“The inspired authors did not know about loving, committed homosexual relationships, for which reason their commentaries on same-sex marriage.”

I do not see why they should be unaware of committed same-sex relationships as they were common in the Roman Empire at the time (hence Paul condemned it on multiple occasions). They may not have been recognized by law as equal, but neither were they now until relatively recently, so I could hardly say this is reason to suppose that they knew less about same-sex relationships than we do now. Furthermore, in the relevant passages, the Bible is not so specific and simply condemns two people of the same gender having relations with each other.

“There seems to be a trajectory. There are multiple passages in Scripture which seem to sanction slavery, yet now we accept it as evil. Hence if for slavery there may be a trajectory from acceptance to condemnation, there should be one for homosexuality from condemnation to acceptance.” 

I will write an entire article discussion slavery in Scripture eventually. For now let it suffice that we see this in the New Testament. “Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back for ever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother.” (Philemon 15-16) One cannot be brothers with one’s slave. However, as will be shown, there does not seem to be much of a reference, even in seed form to condemning homosexuality.

“But our Lord, God Incarnate said nothing about same-sex relationships. Therefore, homosexuality must not be a sin.”

Jesus was also silent on rape, incest, and bestiality, three things about which we can fairly assume he disagreed. Now, Jesus came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The Jews did not practice homosexuality, for which reason He had no cause to condemn it. However, Paul, who spoke to a wider audience of Gentiles did have cause to do so. Jesus at another time said, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:6-9) This suggests that He did believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

As for inclusivity, Jesus did welcome many people, but this does not mean he approved of their behavior. At one point Jesus explains: “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:32) Thus His welcoming to them is meant to lead to repentance. Hence in John 8:11, Jesus says to the woman caught in adultery: “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.” So Jesus allows the woman to go on the condition that she does not sin again. I hope I have done well to name all the major counterarguments. Now, on the contrary…

Leviticus 18 & 20

Leviticus 18:22 states: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Likewise, according to Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.” To this there are two general objections which could be brought up. The first is that this is the Old Law, made to set the Jews apart from the Gentiles, similar to the kosher laws, and do not apply now. Second, some say that due to the word “abomination”, is frequently used to describe idolatry, God may be referring to cultic or even man-boy relationships connected to pagan temples.

To answer the first claim, that this was not carried into the New Testament, in Leviticus 18, God also condemns incest, adultery, devoting one’s children to Molech, and bestiality, which most Christians would still oppose. Following this, God says: “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves; and the land became defiled, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.” (Lev. 18:24-25) So it seems that it displeased God to do this to the Gentiles as well. As for the second supposition, that this has something to do with cultic practices, the words are not so specific. It only refers to a man lying with a man, around which, as noted there are other sins which are clearly sexual. Note also the words: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” In other words, they are jointly responsible, suggesting that this is consensual on the sides of both parties.

Romans 1:26-27

In Romans 1, Paul writes about unrighteousness in God’s sight. In Romans 1:18-32, he writes specifically on the Gentile world. In Romans 1:26-27, he states: “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Paul calls these desires “unnatural”—hence not what God originally intended. Some would contend that Paul is only talking about “unnatural” sexual behaviors according to one’s sexuality. In other words, Paul is condemning persons with heterosexual attractions engaging in homosexual behavior. However, God refers to these acts as “passions”. The greek is πᾰ́θος/páthos, meaning any strong feeling, passion, or emotion. No man with heterosexual inclinations has such passions for another man. Nor can this refer to man-boy relationships, since Paul makes a reference to lesbianism, nor are these words so specific.

1 Corinthians 6

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God,” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) says Paul. And again, “Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.” (1 Timothy 1:8-10)

Now, what does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, the words used in the Revised Standard Version are “sexual perverts” in Corinthians and “sodomites” in Timothy, but this is different in other translations. The English Standard Version says “men who practice homosexuality”.

Now there are multiple terms in Greek which could refer to homosexuals. The first is μαλακοὶ (malakoi), which literally means “soft ones”. It can mean a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man or a male prostitute. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul refers to both μαλακοὶ (malakoi) and ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai). The second word, ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai), comes from two Greek words, ἀρσεν “male” and κοίτης, “bed”, especially referring to a marriage bed as in intercourse. The word ἀρσενοκοῖται therefore means “those who lie with men”. This word, to the best of my knowledge, is rarely or never used outside of the New Testament. However, the two words which make it up are used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, suggesting that Paul is drawing a parallel to what was condemned then. So the pairing of μαλακοὶ (malakoi) with ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitoi) suggests that there is a difference. Unlike in the case of malakoi necessarily, which may well have referred to man-boy relationships, arsenokoitai seems to condemn both active and passive partners as equals.

I would conclude therefore that God did wish marriage to be between one man and one woman. I hope I represented the opposing viewpoint fairly enough.

Bonum Certamen Certemus

I am the Catholic of Honor

All Scripture verses are from the Revised Standard Version

Abortion and Other Evils

Do “Gay Birds” Prove Homosexuality is Moral?

This is certainly an interesting topic and certainly one which will get people to click. Apparently a number of species of birds and mammals have been known to display homosexual behavior. There were two penguins, for instance, called Roy and Silo who lived together in New York City’s Central Park Zoo. They began performing mating rituals together in 1998 and in 1999. They attempted to hatch a rock as if it were an egg and steal eggs from other penguin couples (evidently, they were alright with kidnapping in order to have a child). Eventually, the zoo staff allowed them to adopt a young penguin girl called Tango who grew up to be a lesbian and began dating another penguin called Tanuzi. It seems Roy and Silo became more aggressive once another couple forced them out of their nest. They eventually broke up and Silo got with a female called Scrappy. Roy remained single to the end of his days. It should be noted that they were never seen in a sexual act, but apparently were doing the penguin equivalent of making out. Apparently, two children’s books starring Roy, Silo, and Tango were released—controversial for obvious reasons.

Some have argued that this may not have been sexual after all, since they never had any sexual acts. Although this may be true, I would not be at all surprised if same-sex attraction exists among penguins. However, some have argued that since animals display homosexual behavior, this some way suggests it is natural and moral to do. I beg to differ.

My objection is very simple: if people are to decide from animals what is moral, this should follow for all animal practices. The majority of humans do not do this. For instance, rabbits occasionally eat their young, especially when varmints, household pets, rodents, or some other unusual visitor enters the rabbitry soon after the doe has delivered her young or the does are dehydrated (I certainly hope the reader does not support mothers eating their babies if they are dehydrated). Frogs will eat any critter they can swallow—including other frogs. Cute little hamsters can, in fact, be territorial and eat other hamsters who invade their personal space. They are even known under some circumstances to eat their young. Occasionally even chimpanzees, probably the most intelligent species on the planet, have been known to cannibalize their former friends. Some might say that this does not happen often among chimpanzees as it does not happen often among humans, which may be true, but neither do penguins often have homosexual relationships. It is a rare occurrence. But if we are to say that since some animals are homosexual, this is reason to suppose that humans can be, we might also just as well conclude that cannibalism is permissible.

I honestly do not understand why we should base our morality off of animals at all, since they have less of it. What, apart from the religious claims of the immortality of the soul, differentiates us from the animals? Rationality and volition. Monkeys are said to show some sense of fairness, but animals in general are not so ethically based as humans are. So why should we practice morality based on what the animals do? Why should we sink to our animal instincts in such a way? In other words, if a few animals mature abnormally so as to practice behaviors which would be immoral for humans, why does that mean that we should do the same?

So I do not really see why the fact that certain animals display homosexual behavior means that we should as well. If we sink to our animal instincts, nothing really makes us greater than they.

Bonum Certamen Certemus

I am the Catholic of Honor

A page from the controversial children’s book, And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, which tells in a narrative form the story of Roy, Silo, and Tango.

Abortion and Other Evils

Philosophy on Homosexuality

Disclaimer: I will have to write about sex to some extent (although not to a graphic degree). I felt uncomfortable writing it so if the reader easily gets uncomfortable about such topics, I do not recommend this post. I certainly would not recommend this for anyone younger than ten or maybe twelve. Also, if the reader is easily offended, do not read this. My own views on homosexuality are not exactly popular nowadays.

So we speak of homosexuality, a sensitive issue nowadays. By homosexuality I mean specifically sexual activity between two men or two women, rather than how it is sometimes used to mean the simple sexual attraction, over which people often have little or no control.

When discussing marriage and whether it is a necessary property of marriage to be between one man and one woman, it would first be right to define marriage. There is all this controversy as to which persons should marry which, yet rarely do persons bother to define terms. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this to say:

1 a: the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

b: the mutual relation of married persons

c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected. especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union

The definition of marriage as the mutual relation of two married persons is the classic definition of a word by itself. As for “the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage”—seriously? This is how they define marriage? Now definition 1a basically says that law must recognize what is or is not a marriage, which is not useful for discovering what is intrinsically moral or immoral, as the State often errs by passing laws contrary to the moral law (a prime example of this in our modern day would be the practice of slavery). If it means the moral law, what that is is exactly what we mean to determine. Definition 2 is more like it, “an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected.” But one can still question what constitutes such a rite or ceremony and so it helps us little. The final definition, “an intimate or close union” is most helpful to out purpose, as we are talking about a lasting marriage, not the act of matrimony. Still, I do not think it a good definition, as there are many things I could call an intimate or close union of which the term “marriage” is doubtful. After all, if I were to adopt a child (if I am legally allowed to do so at my age), it would not be a marriage. Yet it would be a close union and I would promise to love my child to the rest of my life. The best addition to this which I could add would be that marriage is an intimate or close union wherein sexual behavior is permissible.

So (as much as I hate to write about this as I am an erotophobic Christian teenager) the question we must ask is: when is sex permissible? To answer this, one must discover the core purpose of sex. Now some would call it intimacy. However, I have an intimate union with my family and friends. Surely, the fact that I love my family does not mean that I can have conjugal relations with them. If you do think I should have such relations with them, you are a creep because that would be incest. So with this said, I would say that the core reason which has led us to evolve sexual attractions is to procreate. This is why the most common attraction is heterosexual. It is natural. Indeed, without heterosexual relations, humanity would die out, but without homosexual relations, the species would survive. The natural way for humanity to continue is through heterosexual relations. Nowadays, of course, it is possible to make babies artificially, but this can hardly be said to be derived from nature, since without advanced technology it would be impossible. To put it another way, I have various systems in my body, all of which are complete without another person except one, that being the reproductive system. Homosexual relations have no biological purpose other than sexual pleasure. But the purpose for which humanity was given sexual pleasure was for procreation.

So with this in mind I would say that marriage is an intimate union the prime object of which is to maintain and multiply human life. As noted earlier, I needed to add to the definition that this is a union in which sex is permissible, because not all love-relationships involve sex. People frequently say when defending homosexuality “Let them love each other. Love is love, is it not?”—although not in these words. But I love my parents, yet I cannot have relations with them, since such a practice would be incest. I would also not have relations with my best friend, although I would love him (if I had one) deeply. I will probably be accused of being a right-wing homophobe for writing this, but before you angrily comment saying so, please try to be respectful of other people’s views.

Bonum Certamen Certemus

I am the Catholic of Honor

Abortion and Other Evils

Are Pregnant Women Organ Donors?

So why do I spend so much time on abortion? After all, I am running an apologetics blog. Well, I set out to defend Jesus Christ and His Church which by necessity entails defending the lives of the weak and vulnerable, which is especially important when so many people in society do not care about them.

Now I would like to discuss the bodily rights argument for abortion. What it basically states is that even if a fetus is a human person, the fetus does not have a right to “life support” by using the mother’s body, the same way a man has no right to steal a kidney from another person without his consent, even if he needs to survive. This basic idea is contained in the violinist analogy which involves the Society of Music Lovers kidnapping you and forcing you to constantly give blood for nine months to a violinist with a kidney-ailment. I must say that Ms. Judith Jarvis Thompson, who invented this analogy, is quite excellent at making up interesting analogies.

The right to life, as we generally consider it, involves a negative. I cannot go down New York’s Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, for instance, and still respect the right to life of every human individual. However, there is a negative to that. If I were in a spaceship and there was a lady in the airlock about to be let out into the vacuum of space by an absent-minded controller, I would have a moral duty to do what I could to help her. Similarly, children have the right to be kept alive by their parents. If parents leave their children at home for a week and they starve to death, these parents are guilty of homicide. So it makes sense that as a small child has the right to food and shelter at his parents’ home, so also a fetus or embryo, who is a small child, has the right to both food and shelter in his mother’s womb.

As for the objection about using other people’s organs, donating kidneys is not equivalent to giving birth. First of all, the refusal to donate an organ fails to save a person from death, while abortion, on the other hand, actively kills by dismemberment or some other method of active killing. The child is generally dead before being removed from the womb.

Furthermore, the woman is nearly always responsible for the fetus being there in the first place. The woman caused the child to be in her womb and for this reason the child is dependent on her body.

Finally, my kidneys are not naturally ordered to keeping someone else alive, wherefore I have no obligation to use it for this purpose. The uterus’ sole purpose is to sustain life, however, and for this reason it is reasonable to conclude that the unborn child has the natural right to use this organ, just as he has the right to use his mother’s milk if that is the only way to feed him.

So pregnancy is actually ordinary care, unlike donating kidneys. A woman goes through an large-scale and uncomfortable transformation, but it is a natural transformation to which a woman’s body is naturally ordered, wherefore it cannot be considered on par with donating kidneys.

Bonum Certamen Certemus

I am the Catholic of Honor

Abortion and Other Evils

In Defense of Pro-Life: Is Abortion Biblically Justified?

It is my understanding that some Christians claim that abortion should be moral based on the Bible. I have not yet responded to this and indeed it has been a while since I have spoken out against the evils of abortion, so I might as well do so now. I set out to defend orthodox Christianity and that means to defend the rights of the unborn.

“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7) The general reason why people bring this up is that due to the fact that Adam received breath and therefore became a living being, anyone who cannot breathe by himself (i.e. a fetus) is not a real person. First, many babies do not breathe immediately after birth and some can take up to a minute to breathe on their own outside the womb. My cousin had quite some trouble breathing because she was born early. Are we to say that infanticide is moral? Of course, some people say infanticide is moral nowadays, but most do not. However, the unborn do breath, but through an umbilical cord rather than through their mouths. Before they develop the umbilical cord, they absorb oxygen through the lining of their cells in a process called respiration. Besides, some humans who are born must breathe through a tube in their throat. Shall we assume that these are not humans because they do not breathe “the breath of life” through their nostrils as Adam did?

Numbers 5:11-31 is the next verse that is often brought up. The Law commands that a wife suspected of adultery must drink water mixed with dust from the tabernacle floor. Some say that this will cause a miscarriage if she has been unfaithful. First of all, this only proves that it is up to God whether the child is to live or die. God caused the firstborn in Egypt to die and also the firstborn of David and Bathsheba. Are we to conclude that they were not human? We must remember that not everything in the Old Covenant were perfect. Divorce, for instance, was allowed on account of the Israelites’ “hardness of heart”. (Matthew 19:8) However, such a concoction (dusty water) cannot generally abort a fetus. The only way a bad reaction would occur, aside from Divine intervention, would be because of psychological reaction due to a guilty conscience. However, what the exact text says is: “And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.” (Numbers 5:27-28) So it sounds like this sterilizes the woman rather than killing the child. Some translations say that she will miscarry, but most say something along the lines of her womb shrinking.

Finally there is Exodus 21:22-23: “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life.” I see why one would suppose this, as if someone would kill an old person, the punishment would probably be more severe. However, how does it follow that because someone is fined for accidentally killing an unborn child God would approve the intentional killing of an unborn child through abortion? Evidently the child has some value. Right before this the Scripture says: “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.” (Exodus 21:20-21) Notice that this text refers to an accidental miscarriage. There is no biblical directive for how to punish an intentional abortion. Besides, the text describes the woman as “with child”. If there is no child, then why does it say this?

Some would argue that since allegedly fifty percent of embryos die in the womb, they cannot be people, for God would not allow for such a high mortality rate. However, just because embryos may die of natural causes, does that mean that we can kill them? After all, one-hundred-year-old men frequently die of natural causes. Are we to conclude from that that they are not people? Furthermore, there have been times when infant mortality rates have been very high. Are we to conclude from that that infants are not people?

“For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well; my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth,” states Psalm 139:13-15. In other words, God knitted him together when he was still inside of the womb.

More importantly, Luke 1:41-43 tells us: “And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’” Why is John described as a “babe” if he is not yet a person? Why was he able to leap in the presence of the Mother of God? Furthermore, consider Elizabeth’s words: “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” If the life of Jesus Christ had not yet begun at this time, Mary was not yet the Theotokos, the Mother of God. I should probably note that by calling her the “Mother of God”, I do not mean that she generated His Divine Essence, but simply that she conceived and gave birth to God made Man. And as we know from science that the life of a human person begins at conception and from God that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being, how can it be right to kill the unborn?

The ancient Christian text, the Didache, states: “Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.” (Didache 2:2) This was probably written at some point in the first or early second century. The Didache puts abortion and infanticide side-by-side. The Epistle of Barnabas, written between A.D. 70 and 132, states: “You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shall you destroy it after it is born.” (Epistle of Barnabas 19) Again, the two deeds are equivocated. “And there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion,” states Apocalypse of Peter 25. (c. A.D. 130) The Apocalypse of Peter, by the way, although it is not inspired, was contained a couple ancient canonical lists. Athenagoras argues: “And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder?” (A Plea for the Christians 35) So abortion is murder, according to Athenagoras. “Now we allow that life begins with conception,” says Tertullian in A.D. 210, “because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does.” (The Soul 27) In other words, once a conception occurs, the ending of a life is murder. The Council of Ancyra in A.D. 314 states: “Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfil ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees.” (Ancyra, can. 21) In other words, it is lenient for women who have abortions to have only ten years of penance proscribed to them. Some would point out that various Church Fathers held that ensoulment did not occur until six months after conception. This came from Aristotle’s erroneous theory (or wild guess) that the unborn went through vegetable and animal stages of life before being animated with a rational soul. That theory, is, of course, false. More importantly, the Fathers still never said abortion was moral. We must remember that contraception is also a mortal sin.

Bonum Certamen Certemus

I am the Catholic of Honor


All Scripture references are from the Revised Standard Version

Abortion and Other Evils

In Defense of Pro-Life: Is a Fetus a Person?

Now for a post for which all have longed. If you have followed my blog for a while, you may know that I have posted two pro-life articles already, Pro-Life—Except in the Case of Rape or Incest? and Why a Catholic Cannot Vote for a Pro-Choice Politician. This, however, is the big one. My argument is as follows: the life of a human individual begins at conception and for that reason, abortion is basically the same thing as infanticide. I am not trying to be dramatic or invoke emotion. I am writing very plainly. This is a scientific argument. For a more philosophical one, see Sunday’s post: What Makes Us Greater than the Animals? Some would say that this is a religious argument, which is supported by the fact that I am posting this on a religious blog. That is very much true as my religion bans murder,🐼 but the belief that abortion is evil actually very old. The Oath of Hyppocrates taken by ancient Greek doctors stated: “Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.”🐻 Note that moreover is used and it refers in this translation to the fetus as a child. Even today there is a group of Pro-Life secularists (atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc.) concisely called “Secular Pro-Life”.

Now is a fetus, in a scientific sense, human? If a sow gets pregnant, she will have a pig fetus in her body. If a cow gets pregnant, she will have a cow fetus in her body. If a she-wolf gets pregnant, she will have a wolf fetus in her body. If a woman gets pregnant, she will have a human fetus in her body. What else would the union of two humans produce? Besides, a fetus has forty-six chromosomes. It comes from human DNA. It is human.

Is a fetus alive? Of course. A fetus needs nourishment. Its heart is beating sixteen days after conception.🐷 What does an abortion do? Some would say that it removes the fetus from the mother’s womb. But what happens to it then? It dies. Therefore it must be alive. Someone might argue that as the fetus cannot live outside of the mother’s womb, it cannot be alive. But that only means that it cannot survive in certain circumstances. In certain circumstances, we cannot survive either, such as if we were hurled into the sun. A fetus cannot survive in very many circumstances, yet it is still alive inside the womb.

But of course it is living and it has human DNA. That is obvious. So do all our cells. How can we know that it is an independent organism? From what I can find, The definition of an organism is a living thing that has an organized structure, can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis.🐙 So, given enough time and the right environment (staying inside the womb), can a fetus grow react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis? Does it have an organized structure? Of course. Note that a five-year-old cannot generally reproduce yet, but still is an organism as he or she has the potential to do so. A fetus is not like a cancerous tumor as tumors cannot grow into human beings.

But what of intelligence? Yes, they are human, but must you not also have intelligence to gain personhood? If that were actually true, one might wish to stop and consider whether pigs, elephants, and dolphins were persons as they come fairly close. Research suggests chimps in some ways to be our intellectual superiors or at least equals.🐝 But if intelligence actually made personhood, infants should not be persons either, nor anyone younger than at least three. Children that young could hardly be said to have much intelligence. Furthermore, if intelligence actually did generate personhood, smarter people would be much more persons than those who were dumber and gifted individuals would be much more persons than the intellectually challenged.

Alright, perhaps a fetus is a living human organism, in other words, a human child, but the fetus relies on his or her mother for life. What makes the fetus greater than a parasite? If we have helminthiasis and some parasitic worms are feeding on us, is it wrong to kill them? It is not wrong, but that is only because parasites are not human. A fetus is human. If a human princess were magically transformed by an evil witch into a hookworm because the princess was prettier than she as the typical fairy tale goes and then teleported into one’s intestines, it would be wrong to kill her on that account because she was an actual person. However, pregnancy is quite different from a parasitic infection as it is the natural way healthy children are supposed to be born. There are some times that pregnancy can threaten the life of the mother and the child, but that is relatively rare and I will not bother with such cases in this particular essay. But if someone says that if the fetus relies on his mother to live, it is alright for the mother to kill him, think about what that means. How is it alright that if someone is utterly helpless and relies entirely on someone else for his very existence for those nine months, the one he relies on to live can kill the helpless one? If a man is temporarily stuck on life support for nine months, is it alright to take him off of it and let him die? Does that not make it even worse?

So a fetus is a person, not only a human but a child. Abortion is a literal murder. I do not say this as people say taxes are murder, anchovies on pizza, are murder, and portions of a story can be murdered. Abortion is very literally a man-slaughter and not only a man-slaughter, but a baby-slaughter, and such a vile, heathen practice must end if we wish to call our country free.

Bonum Certamen Certemus

I am the Catholic of Honor


🐼Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶2320

🐻 Accessed June 20, 2020

🐷 Accessed June 17, 2020

🐙 Accessed June 18, 2020

🐝 Accessed June 19, 2020

Abortion and Other Evils

Polyamory Legalized

This is not a jest nor a trick. When I first saw an article which read: “Polyamory Becomes Law”, I guessed this was a thing that happened in some obscure country in Europe or on some small island somewhere in the Pacific. I was wrong. Somerville, Massachusetts, a city in the very country in which I was born (and also the most probably powerful on earth), actually legalized polyamorous domestic partnerships. This is different from a legal “marriage” insofar as the partners are not all legally considered family, but it has previously been a pathway in the United States to unions that are considered marriage (an example being in same-sex unions). Polyamory differs from polygamy insofar as it is not gender-specific. I do not mean to be the prophet of doom, but I would not be surprised if the other cities, states, and countries follow in its suit until polyamorous unions are considered the new-normal and anyone who opposes it is considered a judging conservative or a polyphobic traditionalist. Even if you do not live in the U.S., it has enough influence that it could easily spread and probably some countries will get to full legalization of “polyamorous marriage” nation-wide before the U.S. does. You may laugh at this now, but give it ten or twenty years (provided Our Lady does not get us out of this mess nor God inflict just judgment). I have heard from those older than I that transgenderism would have been thought just as absurd in their youths as polyamory is now. I can imagine a time when people will say: “What right have you to judge that I am in a marriage with more than one partner? If you do not like it, take only one spouse for yourself.” In that case, people will say that we are only holding to the ancient views spread by Christianity which infected our world for far too long—the view that marriage is between one man and one woman. After all, they will say, it is consensual. What could possibly be immoral about taking more than one partner if everyone agrees? At that time Christians will pull out their Bibles and point to King David, a man after God’s own heart, and his many wives. Martin Luther’s words, I guess, will resurface among Protestants who wish to accept it: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.”🐷

So when did we get into such a state? I believe the answer is simple: the time when culture rejected God. Thus they saw nothing wrong with abusing the holy gift of conjugal relations. Contraception was considered acceptable, leading more people to take carnal relations for granted. People began to fornicate more often, but all contraception can fail. Next, abortion was legalized, so that the mother might murder her own child if contraception did not work. So relations were separated from reproduction in culture. Then came homosexuality.

Now concerning homosexuality and contraception, I have even heard Christians say: “Yes, they are abominable before God, but what of separation of Church and State? Can you think of any reason other than religion for which they should be illegal?” No, I cannot, but then I cannot think of any reason why murder should be illegal either. One might argue that it does harm to one’s neighbor, but I see no reason why doing evil to one’s neighbor should be considered illegal apart from religion as there is no such thing as morality apart from God. It is possible to separate the authority of the Pope over religious affairs from the authority of our civic leaders over secular affairs, but it is impossible to separate the citizen from the Christian in our souls.

Some say nowadays that there should be equality under the law between men and women and thus no distinction in marriage. They generally argue it to be consensual and so there should be no problem. Thus why not add more than two people? This is how I think polyamory was allowed. Can you give any reason apart from religion that marriage should be between two partners? People might say that biologically only two people together can have relations at once, but then only a man and a woman can have true relations together, not two men nor two women. Many people would not be happy with their spouses being with someone else as well, but as noted, polyamory is completely consensual. Nevertheless, homosexuality is allowed under the law. Marriage has been completely separated in modern culture as a reflection of Christ and the Church. Why not polyamory?

We need a revival at this point. We need Our Lord to pour out graces through the hands of our Blessed Mother. We need to pray that Pope Francis, in union with the bishops, consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart. We cannot know God’s timing, but His wrath cannot be held back forever.

Bonum Certamen Certemus

I am the Catholic of Honor


🐷Luther, Martin De Wette II, 459, 329-330

Abortion and Other Evils On Non-Christians

Is Christianity Homophobic?

I would give as an answer a firm “no”. We are called to love all those whom God puts into our lives, regardless of their orientation.🐷 For those of you who have read my post, Father James Martin Argues Scripture Sanctions Slavery, you might know that I do not approve of priests who support same-sex marriage. What I assume some people would have thought as they read it “What a homophobic Catholic!” If we are defining homophobia as the hatred of people with same-sex attraction, I must object.

Most people, I think, do not really understand what love is. They seem to sometimes use it as synonymous with acceptance. In other words, people sometimes seem to speak of it as if love involves allowing one’s neighbor do whatever he wants. I doubt people would say the same of a serial killer. “God says we must love all, serial killer or no. Therefore, we must let him go on serial killing. Hopefully he won’t kill any of my friends.” What is wrong with this? If I see my friend murdering people, I will want to stop him, not only for the sake of the safety of those whom he is killing, but also because I love him and I know that murder will ruin both mind and soul and because I would wish to save him from the wrath of God.

I suppose few people can relate to their friends being serial killers. In fact, I cannot either. Let us consider more likely examples. Imagine a four-year-old who is climbing into an oven. Would not his mother tear the child out because she loves him and what he wants to do is dangerous? Again, if my friend is about to drink poison, although he wants to consume it, do I not try to stop him because I love him?

Now I make my claim. Homosexuality is indeed a sin. By homosexuality, I do not mean it as synonymous with same-sex attraction, but rather action upon such an attraction. That is the sin. If I love someone, I do not want him to sin, because by sinning, he or she endangers his or her immortal soul. I do, however, think that homosexual inclinations are intrinsically disordered,🐮 but more broadly speaking, we are all intrinsically disordered. We are called to follow God, but we have the inclination to sin.🐼

If anyone reading this has same-sex attraction, therefore, you have my upmost sympathy. Although I do not have those inclinations myself, I know what it is like to know what is right yet be inclined to do the other thing, whether it be by lust or pride or wrath or by any other vice. But with God’s help, you can overcome it. Come to our Lord. He was also tempted, but did not sin. Come to His mother. Ask St. Maria Goretti or St. Agnes of Rome, two patron saints of purity, for intercession. With God’s help, you can conquer this cross. We can all be soldiers for Christ. We can all be Catholics of Honor.

Bonum Certamen Certemus

I am the Catholic of Honor


🐷Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶1822-3

🐮Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶2358

🐼Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶403, 405

Abortion and Other Evils

Pro-Life—Except in the Case of Rape or Incest?

There are those who are Pro-Choice. They often say: “The fetus is my body. Therefore, to kill it is my choice.” The Pro-Lifers often respond to this, saying: “The fetus is not your body, but that of your child. Therefore to kill it is murder.” If you are unable to guess with which I side, look at the name of my blog — “The Catholic of Honor”. Honor implies some degree of orthodoxy. If you are still unable to tell, look at this link. If you are still unable to guess, I will not tell you. In the meanwhile, though there is much to say between these groups of which I may in another post, I will not get into that here. Instead, I will write of those who say this: “I am Pro-Life, but abortion is okay if the child is a product of rape or incest.”

Rape is indeed a grave evil and an offense against marital relations, which are sacred. However, there are three people involved in it, the mother, the father, and the child. Generally, the guilty one is the father, and if it is the mother, it is her own fault that she became pregnant. The most innocent one of all is always the child. It is not his or her fault that he or she was made in horrific and perverted way. Why kill the most innocent human being in the affair? This would be like arresting someone for being mugged. If one of them is to be killed at all, it ought to be the father. I am sorry if any woman must bear a child which she in no way planned to have nor willingly indulged in actions for that to come about, but murder is not a way to escape it. And make no mistake—a fetus is an infant who is not yet born. What is abortion but murder? And not only murder but infanticide and filicide at the same time.

As for incest, perhaps one might blame the two parents on a level closer to equal. Perhaps one parent is more to blame, in which case, my argument for rape still applies. But again, although incest is bad, it is not the child’s fault. Therefore it is still wrong to kill him or her. Some say there is a danger of birth defects, although I do not believe there is much if the family does not already have a history of incest. Still, even if the baby does have birth defects, does that make it okay to kill him?

So, if abortion is wrong, it is wrong at all times, regardless of how the child came to be, whether he or she came the most horrific of roots or not.

Bonum Certamen Certemus

I am the Catholic of Honor—and by the way I am Pro-Life

Abortion and Other Evils On Catholics

Why a Catholic Cannot Vote for a Pro-Choice Politician

We know as Catholics that life is sacred from conception to natural death.1 For this reason, abortion is a great evil, which the Church has condemned since the first century. “The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child,”2 says the Didache, also known as “The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations” (thank goodness that we can just call it the Didache for short!). It can be noted that it is right beside “you shall not murder” “you shall not seduce boys” and “you shall not commit fornication”. Certain people nowadays would not be fans. The Church actually attaches a canonical excommunication to abortion,3 although excommunication seems to have gone out of fashion. Perhaps it should come back, but I am not an expert on that. I am set out to argue, in this presidential year of 2020, that a Catholic cannot vote for a Pro-Choice politician.

I am fifteen years old. I cannot vote, but if I were able to vote, were there a politician advocating the legality of murder for fifteen-year-olds — let us name him Muddy Hoggard, because that name is fun to say — I would most certainly never vote for him. Would you do so if there were a politician advocating for the legalization of murder of all your age? Yet abortion advocates for the legalization of all who are not yet born. Are the lives of people your age of any more value than those who have not yet even seen the light of day?

Or if Mr. Hoggard were to support the right of a mother to kill any child under three — and some studies suggest that pigs (yes, pigs🐷) are smarter than they4 — would you under any circumstances vote for such a politician?

One may argue that other things lead to more deaths. This may be true, although it is estimated that 1.437 million infants are murdered in surgical abortions alone every year, besides chemical ones.5 But think about it this way:

Do you oppose war? Many innocent young men and women may die in war but they are all sinners and some may go to hell. Every infant murdered by abortion is innocent and I doubt any go to hell.

Do you oppose guns? Many innocent people may be killed by guns, but guns can also be used to protect the innocent by killing evildoers in self-defense. Abortion is never used in killing evildoers out of self-defense.

Do you oppose the death penalty? Many people may be falsely convicted by the death penalty, and that is evil. Even if one is guilty, one might wish to have mercy on the criminal, as Pope Francis is so strong on it,6 but not a single unborn infant is guilty of a crime.

You may oppose these things, but none are worse than abortion. I therefore will not tell you whether to vote for Donald Trump or some pro-life third party candidate, but do not vote for Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and above all, do not vote for Mr. Muddy Hoggard!

Bonum certamen certemus.

I am the Catholic of Honor.

1 Catechism of the Catholic Church. Paragraph 2270

2 Didache 2:1-2

3 Catechism of the Catholic Church. Paragraph 2272

4 Accessed March 22, 2020.

5  Accessed March 23, 2020

6 Accessed March 24, 2020