The Question of the Gosnell Trial

Please forward to the groups as you see fit.  Robert George’s article is very thought provoking and morally coherent for discussion purposes:



The Question of the Gosnell Trial
By  Kathryn Jean Lopez
The jury continues to deliberate. Do we?

There are important questions about just how Kermit Gosnell managed to snip necks and collect the remains of babies in jars around his filthy clinic. But the one we can not run away from is the one Robert P. George asked after watching the Fox News hour-long special on Gosnell this weekend: “How can it be that killing a baby inside the womb is perfectly acceptable while killing the very same baby (or even a baby that is a few days or even weeks younger) outside the womb is first-degree murder?”

George admits to being of a similar mindset as Gosnell:

Gosnell can’t understand how it can be that he is facing prison and possibly even the death penalty for killing the babies whose necks he snipped after they “precipitated” (i.e., emerged from the womb.) The women who came into his clinic came in to have the babies they were carrying killed. That was the point of the exercise. “Terminating” the babies’ lives was the service he offered and performed. Had he killed the babies while they were still in their mothers’ bodies (by, for example, inserting a needle to inject a poison into their tiny hearts) that would not have been a crime. He merely would have been assisting his patients in exercising what the Supreme Court deems a constitutional right. So why, he would like to know, is he being prosecuted for killing the same babies moments later after they precipitated? I must admit that I am no less puzzled by that question than Gosnell is.

Of course, George believes “we should not permit the killing of babies inside or outside the womb.” He writes:

A baby’s status as a precious member of the human family, possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity, does not depend on something as morally arbitrary as his or her location. But if we permit the Gosnells of the world to kill babies inside the womb, it seems odd to charge them with murder for killing them outside the womb. This is especially true in view of the fact that inducing delivery and then killing babies marked for “termination” eliminates the risk to women involved in the common abortion practice of dismembering babies inside the womb and removing their severed body parts.

Kirsten Powers writes:

One of the bodies discovered in the raid of the clinic was of a 22-week-old baby with a surgical incision on the back of her neck, which penetrated the first and second vertebrae. The only thing that would make her death illegal would be if Gosnell failed to finish her off in her mother’s womb.

Does that statement make you uncomfortable? Good.

What we need to learn from the Gosnell case is that late-term abortion is infanticide. Legal infanticide. That so many people in the media seem untroubled by the idea that 12 inches in one direction is a “private medical decision” and 12 inches in the other direction causes people to react in horror, should be troubling. Indeed, Gosnell’s defense attorney Jack J. McMahon has relied on the argument that Gosnell killed the babies prior to delivering them, therefore he is not guilty of murder. His exact words were: “Every one of those babies died in utero.”

Gosnell is accused of aborting infants past the 24-week limit in Pennsylvania. But those same deaths — if done in utero — would have been perfectly legal in many states with sometimes abused health exceptions, which can include the elastic category of “mental distress.”

. . .

Medical advances since Roe v. Wade have made it clear to me that late-term abortion is not a moral gray area, and we need to stop pretending it is. No six-months-pregnant woman is picking out names for her “fetus.” It’s a baby. Let’s stop playing Orwellian word games. We are talking about human beings here.

How is this OK? Even liberal Europe gets this. In FranceGermanyItaly, and Norway, abortion is illegal after 12 weeks. In addition to the life-of-mother exception, they provide narrow health exceptions that require approval from multiple doctors or in some cases going before a board. In the U.S., if you suggest such stringent regulation and oversight of later-term abortions, you are tarred within seconds by the abortion rights movement as a misogynist who doesn’t “trust women.”

She ends with:

 I cannot legitimately say I am a person who cherishes human rights—the animating issue of my life and a frequent topic of my writing—and remain silent about our country’s legally endorsing infanticide.

I simply have to believe we are better than this.

After 40 years of Roe, are we? When we were looking away from Gosnell? What are we going to do about this?



ZENIT—The World Seen From Rome 4/29/13

A Command From the Cross


Lectio Divina: Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year C

By Monsignor Francesco Follo

PARIS, April 26, 2013 ( – The gift of a new command: the law of Charity

“Love one another”. This command given to us by Christ is the “Magna Carta” of the People who, born from his pierced chest, are transformed by Love. Christ’s charity pushes us not only to acts of love, but also to a life of Charity in Him.

Unfortunately in ordinary speech and writing the meaning of the word “love”, giver of life, is diminished to that of a sentiment of sweet goodness or of a passion, often sexual. In the Gospel the word love is always characterized by the cross, which indicates a passionate goodness whose aim is not the “possession,” but the gift of oneself to the other person. When Christ says, “I love you”, the cross is included. He means the cross, the passionate gift of his own life. Doing so He shows us that pure and sincere love is a love that gives oneself freely.

Christ reveals his love in a passionate way: with his Passion and Death on the Cross. The love that Christ reveals and proposes with a “command” is told with delicate words and with the act of going to the Cross after having demonstrated it with the washing of the feet, the institution of the Eucharist, which fortifies and makes love stable, and many fraternal teachings.

Many times we have read and listened to the sentence of today’s Roman liturgy gospel: “I give you a new commandment: love one another as I’ve loved you” (Jn 13:33). To help our meditation I’d like to propose as a foreword a synthetic explanation of the terms.

First of all we must remember that for the Evangelist John, the term “commandment” means the word that reveals the love of God the Father. In the Greek text, he uses the word  “entole’ ” that means precept, advise, instruction and prescription. It is like the prescription that a physician writes to get the medicine needed to cure an illness.

For the rest of this article go to:­spatch

Father Kapaun – from discussion at the last Meeting


Here is the information on materials and life of Fr. Kapaun as discussed at the last meeting.  Paul, please spread the word to the Council about signing up for automatic e-mail updates on Council news through our Council website…it is a great way to keep up with events and spread the word!  Thanks.

Here is another Chaplain who may be on the road to sainthood as well.

Fraternally, Mike K.

Archbishop Chaput on Gosnell Trial, etc.


Unfortunately, this is a story that needs to be told…it has been sorely neglected by the mainstream media.  As Cardinal Dolan says, the Church must always work to reconcile those who have been involved in abortion, of course including many Catholics.  However, the horrors and prevalence of the unlimited abortion “right” needs to be reexamined in our society.  There is no morally coherent reason to distinguish between human children still in the womb and those who moments later have their eyes see the light of day…it is the same innocent human being regardless of a few inches of geography.


Please forward to the various groups as you see fit.  Thanks, Mike