Anti-abortion priorities

[StAugustine]

If our first priority in stopping abortion is NOT in rescuing souls who would otherwise not be able to be saved in order to grant them a chance to come to the knowledge of Christ, our priorities are out of order.

1. We are not there for the mother first, but for the soul who will never see the face of God if it dies without baptism.
2. We are not there for sidewalk counseling first, for post abortive women.
3. We are not there to demonstrate our regret for abortion first, or to say “it hurts women” only.

It is the teaching of the authentic Papal Magisterium that baptism of desire is not open to infants, (Pius XII allocution to Italian midwives) and that abortionists destroy souls (Pope Sixtus V in Effraenatum).

Therefore, we must get our priorities right in the fight. We are trying to give souls a chance at the beatific vision, which they will not have if they die without baptism.

to quote Pope Sixtus V- Effraenatam in English

“We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions (left vacant by the fallen angels), and has taken away the service to God by His creature? who has deprived children of life before they could naturally see light or could be protected by maternal body from ferocious cruelty?”

The fight for life is a fight for the chance of salvation. Otherwise, if you deny this, what are you doing? Sure maybe counseling WOMEN in mortal sin, but what about all those killed? If they all just go to heaven, well, so what?

Fight for the life of the soul!

 

[FOG]

We are not there for the mother first, but for the soul who will never see the face of God if it dies without baptism.

We are called to “be there” to assist all souls (baptized or not) to find salvation that can only be granted through Christ Jesus, just as Christ came and died for not just the righteous, but the sinner. Therefore, if we are to emulate Christ, we are there, at the same time, for the mother and the child.

Fight for the life of the soul!

Fight for the life of ALL souls, whether not afforded the blessings of birth, or have been born!

Disclaimer – I am expressing my opinion and not looking for validaiton or argument, so I limit my (name removed by moderator)ut to a single post per thread. Send me a PM, and I will be happy to continue the discussion without monopolizing this fine venue.

 

[StAugustine]

Certainly. But in a hierarchy of goods, the salvation of those in danger of imminent death is paramount. If we don’t say this, we end up trivializing dogma and tradition.

 

[Gorgias]

If our first priority in stopping abortion is NOT in rescuing souls who would otherwise not be able to be saved

• We are not there for the mother first, but for the soul who will never see the face of God if it dies without baptism.

Wait a minute – that’s not what the Church teaches! She teaches that we rely on the mercy of God, through means about which we do not have knowledge, for the salvation of those infants who die without baptism.

 

[StAugustine]

in that section of the catechism, what footnote is referenced as part of the tradition? The answer is none. Rather, read what I quoted a Pope teaching. Moreover, the dogmatic teaching of the binding ecumenical councils of Lyons and Florence is that those who die in original sin ALONE cannot see the face of God. That’s dogma, we can’t say no to it. And it is in interpreting it that Pope Sixtus V wrote Effraenatum.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I think the Church believes that infants who are not baptized DO have a chance at going to heaven and experiencing the beatific vision. Why would an all-loving and merciful Gd punish a baby anyway, particularly an unborn baby? Wouldn’t that be similar to a woman who has an abortion due to rape or incest and thus punishes her baby because of the evil deed of the rapist? Isn’t Gd more just and merciful than that? Is Gd Himself bound by such laws and rituals?

 

[StAugustine]

We have had this discussion. All innocence that you can predicate of humanity is simply relative to human law. A baby is innocent relative to human law, not divine law. No baby is guilty of adultery, murder, crimes, etc. All the things for which we are punished under human law. But it is guilty of being implicated in the sin of Adam, of being under God’s wrath, of being subject to death, corruption, decay and ignorance as a PUNISHMENT for original sin. And if God is good and punishes justly, then that punishment, even of infants, entails their implication in Adams guilt. The greatness of God’s mercy is that he has provided baptism as a remedy, when in reality he owes us nothing.

No one is pure in comparison to the author of purity, and that impurity will not stand before him unless it is cleansed.

 

[meltzerboy2]

So, in other words, do you mean that if Gd does not reveal His wrath toward an unborn baby, who is guilty of original sin, then the whole doctrine of original sin is for naught and perhaps Jesus, the Messiah, is not needed? Is that what you implicitly mean? In that case, it seems to me that the ritualistic inflexibility found in Judaism, which some Christians point to and misinterpret, is much more unyielding in Christianity. Yet there are strong clues in the Bible and Church tradition that this is not the case: such as the binding and loosing of the law, the notion of the spirit of the law, and Jesus’ particular affection for children. Such a fate of the innocent according to human law and affection, if carried out by Gd, would, in my view, make Gd Himself a spiritual abortionist. Strong language on my part, I realize, but I am trying to make a point.

 

[Gorgias]

in that section of the catechism, what footnote is referenced as part of the tradition?

Who needs a footnote? Let’s read directly from the text!

1257 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. … God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism , the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism

Has the Gospel been proclaimed to children in the womb? Have they had the possibility of asking for this sacrament? Well then… you can’t apply the affirmation of ‘necessity’ to them, now, can you? Instead, as the Catechism proclaims, we “entrust them to the mercy of God.” QED.