1. In accordance with this statutes lawful and safety oriented purpose-s.

You shall not solicit a cross

member act of lude and or lascivious fornication in any way shape or form in as arduously a pre
cursor to mutations. You shall not reach for a penis in an act of lude and or lascivious intents.

(b). In as we test, when a man or young man, or boy commits in as we suggest a first question that
may arise to the areas of those accountable for an decision in after-lifes realms and other areas of
evaluations need.

(b)..In as we side accurate in our observation of legal remands in as I Supernal Authorities

expressly forbid, forbade and will see fit to exact a vengeance requisite and/or against any such
predication of stimulation or chemistry manipulation.

2. In accordance with this statutes lawful and safety oriented purpose-s. You shall not commit rectal
fornication in any way shape or form. In as a founding supportive measure this Statue calls for the
safety and enforcement of previously identified extra ordinary circumstances did arise as to revise
as credible measures in as such You shall not: by consensual terms or other terms engage in acts
of homosexuality likeness as did describe not to lay with man as with womankind. Noting as
forbidden to prostrate such-like areas of:

(a). rectum, anal cavitys, oral, mouth, tonsils, body areas, cavitys, bodily innards,, oral or and
mouths, mouthards, kidneys, livers, spleens, gizzards, brains, ears, faces, in accordance with this
measure as to protect and serve our/the interests of Provisionally accepted United States Doctrines
in Constitutionally defined Providence of Man and interest that of Nature and Natures Gods.

(c). In as such to side this provisional subparagraphs intends on so protecting and enforcing the
stately safety cordons in as never partake in as legible and noted as neither hyperbole exclamation
of conquest or neither identifies: a climax, an orgasm, of fore play or any such irregular activities, or
any sensual accord or fornications of rectal, anal, or oral appeasement in any such manner.

3. In so saying this legislation outlaws any infusion by Womankind as well of rectal and oral
pacification and emission of semen or other areas of the revisionary accord protects the safety of it
consensus by eliminating a degree of compounding mutations and said gateways of dangerous
outcomes and in so seeing complications that did arise.

(a).So by enacting on this intended legislations defining Womenkind too are bound by this Provisions
emphasis of unlawful and regarded counterpoint safety predications, no women, gal, child, assumed
identitys of a women, shall engage in any suchlike rectal orientations or anal pleasures and / or
tricks to regress men, or rectal body functions to allow a penis protrusions, an ejaculation, or a side
of hell so called advantages hereby.
(b). This referendum calls for the illegalization of any oral or mouthard predications of sexual acts or
any enticement of any such acts even if it was stated to be mutually consented to. In accordance
with this Chapter intended purpose, No person of age or not of age consented or not be appeased or
gratified by any oral or mouth oriented gratifications in so amended terms. The two offenders will be
subject to fines or imprisonment or both so stated.

. In so saying neither a loophole to concert nor a child, or boy or kids. This and prohibits any and
all likeness of rectal infusions to or in or on an Alien-like being-s, nor Extra-terrestrial-like being
hereby in any or what so ever an areas known as abominable to Mankind denoted:

(d). rectum, anal cavitys, oral, mouth, tonsils, body areas, cavitys, bodily innards,, oral or and
mouths, mouthards, kidneys, livers, spleens, gizzards, brains, ears, faces, in accordance with this
measure as to protect and serve our/the interests of Provisionally accepted United States Doctrines
in Constitutionally defined Providence of Man and interest that of Nature and Natures Gods.

(e). In as such to side this provisional subparagraphs intends on so protecting and enforcing the
stately safety cordons in as never partake in as legible and noted as neither hyperbole exclamation
of conquest or neither identifies: a climax, an orgasm, of fore play or any such irregular activities, or
any sensual accord or fornications of rectal, anal, or oral appeasement in any such manner.

5. In accordance with this statutes lawful and safety oriented purpose-s. You shall not taint, or plant
semen emission, fecal enzymes, or bodily fluids, or any what so ever concoctions in any like manner
in any way shape or form. In so identifying either a poisoning attempt and or in areas of foul play
intended:

(a).foods, beverages, snacks, facial creams, shampoos, pills, stash or pot or so called items of
anothers being personal use or a likeness.

(b) In as we side accurate in our observation of legal remands in as I Supernal Authorities expressly
forbid, forbade and will see fit to exact a vengeance requisite and/or against any such predication of
stimulation or chemistry manipulation.
(6). In accordance with this statutes lawful and safety oriented purpose-s. You shall not lay with any
animal or beast. In accordance to this paragraph you shall give seed nor appeasement, nor receive
an animal ejaculation or protrusion of penis of any animals beasts, pets, nether boast or incite a
need for attention. If this Provisionary safety oriented purposes to the lawful and supposed efforts to
protect and serve its constituencys is not enough to remove the temptations; the subjects that of
mitigated circumstances likes: Government obscurity in Gods Existences, or they who were lead to
believe no God or atheist contentions to believe, or they who not had a relationship with the Lord, or
the fantasy seekers ambitions the subjects that of hell or regression repercussions that may result
cannot be ignored. In accordance with this Statutes intention to protect and serve the wellbeing of
the Communities, a notable fine-s or lengthy incarceration term will be instituted hereas.

(7).In as such to describe you are not to lay with an Alien or Extra-terrestrial within your capabilitys
to deter an advance. If such an unison did transpire the police department or Sheriff department in
Accordance with this Sup-paragraphical are to take a report, and insure the victim of their freedom
and rights not to be compromised. In furtherance a subsidized nurse and medical checkup will be
invited in as such a way as to cover all costs that may arise should an anomalous or other finding be
given. In as we see this Provision calls for the Police and Sheriff Departments to provide care and
medical assistance in a times of new challenges and awareness where space traveler reported inter
actions may occur.

(8). So in accordance with this Chapters safety oriented revision oriented drafts, in as we re-situate
an vice or virtue element in these areas of 2016 amending principles in accorded respects for other
authors efforts to believes a policy perspective in a Universal Laws An noted Drafts and our the
peoples Manuscripts. When the presences of a noteworthy likeness to what is being touted as a
Supernal Creators Presences, and as well stipulates worthy details of applicable policys in as we
seated.

Our subjects that of an more suitable Accorded revision-ment of safety oriented and whos it may
be to consider in its own rights to inscribed a decencys regard for the Laws of Nature and Natures
Gods, The New Accorded Laws a Variance of a Vice and Virtue Drafts hereas either our U S
Attorneys can amend appendages and or as we stipulated our personally having a relationship with
a Deitys associated to Supernal and Omnipotent classifications.

In so saying by whose authorities a draft and or a submittal in areas Universal Laws can use a Vise
and Virtue supplement and in so recognized high lights of Biblical points of references in as we see
may be ridiculed at first, in as may be concerted are still young or believes still coming of age and
ten years further ahead areas of built on the shoes of predecessors may not be the worst ideas
when in a times in as reported Cosmos machines and evilest Lucipherian-like reported Reptilian-like
saucer crews may be believed to be involved in a breach of U S. International, and Celestial areas of
known to be a Gods oath to say.

Having seen the light and having witnessed the vision of Gods in my very own regard for a record
and in accordance with this measure as to protect and serve the our/the interests of they not a
Presidents who does fornicate a rectal answer to call members of secret service to fight against my
wellbeing in as we the police in our areas are refuted to had tried to bust/kill/ catch/ us twenty times
a letter, the need for parity in as Provisionally accepted United States Doctrines in Constitutionally
defined Providence of Man and interest that of Nature and Natures Gods cant be ignored. So
stated.

(a) In as we side accurate in our observation of legal remands in as I Supernal Authorities

expressly forbid, forbade and will see fit to exact a vengeance requisite and/or against
any such predication of stimulation or chemistry manipulation.

4.In as we say these Provisional amendments where as we see and set aside these areas as we
noted in accordance to the outcome and safety oriented purpose of laws in place, in as we
understand why safety consensus can neither be denied or repealed the legitimate areas of this
referendums propensity and long term effect here by, supersedes and strikes down Supreme
Courts previous assertions in as we discovered anomalous objectives by the Presidents friend
Stevens regard for protecting and defending those who may have politely errd, in as we see the
dreaded integers supposedly associated with shape shift aliens and said thought to be reptilians
who rape and manifest by way of rectal insemination behaviors, rapes, manipulations, and as
reasonable to predicate the changes in policy here noted.

5. In accordance with this statutes lawful and safety oriented purpose-s. You shall not taint, or plant
semen emission, fecal enzymes, or bodily fluids, or any what so ever concoctions in any like manner
in any way shape or form. In so identifying either a poisoning attempt and or in areas of foul play
intended:

(a).foods, beverages, snacks, facial creams, shampoos, pills, stash or pot or so called items of
anothers being personal use or a likeness.

(b) In as we side accurate in our observation of legal remands in as I Supernal Authorities expressly
forbid, forbade and will see fit to exact a vengeance requisite and/or against any such predication of
stimulation or chemistry manipulation.
2..In as we side accurate in our observation of legal remands in as I Supernal Authorities expressly
forbid, forbade and will see fit to exact a vengeance requisite and/or against any such predication of
stimulation or chemistry manipulation.

(b) ny and all previously known decisions. In sfoods, beverages, snacks, facial creams or a
likeness.

(c) or any protractible units of a penis enlargement or resize not allowed means death
sentence remands cannot by reversed.

Federal Institution Antics, Prisoner of War Commanding Officers, Inter-planetary Monitoring Device,
In our atmosphere, Inner Crusts of Vehicles, Saucer Manipulations, Cosmos and or Planetary
Creation Mechanisms , Each and every accorded beings Cosmos, r any lustful regarded approach.

(a). In recognition of these above and safety oriented- illegal and immoral acts shall define above, 1.
And 2. You shall neither Fornicate and or lie with Mankinds, Womankinds, inferior dna knowledge
abuses not, nor any children or Alien beings, or Extra-terrestrial like or Star persons, beings.

(b) In as we described, You shall not if as so ever, shape shift or change your appearance in every
esoteric may ridicule neither a rape, an anal rape jobs, on dry land, its noted firmaments whether it
be atmospheric dimensional, nor Subsoil United States of America or any areas, regions, invisible
realms in space and / or space.

This means you shall not suchly ridicule this paragraphs intended purpose to protect and serve the
laws of Natures Gods as I see. In so defining: you shall not as engage, solicit nor entertain any such
acts a rectal insemination act, fornications to another Man, Men, Mankinds, Child-like, ibeing,
whether it be an Extra terrestrial type origins, or Mankind and even women kinds or facsimiles in any
or as suchly describing:
 (a) Protractions of any size dimensions of your penis or likeness, in any areas such as: rectal or
anal fornications, in any chemistry areas known to demean or counter our natural-like
evolution intending a phase advancement or Gods to say right authorities.

. accurate in our observation of legal remands in as I Supernal Authorities expressly forbid, forbade
and will see fit to exact a vengeance requisite and/or against any such predication of fornications to
another being, whether it be an Extra terrestrial type origins, or Mankind and even women kinds or
facsimiles in any or as suchly describing:

4.In as we say these Provisional amendments where as we see and set aside these areas as we
noted in accordance to the outcome and safety oriented purpose of laws in place, in as we
understand why safety consensus can neither be denied or repealed the legitimate areas of this
referendums propensity and long term effect here by, supersedes and strikes down Supreme
Courts previous assertions in as we discovered anomalous objectives by the Presidents friend
Stevens regard for protecting and defending those who may have politely errd, in as we see the
dreaded integers supposedly associated with shape shift aliens and said thought to be reptilians
who rape and manifest by way of rectal insemination behaviors, rapes, manipulations, and as
reasonable to predicate the changes in policy here noted.
2.Leviticus 18: In accordance with this statutes lawful and safety oriented purpose-s, if I ever see a
man either lay with another man, or boy or kids or reach for a penis. accurate in our observation of
legal remands in as I Supernal Authorities expressly forbid, forbade and will see fit to exact a
vengeance requisite and/or against any such predication of fornications to another being, whether it
be an Extra terrestrial type origins, or Mankind and even women kinds or facsimiles in any or as
suchly describing:

(b) ; body areas, cavitys, bodily innards,, oral or and mouths, mouthards, kidneys, livers,
spleens, gizzards, brains, ears, faces, foods, beverages, snacks, facial creams or a likeness,
or any protractible units of a penis enlargement or resize not allowed means death sentence
remands cannot by reversed.

(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h) ; body areas, cavitys, bodily innards,, oral or and mouths, mouthards, kidneys, livers,
spleens, gizzards, brains, ears, faces, foods, beverages, snacks, facial creams or a likeness,
or any protractible units of a penis enlargement or resize not allowed means death sentence
remands cannot by reversed.

like evil doers an sentencing decree of say: eight years community service or repeat offender
twenty three years a work camp stay or execution remands.
2. In an effort to protect and serve, the people, beings, E Ts from predators ambitions deceptive
phony people, this Provisional is intended to clarify and prohibit all said attire where deceptive
decoys undergo may deceive dress or alure as at another man by camouflage or allure by femenite
areas, in as I say such as employ Dated 17 July 2016 U S Earths areas Supernal Authoritys
Omnipotent regarded DESBIC Inclusionary Clauses for Universal Law in orders we know are
certified accurate in our observation of legal remands in as I Supernal Authorities expressly forbid,
forbade and do care to exact a vengeance requisite against any and all manner shall either be
sentenced to eight years community service or repeat offender twenty three years a work camp stay
or execution remands.

(i) of rectal or anal fornications,

(j) opening innards and cumming,

(k) barreling or using a penis in any mouthard, kidneys, livers, spleans, gizzards, brains, ears,
faces, foods, beverages, snacks, facial creams or a likeness, or any protractible units of a
penis enlargement or resize not allowed means death sentence remands cannot by
reversed.

/Mans (Steven Van Schofer and or Steven Van Arroyos is an example;

2.. In as such never to see or set up any predicate defiant offenders assumed identity as if to
stipulates I say never allowed any such enticement, allure property, pedophile deeder, prime a
pussy, by any false identity, of Me s ors Steven Van Schofer, or any being or Man, or Woman-like
decoy-s, fake -Man or Aliens, E T S, or a phantoms, or any metal decoys or Reptilian shape shifter
assumed identities, or as we notice most wanted fugitive Charles Savage Schofer mass-murderer,
abuses of ill begotten Cosmos machines, conniver, torture to gruesome, everybody here familiar
embodiment/or spirit Criminal mass-murder-with genocide stipulated.

In so saying an points of reference given in a said Torahs , "Israel's God condemned this behavior
in EVERY culture in which it was mentioned(!): ANE (i.e. Sodom), Canaanite and Egyptian (i.e. Lev
18:3), Israelite (Lev 18, 20), Roman (Rom 1), Hellenistic (I Tim 1.9), and Greek (I Cor 6.9)." [6]

As for adultery, Moses forbade it entirely, as esteeming it a happy thing that men should be
wise in the affairs of wedlock; and that it was profitable both to cities and families that children
should be known to be genuine. He also abhorred mens lying with their mothers, as one of the
 greatest crimes; and the like for lying with the fathers wife, and with aunts, and sisters, and
sons wives, as all instances of abominable wickedness. He also forbade a man to lie with his
wife when she was defiled by her natural purgation: and not to come near brute beasts; nor to
approve of the lying with a male, which was to hunt after unlawful pleasures on account of
beauty. To those who were guilty of such insolent behavior, he ordained death for their
punishment. (Antiquities, 3:12.1)[16]

Also,
1. You shall not commit pederasty, sexual activity involving a man and a boy.

you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall
not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born. -
Didache 2:2 (A.D. 90).

...to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest
we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that
almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And
for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit
unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation...And there are some who prostitute even
their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and
they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods. - Justin Martyr, First Apology 27 (A.D. 151).

But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature, or of any unlawful practice; for such
are enmity to God. For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature, as is also that with brute beasts. But
adultery and fornication are against the law; the one whereof is impiety, the other injustice, and, in a
word, no other than a great sin. But neither sort of them is without its punishment in its own proper
nature. For the practicers of one sort attempt the dissolution of the world, and endeavor to make the
natural course of things to change for one that is unnatural; but those of the second son the
adulterers are unjust by corrupting others marriages, and dividing into two what God hath made
one, rendering the children suspected, and exposing the true husband to the snares of others. And
fornication is the destruction of ones own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of
children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of
virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: Thou shalt not lie with
mankind as with womankind. For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they
have wrought abomination. - Methodius, bishop of Olympus and Patara (AD 260-312), Commentary
on the sin of Sodom.

since certain men, seized by diabolical incitement practice among themselves the most
disgraceful lusts, and act contrary to nature: we enjoin them to take to heart the fear of God and the
judgment to come, and to abstain from suchlike diabolical and unlawful lusts, so that they may not
be visited by the just wrath of God on account of these impious acts, with the result that cities perish
with all their inhabitants. For we are taught by the Holy Scriptures that because of like impious
conduct cities have indeed perish, together with all the men in them. [90]

1. 1: For, instructed by the Holy Scriptures, we know that God brought a just judgment upon
those who lived in Sodom, on account of this very madness of intercourse, so that to this
very day that lands burns with inextinguishable fire. By this God teaches us, in order that by
means of legislation we may avert such an untoward fate. Again, we know what the blessed
Apostle says about such things, and what laws our state enacts. Wherefore it behoves all
who desire to fear God to abstain from conduct so base and criminal that we do not find it
committed even by brute beasts. Let those who have not taken part in such doings continue
to refrain in the future. But as for those who have been consumed by this kind of disease, let
them not only cease to sin in the future, but let them alos duly do penance, and fall down

2.

3.

4. before God and renounce their plague [in confession] to the blessed Patriarch; let them
understand the reason for this charge, and, as it is written, bring forth the fruits of
repentance. So may God the merciful, in abundance of pity, deem us worthy of his blessing,
that we may all give thanks to him for the salvation of the penitents, who we have now
bidden [to submit themselves] in order that the magistrates too may follow up our action,
[thus] reconciling to themselves God who is justly angry with us.
116 Punishment of the Unchastity that occurs against Nature.

Moreover, if a human being commits unchastity with an animal, [or] a man with a man, [or] a woman
with a woman, they have forfeited life, and, according to the common custom, they shall be banished
from life unto death by fire.

So here are 76 things in Leviticus, with verse references, that are banned. Its
by no means exhaustive. As an extension of original list, Im going to try to include the
stated penalties for each act. Consider which of these you (if youre of such persuasion)
think still apply, and which we get a pass on, and why you believe so.

Some of the items specify the penalty or punishment. Many fall back to Leviticus
4 and 5, which lists, based on who commits the sin and whether they knew it was a sin
or not, what sort of sacrificial offering animal needs to be given up.

The text except for whats in [square brackets] is from here.

1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to

God (2:11) [Normal penalty.]

2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God(2:13) [Normal penalty.]

3. Eating fat (3:17) [That ones a lasting ordinance for the generations to
come, wherever you live. All fat is to be saved for offerings to God. Normal penalty.]

4. Eating blood (3:17) [Normal penalty]

5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing youve witnessed (5:1) [They

will be held responsible.]

6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing youve been told about (5:1)
[Which sounds like hearsay. At any rate, they shall be held responsible.]

7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2) [NIV translates this as touching the

carcass of an unclean animal. So if Rover dies, or youre a worker in a pork plant, youre
in trouble here. Normal penalty.]

8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4) [Even if you dont realize you have. Normal
penalty.]

9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2) [Return the

item and a 20% penalty, plus normal penalty.]

10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3) [Return the item and a 20%
penalty, plus normal penalty.]

11. Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1) [God will smite you.]

12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6) [You will die and God will be
angry at everyone. May only apply to the priesthood.]

13. Tearing your clothes (10:6) [You will die and God will be angry at everyone.
May only apply to the priesthood.]

14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this un) (10:9)
[You will die. May only apply to the priesthood.]

15. Eating an animal which doesnt both chew cud and has a divided
hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7) [You will be unclean.]
16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8)
[You will be unclean.]

17. Eating or touching the carcass of any seafood without fins or

scales (11:10-12) [You will be unclean.]

18. Eating or touching the carcass of eagle, the vulture, the black
vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned
owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the
cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the
stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19) [You will be
unclean.]

19. Eating or touching the carcass of flying insects with four legs, unless
those legs are jointed (11:20-22) [You will be unclean.]

20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for
cats) (11:27) [You will be unclean. Also applies to touching their carcasses.]

21. Eating or touching the carcass of the weasel, the rat, any kind of
great lizard,the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the
chameleon (11:29) [You will be unclean.]

22. Eating or touching the carcass of any creature which crawls on

many legs, or its belly (11:41-42) [You will be unclean.]

23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4) [Actually,
shes unclean a week, and then another 33 days. Then she has to offer up a sacrifice.]

24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5) [Actually,
shes unclean a week, and then another 66 days. Then she has to offer up a sacrifice.]

25. Having sex with your mother (18:7) [The penalty for all the sexual sins in ch.
18 is that the participants are to be cut off from their people. Some have additional
penalties mentioned below.]

26. Having sex with your fathers wife (18:8) [In 20:11, both are to be put to
death.]
27. Having sex with your sister (18:9) [In 20:17, if you marry her, both are to be
publicly removed from their people]

28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)

29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)

30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13) [In 20:19, he will be held
responsible for the dishonor.]

31. Having sex with your uncles wife (18:14) [In 20:20, they are held responsible
for the dishonor, they will die childless]

32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15) [In 20:12, both are to be put to
death.]

33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16) [In 20:21, if you marry her, they
will be childless.]

34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or
granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17) [No specific penalty given, but per
20:14 if you marry both of them, all three of you are to be burned in fire.]

35. Marrying your wifes sister while your wife still lives (18:18)

36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19) [15:24 simply says the
man will be considered unclean for 7 days. In 20:18, Both of them are to be cut off from
their people]

37. Having sex with your neighbours wife (18:20) [In 20:10, both are to be put
to death.]

38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21) [In 20:2, the person is
to be stoned to death.]

39. Having sex with a man as one does with a woman (18:22) [In 20:13, both
are to be put to death.]
40. Having sex with an animal (18:23) [In 20:15, both are to be killed.]

41. Making idols or metal gods (19:4) [No penalty given.]

42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9) [To be left for the poor. No penalty
given.]

43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10) [To be left for
the poor. No penalty given.]

44. Stealing (19:11) [No penalty given.]

45. Lying (19:11) [No penalty given.]

46. Swearing falsely on Gods name (19:12) [No penalty given.]

47. Defrauding your neighbour (19:13) [No penalty given.]

48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these
days) (19:13) [No penalty given.]

49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14) [No penalty given.]

50. Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the

rich (19:15) [No penalty given.]

51. Spreading slander (19:16) [No penalty given.]

52. Doing anything to endanger a neighbours life (19:16) [No penalty given.]

53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18) [No penalty given.]

54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) [No penalty given.]

55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19) [No penalty given.]

56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19) [No penalty given.]
57. Sleeping with another mans slave (19:20) [Due punishment, but not death,
just a ram for sacrifice.]

58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23) [No penalty
given. May only apply to fruit trees planted in Israel.]

59. Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26) [No
penalty, but in 20:6 they will be cut off from their people by God. In 20:27, they are to
be stoned to death.]

60. Trimming your beard (19:27) [No penalty given.]

61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27) [No penalty given.]

62. Getting tattoos (19:28) [No penalty given.]

63. Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29) [The land will turn to
prostitution. No other penalty given.]

64. Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31) [No penalty given.]

65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32) [No penalty given.]

66. Mistreating foreigners the foreigner residing among you must be treated as
your native-born (19:33-34) [No penalty given.]

67. Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36) [No penalty given.]

68. Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9) [Death, as noted.]

69. Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13) [No
penalty given.]

70. Entering a place where theres a dead body as a priest (21:11) [I.e., if youre
a priest. No penalty given.]

71. Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28) [May
apply only to sacrificial animals. No penalty given.]
72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3) [No penalty given.]

73. Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14) [Death.]

74. Inflicting an injury; killing someone elses animal; killing a person must
be punished in kind (24:17-22) [Killing someone means death. Injuring someone
mean punishment in kind. Killing or injuring anothers animal means punishment in
kind.]

Two quotations whose predictions have come true:

"The Supreme Court ruling to strike down the nation's anti-sodomy laws
combined two of the most contentious issues on the political landscape
by grounding the liberty of gays in the same legal turf that sustains the
right to abortion -- and it directly points to yet another clash in the
culture war: a fight over gay marriage." David Von Drehle Washington
Post. 1

"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest,

prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and
obscenity ... every single one of these laws is called into question by
today's decision. ... If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is
'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that
conduct ... what justification could there possibly be for denying the
benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty
protected by the Constitution?" Excerpt from the dissent by Justice
Antonin Scalia in the Lawrence v. Texas case before the U.S. Supreme
Court in 2003. 2
Two notes concerning terminology:

We discourage the use of the term "gay marriage" because the word
"gay" is ambiguous. It is sometimes used to refer to male gays only,
and sometimes to gays and lesbians together. Also some same-sex
marriages are composed of one or two bisexuals. We recommend the
term "same-sex marriage" or its acronym "SSM." These are more
inclusive and accurate terms. A Google search for "same-sex marriage"
on 2014-MAY-28 found 102 million hits; "gay marriage" found 9 million
hits. As same-sex marriage becomes more popular in the U.S., we
expect that SSM will be replaced simply by the term "marriage."

The terms "sodomy" and "sodomite" were derived from a story in the
Bible. Genesis 19 refers to an incident in the city of Sodom where a
group of male adults unsuccessfully attempted to gang rape two
visiting angels as an act of humiliation and rejection. Other biblical
references to Sodom show that the "sin" of the city was related to its
poor treatment of strangers, the poor, and needy. One exception is a
reference to Sodom in Jude which appears to imply that the "sin" was
bestiality -- sexual activity by a human with a different species. This
was because the men of Sodom attempted to rape two angels, who
are non-human.

However, the incident has been interpreted by many conservative

Christian theologians as a homosexual act motivated by the men being
sexually attracted to other males. These theologians teach that the
men's behavior was punished by God who destroyed the city and
exterminated all of the newborns, babies, children, adults, and
elderly. This passage in Genesis is often used to condemn all same-
gender sexual acts, including consensual sexual activities in private by
a loving, committed same-sex couple. Over time, "sodomy" was
defined in many different ways, to include anal sex and oral sex.

Overview:

Laws prohibiting same-gender sexual behavior are commonly called "sodomy

laws." They have taken many forms in different jurisdictions. Some criminalize
certain behaviors by opposite-gender as well as same-gender couples. It
would not be much of an exaggeration to say that every sexual act except
sexual intercourse between a married couple using the missionary position in
the dark has been criminalized in at least one U.S. state at one time during its
history.

These laws and regulations can be traced back at least to biblical times. In
England, homosexual behavior was originally handled in the ecclesiastical
courts. By 1791 CE, when the original 13 states ratified the Bill of Rights, they
all treated sodomy as a criminal offense. By 1961, the U.S. military, and all of
the states and territories maintained "sodomy" laws on their books -- some
dating back more than a century. Some were worded so generally that they
would even criminalize consensual oral sex in private between an opposite-
sex married couple as a "crime against nature." In 1961, Illinois became the
first American jurisdiction to repeal its sodomy law.

In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a Georgia case that criminalized
same-sex behavior and decided that the state's law was constitutional. They
decided that a state has the constitutional authority to criminalize what it
considered to be immoral behavior.

According to the Associated Press, sodomy laws remained on the books in 13

states as of the middle of 2003. "Sodomy" was illegal for everyone -- gay and
straight -- in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. In addition, four contiguous states, Kansas,
Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas, criminalized certain forms of private,
consensual sexual behavior between persons of the same gender, but
permitted them if performed by a man and woman.

During the first half of 2003, the U.S. Supreme court studied the
constitutionality of sodomy legislation. In theLawrence v. Texas case, they
reviewed a Texas law. It criminalized certain sexual behavior by same-sex
couples even though the same activities are quite legal if done by opposite-
sex couples. In a ground-breaking decision, the Court decided on 2003-JUN-
26 that adults are free to engage in private consensual sex without
government oppression. They placed limits on the ability of state governments
to legislate sexual morality. The sodomy laws in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma
and Texas, were declared unconstitutional. Legal experts believe that the
sodomy laws in the nine other states are now also null and void. Laws in a few
states which criminalize fornication (sexual intercourse by unmarried
persons), adultery, and other behaviors may also be overturned by this ruling
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death."

75. Selling lan

d permanently (25:23) [No penalty given.]

76. Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42) [No penalty given.]

Quite the list. Not many Christians today would go for all of those but most would
consider some of them as laudable commandments still applicable today.

Changes in legislation since the 1960s:

Prior to 1962, the U.S. military, and all of the states and territories had
maintained "sodomy" laws on their books -- some dating back more than a
century. Some were worded so generally that they would even criminalize
consensual oral sex in private between a married couple. The penalties for
violating sodomy laws -- often called a "crime against nature" were often
severe. In 1961, Illinois "adopted the American Law Institute's Model Penal
Code, which decriminalized adult, consensual, private, sexual conduct.
They were the first U.S. jurisdiction to repeal its sodomy law.1,2

During the 1970s, laws were repealed in additional 18 states and two
territories: American Samoa, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Guam, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont,
Washington state, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Alaska, Nevada, North
Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands followed suit during the 1980s. Three
more jurisdictions, the District of Columbia, Nevada, and Rhode Island did
so during the 1990s. Arizona repealed its law in 2001.

In the early 1990s, many conservative Christian individuals and groups,

including local organizations, state-wide groups, independent churches,
the National Association of Evangelicals, the Christian Coalition actively
campaigned to either defeat or overturn gay rights legislation. Sometimes,
the Roman Catholic Church and conservative black pastors joined the battle
against equal rights and protections for gays. According to author Gary
Comstock: "The leaders of this movement advocated a codification of
antihomosexual laws not unlike that of colonial New England. Some even
discussed, and others called for, the reinstitution of capital punishment for
homosexual behavior." 3

According to SodomyLaws.org, by late 2002, only 14 states, Puerto Rico and

the U.S. military still had enforceable sodomy laws on the books. According
to the Associated Press, laws in 13 states remain on the books. "Sodomy,"
which has many definitions in law, is illegal for everyone in Alabama,
Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah
and Virginia. In addition, four contiguous states, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma
and Texas, criminalize certain forms of sexual behavior between persons of
the same gender, but permit them if performed by a man and woman. 4

Penalties range from life imprisonment in Idaho, to 20 years imprisonment in

Oklahoma and Puerto Rico, to as few as 60 days jail time in Florida.
Concurrent fines range from $2,000 in Alabama and Louisiana to $500 in
Texas. Of the 14 jurisdictions, only the law in Texas does not include a jail
sentence. 5

Although these laws remain on the books in many jurisdictions, only a few
states still attempt to enforce them. It is probably impossible to mount a
successful repeal campaign in most of these states, because of opposition
from religious conservatives. It will probably require an action of the U.S.
Supreme Court to overturn the laws.

The 1927 act[edit]

Main article: Immorality Act, 1927

The Immorality Act, 1927 (Act No. 5 of 1927) prohibited sexual intercourse outside of marriage
between "Europeans" (white people) and "natives" (black people). The penalty was up to five years
imprisonment for the man and four years imprisonment for the woman. A persons color during trial
was dictated by their race, a term which at the time described a persons appearance, mannerisms,
and assumed descent/ethnicity (similar to later color classifications recognized during
the Apartheid era of South African history, where races were decided upon by government officials,
not pre-determined by the true ethnicity of the accused).[1] The act also prohibited "procuring" women
for interracial intercourse, and contained a proposal that described a punishment of up to six years
of imprisonment specifically for colored women who were thought to be provoking white males to
have intercourse with them.[2]

The Immorality Amendment Act, 1950 (Act No. 21 of 1950) amended the 1927 act to forbid
unmarried sexual intercourse between "Europeans" and anyone not "European". The prohibition was
therefore extended to intercourse between white people and coloured or Asian people. Interracial
marriages had been banned in 1949 by the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act.[3] Later legislation
closely related to the Immorality Act also banned the marriage of interracial couples outside of South
Africa, viewing foreign marriages as invalid and illegal.[4]

Main article: Sexual Offences Act, 1957

The Immorality Act, 1957 (Act No. 23 of 1957; subsequently renamed the Sexual Offences Act,
1957) repealed the 1927 and 1950 acts and replaced them with a clause prohibiting sexual
intercourse or "immoral or indecent acts" between white people and anyone not white. It increased
the penalty to up to seven years imprisonment for both partners. The 1957 act also
prohibited brothel-keeping, procuring, and living off the proceeds of prostitution; and it prohibited
sexual intercourse with people under the age of sixteen.

The Immorality Amendment Act, 1969 (Act No. 57 of 1969) amended the 1957 act to introduce or
expand a number of offences. It prohibited the manufacturing or sale of any "article intended to be
used to perform an unnatural sexual act" (i.e. sex toys). Despite the fact that sex between men was
already prohibited under thecommon law crime of sodomy, the 1969 act made it a statutory crime for
a man to have sex with another male under the age of nineteen. It also introduced section 20A, the
infamous "three men at a party" clause, which prohibited any sexual activity between men at a party,
where "party" was defined as any occasion where more than two people were present.
The Immorality and Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Amendment Act, 1985 (Act No. 72 of 1985)
repealed the provisions of the 1957 act that prohibited interracial sex, and repealed the Prohibition of
Mixed Marriages Act. This came as part of the repeal of many petty apartheid laws under the
government of P. W. Botha.[3] This act specifically deleted the definitions of "coloured" and "white"
within the act, and repealed Section 16 of the 1957 act which barred interracial, extramarital sex.[5]

The Immorality Amendment Act, 1988 (Act No. 2 of 1988) renamed the Immorality Act, 1957 to the
Sexual Offences Act, 1957. It criminalised, for the first time, a woman having sex with a person
under the age of consent, for that purpose setting the age of consent at 16 for a boy and 19 for a girl.
It also made it a crime to be a prostitute, where previously only certain acts related to prostitution
(brothel-keeping, procuring, etc.) had been illegal.[6] The legislation also noted that either gender
could now be convicted of sexual offences.[7]

Repeal[edit]

The Sensibilities of Our Forefathers

The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States

By George Painter
Copyright, George Painter 1991-2001

Indiana
"The crime of sodomy has always been deemed a very pariah of crimes[.]"

The Post-Revolution Period, 1776-1873

A statute1 adopted by the Legislative Council of the Northwest Territories in 1795

received the common law of England, as well as all English statutory law passed
before 1607. This included the capital buggery law, applicable only to males.

A code of law for the Indiana Territory was enacted in 1800, 2 but no portion of the
code is known to have survived, so it is unknown if it covered either sodomy or
common-law crimes.
In 1807, the Indiana Territory adopted a comprehensive criminal code 3 that included a
sodomy law that eliminated the gender-specifics and reduced the penalty to a
maximum of 1-5 years in prison, a fine of $100-$500, up to 500 lashes "well laid on,
on his or her bare back" and a permanent loss of civil rights. 4 The imprisonment
sentence was the third-longest in the criminal code, and the 500 lashes for sodomy
were the most that could be given for any crime. The new law was signed by
Governor and future President William Henry Harrison. 5

A second provision of this same code permitted an alternative sentencing for anyone
convicted of a crime and sentenced only to a fine to be hired out to another person for
any "reasonable" term.6 This law technically permitted the hiring of convicted
sodomites, if they were given only a fine, as "kept boys."

A supplemental statute of 18187 adopted the common law of England and all but a few
of the English statutes enacted prior to 1607. The English buggery law was not
excluded. This law acted merely as a backup to the sodomy law.

In 1820, the Indiana Supreme Court, deciding Fuller v. State,8 ruled that crimes
prohibited both by statute and the common law could be prosecuted under either. "If
an offense at common law be prohibited by Statute, this takes not away the indictment
at common law."9

However, in 1831, Indiana passed a new criminal code 10 that repealed the sodomy law,
and left the common-law statute intact. This raised the penalty for sodomy to death
and again restricted its applicability to males.

A statute passed in 185211 limited the applicability of the common law and English
statutes to civil cases.12 This actually legalized sodomy, since the 1831 code had
eliminated reference to it.

Although it was not, at this time, a crime in Indiana, a decision by the Indiana
Supreme Court in a slander case gave a clear impression of how the courts viewed an
act of sodomy. In 1858, in Ausman et ux. v. Veal,13 the Court defined it as

a connection between two human beings of the same sexthe malenamed from the
prevalence of the sin in Sodom.14

Thus, heterosexual sodomy was not covered, and any act of sodomy was a "sin."

Period Summary: Indiana showed wild swings in its laws regarding sodomy. It
began, like Ohio and Illinois, receiving the English common law from the Northwest
Territories government. This made sodomy punishable by death. In 1807, the Indiana
Territory enacted an extremely harsh criminal code that made sodomy one of the most
severely penalized of acts. A new code of 1831 eliminated mention of sodomy, but
reinstituted common-law crimes, raising the penalty back to death. The code of 1852
abrogated common-law crimes without mentioning sodomy, thus legalizing it.

The Victorian Morality Period, 1873-1948

I. Sodomy

The absence of a sodomy law was corrected when Indiana enacted a comprehensive
criminal code revision in 1881.15 However, Indiana worded its law in a way that no
other U.S. jurisdiction had. It said that, whoever

commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, by having carnal
knowledge of a man or a beast, or who, being a male, carnally knows any man or
woman through the anus, and whoever entices, allures, instigates or aids any person
under the age of twenty-one years to commit masturbation or self-pollution, is guilty
of sodomy, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the State prison not
more than fourteen years nor less than two years. [Emphasis is the laws]. 16

This statute differentiated between "carnal knowledge" and anal sex, thus presumably
intending to cover acts like fellatio. Also, masturbation with a person of either gender
under age 21 was sodomy, but not with a person of either gender over 21.

Also as part of the new criminal code, Indiana enacted a law banning the sale, lease,
or giving away of instruments used for "self-pollution," 17 which would ban sex toys.

For unclear reasons, the sodomy statute was made less comprehensive, at least on its
face, in another criminal code revision in 1905. 18 The "abominable and detestable
crime against nature" epithet remained, as did the reference to masturbation of a
person under 21, but the reference to "carnal knowledge" disappeared, thus apparently
legalizing fellatio and other erotic activity. The prison term remained the same, but a
fine of $100-$1,000 was added.19

The first reported sodomy case in the state arose in 1913 to decide if this law covered
fellatio. In Glover v. State,20 the Indiana Supreme Court unanimously ruled that,
despite the apparent weakening of the sodomy law, fellatio was covered by the term
"crime against nature." The

crime of sodomy has always been deemed a very pariah of crimes, and the acts
constituting it but seldom specifically defined. There can be no doubt that many of the
definitions are amply broad to include the act in question. 21
After critically reviewing English case law on the subject, 22 the Court felt that it was
"free to conclude" that the Indiana legislature

chose rather the broad definition of the crime, which would include those
abominations within the mischief of the law, rather than the narrow one which without
reason would exclude from punishment a perpetrator of what might well be
considered the vilest and most degenerate of all the acts within the inclusion of the
broad definition.23

It was "inconceivable" that the legislature would punish anal sex severely but leave
"the vilest and, if possible, most unnatural one to go undenounced and unpunished." 24

In the second reported sodomy case, Young v. State,25 from 1923, the Indiana Supreme
Court decided the other half of the oral sex question, that dealing with cunnilingus. In
a unanimous opinion by Justice David Myers, the Court, after generally agreeing with
the appellant that criminal statutes had to be construed strictly,26 found that
contemporary dictionary definitions of masturbation and pollution, as mentioned in
the sodomy law, were broad. Myers said that the words included

the corruption of morals, the disgrace of human nature by an unnatural sexual

gratification, of which reason and decency forbids a more detailed description. They
seem to be sufficiently broad and extensive to include the abominable and detestable
act, cunnilingus, proved in this case.27

In 1924, the Indiana Supreme Court unanimously upheld a sodomy conviction in the
case of Borolos v. State.28 The defendant had objected to the introduction of testimony
concerning other sexual partners, but the Court found no error in this. 29

In 1939, in the case of Connell v. State,30 the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the
defendants contention that sodomy between persons of the opposite sex was not
covered by the statute.31 The Court went on to bend case law. It stated that cunnilingus
was included within the term "sodomy," and referred to the Young decision of
1923.32 However, the earlier case said that cunnilingus was a form of masturbation
within the law, not sodomy.

In the 1940 case of Sanders v. State,33 the Indiana Supreme Court unanimously upheld
the sodomy conviction of a man even though the trial court limited the number of his
character witnesses after the prosecutor said no character witnesses would be called
by the state.34 Justice George Tremain, the author of the opinion, felt a need to end his
opinion with a moralizing statement. The sodomy law
gives no other definition of the crime, obviously out of regard to the better sentiments
of decent humanity, and to leave the record undefiled by details. The court has read
the evidence in the record, and for the same reasons which influenced the framers of
the statute, refuses to defile the reports by a recital of the sordid, immoral, depraved,
and detestable statements therein contained. 35

An entrapment defense was rejected unanimously by the Indiana Supreme Court in

the brief 1943 case of Ditton v. State.36 A 27-year-old male had sought over a period of
several days to set up a rendezvous with a 17-year-old male for sexual relations. The
younger man finally consented and went with him to a secluded place where the
defendant was arrested by police who had been notified in advance by the young
man.37

In an amazing case from 1944, Spence v. Dowd,38 the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals sternly ordered lower courts to review the case of a man who had been
arrested on a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He had been denied
an opportunity to consult an attorney, then charged with sodomy, never informed
against or indicted, tried without an attorney, and denied the right to prepare his
defense. After six years in prison, he had filed for a writ of habeas corpus, which was
denied summarily without a hearing.39 The Indiana state courts and federal trial court
consistently had refused to hear Spences claims. Judge Otto Kerner of the Seventh
Circuit said that Spence "is entitled to be heard. The District Court should have
inquired into and specifically found the facts." The case was remanded with
instructions to hear Spences case.40

Also in 1944, in Montgomery v. State,41 the Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously

overturned the conviction of Guy Montgomery for "encouraging a boy to commit
sodomy."42 No details of the case were given, and the Court rejected Montgomerys
claim that mere encouragement was not a crime. 43 However, owing to an erroneous
instruction to the jury, the conviction was overturned. 44

Through the year 1944, only one woman had been prosecuted for sodomy in Indiana,
and that was the inmate of a penal institution for activity within the institution. 45

A study of court proceedings in the city of Indianapolis in 1947 revealed that one man
convicted of sodomy with a 17-year-old male received only a $100 fine. 46

II. Sterilization

In 1907, Indiana enacted the worlds first law 47 to provide for sterilization of certain
individuals, including "confirmed criminals[.]"48 The surgery could be performed only
if the mental condition of the inmate made procreation "inadvisable" and the condition
was considered unchangeable.49

The law was enforced only at the Indiana Reformatory 50 and then ran into major
hurdles. In 1909, newly elected Governor Thomas Riley Marshall, future Vice
President, instructed state institutions to disregard the law.51 The policy of the
institutions in ordering sterilizations "was not entirely above board and regulated,
which is why Governor Marshall put a stop to it long before the Supreme Court struck
down the law itself."52

In addition, a criticism of the sterilization law appeared in a law journal in 1911. 53 The
article noted that the criminal law of Indiana nowhere defined what constituted a
"confirmed criminal," thus leaving that definition to the whim of physicians. 54 It also
noted that the law did not state who was to give the required "recognized ability" to
the physicians performing the surgery,55 and that the law did not specifically prohibit
castration, which was likely to be cruel and unusual punishment under the Indiana
Constitution.56

The sterilization law came to grief in the 1921 case of Williams et al. v. Smith.57 In a
brief opinion, the Indiana Supreme Court unanimously struck down the law as
violative of due process of law in that it did not afford defendants the opportunity for
an adversary hearing.58

Period Summary: Indiana reinstituted sodomy as a crime with a new code adopted
in 1881. It was, at the time, a uniquely worded sodomy law, covering both
masturbation of another person and "carnal knowledge" separate from sodomy,
which may have covered fellatio. Later, the Indiana Supreme Court interpreted a less
clear sodomy law to prohibit fellatio and its long, historically oriented opinion later
became the precedent-setting case to which courts in many other states deferred. A
decade later, cunnilingus was determined to be an act of "masturbation" under this
law, thus making it illegal as well, but only with a partner under 21. It therefore
should be no surprise that a survey of prosecutions over seven decades found only one
woman prosecuted for sodomy. The Indiana Supreme Court rejected a heterosexual
defendants argument that opposite-sex sodomy was not covered by the law.
Especially in the 1940s, Indiana courts routinely showed little regard for the due
process rights of those charged with sodomy. Indiana enacted the first law anywhere
in the world providing for sexual sterilization of certain persons convicted of crimes.
The law little was used and later found unconstitutional.

The Kinsey Period, 1948-1986

In 1949, Indiana enacted a psychopathic offender statute. 59 Any person over 16 who
suffered from an undefined "mental disorder" other than insanity or feeblemindedness
"coupled with criminal propensities to the commission of sex offenses" was a
"criminal sexual psychopathic offender" per se.60 Commitment to an institution was to
be until the full recovery from criminal psychopathy, which could be for life. 61 The
law was enacted following publicity over a series of rape/murders in the Fort Wayne
area during World War II and in Indianapolis after the War.62 The original proposal
required examination by psychiatrists, but, because of the "lack of psychiatrists in
many areas of Indiana," it was changed to require examination only by a physician.
This led to many people being committed under the law even though they did not fit
the medical definition of a psychopath.63

While the psychopath law was being debated in the Indiana legislature, the state
Attorney General issued an opinion64 that the proposed law would be constitutional.
Attorney General J. Emmett McManamon dismissed the fear that the proposal would
allow commitment to an institution of a person who had not committed any crime.
McManamon noted that the bill referred only to those who had been convicted of or
pleaded guilty to an offense.65 Apparently alluding to the Kinsey report, another fear
was that everyone in the state of Indiana would be committable under the law.
McManamon thought that "untenable" because he could not conceive that everyone in
the state possessed a "mental disorder that is coupled with criminal propensities to the
commission of sex offenses."66

Another short opinion in the 1953 case of Baumgartner v. State67 led to victory. The
Indiana Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction because the original
affidavit did not state that the alleged act took place "with mankind or beast." Even
the Attorney General of Indiana sided with the defendant, so the Court ordered the
affidavit quashed.68

Just two weeks later, the first reported case under the federal Assimilative Crimes Act
occurred in Indiana. United States v. Gill69 was a case of heterosexual sodomitical
assault occurring on a U.S.-registered ship docked in the territorial waters of Indiana.
The defendant claimed that sodomy on federal property could not be prosecuted under
Indiana law,70 but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claim, noting that
the purpose of the Assimilative Crimes Act was to cover federal property, and to defer
to the laws of the state wherein a given crime was committed. 71

A 1955 report showed that a judge in South Bend acquitted a man accused of being a
"sex psychopath" because the Kinsey Report on human sexuality made "the area of
sex psychopathology" "ill-defined."72
Indiana is one of the few states in which detailed information about the operation of
its psychopathic offender law was published. The first was a law review article in
195773 that noted 160 commitments under the law in its first seven years of
operation.74 A table showed that 60 of these commitments, or 38%, were for sodomy,
with five others for "assault and battery with intent to gratify sexual desires," one for
"disorderly conduct," 13 for "contributing to the delinquency of minors," and one for
"unnatural acts with wife."75 Some 53% of the committed sodomy cases involved
activity strictly between adults.76 Not one of the 160 commitments was of a
woman77which led the author to complain that

there are women with strong sex drives who prefer young boys to men and who might
find themselves at odds with the laws concerning contribution to the delinquency of
minors...It would seem that certainly some might have qualified as criminal sexual
psychopaths. Despite this, there has not been a single commitment of a female under
this statute. A partial explanation may be the more ready acceptance of aberrant sexual
behavior in women by society. Two women dancing or holding hands arouses little
comment. A second cause might be the reluctance of police officials and courts to
bring women before the bar.78

Thirty-nine of the 160, or 24%, received a psychiatric diagnosis of "sexual

deviate,"79 which is only two-thirds of the total sodomy commitments. The conclusion
was that the psychopathic offender law not only did not improve the situation in
society, but actually aggravated it, and should be repealed. 80

Possibly as a result of this analysis, the psychopath law was amended in

1959.81 Reports of the mental examination of those sentenced under the law no longer
were "competent evidence" in any other proceeding against the offender.82 As a result,
the person being examined lost the right to refuse to cooperate with examining
psychiatrists, and could be held in contempt of court for refusing to answer their
questions.83

The sex toy law was struck down by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1961, in State v.
Kuebel.84 By a vote of 3-2, the Court found that the statute did not require scienter, as
demanded by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another analysis of the psychopath laws operation was published in 1962. 85 This
article limited its concerns to one state institution, but, despite being written by
different authors, made a similar complaint about the law as five years earlier. No
female offender had been committed to the institution, "although females are
sometimes guilty of the same behavior that a man would be arrested for [sic]."86 Of
the 20 individuals studied, 18, or 90%, had committed a sex crime on a female. 87 In
the first 20 years of operation of the law, ten "consenting adult homosexuals" were
committed under the law.88

In 1963, the sex toy law was repealed.89

In the next reported sodomy case, Lamar v. State,90 from 1964, the Indiana Supreme
Court voted 4-1 to uphold the conviction of a man despite his claim of alibi. His
sexual history also was permitted to be introduced into the trial because, as an
exception to the general rule,

it is always permissible for the state, in actions involving abnormal sexual intercourse,
to introduce evidence as to other improper acts of sexual intimacy committed by the
defendant.91

In other words, in only one type of criminal case in Indiana was it permissible to
prejudice the jury against the defendant. Acts of "normal" sexual intercourse,
including rape, would be shielded from the jurys knowledge. The dissent without
opinion by Justice Amos Jackson was the first in a string of dissents that showed his
hostility to sodomy laws.

In Estes v. State,92 from 1964, the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the contention of
the defendant that the term "abominable and detestable crime against nature" was
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The 4-1 majority stated that the term had a
"clear and long established meaning" per the Glover decision of 1913.93 The majority
was also eager to reject the defendants contention that the alleged eyewitness
statement that he could not remember seeing the defendant and the prosecuting
witness engage in sodomy. It felt that the testimony only meant that the witness could
not remember the date on which the act supposedly occurred. Justice Amos Jackson
again dissented, but this time spoke out. Jackson disputed the majoritys interpretation
of the witnesss "I dont remember" statement and noted that the state had not tried to
get him to clarify what he didnt remember.94 His anti-sodomy law language would
sharpen with later cases.

In 1967, in Phillips v. State,95 the Indiana Supreme Court, dividing 3-2, upheld as
constitutionally sufficient an indictment charging "the abominable and detestable
crime against nature."96 The heated dissent of Justice Amos Jackson, in which he was
joined by one other justice, said that the

very language of the statute purporting to define the offense of sodomy, is so

indefinite and uncertain that its unconstitutionality follows as certainly as night
follows day.97
Jackson also said that he

hoped that the incoming legislature will either clarify or abolish this anarchism
reminiscent of the heyday of the witch hunts of early colonial times. In todays space
age and sophisticated society, it seems that the statute should spell out in language
understandable by the person of average scholastic attainment and intelligence the
specific nature of the crime with which he is charged and if that cannot be done then it
should not be denominated a crime.98

In the next case of Dombkowski v. State,99 decided later in the same year, the Indiana
Supreme Court upheld a conviction while conceding that

the prosecuting attorney may have been overenthusiastic and overzealous for a
conviction. We are also impressed from the record as a whole that the Trial Court may
have been overanxious to conclude the trial and may have taken more part in the trial
than would be recommended in a treatise on modern trial practice. 100

The Court also acknowledged that the case was "replete with many borderline
questions," but it did not feel that Dombkowskis rights had been
violated.101 Curiously, Justice Amos Jackson concurred in the result, refusing to join
the Courts opinion, but also not dissenting. 102

The psychopathic offender law was upheld by the Indiana Supreme Court in a 3-2
vote in 1968 in State ex rel. Haskett v. Marion County Criminal Court, Division One
et al.103 Continuing his crusade for civil liberties, Justice Amos Jackson wrote for the
dissenters. He noted that the law used "euphemistic" language, 104 clearly was criminal
in nature rather than civil, thus requiring more due process guarantees, 105 did not make
clear in whose opinion a defendant had to be psychopathic in order to trigger the
law,106 and allowed commitment for life of those not convicted of any crime. 107

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals got its second Indiana sodomy case in 1968
with Cotner v. Henry.108 A 2-1 majority decided that, despite no statutory exemption,
married couples could not be prosecuted under the law, citing the right to privacy.109

In the 1968 case of Meadows v. State,110 Justice Amos Jackson scored his first victory
when the Indiana Supreme Court unanimously overturned a sodomy conviction
because the alleged victim, a mental patient, had been coached by the prosecution. 111

In a third sodomy case from 1968, Jones v. State,112 the Indiana Supreme Court upheld
a sodomy conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of a 12-year-old
partner.113 Justice Amos Jackson again concurred only in the result.
In the 1969 case of Nichols v. State,114 the Indiana Supreme Court sustained the
defendants conviction despite the improbable evidence that the defendant, an adult,
was in the presence of the prosecuting witness, an 11-year-old boy, to return one of his
shirts that he borrowed (he must have been a very small adult) and that the boy offered
the man a piece of candy on the condition that the man show his "thing" to the
boy.115 The above facts were accepted as true by the Supreme Court, and labeled as
"sufficient evidence of probative value."116 Even Justice Amos Jackson went along
with it.117

In 1970, in Ayad v. State,118 the Indiana Supreme Court split 4-1 to uphold a sodomy
conviction that inflamed Amos Jackson. In his dissent, he said that the

evidence relied on the by the State is the uncorroborated testimony of a fourteen year
old delinquent adduced by improper direct, leading and suggestive questions by the
prosecuting attorney and denied by one of the States witnesses and by the defense
witnesses.119

Jackson also felt that the jury had been coerced into returning a verdict after twice
reporting that it was deadlocked and the trial court told it to continue deliberating. 120

Jacksons dissent was vindicated when the case returned to the Court a few months
later. In Ayad II,121 the Court unanimously decided that Ayad, who had succeeding in
getting the main prosecution witness to admit that his testimony had been "wholly
false and the result of the polices coercive questioning techniques," had to follow
post-conviction relief procedures to overturn his conviction. 122

In 1970, in Kerlin v. State,123 the Indiana Supreme Court split 3-2 to uphold the
sodomy conviction of a man based largely on the testimony of witnesses who had sex
with the man earlier. Kerlin had performed fellatio on a 15-year-old boy more than
once, without the boys objection, and the two other witnesses acts of sodomy were in
no way related to the charge Kerlin faced. 124 In dissent, Justice Roger DeBruler,
predictably joined by Justice Amos Jackson, noted that the acts of sodomy with the
other witnesses were with adults seven years prior to the acts in question. 125 The
dissenters believed this was prejudicial to Kerlin. This was Justice Jacksons last
sodomy case. Very shortly after this decision, he resigned due to ill health. 126

The next case was Dixon v. State,127 from 1971. In this case the Indiana Supreme
Court, in a 3-2 vote, upheld the constitutionality of the states sodomy law against a
vagueness challenge. Writing for the majority, Justice Richard Givan said that the
Court was
unimpressed by the claim via Dr. Kinsey and others that the acts complained of in this
case are widespread in acceptance. Though such might be a valid argument to make to
the Indiana legislature in an attempt to modify the existing laws, it is hardly an
argument upon which this Court can justify a judicial decision. 128

Pointing out that the defendant in the case was not married to his partner in
cunnilingus,129 the Court added that courts

have universally pointed out that the acts sought to be prevented by this and similar
statutes are of such a nature that legislatures and courts are reluctant to engage in
detailed descriptions of the many acts which the human being is capable of
accomplishing which are so offensive as to be deemed an abominable and detestable
crime against nature with mankind or beast. This terminology has been used for
generations in this and other jurisdictions and has been deemed to be understood as
encompassing not only the act with which the appellant is charged, but many other
acts as well.130

In dissent, Justice Roger DeBruler, joined by Justice Dixon Prentice, the successor to
Amos Jackson, believed that the law was unconstitutional both on grounds of
vagueness and invasion of privacy. He argued that

[t]he words abominable and detestable are mere epithets and are not descriptive of
any behavior at all.131

DeBruler added that, to be punishable, a crime must be

against the sovereign State of Indiana[,] not against something called nature, [and]
the words do not tell anyone what behavior constitutes the crime. What is meant by
nature? A deviation from a statistical norm or from some unannounced moral norm?
The words crime against nature are also mere epithets. They could be used to punish
whatever behavior the majority considered morally offense or perverse without any
advance notice of the kind of behavior prohibited. 132

Quoting with disapproval from the 1913 Glover case, DeBruler ridiculed the
moralizing that led the Court of six decades earlier to interpret the states sodomy law
as it did.133 He said that he believed "that private sexual conduct between consenting
adults" was constitutionally protected and he could "see no valid reason to limit the
right of sexual privacy to married persons."134 The

moral preferences of the majority may not be imposed on everyone else unless there
exists some harm to other persons. Sexual acts between consenting adults in private
do not harm anyone else and should be free from state regulation. 135
In 1971, just two days after the above decision, the Indiana legislature amended the
states psychopathic offender law136 to exclude sodomy and "homosexuality" from the
list of triggering offenses, if committed with a consenting adult. 137

A minor change in the sodomy law in 1973138 legalized some consensual sexual
activity. This law lowered the age from 21 to 18 that would activate the provision
outlawing the assistance of masturbation.139

An Indiana appellate court decided the next sodomy case, State v. Lopez,140 in 1973.
The court read the law literally and unanimously ruled that the consensual
masturbation of a person over the age of 21 did not constitute a violation of it. 141

The last reported Indiana sodomy case was Russell v. State142 from 1975. An appellate
court unanimously rejected a novel claim from a prisoner accused of sexually
assaulting another prisoner. Defendant Russell claimed that it was not made clear at
the outset of the trial that the victim was a human being. The appellate court judges
commendably kept their laughter well under control in deciding that it was "common
knowledge" that prisoners kept in jail were human beings. 143

In 1976, the Indiana legislature passed a comprehensive criminal code revision 144 that
repealed the consensual sodomy law and established an age of consent of 16. 145

In 1977, a bill to reinstate consensual sodomy as a felony, only between persons not
married to each other, was introduced into the Indiana House. 146 Hearings were held
on it, but the bill was killed by a 6-4 committee vote. 147

In the 1985 case of Thompson v. State,148 an Indiana appellate court, by a vote of 2-1,
decided that viewing booths in adult bookstores were "public" places, despite curtains
hiding them from the public. Thompson had placed his penis through a glory hole into
a booth occupied by an undercover police officer. The majority believed that privacy
ended the moment that Thompson placed his penis through the hole into the next
booth.149 In dissent, Judge Patrick Sullivan was uncomfortable with his role as
defender of Thompsons conduct, which

was intrusive. It was offensive. It was disgusting. It is subject to condemnation and

sanction by society and by the law. But it did not occur in a public place. 150

Sullivan did not explain how conduct occurring in private was "subject
to...sanction...by the law." He did come up with an interesting analogy, however. He
likened it to saying that
ones private residence becomes a public place merely by the unauthorized and
unwanted intrusion of a burglar or other trespasser.151

In 1986, another bill to reinstate sodomy as a crime was announced, but it never was
introduced.152

Period Summary: Indiana joined the ranks of states enacting psychopathic offender
laws after World War II. As with other states, the law followed a series of
sensationalized sex crimes. Indiana, unlike other states, has fairly detailed
documentation of how the law was used. A number of consenting adult Gay men were
processed under this law, as was one heterosexual man for "unnatural acts" with his
wife. Between 1964 and 1970, the Indiana Supreme Court had the most outspokenly
anti-sodomy law judge in the nation, Associate Justice Amos Jackson. The Court
upheld nine of 11 sodomy convictions before it during these years, but Jackson voted
to overturn eight of them. He argued forcefully in dissent that the sodomy law was
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the psychopathic offender law
suffered from the same defect. Although a new criminal code adopted in 1976
repealed the sodomy law, there have been two attempts in the legislature to reinstate
the law. One was in 1977 during the backlash caused by Anita Bryants crusade
against the Dade County civil rights ordinance and the other was in 1986 during one
of the periodic hysterias over the AIDS epidemic.

The Post-Hardwick Period, 1986-Present

Period Summary: There are no published cases dealing with the limits of state
power to regulate sexual activity in places such as restrooms or parked cars. Because
of the decriminalization of consensual sodomy, only that occurring in semi-public
places still may be subject to prosecution.

Footnotes

1
Laws of the territory of the United States north-west of the Ohio, adopted and made by the governour and judges,
in their legislative capacity, at a session begun on Friday, the XXIX day of May, one thousand eleven [sic] hundred
and ninety-five, and ending on Tuesday the twenty-fifth day of August following: with an appendix of resolutions and
the ordinance for the government of the territory. (Cincinnati:W. Maxwell, 1796), enacted July 14, 1795.

2
Laws of the Territory of Michigan 1805-1821, (Lansing:W.S. George & Co., 1871), page xii-xiii.

3
Illinois Historical Collections, Vol. XXI, Laws of Indiana Territory 1801-1809 (Springfield:Illinois State Historical
Library, 1930), page 247, 23, enacted Sep. 17, 1807.

4
Id.
5
Interestingly, Harrison was elected President in 1840 after a bitter election in which his supporters accused
President Martin Van Buren of being Gay.

6
Illinois Historical Collections, at 250, 30.

7
Revised Statutes of Indiana 1838 Public and Private, page 398, ch. LX, enacted Jan. 2, 1818.

8
1 Blackf. 63, decided during July Term 1820.

9
Id. at 66.

10
Revised Statutes of Indiana, (Indianapolis:Douglas & Maguire, 1831), page 180, ch. XXVI, enacted Feb. 10, 1831.

11
Statutes of Indiana, Vol. 1, ([Indianapolis?]:Gavin & Hord, 1852), page 415, ch. LXXXVII, enacted May 31,
1852.

12
Id. at 416, II.

13
10 Ind. 355, decided during May Term, 1858.

14
Id. at 356.

15
Acts 1881 Indiana, page 174, ch. XXXVII, enacted Apr. 14, 1881, effective Sep. 19, 1881.

16
Id. 100.

17
Id. 1996.

18
Acts 1905 Indiana, page 584, ch. 169, enacted Mar. 10, 1905.

19
Id. at 694, 473.

20
101 N.E. 629, decided Apr. 25, 1913.

21
Id. at 631.

22
Id. at 631-632.

23
Id. at 632.

24
Id.

25
141 N.E. 309, decided Oct. 31, 1923.

26
Id. at 310.

27
Id. at 311.

28
143 N.E. 360, decided Apr. 9, 1924.

29
Id. at 361.
30
19 N.E.2d 267, decided Feb. 20, 1939.

31
Id. at 268.

32
Id.

33
25 N.E.2d 995, decided Mar. 25, 1940.

34
Id. at 996.

35
Id.

36
51 N.E.2d 356, decided Nov. 23, 1943.

37
Id.

38
145 F.2d 451, decided Nov. 8, 1944.

39
Id. at 452. The original case of State ex rel. Spence v. Worden (39 N.E.2d 733, decided Feb. 27, 1942) was a
brief per curiam that amazingly said the court lacked jurisdiction to hear Spences claim because he was in jail, as if
an incarceration made it impossible for judges to review possible trial errors.

40
145 F.2d, at 453.

41
57 N.E.2d 943, decided Dec. 11, 1944.

42
Id. at 944.

43
Id. at 945.

44
Id. at 945-946.

45
Alfred Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, (Philadelphia:W.B. Saunders, 1953), page 485.

46
Robert C. Bensing, "Sex Law Enforcement in Indianapolis," 4 Western L.Rev. 33, at 36 (1952).

47
Acts 1907 Indiana, page 377, ch. 215, enacted Mar. 9, 1907.

48
Id. at 378.

49
Id.

50
H.C. Sharp, The Sterilization of Degenerates, (no publication data), page 8.

51
Harry Hamilton Laughlin, Eugenical Sterilization in the United States, (Chicago:Psychopathic Laboratory of the
Municipal Court of Chicago, 1922), page 63. Curiously, Marshall, a strong opponent of sterilization, served as Vice
President under Woodrow Wilson who, as Governor of New Jersey, had signed that states sterilization law.
Although a sterilization law was not enacted until 1907, it was practiced at the Indiana Reformatory since 1899
without legal authorization. Id.

52
Correspondence from Robert Horton, Indiana State Archives, Jan. 18, 1996.
53
15 Law Notes 47 (June 1911).

54
Id.

55
Id.

56
Id. at 47-48.

57
131 N.E. 2, decided May 11, 1921.

58
Id.

59
Acts 1949 Indiana, page 328, ch. 124, enacted Mar. 7, 1949.

60
Id. at 329, 1.

61
Id. at 330, 8.

62
Anthony and Susan Jamart Granucci, "Indianas Sexual Psychopath Act in Operation," 44 Ind.L.J. 555, at 559
(Summer 1969).

63
Id. at 560.

64
1949 Opinions of the Attorney General, page 12, issued Jan. 25, 1949.

65
Id.

66
Id. at 14.

67
111 N.E.2d 727, decided Apr. 24, 1953.

68
Id. at 728.

69
204 F.2d 740, decided May 8, 1953. Rehearing denied June 17, 1953. Cert denied, 346 U.S. 825, Oct. 12, 1953.

70
204 F.2d, at 742.

71
Id.

72
Jerome Himelhoch and Sylvia Fleis Fava, eds., Sexual Behavior in American Society: An Appraisal of the First
Two Kinsey Reports, (New York:Norton & Co., 1955), page 268.

73
Elias S. Cohen, "Administration of the Criminal Sexual Psychopath Statute in Indiana," 32 Ind.L.J. 450 (1957).

74
Id. at 451-452.

75
Id. at 453.

76
Id. at 454.

77
Id. at 455.
78
Id. at 455-456.

79
Id. at 458.

80
Id. at 467.

81
Acts 1959 Indiana, page 955, ch. 356, enacted Mar. 13, 1959, effective July 1, 1959.

82
Id. 1(a).

83
Id.

84
172 N.E.2d 45, decided Jan. 31, 1961.

85
Ott B. McAtee and George A. Zirkle, "A Descriptive Study of Criminal Sexual Psychopaths at Madison State
Hospital," The Journal of the Indiana State Medical Association, 55:1010 (July 1962).

86
Id.

87
Id. at 1011.

88
Anthony and Susan Jamart Granucci, "Indianas Sexual Psychopath Act in Operation," 44 Ind.L.J. 555, at 587
(Summer 1969).

89
Acts 1963 Indiana, page 7, ch. 12, at 8, 9, enacted Feb. 23, 1963.

90
195 N.E.2d 98, decided Jan. 8, 1964. Rehearing denied Feb. 26, 1964.

91
Id. at 101.

92
195 N.E.2d 471, decided Jan. 23, 1964.

93
Id. at 473.

94
Id. at 476.

95
222 N.E.2d 821, decided Jan. 24, 1967. Rehearing denied Mar. 29, 1967. Appeal dismissed for want of a
substantial federal question, 389 U.S. 12, decided Oct. 9, 1967.

96
222 N.E.2d, at 821-822.

97
Id. at 823.

98
Id. at 824.

99
230 N.E.2d 602, decided Nov. 6, 1967.

100
Id. at 609-610.

101
Id. at 610.
102
Id.

103
234 N.E.2d 636, decided Feb. 28, 1968. Rehearing denied Apr. 9, 1968.

104
Id. at 643.

105
Id. at 643-644.

106
Id. at 644.

107
Id. at 646.

108
394 F.2d 873, decided Apr. 17, 1968. Rehearing denied May 29, 1968. Rehearing denied en banc May 29, 1968.
Cert denied, 393 U.S. 847, decided Oct. 14, 1968.

109
394 F.2d, at 875-876.

110
238 N.E.2d 280, decided July 1, 1968.

111
Id. at 282-283.

112
240 N.E.2d 809, decided Oct. 16, 1968.

113
Id. at 811-812.

114
246 N.E.2d 179, decided Apr. 7, 1969.

115
Id. at 180.

116
Id.

117
Id. at 181.

118
261 N.E.2d 68, decided July 29, 1970.

119
Id. at 70.

120
Id. at 70-71.

121
263 N.E.2d 150, decided Oct. 26, 1970.

122
Id. at 150-151.

123
265 N.E.2d 22, decided Dec. 22, 1970.

124
Id. at 23.

125
Id. at 25.

126
Jacksons surprisingly superficial obituary revealed that he had served as a prosecuting attorney, probation officer,
and an attorney with the U.S. War Department before his judgeship. See the Indianapolis Star, Oct. 2, 1972, 25:1.
127
268 N.E.2d 84, decided Apr. 6, 1971. Rehearing denied May 20, 1971.

128
Id. at 86.

129
Id.

130
Id. at 87.

131
Id. at 88.

132
Id.

133
Id. at 88-89.

134
Id. at 90.

135
Id.

136
Acts 1971 Indiana, page 2084, Public Law No. 452, enacted Apr. 8, 1971.

137
Id. at 2085, 2(a)(5) and (6).

138
Acts 1973 Indiana, page 1732, Public Law No. 320, enacted Apr. 16, 1973.

139
Id. at 1733-1734, 3.

140
296 N.E.2d 918, decided June 11, 1973. Rehearing denied July 10, 1973.

141
Id. at 923-924.

142
322 N.E.2d 384, decided Feb. 6, 1975.

143
Id. at 385-386.

144
Acts 1976 Indiana, page 718, Public Law No. 148, enacted Feb. 25,1976, effective July 1, 1977.

145
See pages 733-734 (2) for the new language concerning sexual assaults.

146
House Bill 1173, introduced Jan. 5, 1977. The bill was sponsored by far-right Representative Donald Boys (R-
Greenwood). He was defeated for renomination in the 1978 Republican primary.

147
The Advocate, Vol. 214 (Apr. 20, 1977), page 35.

148
482 N.E.2d 1372, decided Oct. 1, 1985.

149
Id. at 1376.

150
Id.

151
Id.
152
Washington Blade, Apr. 4, 1986, page 10

APPENDIX A OUTLINE OF CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING

American Life League

The Last Bulwark.

As recently as 1930, every mainline Protestant church vigorously condemned those

sexual behaviors that they considered to be damaging to society and a danger to the
souls of individuals. These acts included divorce, artificial contraception, abortion,
euthanasia, fornication, adultery, the use of pornography, and homosexual behavior.

The Roman Catholic Church is the only remaining major religious entity that holds
fast to its prohibitions on these behaviors.

For this reason, the Catholic Church is the focus of an unprecedented campaign of
propaganda and subversion generated by Neoliberal organizations and individuals.

One of the most effective tactics used by those trying to confuse Church members is
false claims about its teachings. These claims generally fall into three categories;

(1) Church teachings on various sexual topics are "not monolithic;" i.e., there is
considerable disagreement among the laity and theologians as to what behavior is
acceptable and what is not.

(2) The Pope is just another Bishop, so American Catholics should be free to
conform to the sexual mores of their society instead of those dictated by an obscure
Italian bishop and his insulated staff of old men. Americans should be free to "follow
their consciences."

(3) The Church has not always condemned such practices as abortion and birth
control. Therefore, it can change its teachings on these subjects.

The Purpose of This Appendix.

It is vital for Catholics to be able to decisively refute these and other false Neoliberal
allegations about Church teachings. The only way to do this is to have at hand a set
of specific quotes from Church documents that address the most common
misperceptions about Church teachings.

The purpose of this Appendix is to provide a brief, concise, and useful compilation of
information on authentic Roman Catholic teaching regarding the areas of sexual
ethics that currently concern most Christians.

The body of this Appendix consists of quotes from documents and statements
originating only from those men who are authorized to speak for the Catholic Church
the Popes and those Bishops and theologians in union with them. These quotes are
extracted from encyclicals, pastoral letters, and addresses by these representatives of
the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Catholic Church.

The last several pages of this Appendix list numerous books in each field that support
the Church's teachings in these areas. Those individuals wishing to learn more about
the reasoning and logic of natural law and its connection to Catholic teaching in the
area of human sexuality should refer to these books or others that have been
approved by the Church.

The seven major areas regarding sexual ethics that are discussed in this Appendix are
listed below.

(A) Artificial contraception

(B) Abortion
(C) Euthanasia
(D) Sexual sterilization
(E) Eugenics
(F) Homosexuality
(G) Related matters

An outline of the major teachings of the Church regarding these major life issues is
contained in Figure A-1. The remainder of this Appendix lists references and quotes
on each of these teachings.

FIGURE A-1

OUTLINE OF AUTHENTIC ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING ON THE

LIFE ISSUES

A. Artificial Contraception.

1. The marital act must always be left open to the transmission of life.
2. The use of artificial contraception is degrading to both human nature and to the
institution of marriage.

3. Persons who employ artificial means deny the will of God and actually set their
wills in His place.

4. Birth regulation through the use of natural family planning (NFP) is licit and,
unlike the artificial methods, contributes to marital unity.

B. Abortion.

1. The right to life is the right without which all other rights are rendered
meaningless. Every Christian has the duty to protect human life from conception.

2. Every human life is of equal value, and all human lives are of infinite value.

3. Laws which permit the killing of prenatal human life are illicit, and no Christian
may cooperate with them.

4. The killing of the unborn by abortion will inevitably lead to other abuses against
human life, including infanticide and euthanasia.

5. Abortion can never be made allowable, regardless of circumstances. These include

rape, incest, fetal deformity, maternal physical and mental health, or any economic or
social indicator.

6. The principle of the "double effect" is licit in the instance where an operation must
be performed on a pregnant woman for the purpose of saving her life,

7. All Catholics, including medical personnel and lay people, may never perform or
assist in any manner the procurement of an abortion. Any such action leads to instant
excommunication.

8. The Catholic Church has always opposed abortion for any reason, contrary to the
propaganda offered by certain enemies of the Church.

C. Euthanasia.

1. No human being has the right to end his own life, because this life is a gift from
God.

2. Laws that allow or encourage euthanasia or infanticide can never be legitimate.

3. The Church does not require that the process of dying be prolonged to the
maximum extent possible through the use of "heroic measures."

4. The use of painkilling drugs by a person in extreme agony is not immoral, but he
should be conscious before death in order to properly prepare to meet God.

D. Sexual Sterilization.

E. Eugenics.

F. Homosexuality.

1. The homosexual orientation is intrinsically disordered.

2. No Bishop or priest may in any way support pro-homosexual organizations that

call themselves "Catholic."

G. Other Matters Concerning Sexual Morality.

1. Cohabitation ("shacking up") is entirely contrary to God's law and can never be
justified.

2. Masturbation ("self-abuse") is an intrinsically disordered act.

3. Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation
or exploitation of the human embryo.

Further Reading is Required.

It must be noted that the excerpts quoted in this chapter focus narrowly on what
kinds of sexual behavior are and are not considered licit by the Catholic Church. As
such, they are most suited for use in debates to rebut statements by dissidents or
those who are ignorant of Church teachings and who are attempting to give the
impression that the Church is more "diverse" in its instruction on sexual morality
than it really is.

In order to comprehend the beauty, richness, and wisdom of the quoted Church
documents, it is necessary for the reader to take the time to sit down, read them, and
contemplate their messages.

SECTION A. CATHOLIC TEACHING REGARDING ARTIFICIAL

CONTRACEPTION

1. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: The marital act must always be left open to

the transmission of life.
But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically
against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since,
therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of
children, those who in exercising it, deliberately frustrating its natural power and
purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is disgraceful and intrinsically
vicious ... In order that she [the Catholic Church] may preserve the chastity of the
nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, she raises her voice in token of
her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew: any use
whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately
frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God
and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave
sin.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31,

1930, Section 4, Paragraph 4.

Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii of
December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the
conjugal act and conjugal relations: That every attempt of either husband or wife in
the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences
which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of a new
life is immoral; and that no 'indication' or need can convert an act which is
intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one ... This precept is in force today, as
it was in the past, and so it will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a
simple human whim, but the expression of a natural and divine law.

Pope Pius XII, Acta Apostilicae Sedis, XLIII

(1951), page 843.

2. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: The use of artificial contraception is

degrading to both human nature and to the institution of marriage.

We must solemnly proclaim that human life is transmitted by means of the family,
and the family is based upon a marriage which is one and indissoluble and raised, so
far as Christians are concerned, to the dignity of a sacrament. The transmission of
human life is the result of a personal and conscientious act, and, as such, is subject to
the all-holy, inviolable and immutable laws of God, which a man ignores and
disobeys to his cost ... Human life is sacred all men must recognize that fact. From
the very inception, it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws
not only offend the divine Majesty but degrade themselves and humanity.

Pope John XXIII, Mater et Magistra #193,

May 15, 1961.

3. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: Persons who employ artificial means deny

the will of God and actually set their wills in His place.

Contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly illicit that it can never, for

any reason, be justified. To think, or to day, anything to the contrary is tantamount to
saying that in human life there can be situations where it is legitimate not to
recognize God as God. Users of contraception attribute to themselves a power that
belongs only to God, the power to decide in the final instance the coming into
existence of a human being.

Pope John Paul II in his Address

onResponsible Procreation, September 17,
1983. Quoted in "Holy Father Condemns
Contraception in Strongest Terms." The
Wanderer, September 29, 1983, pages 1 and 3.

4. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: Birth regulation through the use of natural

family planning (NFP) is licit and, unlike the artificial methods, contributes to
marital unity.

The promotion and teaching of the natural methods is, then, a truly pastoral concern,
one that involves cooperation on the part of priests and religious, specialists, and
married couples, all working in cooperation with the bishop of the local Church and
receiving support and assistance from him ... In this way the Church is better able to
present to the world the values of the natural methods, and reduce the strong
emphasis on contraception, sterilization and abortion that we often encounter in the
world. At the heart of this work in natural family planning must be a Christian view
of the human person and the conviction that married couples can really attain,
through God's grace and commitment to the natural methods, a deeper and stronger
conjugal unity.

Pope John Paul II, in his address to the Family

Congresses on June 8, 1984.

SECTION B. CATHOLIC TEACHING REGARDING ABORTION

1. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: The right to life is the right without which all
other rights are rendered meaningless. Therefore, the right to live must be
protected above all other rights. In fact, it is the duty of all Christians to protect
human life, as stated by Our Lord.

If you want equal justice for all, and true freedom and lasting peace, then, America,
defend life! All the great causes that are yours today will have meaning only to the
extent that you guarantee the right to life and protect the human person.

Every human person no matter how vulnerable or helpless, no matter how young or
how old, no matter how healthy, handicapped, or sick, no matter how useful or
productive for society is a being of inestimable worth created in the image and
likeness of God. This is the dignity of America, the reason she exists, the condition
for her survival yes, the ultimate test of her greatness: To respect every human
person, especially the weakest and defenseless ones, those as yet unborn.

Pope John Paul II, September 19, 1987,

Detroit, Michigan. Quoted by Gary Potter.
"Pope's Farewell Message ... 'America,
Defend Life!'" The Wanderer, October 1,
1987, page 4.

The unborn human being's right to live is one of the inalienable human rights. God,
the Lord of Life, has given man the exalted task of preserving life, and this must be
carried out in a way which is worthy of mankind. From the conception, therefore, life
must be protected with the greatest care. Abortion is the taking of a child's life and is
a repulsive crime.

Pope John Paul II, September 9, 1985,

Knight's Hall, Vaduz, Liechtenstein. Quoted
in Don A. Schanche. "Pope Hammers at
'Crime' of Abortion." The Oregonian,
September 9, 1985, page A2.

But the point is that we are not free to refuse to recognize another human being as a
person. Refusal to recognize another human being as a person is in fact the essence
of all immorality in human relations. It is the basis of all oppression, torture, denial
of civil rights, religious and racial discrimination, exploitation, all forms of
inhumanity of man to man. All of these are simply ways of refusing to recognize
other human beings as human. Once human life exists, we are morally bound to
respect its right to life, to development, to human dignity. Otherwise, the very basis
of morality is undermined".

The Bishops of Ireland. Joint Pastoral Letter

entitled "Human Life is Sacred," March 1,
1975. Reprinted in the May 22, 1975 English
edition of LOsservatore Romano, and
reprinted in its entirety in the Daughters of St.
Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 146 to
165.[1] Paragraph 17, "Rights of the Unborn."

Also see:

Exodus 20:13. Matthew 5:21.

Matthew 25:14-30. Luke 19:12-27.
Proverbs 24:11.
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Declaration on
Procured Abortion." November 18, 1974. Reprinted in its entirety in the
Daughters of St. Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 67 to 82.[1]
John Paul II. "At the Service of Life." May 7, 1980.
The Bishops of Italy. "Welcoming Unborn Human Life." December 8,
1978.

2. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: Every human life is of equal value, and all

human lives are of infinite value, since we have all been created in the image and
likeness of God. Therefore, the concept that there are lives "not worth living" is
completely false and antithetical to the teachings of Christ.

I do not hesitate to proclaim before you and before the world that all human life from
the moment of conception and through all subsequent stages is sacred, because
human life is created in the image and likeness of God. Nothing surpasses the
greatness or dignity of a human person. Human life is not just an idea or an
abstraction; human life is the concrete reality of a being that lives, that acts, that
grows and develops; human life is the concrete reality of a being that is capable of
love, and of service to humanity.

If a person's right to life is violated at the moment in which he is first conceived in

his mother's womb, an indirect blow is struck also at the whole of the moral order ...
Human life is precious because it is the gift of God, a God whose love is infinite; and
when God gives life, it is forever.

From Pope John Paul II's homily at the

Capitol Mall in Washington, D.C., on October
7, 1979. quoted in "Human Life is the Gift of
God." The Wanderer, October 18, 1979, pages
1 and 9.

No matter what the distinction between those different moments in the development
of life, already born or still to be born, for profane and ecclesiastical law and for
certain civil and penal consequences according to the moral law, in all these cases it
is a matter of a grave and illicit attempt on inviolable human life.

This principle holds good both for the mother as well as the child. Never and in no
case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the
mother. It is erroneous to place the question with this alternative: Either the life of
the child or that of the mother. No; neither the life of the mother nor of the child may
be submitted to an act of suppression. Both for the one and the other the demand
cannot be but this: To use every means to save the life of both the mother and the
child.
 Pope Pius XII, Address to the Family Front
Congress, November 27, 1951. Published
inMatrimony, Papal Teachings. Boston: St.
Paul Editions, 1963, pages 437 to 440, and
reprinted in its entirety in the Daughters of St.
Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 31 to 34.
[1]

Human life is sacred, even before it is born. Sexuality and sexual love are sacred, as
the mysterious source of human life. These truths have been honored by the great
majority of man all through history, whatever their religion and whatever their
culture.

The Christian principle of respect for human life at every stage of its existence is
firm and clear. God alone is the Lord of life. Man is made in His image and likeness.
We come from God. We go to God. We belong to God. God's commandment "Thou
shalt not kill" unconditionally forbids all taking of innocent human life from its
beginnings in the womb until the end that God, not man, has set for it. One must
have absolute respect for human life as coming from God's hands at the very first
moment of conception and as remaining under God's care on earth until He takes it
back to Himself again in death.

Some will argue that not every life is of equal value. But in the eyes of God, every
life is equal and of priceless value. We must see every life as having the value which
it has for God.

Joint Pastoral Letter of the Bishops of Ireland.

"Human Life Is Sacred." May 1, 1975,
paragraphs 1 and 4. Printed in the English
edition of LOsservatore Romano, May 22,
1975, and reprinted in its entirety in the
Daughters of St. Paul's publication Yes to Life,
pages 146 to 165.[1]

3. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: Laws which permit the killing of prenatal

human life are illicit, and no true Christian can work for such laws, support a
politician who votes for such laws, nor can the Christian even vote for such laws.
In fact, the Christian has a duty to resist such laws.

It has already been said and must be repeated incessantly: What is legal is not
necessarily always moral; there are also legal injustices; a crime does not cease to be
so even if the law permits it, since it is written: "Thou shalt not kill."

Address of Monsignor Luoni, Representative

of the Holy See at the Office of the United
 Nations, at the 26th World Assembly of the
World Health Organization (WHO) on May
21, 1973. Reprinted in the June 7, 1973
English edition of LOsservatore Romano,
and reprinted in its entirety in the Daughters
of St. Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 60
to 64.[1]

Therefore there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic,

social, economic or moral 'indication' which can show or give a valid juridical title
for a direct deliberate disposing of an innocent human life which is to say, a
disposition that aims at its destruction either as an end in itself or as the means of
attaining another end that is perhaps, in no way unlawful in itself.

Pope Paul VI's address entitled "Defense of

the Right to Birth," delivered at the Twenty-
Third National Congress of the Union of
Italian Catholic Jurists on December 9, 1972.
Reprinted in the December 21, 1972 English
edition of LOsservatore Romano, and
reprinted in its entirety in the Daughters of St.
Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 41 to 45.
[1] Section II, "Church's Teaching
Unchanged."

The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded
of them (by the state) which is openly repugnant to the natural or divine law, for it is
equally unlawful to command anyone to do anything in which the law of nature or
the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled
to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of
rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to 'give to Caesar the things that
are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's' (Matt. 22:21), and must reply
courageously after the example of Apostles: 'We ought to obey God rather than men'
(Acts 5:29). And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should
be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and
the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert
justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.

Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Diuturnum (June 29, 1881).

Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from
God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore,
there is no man, no society, no human authority, no science, no "indication" at all
whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral that may offer or give a
valid judicial title for a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life, that is, a
disposal that aims at its destruction, whether as an end in itself or as a means to
achieve the end, perhaps in no way at all illicit. The direct destruction of so-called
"useless lives," already born or still in the womb, practiced extensively a few years
ago [by Nazi Germany], can in no wise be justified ... The life of an innocent person
is sacrosanct, and any direct attempt or aggression against it is a violation of one of
the fundamental laws without which secure human society is impossible ... [N]ever
forget this: There rises above every human law and above every "indication" the
faultless law of God.

Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives,

October 29, 1951. Reprinted in its entirety in
the Daughters of St. Paul's publication Yes to
Life, pages 28 to 30.[1]

... The [Second Vatican] Council wishes to remind men that the natural law of
peoples and its universal principles still retain their binding force. The conscience of
mankind firmly and ever more emphatically proclaims these principles. Any action
which deliberately violates these principles and any order which commands such
actions (genocide, attacks on the innocent, or terrorism) is criminal, and blind
obedience cannot excuse those who carry them out.

Vatican Council II, Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 79

(1965).

As the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of
private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.

Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Populorum Progressio.

The role of law is not to record what is done, but to help in promoting improvement.
It is at all times the task of the State to preserve each person's rights and to protect
the weakest. In order to do so the State will have to right many wrongs. The law is
not obliged to sanction everything, but it cannot act contrary to a law which is deeper
and more majestic than any human law: The natural law engraved in men's hearts by
the Creator as a norm which reason clarifies and strives to formulate properly, and
which one must always struggle to understand better, but which it is always wrong to
contradict. Human law can abstain from punishment, but it cannot declare to be right
what would be opposed to the natural law, for this opposition suffices to give the
assurance that a law is not a law at all.

It must in any case be clearly understood that a Christian can never conform to a law
which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in
principle the licitness of abortion. Nor can a Christian take part in a propaganda
campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in
its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find
themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the
Christian law and their professional situation.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith. "Declaration on Procured Abortion."
November 18, 1974. Reprinted in its entirety
in the Daughters of St. Paul's publication Yes
to Life, pages 67 to 82.[1] Paragraphs 21 and
22.

Consistent with our nation's legal tradition, we hold that all human laws must
ultimately be measured against the natural law engraved in our hearts by the Creator.
A human law or policy contrary to this higher law, especially one which ignores or
violates fundamental rights, surrenders its claim to the respect and obedience of
citizens, while in no way lessening their obligation to uphold the moral law.

United States bishops, in their 1985 Pastoral

Plan for Pro-Life Activities.

Some sins constitute a direct attack on one's neighbor, and more exactly, in the
language of the Gospel, against one's brother or sister. These sins are usually called
social sins. The term social applies to every sin against justice in interpersonal
relationships, committed either by the individual against the community or by the
community against the individual. Also social is every sin against the rights of the
human person, beginning with the right to life and including the life of the unborn ...
It is not just those who cause or support evil or who exploit it, but also those who are
in a position to avoid, eliminate, or at least limit certain social evil but who fail to do
so out of laziness, fear, or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or
indifference; of those who take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the
world, and also of those who sidestep the efforts and sacrifices required, producing
specious [false] reasons of a higher order.

Pope John Paul II, Pastoral Letter on

Reconciliation and Penance.

A movement of passive resistance to the legitimation of practices contrary to human

life and dignity is beginning to make an ever sharper impression upon the moral
conscience of many. Conscientious objection to laws destructive to human life
should be recognized and supported.

Vatican's 1986 statement The Dignity of Procreation.

In these matters, I take Mahatma Gandhi as my mentor.

Pope John Paul II replying to a request to

 bless the first clinic rescue in Great Britain in
March of 1986. Quoted in Vincent
Fitzpatrick's letter entitled "Cops and
Conscience," Fidelity Magazine, October
1987, page 3.

4. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: The killing of the unborn by abortion will

inevitably lead to other abuses against human life, including infanticide,
euthanasia, and outright coercion.

It is significant that the arguments advanced for euthanasia are exactly parallel to
those advanced for abortion. It is argued that the fetus is human only potentially; that
it is not a free or rational person; that it is kept alive only through the life-support
given it by others. In exactly the same way, it is said that the incapacitated or senile
person is only "a piece of human wreckage" (this is an exact quotation from a recent
plea for euthanasia); that he is "only a vegetable;" that he is being kept alive only by
the kindness of relatives and the life-support systems of medicine. It is, in fact,
impossible to construct a definition of abortion in such a way as to justify abortion
but to forbid euthanasia.

Joint Pastoral Letter of the Bishops of Ireland.

"Human Life Is Sacred." May 1, 1975. Printed
in the English edition ofLOsservatore
Romano, May 22, 1975, and reprinted in its
entirety in the Daughters of St. Paul's Yes to
Life, pages 146 to 165.[1]

Disregard for the sacred character of life in the womb weakens the very fabric of
civilization; it prepares a mentality, and even a public attitude, that can lead to the
acceptance of other practices that are against the fundamental rights of the individual.
This mentality can, for example, completely undermine concern for those in want,
manifesting itself in insensitivity to social needs; it can produce contempt for the
elderly, to the point of advocating euthanasia; it can prepare the way for those forms
of genetic engineering that go against life, the dangers of which are not yet fully
known to the general public.

Pope Paul VI, September 11, 1968.

If society and the legislator fail to guarantee this right to life right from its immediate
beginning, many other human lives are endangered. Once accepted, the arguments
brought out in the attempt to justify abortion will pave the way for others which will
imperil the lives of the disabled, the incurable, the old outcasts of every kind. Once
the principle of respect due equally to every human being has been violated, who
would be able to stem the flood of its consequences?
 Declaration of the Belgian Bishops, April 6,
1973. Reprinted in the June 14, 1973 English
edition of LOsservatore Romano, and
reprinted in its entirety in the Daughters of St.
Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 85 to 102.
[1] Section I4, "Other Threatened Lives."

It would seem also that a process of liberalization, once initiated, might follow an
inexorable course of further and further liberalization. In England, the law against
abortion was liberalized in mid-1968. In eight months, the number of abortions, now
legal, easy, and "respectable," has tripled. It is frighteningly plausible that the
anticipated sequence might be: Legal abortion in particular cases, legal abortion upon
simple request, legal sterilization, legal euthanasia, removal of the choice from the
mother to a medical board, to a social worker, to the state. In the end, both the
mother might lose her right to fruitfulness, and also the child its right to life.

A Statement on Abortion By the Bishops of

Illinois, March 20, 1969. Reprinted in its
entirety in the Daughters of St. Paul's
publication Yes to Life, pages 202 to 209.[1]
Part II, "Abortion and the Law," Paragraph
19.

We plead with you to recognize the terrible consequence of legalized abortion. Once
innocent life at any stage is placed at the mercy of others, a vicious principle has
been legalized. Thereafter, a simple majority may decide that life is to be denied the
defective, the aged, the incorrigible, and granted only to the strong, the beautiful, and
the intelligent. The day may come when lawmakers could set standards which people
must meet if they are to remain alive. Already one standard has been set who can say
what others will come next? For, once respect for human life has been undermined,
the murderous possibilities are limitless.

Declaration of the Bishops of New York

State, December 2, 1970. Reprinted in its
entirety in the Daughters of St. Paul's
publication Yes to Life, pages 221 to 223.[1]
Paragraph 7.

5. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: Abortion can never be made allowable,

regardless of circumstances. These include rape, incest, fetal deformity,
maternal physical and mental health, or any other economic or social indicator.

But another very grave crime is to be noted, venerable brethren, which regards the
taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother's womb ... As to the "medical
and therapeutic indication" to which, using their own words, we have made
reference, venerable brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health
and even life are gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by
nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way
the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here.
Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God
and the law of nature: "You shall not kill." The life of each is equally sacred, and no
one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it ...

The direct procuring of abortion is never justified by any "indication" nor by any
human law; nor is it shown to be licit by appealing to the argument of self-defense or
of extreme necessity ... Those who hold the reins of government should not forget
that it is the duty of public authority, by appropriate laws, to defend the lives of the
innocent, and this all the more since those whose lives are endangered and assailed
cannot defend themselves. Among whom We must mention, in the first place, infants
hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend
them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors
or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood
which cries from earth to heaven.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii #67, December

31, 1930.

In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage,
We must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process
already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for
therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.

Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently

declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man
or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of
the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural
consequences, purposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation
impossible.

Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae, July

25, 1968, Paragraph 14.

6. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: The principle of the "double effect" is licit in

the instance where an operation must be performed on a pregnant woman for
the purpose of saving her life, and the death of her unborn child is inevitable
and foreseen, yet not as a result of a direct attack on its life.

It has been our intention here to use always the expressions "direct attempt on the life
of the innocent person" [and] "direct killing." The reason is that if, for example, the
safety of the life of the future mother, independently of her state of pregnancy, might
call for an urgent surgical operation, or any other therapeutic application, which
would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but
inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could not be called a direct attempt on
the innocent life. In these conditions the operation can be lawful, as can other similar
medical interventions, provided that it be a matter of great importance, such as life,
and that it is not possible to postpone it till the birth of the child, or to have recourse
to any other efficacious remedy.

Both for the one and the other, the demand cannot be but this: To use every means to
save the life of both the mother and the child.

Pope Pius XII, Address to the Family Front

Congress on November 27, 1951. Published
in Matrimony, Papal Teachings. Boston: St.
Paul Editions, 1963, pages 437 to 440, and
reprinted in its entirety in Yes to Life,
published by the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St.
Paul's Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02130.
330 pages, soft cover. Pages 31 to 34.

See Also:

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Declaration on

Procured Abortion." November 18, 1974. Reprinted in its entirety in the
Daughters of St. Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 67 to 82.[1] Article
14.
Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives, October 29, 1951. Reprinted in
its entirety in the Daughters of St. Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 28
to 30.[1] This speech is codified in the Pope's Acta Apostilicae Sedis,
43(1951), page 855.
Declaration of the Belgian Bishops, April 6, 1973, reprinted in the June 14,
1973 edition of LOsservatore Romano, and reprinted in its entirety in the
Daughters of St. Paul's Yes to Life, pages 85 to 102.[1] See Section 1(a),
"Respect for Human Life," paragraphs 7 and 8.
Statement of the Catholic Bishops of Canada, February 7, 1968, reprinted
in its entirety in the Daughter of St. Paul's Yes to Life, pages 105 to 112.[1]
See Section I, "Abortion and Respect for Life: Borderline Cases,
paragraphs 1 through 5.
Pastoral Letter of the Korean Bishops, February 18, 1973, reprinted in the
April 12, 1973 edition of LOsservatore Romano, and reprinted in its
entirety in the Daughters of St. Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 179 to
183.[1] See Section 2, "The Right to Life of the Unborn Child."

7. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: All Catholics, including medical personnel

and lay people, may never perform or assist in any manner the procurement of
an abortion. Any such action leads to instant excommunication.

Qui abortum procurat, effectu secuto, in excommunicationem, latae sententiae,

incurrat.

Those who successfully abort a living human fetus bring on themselves instant
excommunication.

Canon Law Number 1398.

No Catholic can responsibly take a 'pro-choice' stand when the 'choice' involves the
taking of innocent human life.

National Council of Catholic Bishops, Fall

1989 conference resolution of November 8,
1989.

The Declaration [on Religious Freedom] does not base the right to the free exercise
of religion on 'freedom of conscience.' Nowhere does this phrase occur. And the
Declaration nowhere lends its authority to the theory for which the phrase frequently
stands, namely, that I have the right to do what my conscience tells me to do, simply
because my conscience tells me to do it. This is a perilous theory. Its particular peril
is subjectivism the notion that, in the end, it is my conscience, and not the objective
truth, which determines what is right and wrong, true or false.

Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., principle

author of Vatican II's Declaration on
Religious Freedom, quoted in Russell Shaw.
"Answers." National Catholic Register,
September 13, 1992, page 4.

Accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept, incur the same
penalty [latae sententiae excommunication] if, without their assistance, the crime
would not have been committed, and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to
affect them; otherwise, they can be punished with ferendae sententiae [inflicted by
clergy] penalties.

Section 2 of Canon Law 1329.

We urge you, as strongly as we can, to oppose and reject abortion. Lest anyone take
our words lightly, we must also remind you that the Church invokes a severe sanction
against any Catholic who raises his unfeeling hand to destroy this most defenseless
of all human beings the unborn baby. The Church disowns by immediate
excommunication any Catholic who deliberately procures an abortion or helps
someone else to do so.

Declaration of the Bishops of New York State,

December 2, 1970. Reprinted in its entirety in
the Daughters of St. Paul's publication Yes to
Life, pages 221 to 223.[1] Paragraph 8.

To keep the seriousness of the [abortion] matter impressed upon her members, the
Church continues to list this sin as so serious that those who take part in an actual
abortion incur excommunication.

"An Open Letter From the Catholic Bishops

of Texas," April 1971. Reprinted in its entirety
in the Daughters of St. Paul's publication Yes
to Life, pages 235 to 250.[1] Part Two: "The
Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on
These Matters," paragraph 8.

Abortion is and has always been considered a serious violation of God's law. Those
who obtain an abortion, those who persuade others to have an abortion, and those
who perform the abortion procedure are guilty of breaking God's law. Moreover, in
order to emphasize the special evil of abortion, under Church law, those who undergo
or perform an abortion place themselves in a state of excommunication.

Pastoral Message of the Administrative

Committee, National Conference of Catholic
Bishops, dated February 13, 1973. Reprinted
in its entirety in the Daughters of St. Paul's
publication Yes to Life, pages 260 to 264.[1]

A person can be:

A. A principal agent (doctor, midwife, etc.) who does the abortion. To act in
this capacity is always morally wrong and therefore not permitted.
B. A secondary agent (nurse, technician, counselor, husband, etc.) who
helps the operation be performed by the principal agent and who
cooperates:
1. Formally (i.e., you approve the abortion)
a. In an explicit way (a husband ordering his wife to have an abortion; a
mother approving her unmarried or married daughter's abortion
operation). To cooperate in this capacity is always morally wrong and
therefore not permitted.
b. In an implicit way (physically aiding in the abortion operation, such as
making the incision; providing anesthesia, etc.). To cooperate in this
capacity is always morally wrong and therefore not permitted.
2. Materially (i.e., although you do not approve the abortion you are a help
 to the principal agent in some way: Wheeling the patient into the
operating room, preparing saline solution used in some abortion
procedures, providing preoperative nursing care to all ward patients,
including abortion cases). To cooperate materially is permitted only
when:
a. the manner of your cooperation is not an evil act in itself (i.e.,
wheeling of a cart, preparing a solution, making a bed, taking a blood
sample, typing a medical chart, recording an admission, etc.) and
b. the reason for your cooperation is sufficiently important (other similar
opportunities of employment are not available; the employment is
necessary to support a family; or you are a member of the board of a
hospital and you can accomplish good through continuing service). On
the other hand, to cooperate materially is morally wrong and is not
permitted when:
1. the manner of your cooperation is evil (abortion is the only activity in
your place of employment, or your activity is exclusively related to
abortion);
2. the reason for your cooperation is not sufficient (it is a matter of
minor importance to you that you work in this place of
employment).

The Bishops of Connecticut. "Your

Conscience and Abortion," September 1974.
Reprinted in its entirety in the Daughters of
St. Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 267 to
275.[1] See Section II, "An Informed
Conscience."

We are also confident that our [Catholic] hospitals and health care personnel will be
identified by a dedication to the sanctity of life, and by an acceptance of their
conscientious responsibility to protect the lives of both mother and child. We
strongly urge our doctors, nurses and health care personnel to stand fast in refusing to
provide abortion on request, and in refusing to accept easily available abortion as
justifiable medical care.

Statement of the Committee for Pro-Life

Affairs of the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops, January 24, 1973.
Reprinted in the February 15, 1973 English
edition of LOsservatore Romano, and in the
Daughters of St. Paul's publication Yes to Life,
pages 258 to 260.[1] See paragraph 4.

8. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: The Catholic Church has always opposed

abortion for any reason and at any stage of fetal development, contrary to the
propaganda offered by certain enemies of the Church.

In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have
taught the same doctrine the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did
not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle
Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present
until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and
the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for the first period more
lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. Bit it was never
denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively
a grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous. Among the many
documents it is sufficient to recall certain ones. The first Council of Mainz in 847
reconsidered the penalties against abortion which had been established by preceding
Councils. It decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed "on women
who procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb."[A] The Decree of
Gratian reported the following words of Pope Stephen V: "That person is a murderer
who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived."[B] St. Thomas, the
Common Doctor of the Church, teaches that abortion is a grave sin against the
natural law.[C] At the time of the Renaissance, Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion
with the greatest severity.[D] A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of
certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment
accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.[E] In
our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the
greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.[F] Pius XII
clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a
means.[G] John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of
life "which from its beginnings demands the action of God the Creator."[H] Most
recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely
condemned abortion: "Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception;
abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."[I] The same Paul VI, speaking on
this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of
the Church "has not changed and is unchangeable."[J]

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Declaration on Procured

Abortion." November 18, 1974. Reprinted in its entirety in the Daughters of St.
Paul's Yes to Life.[1] Pages 67 to 82. Paragraph 7. Endnotes are as follows. [A]
Canon 21 (Mansi, 14, page 909), Council of Elvira, Canon 63 (Mansi, 2, page 16),
and the Council of Ancyra, Canon 21 (ibid, page 519). [B] Gratian, Concordiantia
Discordantium Canonum, c. 20, C 2, question 2. [C] Commentary on the Sentences,
book IV, dist. 31, exposition of the text. [D] Constitutio ffraenatum in 1588
(Bullarium Romanum, V, I, pages 25 to 27); Fontes Iuris Canonici, I, no. 165, pages
308 to 311. [E] The Constitution Apostolicai Sedis of Pius XI (Acta Pii IX, V, pages
55 to 72). [F] Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii. [G] Pius XII, Discourse to the
Saint Luke Union of Italian Doctors of November 12, 1944. [H] John XXIII,
Encyclical Mater et Magistra. [I] Encyclical Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 51. [J]
Speech of Paul VI, Salutiamo con paterna effusione, December 9, 1972.

SECTION C. CATHOLIC TEACHING REGARDING EUTHANASIA AND

INFANTICIDE

1. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: No human being has the right to end his own
life, because this life is a gift from God. Just as God created our souls and gave
us life, only He can call us home.

As far as the person is concerned, he is not absolute master of himself, of his body, or
of his soul. He cannot, therefore, freely dispose of himself as he pleases. Even the
motive for which he acts is not by itself either sufficient or determining. The person
is bound by the immanent purposes fixed by nature. He possesses the right to use,
limited by natural finality, the faculties and powers of his human nature. Because he
is the beneficiary, and not the proprietor, he does not possess unlimited power to
allow acts of destruction or of mutilation.

Pope Pius XII. Address entitled "The

Intangibility of the Human Person."
September 13, 1952.

Intentionally causing one's own death, or suicide, is equally as wrong as murder;

such an action on the part of a person is to be considered as a rejection of God's
sovereignty and loving plan.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith. "Declaration on Euthanasia." May 5,
1980.

What must always be remembered is that certain actions are good or evil in
themselves already, apart from the motive or intention for which they are done.
Deliberately to take one's own life is suicide and is gravely wrong in all
circumstances. To cooperate with another in taking his own life is to share in the guilt
of suicide. Deliberately to terminate the innocent life of another is murder, no matter
how merciful the motives, no matter how seemingly desirable the result.

The Bishops of Ireland. Joint Pastoral Letter

entitled "Human Life is Sacred," March 1,
1975. Reprinted in the May 22, 1975 English
edition of LOsservatore Romano, and
reprinted in its entirety in the Daughters of St.
Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 146 to
165.[1]

One must clearly distinguish suicide from that sacrifice of one's life whereby for a
higher cause, such as God's glory, the salvation of souls or the service of one's
brethren, a person offers his or her own life or puts it in danger (cf. Jn. 15:14).

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith. "Declaration on Euthanasia." May 5,
1980.

2. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: Laws that permit or encourage euthanasia

and infanticide can never be legitimate.

No one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for
another person entrusted to his or her care; nor can he or she consent to it, either
explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such
an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the
dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.

It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way
permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an
infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a
person who is dying.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith. "Declaration on Euthanasia." May 5,
1980.

Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception; abortion
and infanticide are abominable crimes.

Second Vatican Council, Encyclical Gaudium

et Spes, IV, 51.

Therefore, medical law can never permit either the physician or the patient to
practice direct euthanasia, and the physician can never practice it either on himself or
on others. This is equally true for the direct suppression of the fetus and for medical
actions which go counter to the law of God clearly manifested. In all this, medical
law has no authority and the doctor is not obliged to obey it. On the contrary, he is
obliged not to take it into consideration; all formal assistance is forbidden him, while
material assistance falls under the general norms of cooperatio materialis.

Pope Pius XII, in his September 11, 1956

radio message to the International Congress of
Catholic Physicians. Reprinted inMatrimony,
Papal Teachings. Boston: St. Paul Editions,
1963, and in the Daughters of St. Paul's
 publication Yes to Life, page 34.[1]

3. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: The Church does not require that the

process of dying be prolonged to the maximum extent possible through the use
of "heroic measures."

A very real problem arises when artificial measures of resuscitation and life-support
become death-delaying rather than properly life-supporting. There is clearly no moral
obligation to keep a body breathing and biologically alive after irreversible brain
death has occurred. It is not euthanasia to decline the use of such means or even to
discontinue them when it is clear that they are only death-delaying.

The Bishops of Ireland. Joint Pastoral Letter

entitled "Human Life is Sacred," March 1,
1975. Reprinted in the May 22, 1975 English
edition of LOsservatore Romano, and
reprinted in its entirety in the Daughters of St.
Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 146 to
165.[1]

4. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: The use of painkilling drugs by a person in

extreme agony is not immoral, but he should be conscious before death in order
to properly prepare to meet God.

It may happen that, by reason of prolonged and barely tolerable pain, for deeply
personal or other reasons, people may be led to believe that they can legitimately ask
for death or obtain it for others. Although in these cases the guilt of the individual
may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which
the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of
killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected. The pleas of gravely
ill people who sometimes ask for death are not the be understood as implying a true
desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help
and love. What a sick person needs, besides medical care, is love, the human and
supernatural warmth with which the sick person can and ought to be surrounded by
all those close to him or her, parents and children, doctors and nurses.

One must not be surprised in some Christians prefer to moderate their use of
painkillers, in order to accept voluntarily at least a part of their sufferings and thus
associate themselves in a conscious way with the sufferings of Christ crucified (cf.
Mt. 27:34). Nevertheless it would be imprudent to impose a heroic way of acting as a
general rule. On the contrary, human and Christian prudence suggest for the majority
of sick people the use of medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain, even
though these may cause as a secondary effect semi-consciousness and reduced
lucidity. As for those who are not in a state to express themselves, one can reasonably
presume that they wish to take these painkillers and have them administered
according to the doctor's advice.

Painkillers that cause unconsciousness need special consideration. For a person not
only has to be able to satisfy his or her moral duties and family obligations; he or she
also has to prepare himself or herself with full consciousness for meeting Christ.
Thus Pius XII warns: "It is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness
without a serious reason."

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith. "Declaration on Euthanasia." May 5,
1980.

Those with experience of nursing the terminally ill and the old know that what they
fear is not death so much as being abandoned and left alone. They fear being unloved
and unwanted even more than they fear pain. Everything is bearable, even death
loses terror, in the presence of those who love us.

The Bishops of Ireland. Joint Pastoral Letter

entitled "Human Life is Sacred," March 1,
1975. Reprinted in the May 22, 1975 English
edition of LOsservatore Romano, and
reprinted in its entirety in the Daughters of St.
Paul's publication Yes to Life, pages 146 to
165.[1]

SECTION D. CATHOLIC TEACHING REGARDING SEXUAL

STERILIZATION

Above all, direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, is to be absolutely excluded
as lawful mans of controlling the birth of children. Equally to be condemned as the
Magisterium of the Church has affirmed on various occasions, is direct sterilization,
whether of the man or the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or
in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes,
whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.

Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968,

14.

Three things condition the moral permission of a surgical operation requiring an

anatomical or functional mutilation;

(1) that the preservation or functioning of a particular organ provokes a serious

damage or constitutes a threat to the complete organism [this is the 'principle of
totality'];

(2) that this damage cannot be avoided, or at least notably diminished, except by the
amputation in question and that its efficacy is well assured; and

(3) that it can be reasonably foreseen that the negative effect, namely, the mutilation
and its consequences, will be compensated by the positive effect: exclusion of a
damage to the whole organism, mitigation of the pain, etc.

[As far as sterilization is concerned], the conditions which would justify disposing of
a part in favor of the whole in virtue of the principle of totality are lacking. It is not
therefore morally permissible to operate on healthy oviducts if the life or (physical)
health of the mother is not threatened by their continued existence.

Pope Pius XII, in his address to the Congress

of Urology on October 8, 1953.

Any sterilization which of itself, that is, of its own nature and condition, has the sole
immediate effect of rendering the generative faculty incapable of procreation, is to be
considered direct sterilization, as the term is understood in the declarations of the
pontifical magisterium, especially of Pius XII. Therefore, notwithstanding any
subjectively right intention of those whose actions are prompted by the care of
prevention of physical or mental illness which is foreseen or feared as a result of
pregnancy, such sterilization remains absolutely forbidden to the doctrine of the
church. And indeed the sterilization of the faculty itself is forbidden for an even
graver reason than the sterilization of individual acts, since it induces a state of
sterility in the person which is almost always irreversible.

Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith's statement of March 13, 1975, in reply
to the United States National Conference of
Catholic Bishops.

The Catholic Church has consistently, and at regular intervals, condemned

sterilization for any reason whatever except to save the life of the man or woman. In
addition to the documents stated above, some of the Church's other pronouncements
against sexual sterilization are listed below.

"Encyclical on Christian Marriage" (Casti Conubii), Pope Pius XI,

December 31, 1930, paragraphs 68 to 71.

Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (topic:

sterilization for eugenics), March 18, 1931.

Pronouncement to the Cardinals in Response to Recent Nazi Legislation in

 Germany, Pope Pius XI, December 23, 1933.

Decree of the Congregation for the Holy Office, February 24, 1940.

Address to the Congress of the Italian Association of Midwives,

paragraphs 24 to 26, October 29, 1951.

Address to the Symposium on Medical Genetics, Pope Pius XII,

September 7, 1953

Address to the Seventh Congress on Hematology, Pope Pius XII,

September 12, 1958.

Pastoral Letter of the Indian Bishops, January 15, 1977.

Among documents of the Bishops of the United States that have condemned all
sterilization procedures for both men and women are;

United States Catholic Conference Administrative Board, Statement on

Sterilization Procedures in Catholic Hospitals, November 22, 1977.

United States Catholic Conference of Bishops: Statement on Tubal

Ligation, July 9, 1980.

SECTION E. CATHOLIC TEACHING REGARDING EUGENICS

Question: "What is thought of the theory called 'eugenics,' whether positive or

negative, and of the means indicated by it to improve the human race without taking
into consideration neither natural or divine or ecclesiastical laws relative to marriage
and individual rights?"

Answer: "The theory of 'eugenics' is to be held entirely blamable, false and

condemned, in accordance with the Encyclical on Christian Marriage, Casti
Connubii, December 31, 1930.

Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the

Holy Office on Eugenics, March 18, 1931.

Each human person, in his absolutely unique singularity, is constituted not only by
his spirit, but by his body as well. Thus, in the body and through the body, one
touches the person himself in his concrete reality. It is on the basis of this
anthropological vision that one should find the fundamental criteria for decision-
making in the case of not strictly therapeutic interventions, for example, those aimed
at the amelioration of the human biological condition.
In particular, this kind of intervention must not infringe on the origin of human life,
that is, procreation linked to the union, not only biological but also spiritual, of the
parents, united by the bond of marriage. It must consequently respect the
fundamental dignity of men and the common biological nature which is at the base of
liberty, avoiding manipulations that tend to modify genetic inheritance and to create
groups of different men at the risk of causing new cases of marginalization in society.

Genetic manipulation becomes arbitrary and unjust when it reduces life to an object,
when it forgets that it is dealing with a human subject, capable of intelligence and
freedom, worthy of respect, whatever may be his limitations; or when it treats this
person in terms of criteria not founded on the integral reality of the human person, at
the risk of infringing upon his dignity. In this case, it exposes the individual to the
caprice of others, thus depriving him of his autonomy.

Pope John Paul II. "Genetic Manipulation."

address to the World Medical Association on
October 29, 1983. Quoted in "Pope Expresses
Concern About Genetic Engineering." The
Wanderer, November 10, 1983, pages 1 and 6.

SECTION F. CATHOLIC TEACHING REGARDING HOMOSEXUALITY

1. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: The homosexual orientation is intrinsically

disordered.

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more
or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil and thus the inclination
itself must be seen as an objective disorder ... It is only in the marital relationship that
the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual
behavior therefore acts immorally.

To choose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich
symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design.
Homosexual activity is not a complementary union able to transmit life; and so it
thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the
essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not
often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual
activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is
essentially self-indulgent.

Letter to Bishops from the Vatican's

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
October 1, 1987. On the Pastoral Care of
Homosexual Persons. Sections 3 and 7.
Some of these [pro-homosexual] groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe
either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote
the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their
members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teachings of Jesus, in fact
they abandon the teaching of His church. Thus contradictory action should not have
the support of the bishops in any way.

The Church's doctrine regarding homosexuality is thus based, not on isolated phrases
for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant biblical
testimony ... He fashions mankind, male and female in His own image and likeness.
Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God Himself; and in the
complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator.

Letter to Bishops from the Vatican's

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
October 1, 1987. On the Pastoral Care of
Homosexual Persons. Section 14.

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the
psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely,
homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the
constant teaching of the magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose
tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development,
from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at
least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind
of innate instinct or a pathological constitution are judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their
tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a
sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, insofar as such
homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding
and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability
to fit into society. This culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral
method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the
grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For
according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an
essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as
serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This
judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who
suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact
that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith. Declaration on Certain Questions
Concerning Sexual Ethics. December 29,
1975. Available as a 28-page booklet for 50
cents from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St.
Paul's Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02130.
Section 8.

2. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: No Bishop or priest may in any way support

pro-homosexual organizations that call themselves "Catholic."

All support should be withdrawn from any organization which seeks to undermine
the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it or which neglect it entirely.
Such support or even the semblance of such support can be gravely misinterpreted.
Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and
the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic
schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use church property may seem
only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which
these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.

Letter to Bishops from the Vatican's

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
October 1, 1987. On the Pastoral Care of
Homosexual Persons. Section 17.

You must not lie with a man as with a woman. This is a hateful thing.

Leviticus 18:22.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be
upon them.

Leviticus 20:13.

The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally
unnatural and it is a warning to us that they are paying for their crimes in eternal fire.

Jude 7.

You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of
God: People of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites [pederasts], sodomites,
thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom
of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9,10.

The more they called themselves philosophers, the stupider they grew, until they
exchanged the glory of the immortal God for a worthless imitation, for the image of
mortal man ...

That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions: why their women have
turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices, and why their menfolk have
given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing
shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion.

In other words, since they refused to see it was rational to acknowledge God, God
has left them to their own irrational ideas and to their monstrous behavior.

And so they are steeped in all sorts of depravity, rottenness, greed and malice, and
addicted to envy, murder, wrangling, treachery and spite.
Libelers, slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant, and boastful, enterprising in sin,
rebellious to parents, without brains, honor, love or pity.
They know what God's verdict is: That those who behave like this deserve to die and
yet they do it; and what is worse, encourage others to do the same.

Romans 1:22, 26-32.

SECTION G. CATHOLIC TEACHING REGARDING OTHER SEXUAL

ISSUES

1. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: Cohabitation ("shacking up") is entirely

contrary to God's law and can never be justified.

Today there are many who vindicate the right to sexual union before marriage, at
least in those cases where a firm intention to marry and an affection which is already
in some way conjugal in the psychology of the subjects require this completion,
which they judge to be connatural. This is especially the case when the celebration of
the marriage is impeded by circumstances or when this intimate relationship seems
necessary in order for love to be preserved.

This opinion is contrary to Christian doctrine, which states that every genital act
must be within the framework of marriage. However firm the intention of those who
practice such premature sexual relations may be, the fact remains that these relations
cannot insure, in sincerity and fidelity, the interpersonal relationship between a man
and a woman, nor especially can they protect this relationship from whims and
caprices. Now it is a stable union that Jesus willed, and He restored its original
requirement, beginning with the sexual difference. "Have you not read that the
creator from the beginning made them male and female and that he said: "This is
why a man must leave father and mother, and cling to his wife, and the two become
one body? They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has
united man must not divide"[Matthew 19:4-6].

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith. Declaration on Certain Questions
Concerning Sexual Ethics. December 29,
1975. Available as a 28-page booklet for 50
cents from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St.
Paul's Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02130.
Section 7.

2. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: Masturbation ("self-abuse") is an

intrinsically disordered act.

The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder
is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and
sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially
among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure
that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self
("ipsation"), because in this case the act would indeed by radically opposed to the
loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is
principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.

This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic
Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical
nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the magisterium
of the Church in the course of a constant tradition and the moral sense of the faithful
have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously
disordered act. The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting in this way,
the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially
contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by
the moral order, namely, the relationship which realized "the full sense of mutual
self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love." All deliberate exercise
of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved
that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly
understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of
"impurity," "unchasteness," and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith. Declaration on Certain Questions
Concerning Sexual Ethics. December 29,
1975. Available as a 28-page booklet for 50
cents from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St.
 Paul's Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02130.
Section 9.

3. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE: Respect for the dignity of the human being

excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo.

Medical research must refrain from operations on live embryos, unless there is a
moral certainty of not causing harm to the life or integrity of the unborn child and the
mother, and on condition that the parents have given their free and informed consent
to the procedure. It follows that all research, even when limited to the simple
observation of the embryo, would become illicit were it to involve risk to the
embryo's physical integrity or life by reasons of the methods used or the effects
induced.

If the embryos are living, whether viable or not, they must be respected just like any
other human person; experimentation on embryos which is not directly therapeutic is
illicit. No objective, even though noble in itself, such as a foreseeable advantage to
science, to other human beings or to society, can in any way justify experimentation
on living human embryos or fetuses, whether viable or not, either inside or outside
the mother's womb. The informed consent ordinarily required for clinical
experimentation on adults cannot be granted by the parents, who may not freely
dispose of the physical integrity or life of the unborn child.

To use human embryos or fetuses as the object or instrument of experimentation

constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings having a right to the same
respect that is due to the child already born and to every human person. The Charter
of the Rights of the Family published by the Holy See affirms: "Respect for the
dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of
the human embryo.

The practice of keeping human embryos alive in vivo or in vitro for experimental or
commercial purposes is totally opposed to human dignity. In the case of
experimentation that is clearly therapeutic, namely, when it is a matter of
experimental forms of therapy used for the benefit of the embryo itself in the absence
of other reliable forms of therapy, recourse to drugs or procedures not yet fully tested
can be licit.

Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded, that there be no

complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided. Also, in the
case of dead fetuses, as for the corpses of adult persons, all commercial trafficking
must be considered illicit and should be prohibited.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

"Instruction on Respect for Human
Life"Donum Vitae. Section I, "Respect for
 Human Embryos," Part 4: "How is One
Morally To Evaluate Research and
Experimentation on Human Embryos and
Fetuses." 1987

START AGENDA Protocols 7

Protocol 7

Article 1 (Understanding the Laws of Nature)

1. As a common standard of achievement, and to secure the blessings of pro-creation, we come to

understand Love. Love; Love is a word of human rights and a side of safety to those who come endowed
with reason and consciousness. In another way we come to understand self realization, in and that, so
shalt thou do unto other's, brace thoughts, as shall be done unto thyselves hereunder.

(a) Understanding that of which is of paramount importance, perspective of a higher power, to which an
equal opportunity of give and take in the fields of development should be made uniform through
continuous cultural emergence thereinafter.

(b) Within the insignias of colorfast and common approach, and to promote and approve rules and
limitations regarding the exercise of equal opportunity status quo; all Party(s') to the Treaty(s') shall
conform to this entry, that be their no such transgender orientation, or trans genetical intransigencies
thereto in accordance with the statutes of Carnal Knowledge in scribed and assigned to the Vatican, and
His Holiness the Pope(s), and herein know now;

(c) no enzyme transgender orientation shall be considered lawful and is strictly prohibited there with nay
side all civil service branchs thereof; Enzyme means copulate or ingest hormone seed or estrogen
enzymes wrongfully or wrong as so do not comply and see the way of peace; thus Enzyme Sepulchers
Syndrome, or AESS Acquired Enzyme Sepulcher Syndrome, to that of which is a major cause for warfare
in the modern new millennium of Flight Star Elder companionships regardless that the Contac tees are
and may be given transport to other destinations even so infected with AESS, their are sub human
species to breed and so on down the line.
(d) Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted as affecting the unalienable rights of a naturalized
universally accepted common standard of genetic respect, through a vise and virtue connotation in
scribed and being justified by faith; we have a purpose of understanding love and survival. Verily it is
written, that obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right; whereas to show recourse as for mortal and
cardinal dissemination therein hereby for the sake of it to my name.

(e) In and that once more: their shall no man shall lie unto Mankind as with womankind it is abomination
thereto; and a visa versa; furthermore it is mutation; it is an anti-equation; it's when you don't, can't, or
won't, see eye to eye for a fight; in furtherance, that of which is of great importance; in furtherances:
womankind shall not ingest by oral extremeties nor baul imputes enzymes nor hormone seed emission in
that same attainment of proverbs, it is abomination and a cross pollination act.. Thatso like this current
detail descriptive, becomes a "blind spot", or an I won't know and don't see; for the purpose of de-
generating and using nuclear hexafluorides ammunition; was told thatone. This Article calls for a
Moratorium on transgender infidelity, by and for an U N Secretary General's quarter for the full realization
of an pledge to affirm a Faith whereof hereupon.

Protocol 8 START AGENDA TREATY(S)