Fordham University professor: labeling unborn children as ‘innocent aggressors’ justifies abortion


Charles Camosy, an assistant professor of theology at Fordham University, addressed the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion on the website Catholic Moral Theology. The professor urged the church to help shape a new discussion on the issue, and said classifying an unborn child as an “innocent aggressor” could serve as justification for a mother to abort her child.


Editor’s note: Maybe this wacky professor is Barack Obama’s illegitimate son. This scandalous “theologian” and his disgusting premise is an excellent example of what has actually been considered permissible under the “rules” of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church.



  1. “innocent aggressor”


    If my door stop had a brain, it would look like Camosy’s.

    • I think, the Dear Professor, has had a Meltdown!
      I would say Pray for him….but what about those Impressionistic Students he teaches at Fordham?
      This guy, is BAD NEWS! He teaches WHAT?

  2. Abortion in the modern world stems from the idea that a baby should die because it is inconvenient to a modern life style? Abortion will always be wrong under ALL and in ALL circumstances. It is a mortal sin and the idea that it can be rethought out because of some technical trend is itself anathema!
    If a mother is going to die the church understands this is an act of God. BUT such an excuse must never be used to abort ie murder another human being.
    A baby is not the mothers property but in essence another human being. The notion that we can simply kill one person in order to protect another is vile and murderous. No self respecting human could have any thing to do with such barbarism!

    The editors note at the end? is hardly beneficial. This Camosy theologian is Mistaken but like Kung etc may well come from a Pre Vatican 2 time. Certainly nobody could or should assume that abortion is accepted by the Council as it is not! Please lets keep our self restraint within spheres of rationality and common sense, we shall not bark at the moon simply because we do not agree with it!

  3. “Certainly nobody could or should assume that abortion is accepted by the Council as it is not!”

    I think Doug’s point is quite clear, despite your distortion of it. In times before V-II, far fewer would have dared to opine as Camosy did from a Catholic university: even a Jesuit institution. Not so in our post-conciliar “enlightenment.” The likes of this fool are now legion: apt to be lionized by their peers and worshiped by their unfortunate, unformed and impressionable students.

    And please, do not accuse me of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. Regarding the disastrous effects of the council, there is more than mere correlation here and in numerous other matters. “Collegiality,” anyone? It’s obviously not just for prelates.

    Without knowing for certain, I would lay a heavy bet on the table right now that Fordham was already in full compliance—contraception and abortion coverage and all—before the HHS mandate took effect Aug. 1 for “religious-but-not-churches” institutions.

    • Apart from the almost utter waffle of your statement Mark, I would agree that since the Vatican 2 there has been far more waves and general testing of authority then that before it. I would however venture this is a good thing in as far it shows a Living Church that is allowing layman participation in a far greater move. Whereas it does nothing for the control freaks it does allow for reaffirmation of what Catholics may or not believe in.

      But there is I am afraid total and utter disagreement on just about everything else in your response! It is not my place to accuse you of rocking the boat or otherwise and I hope that we can agree to disagree. Although as a believer in the good old days of some pre Vatican 2 structure I am sure you perceive the irony in that dialogue would never be allowed and regarded even as heretical.

      Let us hope that the true Spirit portrayed in Vatican 2 of calm and rational logic has allowed us to disagree without resort to taking pop shots at each other.

      • Other than expressing my bafflement at your characterization of my “wafflement,” I leave your other points in the latter post unchallenged. No shots your way from my pop gun. So you can doff your kevlar and hang it back up.

  4. Scampy 22,
    The LIVING CHURCH filled with Apostate Folks, surrounding the Faithful, deceiving at every turn! Do you think that this, One Professor Camosy, is Alone?…He is Everywhere! Look at the way the younger generation thinks! My children are in the 21-26 bracket, and I hear, much through them….they are at Universities! ( Breeding Ground for UnChristian Thought!)

    • Mark, consider my trilby doffed!

      Cathy, I consider that there is a thing we sometimes call The Church and in this case I believe in One True and Holy Apostolic Church. Yet this is also an organisation composed of people from various ideas and cultures and both right and left understanding. This makes for tension and various internal conflicts. These are usually of a benign kind and without this dynamic tension then it is unlikely the Church would still exist.
      It is not a “modern” phenomena nor is it to be crushed under foot. However there are some influences outside the church that claim they are the One True Church. Nothing new here alas either and from the very beginning these false prophets have been in disguise.
      People such as Camosy seem from the article to be “mistaken” but not necessarily anti-Christ. They suffer from self delusion (often happens in very intelligent people) that they are right and all authority is second to their own understanding of the way things should be. There are many such people but their intellect is not lost just requiring a dash of humility?
      I am glad that your children are at University. They can meet new challenges therein and these institutions are not to be feared. The lack of faith or rather the challenge to it is formidable but not unconquerable. Prayer is always good and will win out, St Monica is a Champion of this reality.
      Lots of young people will rebel against the “older generation” and that is not a bad thing as they must be independent and make the world for new times. History is great but we must not imagine that we can live in some yesteryear of golden truths. ( I love the song Kids from Bye Bye Birdie as it shows some great internal conflicts in good humour)
      Camosy stand on abortion is incorrect but his point about choosing one life against another remains a complex one. I think he is trying to suggest that in a choice of saving mother OR unborn the former sometimes should be allowed life. It is a rare medical condition that requires one or other and there are no easy answers.

      We should not be afraid of meeting new problems if we believe in the Goodness of God and trust in his authority to put matters right. Lastly that is all Christians can do; to leave the outcome or whatever to Our Lord and put everything to him and trust in his mercy.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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