Vaccination: Material Cooperation in Abortion and Autism?
Filed under News, Philosophy & Science on November 7th, 2009 by Guest WriterEditor’s Note: I was investigating the link between abortion and vaccination when I came into contact with Catholic author Mark Armstrong, who was also investigating the subject (an interview he conducted with Dr. Theresa Deisher on the topic can be heard by clicking here). I believe Mark makes some important points here, and while we at VOR do not share Mr. Armstrong’s views on Catholicism, and we are not yet calling for an abortion-aided vaccine boycott, we believe the points he makes here are worthy of consideration for pro-life Catholics and non-Catholics alike. My hope is that this opens discussion on the topic , and we determine as a pro-life community where to go from here. Originally Published on Catholic Exchange, used with permission.
In the media uproar and rush to be vaccinated against Swine Flu or H1N1 there is a quiet discussion about exactly what are the deadly ingredients in these vaccinations. Many parents, rightly so, are concerned about the levels of Thimerosal and the potential for mercury poisoning that some blame for autism in some vaccines. While there may be Thimerosal-free vaccines available, most of the first shipments of the H1N1 vaccine apparently contain very high levels of Thimerosal. To vaccinate a child in the face of some statistics showing autism rates of 1.4% for children today, versus virtually zero before widespread vaccinations programs began, gives one pause for concern. What is even more disturbing to those in the pro-life movement is the knowledge that these vaccines designed to prevent the flu are possibly tainted with the tissues from voluntarily aborted babies.
To date, according to a multiple sources, dozens of the vaccines used by Americans today are contaminated with human diploid cells; the tissues derived from the cells of voluntarily aborted babies. What is even more alarming is there are no laws to require that people be informed as to which vaccines have these tainted tissues as their root base and which do not. Vaccine makers, attempting to get around what they know to be controversial information, label their ingredients in such a way to mask the fact that there are cells from electively aborted babies in the formulation of their vaccines.
What is a pro-life parent or person to do? Catholic experts give conflicting information at best. The Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, who serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, says parents may vaccinate their children with these tainted vaccines because by doing so, “they are not involved in any illicit form of cooperation with the original abortion.”
Further Father Pasholczyk explains that parents who use these tainted vaccines should educate themselves and others about the facts of their origination. They should demand that alternatives and morally-derived vaccines be developed. But in the end he says, “Parents may vaccinate their children because vaccinations are critical to preventing serious, life-threatening diseases and to safeguarding large segments of the population from cataclysmic disease outbreaks and epidemics.”
Do all of the nearly two dozen vaccines contaminated by voluntarily aborted babies rise to a “cataclysmic level” as Father Pasholczyk suggests? For many baby-boomer parents, mumps, measles and chicken pox were almost a rite of passage. In fact, there is a growing school of thought in medicine that these childhood illnesses help to strengthen a child’s immune system for later in life. Ironic to think that the very vaccines designed to prevent these illnesses now, tainted with the blood of electively aborted babies, may be producing a new generation of children with weakened immune systems.
Remember that Father Pasholczyk is not speaking for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church when he tells parents that it’s okay to use tainted vaccines. From Rome, we have a different Catholic perspective, in a letter from Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life to Mrs. Debra Vinnedge, executive director, Children of God for Life in July, 2005. Bishop Sgreccia says that Catholics have “a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems. The lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation (emphasis added) and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active material cooperation , morally justified as an “extrema ratio” due to the necessity to provide for the good of one’s children and of the people who come in contact with the children — especially pregnant women. Such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.”
So what is a pro-life Catholic to do? We are left simply with the lesser of two evils. Either we participate in (at least) “passive material cooperation” to abortion or decide to take our chances and not vaccinate our children, hoping that if they do catch one of these illnesses our modern American medical system can provide care for a full recovery. And yet, even those in the pro-life movement who decide a “passive material cooperation” is their moral choice are left with some other rather startling information.
It is clear, with the power of the pharmaceutical lobby and the present leadership of the U.S. government, there is going to be no effort to “force” vaccine manufacturers to create vaccines that are not tainted with the blood of voluntarily aborted babies. And to complicate the matter even further, in nearly all current vaccines products there is a statement that declares there is residual DNA in their formulation. Each new vaccine is a virtual cocktail that contains ingredients built from the ingredients made in the last one. Trying to even discern which vaccines are truly “abortion-free” may be impossible to tell.
According to Dr. Theresa Deisher president of the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), as well development director for Ave Maria Biotechnology Company, which promotes pro-life biotechnology, it may not be Thimerosal in vaccines that parents, concerned about autism, need to worry about, but, in fact, the residual DNA from the tissues of voluntarily aborted babies. In an article Dr. Deisher wrote for the SCPI June, 2009 newsletter she said:
There are groups researching the potential link between this DNA and autoimmune diseases such as juvenile (type I) diabetes, multiple sclerosis and lupus. Our organization, (SCPI), is focused on studying the quantity, characteristics and genomic recombination of the aborted fetal DNA found in many of our vaccines. Preliminary bioinformatics research conducted at SCPI indicates that “hot spots” for DNA recombination are found in nine autism-associated genes present on the X chromosome. These nine genes are involved in nerve-cell synapse formation, central nervous system development and mitochondrial function. Could genomic insertion of the aborted fetal DNA, found in some of our childhood vaccines since 1979, be an environmental trigger for autism? Could the fact that genes critical for nerve synapse formation and nervous system development found on the X chromosome, provide some explanation of why autism is predominantly a disease found in boys? Could the “hot spots” identified in these autism-associated genes be sites for insertion of contaminating aborted fetal DNA?
These are the questions just now being look into by the same organizations and research firms, like the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, that assured us that Thimerosal was not the link between vaccines and autism. In the meantime, good pro-life people will have to decide between the lesser of two evils: Whether to have “passive material cooperation” and allow ourselves to be immunized with vaccines known to be tainted with the tissues from electively aborted babies, or take our chances that we won’t get these diseases or viruses.
Although H1N1 makes this issue especially relevant, it is not a new one. As far as 1994 at the Catholic Bishops conference of England and Wales, religious leaders prepared a report on this very same subject which called vaccine use of voluntarily aborted babies,“a kind of evil which is widespread in biomedical research and which people rightly think they should combat when they can…the practice of medicine is being made parasitic on the evils of abortion and fetal experimentation.”
Fifteen years ago they called on Catholics to refuse vaccination as “one way of seeking to turn medicine from a course which will increasingly subvert people’s confidence in it.” For many of us, we cannot “passively materially cooperate” in the killing of the unborn and so refusing to vaccinate is our only choice. Maybe if enough pro-lifers took this stand, we could turn medicine from its course of continuing to kill and using the unborn to save the rest of us.
About the Author: Mark Armstrong lives in North Dakota where he and his wife Patti are the parents to ten children, eight boys and two girls, including two adopted AIDS orphans from Kenya. He spent nearly 30 years as an award-winning broadcast journalist before serving as the communications head for North Dakota’s workers’ compensation agency. He co-authored the best-selling Catholic book, “Amazing Grace for Fathers.” The couple have a pro-life talk, “Confessions of a Catholic Couple” available at One More Soul. Mark is also an occasional guest host on the Relevant Radio Network for both Sean Herriott on Morning Air and The Drew Mariani Show. Mark’s website is at www.RaisingCatholicKids.com.
Tags: abortion, catholic, dna, fetal tissue, Guest Writer: Mark Armstrong, vaccines
Possibly Related Posts:
[...] Vaccination: Material Cooperation in Abortion and Autism? | Voice of Revolution voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/2009/11/07/vaccination-material-cooperation-in-abortion-and-autism – view page – cached Editor’s Note: I was investigating the link between abortion and vaccination when I came into contact with Catholic author Mark Armstrong, who was also [...]
Hello to VOR and Dr. Brown,
I am so glad you have come out with this article! Hopefully many will read it and begin to really take into consideration what’s being injected into our children. We have been so indoctrinated in our society that we don’t even ask questions. The day after a child is born in the hospital, they come in with a case of 8-10 vaccines - which they don’t even give you the option as to whether you want to even accept it for your child or not, niether do we ask if our children must have them all now, nor do they provide you with the information of what is in the ingredients, nor do we say, “I am going to wait so I can do some research”.
For one it is a slam jam homerun in the way they operate this non-verbal, non-communicative business of making it a silent mandatory vaccination - new mom, new baby, your baby needs this, and NOW kind of hospital production-and automatically on their way to making their multi $$$$billion dollar business with no fuss, no muss, no fight from the parents or public. (not until the H1N1 vaccine- people are speaking out)
And they got most of us, especially the Christians, the Evangelicals, the pro-lifers, because we are uneducated, uninformed. We have bought into today’s medicine which as a friend stated to me the other day, “is liken to a sick religion”, more like witch doctory! We believe that all these vaccines are good for us, that the drugs we take over the counter and from the pharmacy are really healthy for us. It’s time to think twice about it!
Anyhow, we need to research and think for ourselves, and come to the conclusion that if we really believe in what we believe in (such as believing that life of a baby at begins at conception) - are we going to have our children injected with human diploid cells - which is aborted fetal tissue? Not to mention, monkey blood cells, mice serum, mercury, gelatin ( which is either pig or horse boiled bones and ligaments), chicken embryo, vesicle from calf skin, monkey lung cells-just to name a few and all the other toxins that are the vaccines. see vaccine ingredients: http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html
This is where the rubber meets the road, where our faith is tested, are we going to follow man’s ways or God’s ways? Who are we going to put our trust in? Is our trust in the vaccines? Remember the children of Israel, when Egypt was struck with plagues, it was the blood of the lamb on their doorposts that covered and protected them. For those of us that know Yeshua and know our God - is His arm to short that He cannot save? Is there anything that He cannot do? Isn’t the Blood of the Lamb of God, the blood of Yeshua, powerful enough to keep us from harm, and from the harm of this world system? Even if your child got sick with one of these sicknesses, isn’t our God powerful enough to bring him/her through it? I will give you the answer that is in His word, YES IT IS!!!!!
My husband and I have decided for our house - we will serve the Lord! Not only in word, but in action. We don’t believe in nor support abortion, so we are not going to put these vaccines in our children. It is our conviction that if we put it in our children - we are therefore supporting, aiding, complying to the KILLING OF INNOCENT BABIES -ultimately GOING AGAINST YAHWEH! Once we know the truth, we are accountable and we will have to answer to God!
My trust and hope is in God AND NOT IN MAN! I am not saying that all medicine is bad, but we really need to start looking at God’s ways of doing things, such as going back to the basics and eating healthy, healthy foods (Pork is actually bad for you and any scavenger food and bottomfeeders sea creatures) and taking vitamins- such as Vitamin D3 is said to help fight against the flu and or swine flu-. We need to do some investigation on medications such as TAMIFLU- which was given to my 6 year old - because she was told she had the swine flu. Well TAMIFLU can cause inflammation of the brain. What did I do? I reverted back to old fashion remedies - cold compresses to the head- to bring the fever down, popsicles, raw vitamins, esp D3 - prayer, prayer of the word, Psalm 91, trust in God! She got through it, by the blood of the Lamb - then I got sick, and I got through it! Praise God! “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, lean not on your own understanding, but acknowledge Him in all you ways, and He will direct your paths.” Prov 3:5-6
Shalom,
Fannie
ps. Is this kind of “going with the flow mentality” setting us up or our children after us - for the ANTI-CHRIST? Something to think about!
I would hope most parents here besides Fannie would put their child’s welfare before their religious views. Deciding for your child that he/she is in God’s hands instead of modern medicine’s borders on parental neglect. It’s pointed to the same direction as Jehovah’s Witnesses denying their children blood transfusions. Not at the same level, but in that direction.
I actually question the wisdom of even publishing an article like this, knowing that lesser educated parents may try to forego getting their children important vaccines without doing more research on the subject. It does get a lot worse than chicken pox, measels, and mumps, if you do a little reading, though mumps are pretty awful themselves.
Please bear in mind that there is only the vaguest of biblical evidence saying abortion is killing. By “vague,” I mean references to God knowing who you are before you’re born (not unreasonable for an omniscient being), and that’s about it. The only reference to a child leaping in a mother’s stomach happens in the third trimester (I believe it’s John the Baptist at the 6 month mark).
I have no problem with people being against abortion, but it’s troubling that the far right has hijacked the issue by presenting the illusion that Christianity is unequivocally against it. Christianity is against killing, as are all decent people, but the idea that an embryo is person has no real backing behind it. None besides verses of God’s foreknowledge.
That being said, any actual medical reason against getting a vaccine is another issue entirely. It’s unfortunate that the author of the article has chosen to woven the issue of abortion cells and vaccine risks together where there is no evidence that one is linked to the other.
It’s a little chilling to think this article may be responsible for several children having life-threatening diseases in the near future.
–Dan
Dan,
Thanks for reading the article and posting your comments. First of all, let me clarify a couple of points.
1) No where do I suggest, or does the Catholic Church suggest that vaccines, or medical treatment should NOT be offered to children (or anyone for that matter). However, using electively aborted babies as a means to save others is what is truly a chilling thought.
Using tissues from dead babies, aborted for the sole purpose of developing vaccines or the exploration of fetal stem cell research is a prime example of the sinful nature of man. The fall of man came as a result to the temptation of being like God, to know all. It was the fear of being without this understanding that compelled man to taste the fruit. Our modern intellectuals cannot resist the opportunity of understanding more and how to use these babies to suit their self interests, even at the expense of precious life.
I will continue to pray for those babies, who were aborted for these vaccines, and those babies who continue to be aborted for vaccines and such items as skin creams and pray that we one day decide that there is a way to live in this world without the sin of their blood in ours.
2) Your statements there ”is only the vaguest of biblical evidence saying abortion is killing” and “the idea that an embryo is person has no real backing behind it,” are utterly and completely without basis as far as the teachings of the Catholic Church for the last 2,000 plus years. I would encourage you to investigate this more thoroughly. I can offer these observations:
The Catholic Church has always condemned abortion as a grave evil. Christian writers from the first-century author of the Didache to Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (”The Gospel of Life”) have maintained that the Bible forbids abortion, just as it forbids murder.
The early Christian writer Tertullian pointed out, the law of Moses ordered strict penalties for causing an abortion. We read, “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: "so that her child comes out"], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Ex. 21:22–24).
This applies the lex talionis or “law of retribution” to abortion. The lex talionis establishes the just punishment for an injury (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, compared to the much greater retributions that had been common before, such as life for eye, life for tooth, lives of the offender’s family for one life).
The lex talionis would already have been applied to a woman who was injured in a fight. The distinguishing point in this passage is that a pregnant woman is hurt “so that her child comes out”; the child is the focus of the lex talionis in this passage. Aborted babies must have justice, too.
This is because they, like older children, have souls, even though marred by original sin. David tells us, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5, NIV). Since sinfulness is a spiritual rather than a physical condition, David must have had a spiritual nature from the time of conception.
The same is shown in James 2:26, which tells us that “the body without the spirit is dead”: The soul is the life-principle of the human body. Since from the time of conception the child’s body is alive (as shown by the fact it is growing), the child’s body must already have its spirit.
Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion “is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (Evangelium Vitae 62).
The Didache (from our early Church Fathers) says….
“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” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).
And from the writer Tertullian’s Apology, written in the 2nd Century we have these words that were given to the early Church in the 2nd and 3rd Century….
So human life is a gift from God which all of us are called to protect, nurture, and sustain. The right to life, the most basic of all human rights, must be protected by all means and in all ways. Perhaps the simplest way to understand the issue is to go to Jesus and understand that when the Angel Gabriel told Mary that she was to conceive a child, that child was our Lord, Jesus Christ, fully human and fully divine with his Godly soul. If Mary had decided not to consent to giving birth to Jesus, and had done the unthinkable to us, she would have killed not only the physical Jesus, but the divine Jesus as well.
Peace be with you and thank you again for allowing me to comment on your posting.
Mark Armstrong
Mark,
Thank you so much for the detailed reply. While I respect your belief in the rich traditions of post-apostle Catholicism, I would say that the writings of influential Catholics do not count as Biblical evidence, in the strictest sense of the word. I’d say the same thing for the Talmud and Rabbinical interpretations of the Torah. You could possibly make a case that “Judaism” supports X based on the Talmudic traditions, but not that the Bible does.
I think I can contribute to the interpretation of the valuable Old Testament references you did bring up, however.
Let’s look at Psalm 51:5.
First off, there is a translation issue. Look at these variations:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2051:5&version=NASB;NIV;ASV;ESV
While the NIV translates the psalmist claims to be “sinful from the time my mother conceived me,” There are several others that translate it as, “And in sin my mother conceived me”
This leaves us at least 3 possible interpretations.
1. The multi-celled embryo somehow managed to sin as soon as the sperm hit the egg.
2. Hyperbole is being used, illustrating how the psalmist has always been sinful in his life. Similar language is used in Deut 1:10 “The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky” Obviously, this is a hyperbolic exaggeration. Hyperbole is all over the Old Testament, especially the Psalms. Do a Bible search, and see how many times “forever” is used, when actually meaning “a very long time.”
And really, you are reading poetry and worship lyric as literal didactic text? The chances of misinterpretation are huge trying to do it that way. If we did this with Psalm 102 we’d think David’s bones were literally glowing like burning embers.
3. The mother was sinful when the child was conceived, so this prevented the child from ever being pure.
Taking #1 as the literal meaning seems odd from this perspective, wouldn’t you agree? There are many other possibilities, but I think the obvious meaning is #2.
Now on to a more complicated case, Exodus 21:22-24.
It’s fascinating that you bring up that verse, because it is the same one used by other Bible readers to make a case for abortion NOT being equal to killing. If you look at the translations of NRSV and and New JPS, well as the footnotes of New English Translation and NIV, you’ll see that instead of causing a premature birth, the translation is “to cause a miscarriage.” The literal Hebrew, as I have just read is, “so her fruit depart.”
If the true translation is concerning a miscarriage, then the correct interpretation would be that if a pregnancy is accidentally terminated by another man, he merely has to pay a fine, unless he causes damage to the MOTHER, not the CHILD. All the “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” stuff may be attributed to the mother instead of the unborn child. This would make the death of a fetus clearly far lower than a human’s death.
Also keep in mind that even if the verse did refer to a premature birth, the damage and retribution rules could still refer to the health of the struck mother, instead of the child.
This makes it a very interesting case because one translation could strongly support anti-abortion, while the other interpretation very strongly supports pro-choice.
Which is correct? I’m not qualified to dive into the little textual details, and I suspect you’re not either. What we can both agree on, however, is that very learned PhD scholars disagree on what the translation means. I didn’t talk about the James verse, but I think you’d agree that the “body without spirit is dead” could easily mean a body of a deceased person. It would be very forced to make broad theological assumptions based on half a sentence.
With this ambiguity, my original statement still stands. There is only the vaguest of Biblical evidence that abortion may be considered killing a human being. We have a line taken from the poetry genre which most likely has hyperbolic meaning, and a Torah law that could very well mean the exact opposite, that a fetus is NOT equal to a human life. If this is all we have from the Bible (not the Catholic fathers), then I’d say the Bible has not told us in any way how we should deal with the abortion issue.
If you are anti-abortion based on your own values, and believe that the later Catholic writings are inerrant, then that’s your choice, but the Bible has not made it’s case.
–Dan
P.S.– I appreciate very much that you are not encouraging parents to deny vaccines for their children. However, if you look at Fannie’s comment up top, you’ll see that my concern has some validity. Like it or not, a significant amount of fundamentalist parents will think as Fannie does, based on what you present.
Dan,
Thank you for your response. I think you have attempted to confuse the issue, when there is really no confusion necessary. I’ve always tried to follow and understand the Church teachings in all matters and realize that all sin is rebellion from the truth. You seem to like to label assumptions about what I must believe, saying such things that you respect my, ”belief in the rich traditions of post-apostle Catholicism.”
Thank you for your respect, but I am not even sure what that means. We, by definition, are One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, there is nothing “post-apostle” about the faith.
Clearly there are Old Testament references about the issue of abortion. The Old Testament also testifies how God had specially marked individuals for an important role of leadership from the very first moment of their lives: “Beloved of his people, dear to his Maker, dedicated from his mother’s womb, consecrated to the Lord as a prophet, was Samuel, the judge and priest” (Sir 46:13). The prophet Isaiah proclaimed, “Hear me, O coastlands, listen, o distant peoples. The Lord called me from birth, from my mother’s womb He gave me my name. He made of me sharp-edged sword and concealed me in the shadow of His arms. He made me a polished arrow; in His quiver He hid me. You are my servant, He said to me, Israel, through whom I show my glory. Though I thought I had toiled in vain, and for nothing, uselessly spent my strength, yet my reward is with the Lord, my recompense is with my God. For now the Lord has spoken who formed me as His servant from the womb, that Jacob may be brought back to Him and Israel gathered to Him, and I am made glorious in the sight of the Lord, and my God is now my strength!” (Is 49:1-5). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah recalled, “The word of the Lord came to me thus: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you” (Jer 1:4-5).
If God knew these individuals in their mother’s wombs, if he marked them for an important role as he conceived them, if he knew them before he formed them…then how could it not be a murder to kill this human being that He created? God does not created without a purpose in mind, does He?
Also your 3 assumptions about the sinful nature of man and how does an embryo acquire its “original” sin nature is clearly spelled out in the original Fall in the old testament. Again, this goes back to my original posting to you. We have two natures, a physical nature and a spiritual nature. The mother, or the father for that matter, does not pass their sinful nature to their new baby, it is part of their original nature from their original parents. It is spiritually given to each of us and is washed away when we are baptized onto to the new life in Jesus Christ when we are baptized.
The doctrine of original sin is that “in” Adam all have sinned. This parallels the doctrine of justification that “in” Christ all are righteous. Many Catholics do not fully understand or appreciate the importance of this parallel and how it weaves through much of Catholic teaching.
We can begin to understand this parallel—namely, through the first Adam all have died and through the second Adam (Christ) all have life—by looking at Romans 5. Verse 12 says that “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin.” And look at the evidence throughout verses 15–19: “Many died through one man’s trespass. . . . For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation. . . . Because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man. . . . Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men. . . . By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.”
Look at verse 16: “For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation.” Who did it bring condemnation for? Adam only? No—verse 18 says, “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men.” This is stated even more clearly by the King James rendering the same verse: “Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.”
These passages are all about the Church’s doctrine of original sin. Because of Adam’s sin, all men were made subject to sin and death. That is Scripture’s teaching on the doctrine of original sin.
Now, when a child is born, it is born into the flesh. But the Bible tells us that the flesh is of no avail because of the consequences of original sin. That’s why Jesus says we have to be born again. The first birth is birth of the flesh, but we need something more in order to have life.
What is that something more? The Bible tells us: Everyone must be born of the Spirit in order to have eternal life; it is the Spirit that gives life, not the flesh. And how do we receive the Spirit? The Bible tells us that we receive the Spirit by being born again—by being born of water and the Spirit—by being baptized. We find this in Ezekiel 36:25–27, John 3:3–5, Acts 2:38, and elsewhere. When we are baptized we put on Christ (cf. Gal. 3:27). We are buried with him in baptism (Rom. 6:4). We become members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). We receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). We become a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).
To sum up these last few paragraphs: Adam is the representative of the flesh. Christ is the representative of the Spirit. When we are born physically, born into the flesh, we are in Adam. When we are baptized—when we are born again, when we are born of the Spirit—we are in Christ. Infants need to be baptized, just like anyone else, so that they can be “in Christ,” so that they can put on Christ, so that they can become children of God, so that they can become members of the body of Christ, so that they can be granted eternal life.
One other Scripture passage that I like to use when discussing original sin is found in Ephesians 2:3: “Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” We see here another very clear reflection of Catholic teaching in the Bible. Ephesians 2:3 is, in a nutshell, the Catholic teaching on original sin: We were by nature children of wrath. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches, but it all comes from the Bible, both the New and the Old Testament.
Peace be with you Dan,
Mark
P.S. Exactly what faith do you follow?
Mark,
No attempt to confuse here. I actually am attempting to clarify.
By “Post-Apostle Catholic Faith,” I’m referring to writings not included in the New Testament, that is all. Most people on this board are of Protestant or non-denominational Christian faith, so that is why I was making a distinction. By Post-Apostle, I meant after the twelve and Paul had died.
You have provided some Biblical quotes which, again, describe God’s foreknowledge and purpose for someone from the womb. However, they still fall into the same issue that you haven’t addressed: hyperbole.
Let’s look at once of the quotes from Isaiah:
“The Lord called me from birth, from my mother’s womb He gave me my name. He made of me sharp-edged sword and concealed me in the shadow of His arms. He made me a polished arrow; in His quiver He hid me. You are my servant, He said to me, Israel, through whom I show my glory.”
How many figurative statements can you count here? Between the sword, shadow, arrow, quiver, you already have 4 figurative statements. Even referring to him as “Israel,” is a figurative statement (unless you think the passage is about Israel, which would make literal interpretation even harder).
So if out of a couple lines, we have a collection of metaphor and figurative statements, what makes you so sure that the few words about “birth” and “womb” are literal? This is exactly the pitfall of taking literal meaning from a passage of the clearly non-literal genre.
In the other issues of “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,” can simply be attested to God’s forknowledge. After all, he had big plans for Cyrus a long time before he arrived. In Revelation, he describes key figures that have yet to be born, as well. If God is omniscient, then of course he will know you before you exist. It doesn’t mean you’re a soul in heaven waiting to be brought to earth (an area the Bible doesn’t really explore).
The fact is while your above stated theology is consistent with Biblical teaching, it doesn’t acknowledge the large ambiguities of what’s really going on spiritually between conception and birth. The statements about conception you refer to are often surrounded by metaphor, as well as fitting the hyperbolic language of other passages such as telling mortal kings “I will establish your throne forever.” Please address this point of hyperbole, as it is important.
P.S. — I try to walk without a label, but I can say I am clearly not a Christian or Bible-believer. If it feels moot to discuss this with someone like me, I’ll understand. I feel compelled to bring the true issues to light at the same time. This is because while I don’t like like the Bible shaping politics by any means, the idea of dangerous faux-Biblical teachings shaping politics is much worse.
All,
I would like to pose a simple question. If you believe that killing a baby is wrong ( whether it be before or after their “due date”), and you are aware that a certain vaccine was made using tissue from a baby that was killed because they were not wanted, will you still have your children or yourself vaccinated with that vaccine? If so, why?
To Dan first and then to Marcus….
It is never “hyperbole” when discussing the issue of abortion. We can always rely on what the Church is teaching us on these matters. Let’s not dance around the issue and try to make a determination about what all of this meant to what people and it what time frame, whether God was speaking specifically about abortion in this passage (because we will, as we have both demonstrated), come to different conclusions about what those passages mean. It comes down to what a pastor once told me is “false intellectualism and elaborate arguments” and it is what caused the Fall, because we think we can understand as God does, which of course is pure folly.
However, what we can rely on, and what the Catholic Church teaches, and I believe is that abortion is an objectively evil act, a violation of the Natural law. It is an intentional killing. It must not be protected by the positive law of our Nation or any Nation.
In fact, no one can claim to care about the poor and support intentional procured abortion as a “choice” and defend the unconstitutional action of a Court which ruled that it was a “constitutional right.” We all know the truth now. We operate on these same children in the womb and place them back in their first home. We prosecute people who in the commission of another recognized crime kill them. Our medical science has confirmed what our conscience and the Natural Law written on every human heart long revealed, these are our neighbors and it is always and everywhere wrong to kill our innocent neighbors. And we all know that Mother Teresa was absolutely correct in reminding us that they are the “poorest of the poor”. Anyone who claims to care about the poor and supports the killing of these poor by hiding behind the lies of the Orwellian language which has hidden this evil - such as “choice”, “privacy”, or “personal decision” - is a liar. They should be ashamed. Anyone who uses an electively aborted baby to procure a medicine or a vaccine to save the rest of us, should also be ashamed. What this reveals, the disintegration of a Nation, was astutely summarized by the late John Paul II in these words taken from his extraordinary Letter entitled “The Gospel of Life” (Par. 20):
“This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the “right” ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the “common home” where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenseless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part.
“The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: “How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practiced: some individuals are held to be deserving of defense and others are denied that dignity?” When this happens - the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.”
To answer Marcus, no we will not vaccinate our children with the blood of innocent children. Using their blood to develop vaccines is evil and any culture or Nation that promotes their use is doomed.
Mark,
If I’ve read your response correctly, it sounds like your church’s teachings and your own feelings have given you your conclusion on abortion, and that scriptural support is not a key factor. It helps, but if you lost your quotations supporting pro-life, you would maintain your position, correct?
My statements about the passages become “false intellectualism” and “elaborate arguments” which is the mindset that “caused the fall in the first place.” I can tell you honestly that I was willing to change my mind about the issue (whether the Bible unequivocally is anti-abortion) if you made your case. Obviously, the same can’t be said for your views. I do appreciate your honesty on this, however.
You do have a point that not respecting human life enough, has resulted in problems in history. However, relying on the official Church teachings over your own intellect has also created similar problems in history.
By the way, it sounded llke in your reply to Marcus that you’d deny your children tainted vaccines even if there was no other alternative. If this is so, it validates my concern.
Thanks,
–Dan
Dan, with all due respect to “Your” views (which I am not even sure where they come from), just what exactly is your authority on these matters, The Bible? If the answer is “Yes, it’s the only authority for Christians.” Then I would ask you can you prove that from the Bible, in other words does the Bible claim to be the sole rule of faith….the doctrine of sola scripture is itself unbiblical…and I would ask you to show me where the Bible claims such a status for itself.
If you recognize the Bible for what it is, you’ll must know it wasn’t intended to be an instructional tool for converts. In fact, not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers. The Old Testament books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already were Christians. The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.
And that bring up my point for writing back about relying on the Church. How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in your New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament? And how do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books haven’t been left out of the canon? The fact is, the only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As St. Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon. The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). You, my friend, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.
Furthermore, the reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself! The question you have to ask yourself is this: ‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Until you can give a satisfactory answer, you aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it. After you answer that question—and there’s really only one answer that can be given—you have some other important questions to ask: ‘If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?’ And ‘Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?” There really can be only one interpretation when it comes to absolute matters of the faith like abortion. The Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit has interpreted these matters for us to set us free.
With respect to the issue of vaccine, again I rely upon what the Pontifical Academy of Life statement has instructed us to do. It is startling simple and clear:
To summarize, it must be confirmed that:
-there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;
- as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one’s own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women;
- the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one’s children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);
- such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.
Mark,
Thanks for your response. I’m having a hard time coming to any other conclusion than the one you’ve come to in this, though I’m open to hearing from other viewpoints. I’m sure that the majority of pro-life families have had their children vaccinated without even questioning these things, so I’ve got to believe that they are not aware of the abortion connection.
Regarding your views on Catholic authority, as I mentioned in my Editor’s note at the beginning of the article, I and the staff at VOR do not hold to your views on Catholicism, but join with you in the fight against abortion.
Marcus French
Editor: Voice of Revolution
Mark,
I must say, you’ve made a very good case against Sola Scriptura. I am curious, however, how this accounts for Popes that have sinned, as well corruption that has existed in the high levels of the church, as is common in large organizations. There were some Popes and other key catholic figures that supported anti-semitic and violent measures, correct? It would seem that if God was giving the Catholic Church authority, then it would be continuously in line with God’s plan. I’m curious for your thoughts on this, as I don’t have an answer myself.
Also, I’m curious how you would say this differs from what Orthodox Jews would claim. Orthodox Jews would point out that the Old Testament canon was created based on the authority of the rabbis, and that an oral tradition was passed down letting us know how to pronounce the Hebrew and interpret the laws, even telling us what the Messiah should be like. If you continue the Jewish authority from the beginning, that actually would render most of the New Testament in violation of God’s original inspiration to his people.
Wouldn’t affirming the Catholic Church’s authority be doing the same thing, in this regard?
Thank you.
–Dan
Dan,
I am not going to try to explain the Old Testament and Jewish Authority because, although I am a quarter Jewish, I am not as versed in this area…I will say however a couple of things to ponder. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (II Tim 3:16)
I had always assumed that the “Scripture” spoken of in this passage included both the Old and New Testament. In reality, there was no official “New” Testament when this statement was made. Even the Old Testament was still in the process of formulation, for the Jews did not decide upon a definitive list or canon of Old Testament books until after the rise of Christianity.
As I studied further I discovered that early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. This translation, which was begun in Alexandria, Egypt, in the third century B.C., contained an expanded canon which included a number of the so-called “deutero-canonical” books. Although there was some initial debate over these books, they were eventually received by Christians into the Old Testament canon.
In reaction to the rise of Christianity the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the deutero-canonical books—although they still regarded them as sacred. The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D. Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, which is followed by most of the Protestant Church today.
Now about Papal Infallibility and bad popes, or popes who sin in general…
Infallibility does not mean that the Pope is impeccable or specially exempt from liability to sin. Indeed I always find it remarkable that both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI regularly (by some accounts weekly) attend the sacrament of confession. I try to go monthly, and I try sometimes to imagine how humble they truly they must be to acknowledge the sins they are committing in this sacrament!
The Popes have been, indeed, with few exceptions, led virtuous lives. Many of them are honored as martyrs in the early Church. But one account that I read, 79 of the 260 that sat on the chair of Peter are invoked upon our altars as saints eminent for their holiness. Six Popes were clearly immoral. Thus, even admitting the truth of the accusations brought against them, we have forty-three virtuous to one bad Pope, while there was a Judas Iscariot among the twelve Apostles, and yet he was taught by the great teacher of them all.
But although a vast majority of the our Popes should have been so unfortunate as to lead vicious lives, this circumstance would not of itself impair the validity of their prerogatives, which are given not for the preservation of their morals, but for the guidance of their judgment; for, there was a Balaam among the Prophets, and a Caiphas among the High Priests of the Old Law.
Further I think some believe the pope cannot sin, when in fact the opposite is quite true…we are usually blind to our sins, until we look at ourselves and acknowledge our sins. Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 (”Feed my sheep . . . “), Luke 22:32 (”I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 (”You are Peter . . . “).
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, St. Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).
Dan, your question about how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t “neglect” to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.
But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
I know this went long, but I hope and pray this helps explain what you were asking.
Peace be with you,
Mark
The Biblical argument against abortion is a no-brainer once the honest scientific facts of conception are recognized. When “two become one” (scientifically and medically) you have a unique, distinct human life. And since human life is created in the image of God, this implies an immeasurable intrinsic value.
The proof of this is in the First Advent Incarnation itself. Yes, John the Baptist may have been around 6 months gestation when he “leaped” in his mothers womb to welcome the Messiah. But the Messiah - the Lord of the Universe; the King of Kings; Almighty God; and Prince of Peace – who was also an unborn child at that time, was only a few weeks gestation. What an incredible example of the dignity and worth of the unborn child that this Messiah was recognized when He was so newly formed in the womb of Mary.
Would any pious family tolerate the giving of vaccines to anyone if they were made from the cells of Jewish holocaust victims? Or from Christians deliberately killed in some North Korean or Saudia Arabian prison? Ponder that, then explain to me if there is any real difference between that and the use of unborn children’s cells.