Respect Life
October 7, 2007

Readings for the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Reading 1: Hab. 1:2–3; 2:2–4

Responsorial Psalm: Ps. 95:1–2, 6–7, 8–9

Reading 2: 2 Tim. 1:6–8, 13–14

Gospel: Lk. 17:5–10

Link to Readings

By Father Ray Ryland, Ph.D., J.D.

Today marks the Church’s annual observance of Respect for Life Sunday. Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities, recently announced the theme for this year: “The Infant In My Womb Leaped For Joy.” This year’s theme recalls the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin to her cousin Elizabeth.

Cardinal Rigali’s announcement made this observation. When Mary greeted Elizabeth at the Visitation, “There was no confusion as to what and who were nestled under their mothers’ hearts. Yet, two thousand years later, many well-educated people do not know—or claim they do not know—the truth about human life before birth.”

In our observance of Respect for Life Sunday, let’s think first about the scourge of disrespect for the sanctity of life, and then remind ourselves of the Church’s defense of the sanctity of life.

The war against life is most widespread in abortion, but there is growing sentiment for so-called “mercy killing” and for harvesting embryos to use their stem cells for research. Just around the corner on Fifth Street, incidentally, we have one of the world’s best sources of information about the growing practice of euthanasia here and abroad. It’s the headquarters of the International Task Force On Euthanasia. The director, Rita Marker, who is one of our parishioners, is a leading expert on the subject.

Roe vs. Wade

Though the battle for life had been going on for years, the U. S. Supreme Court opened the floodgates of destruction of human life in its decision, Roe vs. Wade, January 22, 1973.

At that time I was in my next to last year of law school. For one of my classes I did an extensive research paper on this decision. I found that many leading legal scholars who personally favored abortion agreed that the decision was purely ideological, not constitutionally based. It was in fact what a dissenting justice, Justice Byron White, called “an exercise of raw judicial power.” Justice Blackburn and those who concurred clearly wanted to make abortion legal. They achieved their goal by stretching to an astonishing length a so-called constitutional “right to privacy” so as to include abortion.

With all its other flaws, there is a basic contradiction in Roe vs. Wade. The majority opinion started out by saying that the key issue is, when does life begin? And they were right.

The majority said there is wide disagreement on this issue, so they would not presume to decide when life does begin. Then the majority did exactly what they said they would not do: They decided when life does begin. They said life begins when the baby is born (though they carefully refrained from calling it a “baby”). They said, in effect, that a mother has a constitutional right to have her baby killed at any time prior to the baby’s actually emerging from her body (though again without referring to the baby as “baby”).

When the court gave us Roe vs. Wade, they had on their desks an amicus curiae brief. (An amicus curiae [“friend of the court”] brief offers advice on a legal matter.) The brief was signed by 220 distinguished doctors, scientists, and professors. The brief’s stated purpose was to show “how clearly and conclusively modern science—embryology, fetology, genetics, perinatology, all of biology—establishes the humanity of the unborn child.” Modern science, the signatories declared, has shown conclusively that the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception.

Every Twenty Seconds . . .

Even earlier, in 1970, the scientific journal California Medicine commented on the growing debate over abortion. The editors of the journal spoke of the “curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception, and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.” The Supreme Court majority ignored all this evidence, and more, because they were determined to make abortion legal.

In 1992, in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the Court implicitly acknowledged the weakness of its reasoning in Roe vs. Wade. The majority declared, for two decades people have become accustomed to relying on “the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” (Think about that: “the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” The Church has long been telling us that acceptance of contraception leads inevitably to acceptance of abortion.) In this 1992 decision, the Court says, in effect, we gave legal sanction to killing unborn children in 1973. Since people are accustomed to having that right, we can’t take that privilege away from them. This is ideology, not constitutional law.

The magnitude of the slaughter of babies is so vast it’s mind-numbing. We no longer have exact statistics. Federal and state government agencies have stopped keeping count. We do know that far more than forty million babies have been killed since Roe vs. Wade declared open season on unborn children.

Bring it down to the present moment: Every twenty seconds a baby is being killed by abortion in this country. Every twenty seconds, moment after moment, day after day, year after year! And this takes no account of the millions of babies who are killed by contraceptives like the so-called “pill,” which is an abortifacient.

We all know this wholesale slaughter of babies has enormously cheapened human life in our culture, and with appalling results throughout the whole fabric of our common life.

All of the most serious problems we face are the result of this war on life. Several years ago, in his annual address to the diplomatic corps at the Vatican, John Paul II challenged the diplomats: “Respect life itself and individual lives: everything starts here. . . .” Make no mistake about it: Our quality of life can never improve until we stop killing babies.

“Abortion Always Constitutes a Grave Moral Disorder”

Now think about the Church’s defense of the sanctity of life.

In the middle of last century, a wise cardinal declared, “The first duty of the Church to the world is to tell the world the truth.” This naturally follows, of course, from the Church’s primary mission to proclaim Jesus Christ, who is “the way, and the truth, and the life.”

In his encyclical The Gospel of Life, in 1995, Pope John Paul II put abortion at the top of the list of crimes against God and humanity. The Holy Father recalled that for two thousand years the Church has consistently and uncompromisingly condemned abortion. Then he made this solemn declaration:

. . . by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who . . . dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion . . . willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder. . . . No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit. . . . [Abortion] is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church. (no. 62)

This is clearly an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church.

In 1998, the bishops of this country issued a statement entitled, “Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics.” The bishops pointed out that a nation is like an ecosystem. (We hear much about ecosystems today. They are systems formed by the interaction of organisms with their environment.) The bishops declared, “A people’s habits, belief, values and institutions intertwine like a root system. Poisoning one part will eventually poison it all. As a result, bad laws and bad court decisions produce degraded political thought and behavior, and vice versa. So it is with the legacy of Roe vs. Wade” (no. 9).

“Living the Gospel of Life” gives a catalogue of the tragic decline in the quality of regard for human life in this country. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe vs. Wade, said the bishops, is responsible for much of that decline.

Catholic Public Officials

The bishops acknowledged that Catholic public officials must be concerned about issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. But, said the bishops, “being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right—the right to life” (23).

Now remember the bishops are talking about responsibilities of Catholic public officials.
They seem to be saying, “no matter how many good qualities a politician or other public servant my have, no matter how worthwhile his other principles, he must be pro-life to deserve our support.” How do you interpret what the bishops are telling us?

In 1992, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued what they called “Doctrinal Note On Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life.” The Note stated, “John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life” (no. 4). Then, said the Note, John Paul added, for Catholic politicians, “as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or vote for them.” (“Impossible” means “strictly forbidden.” Think about it: the Church teaches that it is forbidden for Catholics to promote or vote for laws that support abortion.)

Never be taken in by politicians or other public officials who give us that old dodge, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I can’t force my beliefs on other people.” If the person who says that is sincere, he or she is so ignorant of the political process as to be unfit for public service. Every time a legislator answers a roll call, he is forcing his beliefs on some one or some group that disagrees with him. Every single statute, every single court decision, every ruling of every regulatory agency—every single one forces some people’s beliefs on other people. That’s how democracy works!

**************

In this battle for life, we must use our ballots to support the cause of life. We must give moral and financial support to pro-life causes and organizations. We must pray for the victims of abortion. We must pray for the babies who are killed, but we must also pray for those who consent to their killing and those who kill. Regardless of what he or she thinks, anyone who is involved in an abortion suffers greatly: All are victims who need our prayers. And if you and I stand idly by, doing nothing to oppose this holocaust, then we, too, are victims. All of us always stand in deepest need of the mercy of our Father.

In my opinion, the most frightening passage in all of Sacred Scripture is the final one-third of the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew. It’s the parable of the Last Judgment. Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, is the judge.

Speaking to those who are condemned forever, Jesus Christ tells them why they are condemned. They are condemned not just because of immoral actions, but also because of immoral inaction. “‘. . . I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me’”(Mt. 25:35-36). The condemned ask in astonishment, “Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?” (Mt.25:44)

Then comes Jesus’ ominous reply: “Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me” (Mt. 25:45). Clearly, Jesus tells us that wherever there is human need, He always will be there in the guise of those who are suffering. And He always expect us to do what we can to relieve that suffering.
Imagine our horror at the Last Judgment if Jesus said to us—to you and me:

“I was in the womb, and I was about to be aborted; what did you do?

“I was about to be torn to pieces; what did you do?

“I was about to be scalded to death; and you—what did you do?

“You would not act, you would not vote, to save me!”

May God forbid that you and I should ever hear Jesus say that to us!

Father Ray Ryland is CUF's spiritual advisor. He gave this homily at St. Peter's Catholic Church in Steubenville, Ohio.

Back to Homily Archive

Help us continue to provide great homilies. Click here to donate today.