Some of the students helped out the Pro-life booth at the Immaculate Heart of Mary Bazaar. The goal of this event was to raise money for the students trip to the march for life. Also they were trying to get money to stop tax dollars for paying for abortions in MA.
Some of the students of IHM and two sisters of the St. John the Baptist ran booth at the Johnny Apple Seed Festival. The goal was to obtain signatures to stop
All of the high school students and teachers from IHM went to the Forty Days for Life to pray out front of Planned Parenthood in Worcester, MA. The purpose of this was to pray the rosary for the souls of the unborn babies, for the parents of theses unborn babies and also for the workers for Planned Parenthood so that they will see the wrong in what they are doing.
Separation of Church and State
The idea of Church and State have been a great controversial between Catholics today. Many Catholics have the wrong idea that the Church have power over the State will lead to corruption and violence, but this is entirely wrong. In fact, it is the completely opposite of what the unity of Church and State has to offer for civilization. The Church has always been a center of morals in the past, it retained virtue and spread the faith to the hearts of many, and the importance of the role of the Church in checking the actions of the State can only be clearly seen when it is lost.
The Church and State should not be viewed as a rival for power and control, but rather two systems of governments, one material and one spiritual, that work together to maintain peace and morality in a nation. The State makes the laws and the Church verifies if the law is ethical and complies to the Ten Commandments. Laws, however, that are political and are not related to the teachings of the Church, should be separate from the Church. Such situations are for example, road policies, the bank, and postal services. In a similar way, the activities of the Church should not be interfered by the State. For example, the State cannot impede in religious education, ordinations of priests, the application of the sacraments, and any other spiritual duties of the Church. In a way, the relation between Church and State is like a leash and a dog. The dog can walk on the sidewalk, but when its trays towards the road or into the woods, the leash pulls back on the dog to prevent it from going there and harming itself. The Church will intervene the actions of the State for the good of the State and for the good of its people (“State and Church | Catholic Answers”).
In history, the partnership between Church and State have shown very evident signs of its benefits. One case of this was Spain. The Hapsburg kings and queens of Spain were great rulers not because they were powerful monarchs, but because they shared their power with the Church and respected its authority. During their conquest of the New World,Spain was especially successful in their work in the New World. Spain was able to overthrow the Aztec emperor and the demon gods through Cortez, freeing the people from a system of oppression and giving them a more humane way of life.It established a prosperous trade with the New World, instituted a mutual relationship between the native Americans, and was able to spread the faith all around through missionaries. All of this was not directly because of the Church, but by allowing the Church and religion to be the center of a nation,it meant that all the actions exercised by the Hapsburg king and queens reflected the virtue and morality in which the center, the Church, upholds. Another example is France. Although the Bourbon rulers of France were not as religious as the Hapsburgs of Spain, they still respected the authority of the Church and many of the French population were devout Catholics who practiced and up-held the Catholic faith and its traditions. On the other hand, Great Britain, who separated from the Church and had its center mainly for its own wealth did not spread the faith in the New World. Many British hated the Catholic Church. They also oppressed the indigenous people, putting them into slavery and taking their land. A State with a heart of the faith reflects charity and virtue, but a State with a heart of wealth only reflects greed and self-love (Carroll).
When the State refuses to obey the words of the Church and ignores its teachings, it loses its morality. The effects of separation from the Church can be seen clearly in history and its effects are still being felt today. Immediately after the French Revolution, was not a time of freedom, equality, and fraternity as promised, but a time of oppression,poverty, and terror. The peace and prosperity that the Hapsburg rulers established in the New World for three centuries were spoiled by the liberal revolts.After this came the rise of communism and power hungry dictators, which lead to world wars, violence, and suffering. The modern world today is no different from the Aztecs, who were looked upon as uncivilized savages for sacrificing millions of people to their demon gods, since it has sacrificed more than a billion innocent babies for its own convenience and pleasure. The once predominant voice of the infallible Church is drowned out and overcome by schisms and naturalism. Separation of the Church from the State plunges the world headlong into a deep pit of sin. Nothing good can ever come from erasing God and His teachings from daily life. (Carroll).
God is the highest authority. He is The King of all kings. Jesus said to Pilate, “Thou wouldst have no power at all over me were it not given thee from above” (John 19:11). Every government today is the same. All power is from God and it must be used for His own glory. The Church does not use its power to hinder the State, but instead to point it into a direction of the well-being of its people; both body and soul. When the voice of the Church is ignored by the State, only death and suffering will be the outcome. However, when the Church and State are united, it results in peace and prosperity because the power that is given by God to man is used for a greater good in which it was intended.
Works Cited
Carroll. Christ and the Americas. Tan Books & Pub, 1997.
The Holy Bible: Old Testament in the Douay-Challoner Text; New Testament and Psalms in the Confraternity Text. 1950.
“State and Church | Catholic Answers.” Home | Catholic Answers, www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/state-and-church.
Roe v. Wade, America’s Most Unconstitutional Law
The court case of Jane Roe vs. Henry Wade could be considered as the most unconstitutional case ever reaching the supreme court. Jane Roe, whose real name was Norma McCorvey, wanted an abortion. She claimed to have been attacked by a gang in Georgia, and she wanted to not be responsible to have the child from the attack. Years after the court case she appeared on the channel ABC for an interview. When asked if this is actually how she got pregnant, she admitted that the information for the pregnancy of “Jane Roe” was not accurate. This proves that the law allowing millions of children to die each year was brought about by lies. The estimated number for the number of children that die each day in the United States due to abortion is 3,000. That means that about1,095,000 children die each year in the United States alone. (How)
On January 22,1973, 7 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices agreed with Justice Blackmun’s decision to side with Roe. The two justices that disagreed were Justice Rehnquist and Justice White.To prove that Roe v. Wade was constitutional the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was used. (Carroll)
Section 1. of the Fourteenth Amendment states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (LII)
Roe v. Wade has three major flaws.It is unjust, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. It is unjust because it is the outright killing of an innocent human being. Abortion stops the heart beat of an unborn child, and the child cannot do anything about it. A University of St. Thomas law professor, Michael Stokes Paulsen said this about the court decision, “The right created by the Supreme Court in Roe, is a constitutional right of some human beings to kill other human beings.” The abortion rate in America peaked at 1.6million abortions per year in 1990. The rate has slowly decreased since then but it is still unacceptable that abortion is even legal. (Stark)
It’s also unjust because it denies the baby the title “human”. It makes it seems as though the baby is just another limb of the mother. People who are for abortion often use that argument. Another common argument is that the fetus is a parasite. The definition of a parasite is, “an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism.” (Parasite) If you interpret it to mean that an unborn child living in the womb of his mother is a parasite, then you could easily interpret it as a child. A child cannot do anything for itself for years until it is old enough to get a job and provide for itself. Each unborn child has a different DNA than its mother. If something has a different DNA then you,you have absolutely no right to murder it.
Roe v.Wade is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which abortion advocates claim prove it is. In the Fourteenth Amendment it guarantees the right to life. If you have an abortion, you are depriving the child from that right. One of the two justices that did not want the Roe v. Wade, Justice Rehnquist, said, “the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”(Stark)
Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of our country said, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of a good government.” Now the government recommends the taking away of life from an innocent human being. In certain cases, where the mother seems as though she will not survive, doctors recommend an abortion. Many times, they say that there has to be one or else the mother will die. When mothers refuse abortions in these circumstances, often the children are born healthy or with minor flaws. No matter what their flaws are, human life is too precious to
Roe v.Wade and its companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, are undemocratic because they both made all the previous democratically decided abortion laws in every state in accurate and illegal to follow. After the case every state had to follow the nation wide policy. This give the states limited rights and the federal government much more. The other justice against Roe, Justice Byron White, said this: “The Constitution itself is ordained and established by the people of the United States. Decisions that find in the Constitution principles or values that cannot fairly be read into that document usurp the people’s authority, for such decisions represent choices that the people have never made, and that they cannot disavow through corrective legislation.”(Stark)
With all of the problems Roe v. Wade, its eventual collapse is evident. Nothing with so many flaws could possibly last permanently. Murder is never okay, whether it be to an unborn child, a newborn, or a toddler. Saint John the Baptist and Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.
Works Cited
“15 Of the Greatest Pro-Life Quotes of All Time.” LifeNews.com, 2 Jan. 2017,www.lifenews.com/2013/09/03/15-of-the-greatest-pro-life-quotes-of-all-time/.
Carroll, Anne W. “Roe v. Wade.” Christ in the Americas, TAN Books, 1997, pp. 417–420.
“How Many Daily Abortions in the U.S.?” Love Will End Abortion,love willendabortion.com/how-many-daily-abortions-in-the-u-s/.
LII Staff.“14th Amendment.” LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 17 May 2018, www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv.
“Parasite.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite.
Stark, Paul. “The Three Fundamental Problems with Roe v. Wade.” Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life | Pro-Life News and Information, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life | Pro-Life News and Information, 26 Jan. 2018, www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/01/20/The-three-fundamental-problems-with-Roe-v-Wade#.
Roe v. Wade is Unconstitutional
In the year 1969, Norma McCorvey, a woman from Texas, wanted to have an abortion. She was the daughter of an alcoholic mother and frequently got into trouble. She had already given birth twice and given up both babies for adoption. At this time abortion was legal in Texas but only for the purpose of saving the mother’s life. After unsuccessfully trying to get an illegal abortion, she was directed to two lawyers; Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, who had been looking for a case like this to challenge the laws restricting access to abortion. Norma, who was now called by the name Jane Roe in order to hide her identity, sued the District Attorney of Texas, Henry Wade in 1970 and finally went to the Supreme Court. (Summary)
On January 22, 1973, the Court declared that a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions, including the choice to have an abortion, was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. It also concluded that the Constitution requires states to permit abortion for any reason. American people are not allowed to legally protect human beings in the womb from acts of violence that kill them, as long as the mother gives permission. Likewise, the court decided that in the first trimester of a woman’s pregnancy, the mother could decide if she wanted an abortion. In the second trimester, the government could determine abortion although it couldn’t ban it in order to protect the mother’s health. In the third trimester, the government could forbid abortion if the fetus could live unless it is to save the mother. (Stark) (Three)
The Fourteenth Amendment impart states, “ No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This means that all human beings have the right to life, or have the right to be heard of what they think. Any baby who is killed because of abortion, is denied that right. (14th)
The Supreme Court based their decision on this Amendment. But, as it is stated above, no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property; and the Court used that to make their decision. Right there is a contradiction. The Supreme Court is saying one thing while the Fourteenth Amendment, created by our Founding Fathers of this county,is saying another. As the Court ruled, one has to assume that the Fourteenth Amendment is to prevent Americans from protecting unborn children and that the Fourteenth Amendment means something different from what the American people decided on when it was written. In the 1800’s, the legislature of Ohio wanted to pass laws banning abortion. Just a few months before, during the same legislative session the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. This proves what the Fourteenth Amendment really states. If the legislature of Ohio wanted to pass laws banning abortion right after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, then they must have known what the Amendment was aiming at when it described that no state shall deprive any person of life. (Stark)
In conclusion, the Court’s decision of Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional because it went against the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified to save lives not to abolish them.Before this case, abortion was illegal, except when it was to save the mother.But this incident opened the doors to abortion, making it legal in the United States. Furthermore, abortion is wrong and it is murder, and we should think of all the unborn children today who do not have a chance to live and to work for their Creator. “ Before I formed thee in the womb of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.” Jeremias 1:5 (Stark) (Three)
| Roe v. Wade: A Modern Controversial Topic |
Roe v. Wade was a major Supreme Court case in 1973 in which “Jane Roe,” the assumed name of Norma McCorvey, sued her local district attorney in Dallas, Texas, Henry Wade,for refusing to permit her to have an abortion whenever she wanted. “Roe”claimed that she had this right by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The14th Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges…of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law….” “Liberty” does not necessarily imply privacy, as the Supreme Court understood it (liberty). Liberty, as they understood it meant that anyone could do anything he wanted to, and that if a woman wanted to be rid of the “inconvenience”of an extramarital or otherwise unwanted child, and she were not allowed to,that would be depriving her of her “liberty.” The definition of liberty as I,as a Catholic, understand it is doing what we wish while following the natural law. The Constitution actually says nothing whatever about privacy,but when the 14th Amendment guaranteed the idea of liberty,Justice Harry Blackmun, pro-abortion justice on the Supreme Court, said that that was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy (Carroll, 419).”
The “right to privacy,” according to Janet Smith,originally meant simply the right “to have such things as one’s journal or conversations kept private (Adkins).” However, after that was established, the Supreme Court used the right to privacy as a “wild card that permits the courts to advance a very liberal…agenda (Adkins).” This means that, by the right to privacy, not only abortion, but also homosexuality and contraception are permissible. However, we are not at liberty, by the teachings of the Catholic Church, to commit these great evils.
A woman has just as much liberty to get an abortion as she has to murder someone, yet the government denies her that“right,” for the simple reason that murder is wrong and evil. The U.S.Government could just as well deny a woman the “right” by “liberty” to have an abortion as commit homicide, and if it could be proved to the Government that abortion truly is evil, then it might prohibit abortion completely and permanently.
It is known that the United States Constitution says that all men have the right to “Life and Liberty.” Therefore,if it can be proven that unborn babies are life, then they, by the same document whose 14th Amendment supposedly has the ability to sign away their lives, are protected and, if killed, born or unborn, are really civilly murdered.
The case of Roe v. Wade had some strikingly childish and ignorant arguments. For example: Texas, a state which was predominantly against Roe, said that life begins at the moment of conception and that therefore the unborn have as much right to legal protection as the born. The Supreme Court’s response was that that “ ʻdifficult questionʼneed not be resolved [and that man’s knowledge is not developed enough] to speculate the answer (Mayer).” This does not follow for two reasons. First,this is not a “difficult question.” The fact that life begins at the moment of conception had already been determined before 1973, and therefore, man’s knowledge was certainly “developed enough” to know this. Also, the principle by which men should really go is better safe than sorry. The example given in the above-cited article by Mr. Peter Kreeft is, if a hunter sees movements in the thicket, but is not sure if it is caused by another hunter or a deer,would it not be better not to shoot in case it is a hunter? By the same reasoning, if the
Supreme Court was right in saying that man does not know whether or not life begins at conception, would it not be advisable to preserve that unknown existence in the event that it is alive? However, that would be needless anyway because we today know for a science-proven fact that life absolutely does begin at the moment of conception (Mayer).
In addition to the above fact, the whole concept of “my body, my choice” can be easily disproved today by modern science. When unborn babies have been studied and examined, it has been shown that they have DNA, and, what is more, their own unique DNA. That makes them their own, separate, individual human beings with their own bodies. As well as this, pregnant women, as a general rule, do not have four arms, four legs, and two heads. So the pregnant woman cannot say“my body, my choice” because it is not her body!
Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, according to the Catholic Church, because when the Supreme Court decided that it was perfectly permissible for “Roe” to have an abortion if she so wished, they were either 1) obeying the Constitution but denying that the unborn fetus was a human, or 2) admitting that the unborn baby was really a living human but denying it the rights granted it in the U.S. Constitution.
A little-known fact about the case was that McCorvey (“Roe”) did later become a devout Catholic, left her highly-paid job at an abortion clinic, and eventually became a great leader in the pro-life movement, which shows how even the most stained souls can be drawn back to faith by God’s grace (Mayer).
In conclusion, Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional because the United States Constitution gives all living men and women the right to Life and Liberty. One who denies a woman an abortion is not violating her right to liberty, because liberty is not just doing what we want to, but doing the will of God freely. Roe v. Wade violated the right to Life because we know, and even the secular world had known for over half a century, decades before Roe v. Wade,that all human beings, born or unborn, are Life, created in the Image of God.
Adkins, Annamarie. “Janet Smith on the Right to Privacy.” EWTN Global Catholic Network: Catholic TV, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News, 17 Oct. 2008, www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/zjansmithpriv.HTM.
Carroll, Anne. Christ and the Americas. TAN Books and Publishers, 1997.
Mayer, R. (2017, February 21). Seven Important Facts to Know About Roe v. Wade | Catholic Answers. Retrieved from https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/sevenimportant-facts-to-know-about-roe-v-wade.
There is certainly quite a bit for the Pro- Life advocate to write about about lately. At the top of the list is New York’s absolutely horrendous new abortion legislation. These “laws,” allow the termination of a child’s life, EVEN AFTER A LIVE BIRTH! And, this type of legislation is spreading to other states, as we speak.
The outrage over this
kind of legislation is starting to gain attention. Charlie Daniels
(Country Rock) and other high profile people see this action for what it
is. And, they are speaking out.
The Catholic Church, and many mainline protestant churches, understand and teach that original sin needs to be removed from the soul if a person is to gain eternal life. Original sin is removed by the sacrament of Baptism. The sacrament of Baptism is denied the unborn by those who commit the act of abortion. The unborn are murdered in the womb before Baptism is possible and therefore, they are being denied admittance into heaven. The murder of the unborn is outrageous because of the eternal consequences to that soul.
The more people that understand this, and how abortion, a “civilly legal but morally reprehensible act” effects their own soul, the more the outrage will build.
Yes; this line of logic and of truth is not widely promoted and discussed. However, it is the plain and simple teaching of Christ in the Gospel. Baptism is necessary for Salvation.
The year is 1487. The place is a little settlement in what is now Mexico, known as Tenochticlan, capital city of the Aztec empire. It is here that the most brutal and vicious act ever known by man is performed: that of deliberately slaughtering helpless people. The Aztecs believed that in order to satisfy the wants of their gods, they were required to make a sacrifice of human life. Thus, in the year 1487, thousands of unwilling victims were dragged to the top of a pyramid, laid upon a flat ritual stone table, there to have their chests cut open, and their hearts ripped out. Their bodies were then thrown down from the top of the pyramid.
It sounds horrific and gruesome, and is repulsive just to think about it. Yet it sounds frighteningly familiar.
Now the year is 2011. The place is a little building on a street in Worcester, or Fitchburg, or any other city in the United States. Once again, it is here that the same brutal deed is occurring: taking the lives of thousands of unprotected people. In our own day, many Americans believe that in order to satisfy the wants of their own passions and desires, they must reject human life. Just like the Aztec human sacrifices, abortion slaughters thousands of people every day. Upon a flat operating table the victim is placed, there to be taken from its mother’s womb and its body to be thrown away. However, in this instance, the situation is much worse. The horrific crime of abortion requires the consent of not just a complete stranger to the defenseless victim, but that of the victim’s own mother. The victim, a tiny baby not yet born, is voiceless in the decision of its own life, relying on its mother to save it and keep it from all harm. Unfortunately, it is, not always, but often the mother herself who abandons her child to the knife of the abortionist.
The Effects of Abortion on Our Society
By Veronica
It was a crisp, clear January morning, the first week of the New Year. The cool air brought about by the mild winter made for a pleasant start for the new workday. Two Department of Public Works workers from Milford, Massachusetts set off in their garbage truck to collect trash going along their usual route. Halfway through with their daily routine, the men made a horrific discovery; one that would strike the state with tragedy and remorse. Continue reading
