Testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen before the Constitution
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.
 

  "My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from
California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have
cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and
one-half months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline
abortion. I am the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.
  Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived
alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was
early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he
would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be
here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is
to take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion." a
result of a job not well done.
  There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological
mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of
their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical
moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical
services and had me transferred to a hospital.
  I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much
hope for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies
smaller than I was have survived.
  A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my
life. I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster
care. I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.
  My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or
walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication
of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to
sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly
before I turned age four.
  I was legally adopted by my foster mother's daughter, Diana De Paul, a
few months after I began to walk. The Department of Social Services would
not release me any earlier for adoption.
  I have continued in physical therapy for my disability, and after a total
of four surgeries, I can now walk without assistance. It is not always
easy. Sometimes I fall, but I have learned how to fall gracefully after
falling 19 years.
  I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I
do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or
any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any
person conceived to be any of those things.
  I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life.
Only a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is
Sarah. She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her
diagnosis is not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The
abortionist, besides injecting the mother with saline, also injects the
baby victims. Sarah was injected in the head. I saw the  place on her head
where this was done. When I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the
other survivors, like Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak...
  Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when
the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at
two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when
an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no
difference. What are you seeing?  Many close there eyes...
  The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a
great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me
how it is the answer.
  There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our
state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is
not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is
shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.
  All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must
receive and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life."
 

-------------------------------------------
The Catholic Dispatch
[email protected]
http://www.catholic-dispatch.com
-------------------------------------------
 
 
 

        The United Nations has finally embraced a Commission on Religion to assist it in bringing the world together in this new world order. These recent developments reported in The New American, April 3rd, quotes the leaders of the United Nations who have projected what must done to have a "One-World Worship for all." According to these reports the UN needs all this for its "sustainable development." To bring the nations together in what is called "Gaia Hypothesis" ... which "holds that the earth itself is the deity which we should worship, and the UN is the instrument through which the earth goddess will dictate our forms of devotion." There is the "Gaia Atlas of Future Worlds" by Dr. Norman Myers who has been, as reported, "an adviser to the UN, the World Bank, the State Department and Rockefeller Brothers Fund." Here is set "forth the basic tenets of the Gaia religion." Here we have these various references to Gaia, Gaia Hypothesis, Gaia community and she is described as the earth goddess, and then there is the Gaia Religion and, Gaia Atlas of the future world. It is assumed that the readers understand.

The Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, definition reads: "Gaia or Gaea, the earth personified as a goddess, identified with the Roman goddess, Tellus, the goddess of the earth." So they are talking about the earth and it is feminist at that. This brings to the fore all that the feminists are promoting as they do not want a male deity and when the two thousand feminists met in the WCC [World Council of Churches] conference in Minneapolis in November, 1993, they brought up Sophia who replaced Jesus Christ, and she represented the female aspect of the Father. This is a part of the road they are traveling everywhere promoting themselves and this one world worship involving gaia. Somehow, apparently they expect to get that victory with them up the road and there is the second development which accompanies and parallels what is here being developed, when all the human race has their one world worship. This comes out of the expanding of dialogue in Latin America in January when the World Council Group there voted to have dialogue with the non-Christian religions because of the beauty that was in them and all of this would be helpful in uniting the religions in their constructive world programs. Then the WCC's own publication followed with an appeal to dialogue with all the religions that there are. For the UN to speak of the need of religion for its "sustaining development" corresponds to what is projected here to be formed eventually: a united religions organization structured in the same way. These two world bodies are synchronizing and combining their whole outreach to the end that their same goals will be obtained.

Here the whole human race is to come "together with all our fellow species and other members of the Gaian community." Norman Myers calls it a "new humanism, a new world view, a new planetary concern." This requires "a UN ministry of religion." The September-October 1994 issue of The Futurist magazine explains this development: "Religions are now headed toward what may eventually form a United Religions Organization (URO), structured in much the same way as the United Nations and sharing the same goals." To obtain this one-world worship which is projected, Kung explains "traditional religions have an ethical obligation to cease to exist." The emphasis is that the earth itself is the deity which we should worship, and that the UN is the instrument through which "the earth goddess will dictate all forms of devotion." But the report goes on indicating that these developments are on their way to fulfillment. Also quoted is the creating of a "world ethic for living sustainably." This began in 1991, and so the report continues, "In that same year globalist theologian Hans Kung was commissioned by UNESCO to create a 'Declaration of Global Ethic' which would impose a set of binding commitments upon religious leaders and institutions." To obtain this one-world worship which is projected, Kung explains "traditional religions have an ethical obligation to cease to exist." In his 1991 book, Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic, here is his quotation: "Any form of... church conservatism is to be rejected.... To put it bluntly: No regressive or repressive religion -- whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish or whatever provenance -- has a long-term future." The totalitarian nature of all this projection is seen in Kung's explanation that "there will be no room for religious diversity because, 'If ethics is to function for the well-being of all, it must be indivisible. The undivided world increasingly needs an undivided ethic.'" So he postulates, "Postmodern men and women need common values, goals, ideals, visions." When the UN was first formed in San Francisco, 1945, all were assured that it would not be involved in any religious act, representation or action. This report on "One World Worship" developed by the UN says "The crusade on behalf of the 'Global Ethic' began in earnest [on] January 25, 1993."

At that time, "a colorful collection of religious leaders assembled around the 'Peace Alter' at the UN's Temple of Understanding to inaugurate the 'Year of Inter-religious Cooperation and Understanding.'" In this report even the names of those present at the gathering are given to the public apparently for the first time. They were Daniel Gomez-Ibanez, a Hindu activist who is a trustee at the Millennium Institute (MI), along with MI executive director Gerald Barney, Gomez-Ibanez helped to organize the 1993 Parliament of World Religions at which time the "Declaration of Global Ethics" was unveiled and signed by scores of religious leaders. Where is that list for the world to see? It is clear here that the religious developments are parallel and combined in the WCC. The WCC has gone after this dialogue to secure the support of all these other religions since they cannot do it alone for the one world church and the one world government. The UN and the WCC were paralleling each other, with the WCC having their representatives and consultants in the UN moving in this direction, but since 1991 both are claiming the help of the other to assist them in their ultimate goal of this one world worship.

David Ramage, the chairman of this parliament that produced the Global Ethic document is quoted: "An alternative framework for religion to which people will be held accountable." When one looks at all this it is simply a totalitarian one world religious association for the one world worship. These leaders of the UN have finally reached the conclusion that their one world and the new world order cannot proceed until these religious hindrances, which now exist, are removed and all mankind joins in this one world worship. Global Ethics, which these religious powers unite, is nothing more than a world-socialist society and would require the end of traditional religions. When the Parliament of World Religions was held in Chicago, Gerald Barney [CN Ed: a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America] in a keynote address, is reported to have brought forward this Global Ethic as essential. Barney had been a spokesman for this development. The story says he "is a well-connected member of [the] ecological elite." This of course brings the whole idea to its disastrous end. The report says that "Barney disclosed to the Parliament of World Religions that 'an internationally famous, highly influential author on sustainable development told me, 'Religion must die.'" Then it is condemned as "the fundamental cause of virtually all social, economic, and ecological problems and much of the violence in the world." At last we get to the point of what is at stake. "That conference sought to indict 'fundamentalism' as a global menace." Since all of this is now associated and being developed for the benefit of the UN and its program of World Government, it is noticed that in the highest level of world operation, this is now scheduled for implementation. Barney realizes that he is confronted with a difficult program, but he indicated that "the only alternative to the destruction of religion is the 'reinterpretation and even rejection of ancient traditions and assumptions.'" Here there comes to light the realization that this is what is taking place in the ecumenical movement which constantly speaks of the united world church and of humanity.

Another quotation is given from Barney. "Five billion of us humans must prepare to die to 20th century ways of thinking and being.... Every person must learn to think like earth, to act like earth, to be earth." The current emphasis on ecology and the observance of Earth Day once a year has for the last 25 years actually had its consummation, as here explained, to make possible this one-world worship. To evidence that our own political leaders and those in the UN are aware of these things, the report here says, "Barney was the lead author of the Global 2000 report for the Carter administration; in anticipation of the Parliament of World Religions, he helped create an updated version of that document entitled, 'Global 2000 Revisited: What Shall We Do?' The appendix to that report contains an invitation for heads of state and religious leaders to convene in Thingvellir, Iceland, on January 1, 2000. There, in a tent, surrounding a stone alter, the gathered leaders would present handwritten covenants pledging loyalty to Gaia. This event would constitute what Barney calls 'a ritual death to and giving up of the old 20th century and its ways of thinking and being.'" These actions and projections reveal what now confronts the world, and deeply involved in this is the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement. The article says so: "following the 1993 Parliament of World Religions, 'Ecumenist religious leaders wasted no time in the effort to define 'authentic' religious belief." We are now down to December, 1994, five months back on the world stage.

Then "dozens of prominent religious leaders joined Paulos Mar Gregorius, former president of the World Council of Churches, on the banks of the river Ganges," where they composed a document which urged the spiritual "empowerment of the UN" and said, "The UN should have a 'Spiritual Cell' with highly evolved individuals of all religions and cultures in it. These highly evolved masters would be assisted by 'vast armies of spiritual adepts' who would preside over 'multi- religous International Academies' in every country of the world." At this time, where is any of this information that has been distributed to the American people through the Associated Press, The New York Times, etc? In all of this is "Karon Singh, president of the UN's 'Temple of the Understanding' and Father Louis Dolan, another organizer of the Parliament of World Religions. The foot soldiers of 'spiritual enlightenment' were joined by 1,200 religious and political officials from 52 countries." Who heard anything about these developments? Then again in "February 1994, 500 Christian and Jewish clergymen from 90 countries gathered in Jerusalem for the 'Religious Leadership in Secular Society' conference." Another quotation is given from Barney. "Five billion of us humans must prepare to die to 20th century ways of thinking and being.... At last we get to the point of what is at stake. "That conference sought to indict 'fundamentalism' as a global menace." Then the indictment accumulates its support announcing that they have 'to deal with religious extremism.' This note was taken up by Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, who urged leaders of the three monotheistic religions to 'weed out the extremes' from their respective faiths." Here the leader of the Anglican Church of England, saying this. There was also "an unprecedented media campaign" in the election of 1994 "against the 'Religion Right.'" The article says, they "were demonized as enemies of 'democracy' and 'civil liberties.'" But all of this has its own price. Benjamin Creme, a British Theosophist, claims to speak on behalf of Lord Maitreya, whom he says is the Christ and "is working with other members of the 'Spiritual Hierarchy' to bring about the consummation of human evolution." The elements which are reported here can now be seen in all that is going on and which more and more is heading up in the UN. This leads, they think, to a unity that will produce their One World Worship. These developments, accumulating over the last four or five years, have now reached such proportions that no true believer in Jesus Christ or lover of freedom or independence of the United States and other countries can let it proceed without vigorous opposition on every hand and in talk shows across the land. This commission, which the UN has made a part of its structure in New York, and its denunciation and rejection of fundamentalism has, as a part of it, the very elements which the Bible itself describes concerning the rise of the antichrist or the man of sin as described in Second Thessalonians, Chapter 2.

This One World Worship will provide what the Scriptures say, "Whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders." And in Revelation 13:3, 4, there is no doubt the whole world will worship the beast. The Christians, of course, who are faithful to the Word and have not been deceived, will never be a part of any such worship or support of Satan. Now that these activities are in full swing, if the Lord tarries, to take out His own, the year 2000 will be accompanied by the promotion and acceptance and the desperate need of this One World Worship. The worship of the earth, of which Satan is the god of this world, invites the revelation of Jesus Christ, when He will come to the Mount of Olives and bring all this to naught. Satan will be bound up and the Christians will glory in the Lamb who was slain for their eternal salvation. 'The appendix to that report contains an invitation for heads of state and religious leaders to convene in Thingvellir, Iceland, on January 1, 2000. There, in a tent, surrounding a stone alter, the gathered leaders would present handwritten covenants pledging loyalty to Gaia.

For such developments that are here revealed in the efforts of the UN to bring to them the religious support, there is a confession that without Satan's program with his agents serving him, there will be no world peace. Here, now comes, the knowledge of these developments, that the believers may truly understand the times, live and suffer for Christ, and wait for the glory that shall be revealed when Jesus comes. "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovest me before the foundation of the world." John 17:24.
Copyright 1995, The Christian News, 3277 Boeuf Lutheran Road, New Haven MO 63068. Used with permission. Dr. Carl McIntire is President of the International Council of Christian Churches.
 
 
 

   There was a small controversy that occurred in Spain in 1886 around a
book which was written to expose the errors of Liberalism. Naturally, such
a book caused a stir among those who believed those errors. The book was
finally approved and even praised by the Sacred Congregation of the Index
in Rome saying there was only "sound doctrine therein set forth with
solidity, order and lucidity, and without personal offense to anyone."
   As many times as the errors of liberalism have been condemned by the
Church in the last century, they have now become so prevalent that many
Catholics have come to accept much of this false mentality as being true.
One of the baneful results of this mentality actually has people hold an
opposite view of charity - condemning that which is really charitable,
beneficial and loving!
   This mentality is everywhere in society and not just in the Church. The
book is reprinted today (will be available on our website soon) and is
highly recommended reading for all Catholics. The false mentality is so
wide-spread today that one should not be too surprised to find, when
reading parts of this book, that some of their present views are in error
on some points. We must keep in mind always the infallible Church teaching
contained in the condemnation made by the Council of the Vatican in 1870 in
regard to the immutabilility of truth:

"If anyone says: it may happen that to doctrines put forward by the Church,
sometimes, as knowledge advances, a meaning should be given different from
what the Church has understood and understands, let him be anathema."

BACKGROUND OF CONTROVERSY AND EXCERPTS OF BOOK

    In 1886 there appeared in Spain a little work under the title
"Liberalism Is A Sin" (El Liberalismo es Pecado) by Fr. Felix Sarda y
Salvany, a priest of Barcelona and editor of a journal called "La Revista
Popular". The book excited considerable commotion. It was vigorously
assailed by the Liberals. A Spanish Bishop of Barcelona, of a Liberal turn,
instigated an answer to Fr. Sarda's work by another Spanish priest. Both
priest's books were then sent to Rome begging the Sacred Congregation of
the Index to put Fr. Sarda's work under the ban. The following letter, of
January 10, 1887, from the Sacred Congregation itself, explains the result
of its consideration of the two books:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
To The Most Rev. Jacobo Catala et Alboso,
Bishop of Barcelona

Most Excellent Sir:

The Sacred Congregation of the Index has received the denunciation of the
little work bearing the title "El Liberalismo es Pecade" by Don Felix Sarda
y Salvany, a priest of your diocese; the denunciation was accompanied at
the same time by another little work entitled "El Proceso del Integrismo,"
that is "a refutation of the errors contained in the little work El
Liberalismo es Pecado." The author of the second work is Fr. de Pazos, a
canon of the diocese of Vich.

Whereupon, the Sacred Congregation has carefully examined both works, and
decided as follows: In the first not only is nothing found contrary to
sound doctrine, but its author, Fr. Felix Sarda merits great praise for his
exposition and defense of the sound doctrine therein set forth with
solidity, order and lucidity, and without personal offense to anyone.

The same judgement, however, cannot be passed on the other work by Fr. de
Pazos, for in matter it needs corrections. Moreover his injurious manner of
speaking cannot be approved, for he inveighs rather against the person of
Fr. Sarda, than against the latter's supposed errors.

Therefore, the Sacred Congregation has commanded Fr. de Pazos, admonished
by his own Bishop, to withdraw his book, as far as he can, from
circulation, and in future, if any discussion of the subject should arise,
to abstain from all expressions personally injurious, according to the
precept of true Christian charity; and this all the more since Our Holy
Father Leo XIII., while he urgently recommends castigation of error,
neither desires nor approves expressions personally injurious, especially
when directed against those who are eminent for their doctrine and their
piety.
In communicating to you this order of the Sacred Congregation of the Index,
that you may be able to make it known to the illustrious priest of your
diocese, Fr. Sarda, for his peace of mind, I pray God to grant you all
happiness and prosperity and subscribe myself with great respect,

Your most obedient servant,
Fr. Jerome Scheri, O.P.
Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Index.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS OF ORIGINAL BOOK BY CHAPTER

1 What Begets Liberalism
2 What Liberalism Is
3 Liberalism A Sin
4 The Gravity Of The Sin Of Liberalism
5 The Degrees Of Liberalism
6 Catholic Liberalism Or Liberal Catholicism
7 Intrinsic Causes Of Liberal Catholicism
8 Shadow And Penumbra
9 Two Kinds Of Liberalism
10 Liberalism Of All Shades Condemned By The Church
11 The Solemn Condemnation Of Liberalism By The Syllabus
12 Like Liberalism But Not Liberalism, Liberalism but not Like It
13 The Name Liberalism
14 Liberalism And FreeThought
15 Can A Liberal Be In Good Faith
16 The Symptoms Of Liberalism
17 Christian Prudence And Liberalism
18 Liberalism And Literature
19 Charity And Liberalism
20 Polemical Charity And Liberalism
21 Personal Polemics And Liberalism
22 A Liberal Objection To Ultramontane Methods
23 The "Civilta Cattolica's" Charity To Liberals
24 A Liberal Sophism And The Church's Diplomacy
25 How Catholics Fall Into Liberalism
26 Permanent Causes of Liberalism
27 How To Avoid Liberalism
28 How To Distinguish Catholic From Liberal Works
29 Liberalism And Journalism
30 Can Catholics And Liberals Ever Unite
31 An Illusion Of Liberal Catholics
32 Liberalism And Authority In Particular Cases
33 Liberalism As It Is In This Country
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 19: Charity And Liberalism.

Narrow! Intolerant! Uncompromising! These are the epithets of odium, hurled
by Liberal votaries of all degrees at Ultramontanes. Are not Liberals our
neighbors like other men? Do we not owe to them the same charity we apply
to others? Are not your vigorous denunciations, it is urged against us,
harsh and uncharitable, in the very teeth of the teaching of Christianity
which is essentially a religion of love? Such is the accusation continually
flung in our face. Let us see what its value is. Let us see all that the
word charity signifies.

The catechism, that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic
theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it
is full of wisdom and philosophy. Charity is a supernatural virtue which
induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for
the love of God. Thus after God, we ought to love our neighbor as
ourselves, and this not in any way, but for the love of God and in
obedience to His law. And now what is to love? Amare est velle bonum,
replies the philosopher: "To love is to wish good to him whom we love." To
whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say,
not to this or that man only but to everyone. What is that good which true
love wishes? First of all supernatural good; then goods of the natural
order, which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the
phrase "for the love of God."

It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor, when displeasing him,
when opposing him, when causing him some material injury and even, on
certain occasions, when depriving him of life. All is reduced to this in
short: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose or humiliate him,
it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights
are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.

If it is shown, that in displeasing or offending our neighbor, we act for
his good, it is evident that we love him even when opposing or crossing
him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened
limb may none the less love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining
or by punishing them none the less do we love them. This is charity and
perfect charity. It is often necessary to displease or offend one person,
not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is
inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust
violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor
as is necessary for the defense. Such would be the case should one see a
highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at
least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an
act of true charity.
The good of all good is the divine good, just as God is for all men the
neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence the love due to a man inasmuch as
he is our neighbor ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to
our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to
offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by
the degree of our obligation to him. Charity is primarily the love of God,
secondarily the love of our neighbor for God's sake. To sacrifice the first
is to abandon the latter. Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of
God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of
God is a sin.

Modern Liberalism reverses this order. It imposes a false notion of
charity; our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards. By its
reiterated and trite accusations of intolerance, it has succeeded in
disconcerting even some staunch Catholics. But our rule is too plain and to
concrete to admit of misconception. It is: Sovereign Catholic inflexibility
is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our
neighbor when in his own interest, he is crossed, humiliated and chastised.
it is practiced in relation to a third party, when he is defended from the
unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of
error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true
light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror
and execration of all. It is practiced in relation to God when, for His
glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence all human
considerations, to trample under foot all human respect, to sacrifice all
human interests, and even life itself to attain this highest of all ends.
All this is Catholic inflexibility and inflexible Catholicity in the
practice of that pure love which constitutes sovereign charity. The saints
are the types of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes
of charity and religion. Because in our times there are so few true
inflexibles in the love of God, so also are there few uncompromisers in the
order of charity. Liberal charity is condescending, affectionate, even
tender in appearance, but at bottom it is an essential contempt for the
true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and of God. It is human
selflove usurping the throne of he Most High and demanding that worship
which belongs to God alone.

Chapter 20: Polemical Charity And Liberalism.

Liberalism never gives battle on solid ground; it knows too well that in a
discussion of principles it must meet with irretrievable defeat. It prefers
tactics of recrimination, and under the sting of a just flagellation
whiningly accuses Catholics of lack of charity in their polemics. This is
also the ground which certain Catholics, tainted with Liberalism, are in
the habit of taking.

Let us see what is to be said on this score. We Catholics, on this point as
on all others, have reason on our side, whilst Liberals have only its
shadow. In the first place a Catholic can handle his Liberal adversary
openly, if such he be in truth; no one can doubt this. If an author or a
journalist makes open profession of Liberalism and does not conceal his
Liberal predilections what injury can be done him in calling him a Liberal?
Si palman res est, repetitio injuria non est: "to say what everybody knows
is no injury." With much stronger reason to say of our neighbor what he
every instant says of himself cannot justly offend. And yet how many
Liberals, especially those of the easygoing and moderate type, regard the
expressions "Liberal" and "friend of Liberals," which Catholic adversaries
apply to them as offensive and uncharitable!
Granting that Liberalism is a bad thing, to call the public defenders and
professors of Liberalism bad is no want of charity.

The law of justice, potent in all ages, can be applied in this case. The
Catholics of today are no innovators in this respect. We are simply holding
to the constant practice of antiquity. The propagators and abettors of
heresy have at all times been called heretics as well as its authors. As
the Church has always considered heresy a very grave evil, so has she
always called its adherents bad and pervert. Run over the list of
ecclesiastical writers you will then see how the Apostles treated the first
heretics, how the Fathers, and modern controversialists and the Church
herself in her official language has pursued them. There is then no sin
against charity in calling evil evil, its authors, abettors and disciples
bad; all its acts, words and writings iniquitous, wicked, malicious. In
short the wolf has done to the flock and shepherd.

If the propagation of good and the necessity of combating evil require the
employment of terms somewhat harsh against error and its supporters, this
usage is certainly not against charity. This is a corollary or consequence
of the principle we have just demonstrated. We must render evil odious and
detestable. We cannot attain this result without pointing out the dangers
of evil, without showing how and why it is odious, detestable and
contemptible. Christian oratory of all ages has ever employed the most
vigorous and emphatic rhetoric in the arsenal of human speech against
impiety. In the writings of the great athletes of Christianity the usage of
irony, imprecation, execration and of the most crushing epithets is
continual. Hence the only law is the opportunity and the truth.

But there is another justification for such an usage. Popular propagation
and apologetics cannot preserve elegant and constrained academic forms. In
order to convince the people we must speak to their heart and their
imagination which can only be touched by ardent, brilliant, and impassioned
language. To be impassioned is not to be reprehensible, when our heat is
the holy ardor of truth.

The supposed violence of modern Ultramontane journalism not only falls
short of Liberal journalism, but is amply justified by every page of the
works of our great Catholic polemicists of other epochs. This is easily
verified. St. John the Baptist calls the Pharisees "race of vipers," Jesus
Christ, our Divine Savior, hurls at them the epithets "hypocrites, whitened
sepulchers, a perverse and adulterous generation" without thinking for this
reason that He sullies the sanctity of His benevolent speech. St. Paul
criticizes the schismatic Cretins as "always liars, evil beasts, slothful
bellies." The same apostle calls Elymas the magician "seducer, full of
guile and deceit, child of the Devil, enemy of all justice."

If we open the Fathers we find the same vigorous castigation of heresy and
heretics. St. Jerome arguing against Vigilantius casts in his face his
former occupation of saloonkeeper: "From your infancy," he says to him,
"you have learned other things than theology and betaken yourself to other
pursuits. To verify at the same time the value of your money accounts and
the value of Scriptural texts, to sample wines and grasp the meaning of the
prophets and apostles are certainly not occupations which the same man can
accomplish with credit." On another occasion attacking the same
Vigilantius, who denied the excellence of virginity and of fasting, St.
Jerome, with his usual sprightliness, asks him if he spoke thus "in order
not to diminish the receipts of his saloon?" Heavens! What an outcry would
be raised if one of our Ultramontane controversialists were to write
against a Liberal critic or heretic of our own day in this fashion!
What shall we say of St. John Chrysostom? His famous invective against
Eutropius is not comparable, in its personal and aggressive character, to
the cruel invectives of Cicero against Catiline and against Verres! The
gentle St. Bernard did not honey his words when he attacked the enemies of
the faith. Addressing Arnold of Brescia, the great Liberal agitator of his
times, he calls him in all his letters "seducer, vase of injuries,
scorpion, cruel wolf."

The pacific St. Thomas of Acquinas forgets the calm of his cold syllogisms
when he hurls his violent apostrophe against William of St. Amour and his
disciples: "Enemies of God," he cries out, "ministers of the Devil, members
of AntiChrist, ignorami, perverts, reprobates!" Never did the illustrious
Louis Veuillot speak so boldly. The seraphic St. Bonaventure, so full of
sweetness, overwhelms his adversary Gerard with such epithets as "impudent,
calumniator, spirit of malice, impious, shameless, ignorant, impostor,
malefactor, perfidious, ingrate!" Did St. Francis de Sales, so delicately
exquisite and tender, ever purr softly over the heretics of his age and
country? He pardoned their injuries, heaped benefits on them even to the
point of saving the lives of those who sought to take his, but with the
enemies of the faith he preserved neither moderation nor consideration.
Asked by a Catholic, who desired to know if it were permissible to speak
evil of a heretic who propagated false doctrines, he replied: "Yes, you
can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know
of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful according
to the degree of doubt which you may have in this regard." In his
"Introduction to a Devout Life," that precious and popular work, he
expresses himself again: "If the declared enemies of God and of the Church
ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us
to cry wolf' when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock, and in every
way and place we may meet him."

But enough. What the greatest Catholic polemists and saints have done is
assuredly a fair example for even the humblest defenders of the faith.
Modern Ultramontanism has never yet surpassed the vigor of their
castigation of heresy and heretics. Charity forbids us to do unto another
what we would not reasonably have them to do unto ourselves. Mark the
adverb reasonably; it includes the entire substance of the question.

The essential difference between ourselves and the Liberals on this subject
consists in this, that they look upon the apostles of error as free
citizens, simply exercising their full right to think as they please on
matters of religion. We, on the contrary, see in them the declared enemies
of the faith which we are obligated to defend. We do not see in their
errors simply free opinions but culpable and formal heresies, as the law of
God teaches us they are. By virtue of the assumed freedom of their own
opinions the Liberals are bound not only to tolerate but even respect ours;
for since freedom of opinion is in their eyes the most cardinal of virtues,
no matter what the opinion be, they are bound to respect it as the
expression of man's rational freedom. It is not what is thought, but the
mere thinking that constitutes the standard of excellence with them. To
acknowledge God or deny Him is equally rational by the standard of
Liberalism, and Liberalism is grossly inconsistent with itself when it
seeks to combat Catholic truths, in the holding of which there is as much
exercise of rational freedom, in the Liberal sense, as in rejecting them.
But our Catholic standpoint is absolute; there is but one truth, in which
there is no room for opposition or contradiction. To deny that truth is
unreasonable; it is to put falsehood on the level with truth. This is the
folly and sin of Liberalism. To denounce this sin and folly is a duty and a
virtue. With reason therefore does a great Catholic historian say to the
enemies of Catholicity: "You make yourselves infamous by your actions and I
will endeavor to cover you with that infamy by my writings." In this same
way the law of the Twelve Tables ordained to the virile generations of
early Rome: Adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas esto, which may be rendered:
"To the enemy no quarter."
Chapter 21: Personal Polemics And Liberalism.

"It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines," some may say,
"but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an
attack upon the persons of those who uphold it"? We reply that very often
it is, and not only proper but at times even indispensable and meritorious
before God and men.

The accusation of indulging in personalities is not spared to Catholic
apologists, and when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism have hurled
it at our heads they imagine that we are overwhelmed by the charge. But
they deceive themselves. We are not so easily thrust in the back ground. We
have reason and substantial reason on our side. In order to combat and
discredit false ideas, we must inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of
the multitude for those who seek to seduce and debauch them. A disease is
inseparable from the persons of the diseased. The cholera threatening a
country comes in the persons of the infected. If we wish to exclude it we
must exclude them. Now ideas do not in any case go about in the abstract;
they neither spread nor propagate from themselves. Left to themselves, if
it be possible to imagine them apart from those who conceive them, they
would never produce all the evil from which society suffers. It is only in
the concrete that they are effective; when they are the personal product of
those who conceive them. They are like the arrows and the balls which would
hurt no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer
and the gunner to whom we should give our first attention; save for them
the fire would not be murderous. Any other method of warfare might be
Liberal, if you please, but it would ;not be commonsense.

The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with
poisoned weapons in their hands. Their arms are the book, the journal, the
lecture, their personal influence. Is it sufficient to dodge their blows?
Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself.
When he is hors de combat, he can do no more mischief.

It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or
discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, to even
discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal
element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an
artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder and the bomb. It is thus
lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to
bring his habits into contempt, and drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is
permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious
vein or in badinage, by every means and ;method within reach. The only
restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never.
Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an i. As a
French writer says: "Truth is the only charity allowed in history," and, we
may add, in the defense of religion and society.

The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very title of their
works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, their first blow
was at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the
name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra
Fortunatum Manichoeum; Adversus Adamanctum; Contra Felicem; Contra
Secundinum; Quis fuerit Petiamus; De gestis Pelagii; Quis fuerit Julianus,
etc. Thus the greater part of the polemics of this great doctor was
personal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal, a handtohand
struggle with heretics as well as with heresy. What we here say of St.
Augustine we can say of the other Fathers. Whence do the Liberals derive
their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in
the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the
Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition, and
defend the faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When
it strikes let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it
wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of
waging war.
Chapter 22

A Liberal Objection To Ultramontane Methods.

The Liberals tell us that our violent methods of warfare against them are
not in conformity with the Pope's counsels to moderation and charity. Has
he not exhorted Catholic writers to a love of peace and union; to avoid
harsh, aggressive and personal polemics? How then can we Ultramontanes
reconcile the Holy Father's wishes with our fierce methods? Let us consider
the force of the Liberals' objection. To whom does the Holy Father address
these repeated admonitions? Always to the Catholic press, to Catholic
journalists, to those who are supposed to be worthy of the name. These
counsels to moderation and charity, therefore, are always addressed to
Catholics, discussing with other Catholics free questions, i.e., not
involving established principles of faith and morality, and do not in any
sense apply to Catholics waging a mortal combat with the declared enemies
of the faith.

There is no doubt that the Pope here makes no allusion to the incessant
battles between Catholics and Liberals, for the simple reason that
Catholicity is truth and Liberalism heresy, between which there can be no
peace, but wear to the death. It is certain by consequence, therefore, that
the Pope intends his counsels to apply to our family quarrels, unhappily
much too frequent; and that by no means does he seek to forbid us from
waging an unrelenting stiff with the eternal enemies of the Church, whose
hands, filled with deadly weapons, are ever lifted against the faith and
its defenders.

etc.,.....
 
 
 

------------------------------------------------
(c) 1998 Catholic Dispatch
cdia@catholic-dispatch
http://www.catholic-dispatch.com
REPRINT FREELY WITH THIS INFO
------------------------------------------------
 
 
 

RETURN

DIVINE MERCY THE