Christmas Time is for Unborn Children Too

Christmas is universal. “Behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people…A Saviour has been born for you” (Luke 1:10-11).

Christ the Saviour becomes man precisely for all who share human nature. He excludes nobody. The good news of Christmas is for all people of all times and places. “Joy to the world.

In fact, so universal is this joy, that even nature shares in it: “Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion shall browse together, with a little child to guide them” (Isaiah 11:6). All of this leads to an inescapable conclusion: Christmas is also for the unborn. The Saviour has come also for the children yet living in their mothers’ wombs. The Gospel message is addressed also to our youngest brothers and sisters.

In fact, we can say it is addressed especially to them, because they are the most helpless.

That good news was announced first precisely to the lowly, not to the great and powerful. The ministry of the One who was born for us continued to follow that pattern: He consistently sought out those who were on the outskirts of society.

His Church does the same today, taking a preferential option for the poor. The “poor” are not simply those deprived of material goods. “This preferential option for the poor and vulnerable includes all who are marginalized in our nation and beyond—unborn children, persons with disabilities, the elderly and terminally ill, and victims of injustice and oppression” (US Bishops, Faithful Citizenship, 2007).

To welcome the Saviour means to welcome the obligations which His mission places on us. He is, in the words of the Prophets, one who will establish “justice” on the earth. In Biblical terms, this indicates He will intervene for the helpless, bringing deliverance to those held in bondage.

That’s all of us, of course, subject to the bondage of sin and death, unable to save ourselves.

But it’s especially our brothers and sisters in the womb, subject to the additional bondage of a Court decision that said, “The word person…does not include the unborn.” (Roe vs. Wade, 1973).

In the beautiful Christmas hymn, “O Holy Night,” we sing these words. “Truly He taught us to love one another; His law is love, and His Gospel is Peace. Chains shall he break, for the slave is our brother, and in His Name all oppression shall cease.”

Pope Benedict XVI has taught that “love for widows and orphans, prisoners, and the sick and needy of every kind, is as essential to [the Church] as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel” (Deus Caritas Est, no. 22). Our Christmas cannot be complete until we join in the great effort to end the oppression of the unborn once and for all, and let them hear that for them, too, a Saviour has been born.
 Steven Ertelt


About Gertrude

Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequítiam et insídias diáboli ésto præsídium.
This entry was posted in Pro Life and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Christmas Time is for Unborn Children Too

  1. Toadspittle says:

    “Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion shall browse together, with a little child to guide them” (Isaiah 11:6)”

    But the wolf guest will eat the lamb host. He has no choice it’s what he is “designed” for. And who if anyone, or anything, “intelligently designed” wolves that way? God?

    The young lion and the calf will not browse together, because the lion does not have “browsing” teeth. He has calf, lamb, and little-child eating teeth.

    Anyway, “All of this leads to an inescapable conclusion: Christmas is also for the unborn.”

    Logically, of course, it leads to no such thing. There is no logical link whatsoever.
    One might as well suggest it leads to the ‘inescapable conclusion’ that it’s perfectly safe to leave your little child alone with young lions, or that it leads to the ‘inescapable conclusion’ that the Euro is doomed..
    If it actually does lead to any “inescapable conclusion”, at all it is to no more than the conclusion that it is a bad idea to let lions lie down with lambs.

    If you want any lamb chops left to eat for supper yourself, that is.


  2. Gertrude says:

    Toad, if despair where not the opposite of hope, then I would despair of you – in actual fact I hope for you. Please tell me, is there any part of Roman Catholic doctrine you might agree with? Surely the Christian Brothers must have imparted something of the Faith that has stayed with you since those far-off days?

    In honour of her status as your wife I think Reb should be made a Papal Dame without delay!


  3. Toadspittle says:


    Toad wasn’t taught by Christian Brothers, Gertrude – priests, Dominicans, he seems to remember.
    But he does think there is much in Christianity of value – that we should not lie, cheat or steal, and should respect, and be tolerant of, other people. Although, these are not specifically Christian virtues, to be sure.
    Doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with other people, of course…

    Toad had to rack his tiny brain to think of a part of Catholic doctrine he agrees with. He agrees with eating fish on Fridays. He’s fond of a bit of flounder. And we were told never to call it “Roman.” (the church, that is, not the fish.) Oh, and he agrees with not coveting his neighbour’s ox. Smelly old thing!

    (Our house in Spain, is known as The Peacable Kingdom, so the post was of particular interest to me. And to The Dame, no doubt. I think I will call her that.)


  4. Gertrude says:

    I do beg your pardon Toad, I thought you had said ‘Christian Brothers’ (old age never comes alone), but the veritable Order of Preachers – well, they always were a trifle ‘liberal’ I seem to remember! 😉 As for the ‘Roman’ bit – with so many people calling themselves ‘catholic’ these days, it is sometimes necessary to be a little more specific when speaking of the One True Church.


  5. kathleen says:

    Were the Dominicans ‘a trifle liberal‘ once upon a time, Gertrude? I didn’t know that. I think they are considered thoroughly orthodox nowadays.


  6. kathleen says:

    Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion shall browse together, with a little child to guide them” (Isaiah 11:6)”

    Toad, you are teasing us with your twisting of the meaning of this passage……. you know perfectly well that Isaiah is talking metaphorically here. For your Catholic education ;-), this is a reflection on it from EWTN:

    The old joke about this passage is that the leopard might light down with the kid, but the kid won’t get much sleep. We chuckle at this because Isaiah gives us an image that goes against all our experience and expectations. Take note: the kingdom of God will not be how we expect it! Assumptions about natural friends and enemies are not true in the kingdom of God. What is the modern, urban equivalent of Isaiah’s pastoral image of lamb and wolf? Black and white folks breaking bread and worshipping together? A teenage delinquent and an older person sharing a cup of coffee? “The wolf shall be a guest of the lamb…”

    One could add that the lamb or kid is the unborn child – the most vulnerable of all mankind. That’s the connection being made in the article.


  7. Toadspittle says:


    “What is the modern, urban equivalent of Isaiah’s pastoral image of lamb and wolf? Black and white folks breaking bread and worshipping together?”

    Toad should bloody well hope not. He has some black friends, and, so far,he has not felt that by giving them lunch, he was likely to end up being eaten by them, or even getting cross with them.

    Black and white people is one thing. Lambs and wolves is another. Different species altogether. Lousy analogy.


  8. rebrites says:

    I am ready to be papally damed anytime, (I was once hands-on papally blessed by JP2, after all!) but I would not pass the dame exam. I am much more “liberal” in my Christianity even than Dominicans, alas, and becoming a papal damn is probably more likely.
    Toad is not nearly as ornery and difficult as he presents himself here. At home he is an example of the Peaceable Kingdom ethos, welcoming strangers, feeding abandoned hounds, wandering the fens searching for the lost and hungry, watering thirsty gardenias. (I think he has nothing against the Unborn, but we don´t encounter many of those hereabouts, so it remains an academic exercise.)
    Toad appears on CP&S as a huggable Devil´s Advocate, and thusly vents his intellectual spleen on virtual saints who remain in ether, far from his grubby and sometimes demanding reality. CP&S takes the brunt of him, so the damp and needy (and the Dame) need not contend with his anti-doctrinal histrionics. And in so doing, CP&S serves the pilgrims of St. James.
    Convoluted, but truth. The Dominicans would like it, I think.


  9. Gertrude says:

    Your reply made me chuckle, and I am sure Toad does enjoy ‘winding us up’! In the interests of the damp and the needy on the Camino, we are pleased to be of assistance – and long may he remain 😉
    What a blessing for you to have been so close to Blessed John Paul. I’m afraid my only glimpse of sanctity was when I was blessed by a priest who was ordained by a Bishop who was ordained by St. Pius X. I know it is a very loose connection, but hey ho.


  10. JabbaPapa says:

    Toad, there is an opposition in both Bibliological analysis and Catholic mysticism between a prelapsarian and a postlapsarian state of existence, encompassing not just the moral quandaries of mankind, but a broader view of reality itself.

    Now, I’m loathe to provide any detailed analyses of this rather arcane approach to things, given that it is concerned with certain interpretations of the Eden myth and simultaneously with a philosophical approach of the cosmic implications of the doctrine of Free Will, mainly because these things may be interpreted in various different allegorical, metaphorical, and abstract ways.

    There is an unstated thematic connection between the Fall of Man and the Fall of Lucifer, that we can only really meditate but not comprehend – precisely because it refers to the prelapsarian state and its transformation into the postlapsarian one.

    The mysticism teaches that this divorce concerns not just mankind, but reality itself.

    Hence the fairly radical divorce between the wolf and the lamb, between Eve and the serpent, Man and Eden, Past and Present. Howsoever you would interpret this comment of mine is of course your own concern…


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s