The Funeral March for Life

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose.” Those who choose repose receive release from the mandates of truth—but it is only temporary. Truth cannot be rejected forever. Those who choose truth, on the other hand, have no rest—and so they march. They march ever onward. The March for Life is a march for truth: a march that refuses to enter into the repose of denial; a march that peacefully protests the legal murder of millions of babies in the United States of America; and a march that commemorates those lives snuffed out before seeing the light of day. The March for Life in Washington D.C. is, perhaps first and foremost, a funeral march—and deep inside the hearts of those who have chosen the repose labeled “choice,” the truth stirs “like a babe buried alive,” as G. K. Chesterton sings in his ballad.

By taking a stand for the so-called unalienable right to life, the March for Life is also a memorial for the unborn dead and an outreach to those who have chosen death over life, for they are victims as well. To offer an example from the classical catalogue, when Jocasta and Laius learned of the hard fate that awaited their infant son, they acted. They drove a large nail through his tender ankles and, fastening a leather strap to both ends of the spike, hung their baby in a windy tree to die on Mount Cithaeron. But Oedipus survived and, with shame and shock, his parents were destroyed by the doom they wished to dodge.

“Murder, though it have no tongue, will speak,” Hamlet said, siding with Chanticleer. In the modern world, it is easy for a baby to die. It is difficult to die to oneself. Today, such horrors are not the supposed subject of mythology. They are reality, playing out the timeless tragedy of the Theban king and queen time and time again, for truth—and justice—can never die. His Truth is marching on, despite the blameless blood staining hazardous-waste dumpsters behind hospitals. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. This refrain is the marching hymn for Catholics today, and thus the March for Life remembers the holy souls of aborted babies together with the haunted souls of their mothers, whose searing pain is depicted in T. S. Eliot’s “The Wasteland:”

It’s them pills I took, to bring it off, she said.
(She’s had five already, and nearly died of young George.)
The chemist said it would be all right, but I’ve never been the same.
You are a proper fool, I said.
Well, if Albert won’t leave you alone, there it is, I said.
What you get married for if you don’t want children?

The banner of truth that the March for Life unfurls to strain in the winds of another year of massacre is the truth that life involves death. People must die to themselves in order to live truly—and this is the truth that many would rather were untrue. Christ said, “Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me.” Bringing children into the world and to Christ involves suffering. There can be no true joy without first enduring agony. Having children is hard, make no mistake; but killing them is harder, despite the propaganda of repose. The greatest human rights violation of our times might be muted in some minds, but minds can be shaken from slumber when the earth shakes with marching. Roe v. Wade has now withstood overthrow for 42 years, but it can still topple. “If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed….” Pound the pavement. Press with prayer. March for life. March for the dead. The March for Life puts boots on the ground with feet washed by Christ—true Militants, ready to suffer in their own lives for the sake of other lives; ready to lend their voices to the voiceless, that little children may be brought to Him through their suffering rather than the suffering and death of little children; ready to stretch a hand to those who have looked upon life with the shadowy eyes of Macbeth as “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” and awaken them to the psalm of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:

Tell me not in mournful numbers
Life is ‘but an empty dream!’—
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.

The droves and droves of butchered dead, lying in the common, indifferent earth as their common, indifferent grave, are martyrs for truth and justice. They are the new Holy Innocents, silently slaughtered in the name of self-interest and the false repose that dismisses the challenge of charity and chivalry. The advent of Truth brought—and ever brings—blood and the sword for the lovers of peace, whose repose will be eternal once it is won. As the dead rest in peace, the soldiers of truth mourn and march. As Dostoevsky wrote, all are responsible for the wellbeing and salvation of one another. They march for life. They march for the dead.

The March for Life is a witness to the Gospel of Life, demonstrating by the thousands that though abortion is common practice it is not common sense. The March is a positive outcry against the government’s failure to defend the defenseless and to protect women against the tortures of conscience. Abortion is not simply a failure of justice, but a failure of government itself. President Washington wrote in 1789, “The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government.” When that pillar is compromised, the structure fails and falls. It is not out of the question to ask, “Who will be the next to lose their unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” In a statement given one year ago on this day to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Obama said, “this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.” But at what point, at what precise point, does everyone become someone? Whenever it is, it is no longer self-evident.

It is not enough to demand justice. Justice, as Our Lord taught, is to be hungered and thirsted after as a means of wellbeing. Just as hunger and thirst can never be forever satisfied in this life, neither can the requirement for the divine gift of justice. This is the truth that beats out the march of Christian soldiers. Though they mourn on this day as they march on the National Mall, they do it in the happiness and blessedness that is their claim, in honor of the dead.

 Requiescant in pace.

Sean Fitzpatrick

By

Sean Fitzpatrick is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College and the Headmaster of Gregory the Great Academy. He lives in Scranton, PA with his wife and family of four.

  • St JD George

    I read this, and then I read the news about how a bill to restrict abortion after 20 weeks couldn’t advance out of the house due to bickering over the possibility of alienating a class of voters. Talk about real profile in courage. I’m depressed.

    • Mollie Biddle

      The “class of voters” you refer to are women. We make up at least half of the human race. For weeks, anti-abortion Republican women have been objecting to harsh wording in the law referring to rape victims. Their calls for changes to be made have been ignored until now, as one of the GOP women co-sponsoring the legislation is asking for her named to be removed from it. The men trying to push the law through don’t care–they know it would be vetoed by Obama anyway, and there aren’t enough votes in the Senate to override. This bill is like the House of Representatives’ 50-plus votes to abolish Obamacare–meaningless. Just another cynical exercise in political theatrics.

      • St JD George

        I’m fully aware of the nuances of this bill and the element of theater some would associate with it. The language of course has been on the table for some time and the conflict arose when protests were raised at the last minute before vote. Perhaps not the best time to work out the differences in finding an acceptable balance.
        I am entirely sympathetic to rape. One need only read the daily news from Iraq and the IS savages who are raping their captors to produce more IS offspring to not feel disgust for what humanity is capable of. Some even take their own lives or self abort in distraught. I have absolutely no doubt that God has mercy on their souls for the suffering they endure. My reading of the data though suggest that those, and others like it, are by far the exception and not the rule. There are far, far to many who have no concept of God’s plan and view abortion as little more than the last line of defense in birth control.

      • You don’t speak for anybody but yourself, so knock of the “we” stuff. You certainly don’t speak for the women in my family.

        I always found it interesting that most rabid abortophiles were young males who used women as disposable receptacles, and bitter old hags like Barbara MIkulski.

        Just because one brach of government won’t do the right thing, doesn’t mean the others should do nothing.

        • MarkRutledge

          Indeed, don’t a majority of women self-identify as pro-life, and in greater percentages than men? Yet the “war on women” propaganda is rarely challenged.

      • asmondius

        How does murdering the child who resulted from rape bring justice to the woman who is the victim?

        • Vinny

          Yes, the child is innocent.

        • John200

          This is justice as defined by moral idiots.

          We are mixed in among millions of them.

        • Ruth Rocker

          Rather than kill the innocent child, find the perpetrator of either rape or incest and kill HIM. He has proven by his actions that he is unfit for civilized society. And if it’s too traumatic for the woman to keep the baby, give it up for adoption. Just give it the gift that she, herself, enjoys – life.

          • asmondius

            I understand your feelings on this, but if human life is universally of value then we should not kill the rapist either. Life in prison would do.

            • Kilo4/11

              On the principle of proportionality; that is that the punishment should not be more severe than the crime, I agree with you. But scripture and tradition do not prohibit capital punishment in all cases. This door must not be left open, or abortion supporters will drive a train through it.

              • asmondius

                Capital punishment is permitted where there is no other option to protect the innocent or society at large from evil.

                • Kilo4/11

                  Right; so, since we can protect society from the rapist by locking him up, we do that, rather than kill him.

                  • asmondius

                    Absolutely. Sexual offenses seem to be treated very lightly in general.

          • Kilo4/11

            Ruth, this is a very important point, and it can be used to attack the argument for a rape and incest exception. This is how I argued it awhile back on another forum:

            A woman is raped. Later, she positively identifies and locates the rapist. Is she then justified in taking his life? No, neither in statutory law nor by the light of natural law. In statutory law, the after the fact execution of the rapist can be charged as murder; by natural law, taking a life as revenge or punishment for rape is unjustified, since the punishment (killing) is out of proportion to the crime.

            Those in favor of allowing abortion in the case of rape must explain why it is impermissible to kill the rapist but permissible to kill an innocent unborn child.

      • ColdStanding

        Political theatrics, that is, opposed to the very real murder happening in the operating theaters when abortion is performed

        Madam, you are not respectable company.

      • Kilo4/11

        “The “class of voters” you refer to are women. We make up at least half of the human race. For weeks, anti-abortion Republican
        women have been objecting to harsh wording in the law referring to rape victims.”

        “Harsh wording”? You mean language that tells the truth to women who expect to be lied to; and worse, who expect those who know and respect the truth to ignore it and help them perpetrate murder.

        You are like those who compare the dilemma of the pregnant rape victim to that of a bystander who notices a toddler fall into a pool. As the bystander is under no legal obligation to jump in and save the toddler, they argue, so the mother of a child of rape has no legal obligation to give him birth.

        There are at least two problems here. Unlike the toddler in the pool, an unborn child, no matter how conceived, is flesh of the mother; as such, he carries, in addition to the unwanted genetic material of the rapist, all the generations of the mother’s genetic inheritance. To extirpate (only) the physical vestige of the rapist, she must also extinguish this unique combination of her ancestors’ genes, which have passed through countless handings down – no doubt including some by rape. She must negate the sacrifices of all those of her kin who fought for the survival of these particular genes through the ages; but for all that, she will remain unable to remove the memory, the psychic scar inflicted by the rapist. In fact, she will only add the trauma and guilt of abortion to her already staggering burden. And for
        what? Vengeance? We know what Scripture says about that. Convenience? Reputation? But these are mere vanities, and cannot possibly be weighed in the same scale as a human life.

        Then there is that word “force”, as in the formula “the
        state, (or worse, men!) is forcing her to have the baby.” But what the state actually forces if the rape exception is done away with is not any action of the woman, but rather the inaction of the abortionist. In staying the baby-killer’s murdering hand, the state is no more overstepping its legitimate exercise of power than when it prohibits the sale of alcohol to minors, or forbids an adult the use of a child’s body for sex.

      • Athelstane

        For weeks, anti-abortion Republican women have been objecting to harsh wording in the law referring to rape victims.

        And those women have ignored the fact that, in current polling, not only 3 in 5 voters favor passage of that bill, but even 3 in women do.

        The real reason why Elmers and her colleagues reversed course on this bill (which she voted for in 2013, unaltered), is that they never believed in the cause of life in the first place. Given the danger of the bill actually reaching the president’s desk and higher visibility, they bailed out.

    • It may be reintroduced.

    • Vinny

      As “the pro-life party” Republicans have been mostly disappointing since 1973. I’ve been fooled way too many times and now they have pro-aborts in their ranks, and that’s fine with them. I’m in the Constitution Party. Check their platform.

      • St JD George

        Believe me, I know. I’m still a little stuck in a rut but the wheel is starting to roll out. I’m actually getting pretty sick of all politics. I realize fully the irony in the statement of expecting change doing the same thing, but I still struggle with support for a 3rd party largely being a vote for the ones who actually boo God in their conventions and are unabashedly unafraid to say they support the abortion on demand industry.

  • Martha

    So beautiful, so poignant, so heartbreaking, so true. Thank you for this article today, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

  • samnigromd

    MORALITY OF DIRECT ABORTION

    AN
    ACT OF DIRECT ABORTION IS CONTRARY TO THE NATURAL MORAL LAW AND, THEREFORE, GRAVELY

    IMMORAL

    ARGUMENT I: FROM THE PRINCIPLE “EVERY AGENT ACTS FOR THE
    SAKE OF AN END:”

    A. In the sexual act, a man and a woman act for the sake of the Natural
    End which is a new live man. This end is not necessarily the intention THEY
    have in acting but is the end intended by nature (i.e., according to the nature
    of man).

    The end is the
    principle of action in practical matters, i.e., the principle whereby the act
    is moved and whereby the whole act is measured. cf. the act of taking a plane
    to L.A. is measured by this good: BE IN LOS ANGELES. Everything done in the act
    must be measured by the end: BE IN L.A.

    B. But to use the means and reject the end is to act against the
    natural order (to reject a greater good–the end, for a lesser good – the
    means). For example, to employ all means of sexuality with its accompanying
    pleasures, which is an inducement to the act, while rejecting even the
    possibility of the end being achieved is to act against the natural order.

    C. But order is the sign of intellect and to act against the natural
    order is to act against reason. Hence, to act against order is to act against
    the nature of man, that is, to act against the human race.

    D. Moreover, to act against the nature of man is to act against the
    nature of the domestic society, and also against the civil society.

    E. To act against the nature of man is to act against the cause of the
    nature of man for human nature is modeled by the Cause, i.e., human nature
    participates in the Divine Idea, which is the blueprint of human nature and
    human action.

    F. In short, to act against the nature of man is to act against the
    created universe and thus to act against the divine plan of the universe.

    ARGUMENT II: FROM THE
    KNOWLEDGE THAT THE OFFSPRING OF MAN IS HUMAN FROM CONCEPTION:

    The newly made
    organism is distinctly human inasmuch as it has the chromosome and genetic
    structure which is normal for man. As a consequence, the chemical or
    physiological structure is properly human.

    The organic construction which takes place quickly attains the
    disposition of organs necessary to man, i.e., one which enables the vegetative
    and sensitive life to operate for the sake of man’s ratio­nal life.

    But this appropriate matter manifests the presence of a living form (soul)
    which is human. That is, the soul which directs this con­struction is properly
    human. For there is due proportion between matter and form, i.e., between body
    and soul inasmuch as the soul is the principle in an organism which determines
    that it is man, or tree, or dog, or silver. The organism is a composite of soul
    and matter. It is truer to say that the matter is in the soul than to say that
    the soul is in the matter (approximately termed the “body”) in other
    words the greater contains the lesser, the more perfect contains the less
    perfect. Yet it is more accurate to say that the two exist as one substance. For
    the soul is that which characterizes this organism as man, the matter being
    prop­erly determined to be the matter appropriate to man and not a cat. This is
    necessarily so notwithstanding this, that the soul cannot yet exercise its
    faculties to the full, such as its rational life, any more than a man who is
    lacking a finger can fully exercise his grasp.

    ARGUMENT III: FROM THE
    PRINCIPLE THAT A RISK CANNOT BE TAKEN WlTH THE RIGHT OF ANOTHER:

    This applies above all
    to his life for life lies at the basis of all other goods.

    If there is a doubt about the humanity of the embryonic man (it cannot
    be admitted that there is such doubt!), then it would not be permitted to abort
    that organism on account of that doubt. For a doubt applies
    both ways, i.e. to doubt that it is human
    is to doubt also that it is non-human.
    Similarly, one would not fire a rifle at some moving thing if one were
    to doubt that it is a man. Or, one would not fire a shotgun in a darkened room
    if one were in doubt if there is someone else in the room or where they might
    be in the room. Doubt is hardly a reasonable basis on which to act.

    But it is never lawful to take a risk with the right of another and especially his
    right to life. Even though it might be claimed that what is in the womb is non-human
    and that a non-human organ­ism does not have rights, nevertheless as long as
    the chance exists (and doubt does not remove this possibility), we would be taking
    a risk that someone is being killed. Such a risk is not permissible.

    If it is insisted that the mother is acting with a
    grave doubt, and, therefore, is not wilfully destroying a human person, then it
    must be said in reply that she is acting at least with indifference as to
    whether it is human or not. Now to act with
    indifference means that
    she would consent to the act of
    abortion whether it is human or not. Such consent is consent to the taking
    of innocent life. This inner act (consent of the will) denotes the moral
    species of the act and is a source of the blame which attaches to the act of
    abortion. Such inner consent is gravely unlawful (immoral) and renders her
    external act unlawful even if it was the killing of a non-human organism (which
    it is not). She is subjectively
    guilty even if it was in reality not human.

    THEREFORE, to kill an organism which has been generated within a woman
    by sexual intercourse is to kill a man.

    CONCLUSION: It follows from argument no. I above that even if the
    embryonic man was not human (which cannot be granted), it would be immoral to
    kill the organism. (This clearly follows the principles established in St.
    Thomas’ Summa Contra Gentiles, Book Ill, Chapter 122.) Moreover, we also
    conclude from Argument I that the following are contrary to the natural order
    and therefore immoral: CONTRACEPTION, MASTURBATION, ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION,
    INFANTICIDE, HOMOSEXUALITY, SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD, COITUS INTERRUPTUS ETC.

    Raphael T. Waters, D.Ph,
    L.Ph, Ph.C, Director, Aquinas School of Philosophy, NY Rev.November, 2006

  • St JD George

    I will never understand (just kidding, I do understand) why those who call themselves preachers are quick to the TV camera when there they smell blood in the water but never speak on the real crises that is destroying their souls through their idolatry of the state and not God. Indeed, ALL LIVES MATTER, not just some.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/21/j-kenneth-blackwell-black-abortions-a-crisis-in-am/

  • reddog44

    Something else besides Marches and political action that is much needed, is the message of life to be preached from our pulpits. In many areas of North America the word abortion is never mentioned for fear of “offending” someone in the pew. We need our preachers to “walk the talk” and defend life, and make it known to everyone that abortion is evil.

  • BXVI

    Unfortunately, Cardinal O’Malley may have just delivered a death-blow to the pro-life movement in the United States with his homily at the kick-off Mass for the March for life. I am sure he did not intend to, and he has said other things recently that were equally obtuse (e.g., if he were to start a Church he would have women priests, but unfortunately we are stuck with what Jesus left us). What did he say? Basically, he gave cover to all the Catholics who vote for candidates who don’t oppose abortion by highlighting what he sees as the moral equivalence between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the marginalized and poor. I read his homily. Anyone who reads it would be quite justified in concluding that abortion is not a non-negotiable voting issue and that one is perfectly justified voting for a pro-choice candidate if such candidate is a strident opponent of “inequality” or “exclusion” or “structures” that supposedly perpetuate poverty. This homily is an unmitigated disaster for the pro-life movement and will be thrown in our faces by every pro-choice Democrat-voting Catholic. With “friends” like this, who needs enemies?

    • St JD George

      Egad …

    • Amatorem Veritatis

      Methinks you give the good Cardinal too much credit. He does not have the ability or influence to deal death or greater life to the “pro-life movement”. At least no more ability or influence than any of the other ambiguously formed Cardinals, Bishops and Priests that confuse and at times scandalize the Gospel and Word. The movement will prevail because it is fundamentally true, not because of the efforts of any one, or group of personalities.

      But to your more basic point, I remember a certain Cardinal, who later became Christ’s Vicar, and who now watches (perhaps with dismay) the weekly drama of Papal pronouncement followed by the dueling narratives of the secular press and the Catholic apologia industry as to what it all meant. I believe he coined the phrase “the dictatorship of relativism”, and he probably laments the fact that we seem to have an over abundance of relativistic commentary and teaching from those who should know better these days. Such as Cardinal O’Malley and the current successor to St. Peter. Perhaps the first rule of pastoral care is to act always with a sense of charity and love, but those elements can never be divorced from justice, or more fundamentally, truth.

      Conflation of all moral issues into one seamless garment is an aberration of post-modern formation, and we have many who preach this anti-gospel. And yet… the Church endures!

  • Greg Groebner

    Lots of fine rhetoric and literary references in this article, but the fact of the matter is that repeated annual protest marches demonstrate impotence, not strength. The author may be correct in calling it a funeral march, but such a march is barely an appropriate response when the killings are still on-going. It is amazing to me that there are persons with the organizational skills and resources to organize a rally of a half-million people, but then there is little to show beyond this. The so-called “Gospel of Life” has become a counter-church, with its own calendar of celebrated feast days and fast days.

    The rhetoric from almost all of the so-called “pro-life” organizations is astonishing in its vacuity, with conjured
    bogeymen of “culture of death”, “radical secularists”, ad nauseam. Find and read David Wemhoff’s “The Jewish Roots of — and Catholic Failure on — Abortion”. From private communications with leaders in the pro-life movement, I know that at least some of the “pro-life” media personalities are aware of the issues, but have a policy to say NOTHING. It is shameful, all of this splashing in the water with no real intention to save or be saved.

    Catholics need to have the goal of building a juridically Christian state. This will mean that civil liberties will need to be denied of persons and groups who have serious impediments to contributing constructively to such a society. In the USA, this group is mainly the Jews currently, and probably in the future the Muslims also. Vice President Joe Biden, speaking of “progressivism” in general, and homosexualism in particular, lauded: “Think — behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry.”

    The predominant “pro-life” attitude of “we’re-so-good-and-nice-that we-can-handcuff-ourselves-and-still-win” is an affront to our enemies, to nature, and I suspect also to God. Pro-lifers can cry all they want about their pretended “religious liberties”, “conscience rights”, and “human dignity” — but in so doing, only undermine their own case. This situation has no reasonable hope of remedy if the current tactics continue to be pursued.

    Sorry, Mr. Fitzpatrick, beyond the first phrase, my posting here is not really a reflection on your fine article.

    • Seamrog

      Get thee behind me.

      • Greg Groebner

        Seamrog, to what specifically do you refer?
        Try to find David Wemhoff’s “The Jewish Roots of — and Catholic Failure on — Abortion”. It will make things clearer.

  • hombre111

    Stubbornly, bravely, the march for life goes on. See you at the Cathedral.

  • Doug LaFleur

    I was very much taken by the first few sentences in your wonderfully written article that parsed no words in seizing the essence of this issue. I stumbled across this site only within the last few days and I’m heartened beyond words as to the depth and perspicacity in which crucial topics, such as these, are treated. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

  • Nancy

    This was a beautiful and well-written piece. However, the march in D.C. would be more like a funeral march if it were more solemn and less like a day in the park. I’ve never seen any juggling, singing and hoopla and any of the funeral marches I’ve been to. How much more impressive to the world would it be if the marches marched in silence or praying the whole way and thus honored the horrific death of millions of babies. What would people think if a commemoration of the Holocaust were carried on with the joy de vivre seen in D.C. today? Probably appalled. And don’t tell me it’s all about “celebrating life”; no, it’s about death – horrible yet legal murder.

    I’ve often thought that instead of this yearly march, the pro-life cause would benefit far more by taking all the money that would be spent on chartering buses, gas, food, etc and donating it to crisis pregnancy centers and shelters for unwed mothers.

    • LithiumFurby

      When my close relatives took part in an anti-abortion march in London UK many years ago, it was in complete silence. There were no marching bands, no singing and certainly no juggling! The silence was to signify that the unborn child has no voice. Across the street, there was obscene language, snarling, shouting and curled lips full of hate from a crowd that were being held back by police – the rent a mob were from the pro-abortion side mostly made up of women.
      Little has changed since.
      So, why did Cardinal O’Malley decide to wag his finger and save his indignation and rebuking for the Pro-lifers at Washington DC and not channel his ire towards Planned Parenthood and the US legislators who have opened the floodgates with their industrial-scale destruction of life?
      Perhaps, like New York’s Cardinal Dolan, he is picking on the wrong people and getting his priorities and values in a twist!
      Cardinal O’Malley could do well not to use the Mass as a cynical political statement at the US-Mexico border and as for Dolan … maybe he should be wearing his true colours to trim his clerical garb: all the colours of the rainbow instead of the scarlet that denotes he is prepared to shed blood for Christ’s Bride.

  • Castilleon

    This is a heartfelt article, and one that was undoubtedly meant give us comfort in these dark days. There was one aspect of it, however, that I had to comment on. It is a very important distinction that must be made.

    In contrast to our society where abortion has been granted the status of a fundamental right, Pope Sixtus V mandated that those who performed abortions in the Papal States should be put to death. His reasoning is sobering for the faithful.

    “Who, indeed, would not detest a crime as horrific as [abortion]? For its certain outcome is that not just bodies, but still worse, even souls are wantonly sacrificed. The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God’s Image. It is a soul for whose redemption Christ, Our Lord, shed His Precious Blood. A soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels. Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration of one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a person is as responsible as a human being can be for preventing the soul’s attainment of the throne prepared for it in Heaven, and has deprived God of the service of His own creature.”
    – Pope Sixtus V, 1588

    This is the true and eternal horror of abortion.
    Alas and woe! The untold millions who have been sacrificed to the principal figure of the American pantheon, “Liberty”, are deprived from the saving waters of Baptism (or even the desire for it!) and therefore cannot attain the Beatific Vision that God has shed His Precious Blood for them to achieve. Being guilty of Original Sin alone, their eternity is to be spent in a state of perfect natural happiness in the Limbo of the Infants, yet deprived of the Beatific Vision of their Creator. How great a multitude there could have attained Heaven had they been given the chance!

    We can march all we like. But that does not change the fact that we are living through a Holocaust far larger and more terrible than anything perpetrated by Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. Yet, unlike the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis, whose primary victims could become great saints like Ss. Teresa Benedicta and Maximilian Kolbe, there are no saints among the murdered unborn. There are no Holy Innocents here. That is why the vast majority of those who perform abortions are not converting. We rightly celebrate each and every case of an abortionist converting because they are so rare.
    God, have mercy on us all.

    • Eamonn McKeown

      Given that only a scurrilous few doctors carry out abortions it would be less bloody to rid ourselves of them legally. Remember rape was a capital crime. God forgive me.

  • A brilliant and moving piece by the man who runs the best high school in America.

  • somebigguy

    “People must die to themselves in order to live truly—and this is the truth that many would rather were untrue.”

    Exactly, Sean. Calvary is one’s only hope.

  • somebigguy

    “Roe v. Wade has now withstood overthrow for 42 years, but it can still topple.”

    And it will. Roe is built upon a preposterously weak foundation; it lacks the support of the US Constitution and the natural moral law on which the Constitution itself is founded. Look how long the savagery of legalized slavery endured.

    • Ruth Rocker

      Just yesterday, the idiot-in-chief said that abortion is a “constitutional right” of women. I would love to be shown exactly where in that document this occurs. And he went on to say “that government should not intrude in our most private and personal family matters” which nearly made me spew out my drink on the computer screen. Talk about hypocrisy!! You can read it at http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23821

      • somebigguy

        And he calls himself a constitutional scholar.

        Clearly, he never cracked a book in school. But then, with Madison Avenue, the New York Times and NBC spinning his past, Jesus Christ couldn’t have beat him at the polls.

  • Ruth Rocker

    I’ve been having an on-going argument with my son who has, unfortunately, lapped up all this crap about it’s a woman’s body so it’s her choice. I agree a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body, but abortion kills ANOTHER body, not hers.

    And if a single, solitary one-celled entity was discovered on the surface of Mars, the headlines would scream “Life on Mars” and it would be declared a miracle. But a multi-celled entity inside a woman’s body is just a blob of tissue. It’s amazing the extent to which some people can lie to themselves

MENU