Today is Juneteenth. It's today that the the Emancipation Proclamation was essentially effective in the State of Texas but was and is celebrated by many emancipated slaves and their descendants elsewhere.
Did you know that President Reagan also made an Emancipation Proclamation? It was for preborn children (he used the words preborn!) and was proclaimed 14 January 1988. (Should the March for Life change its date to that day?)
Obviously it wasn't effective to outlaw abortion, but it's nice to know it happened, esp in the Personhood campaign.
It took the 13 and 14th amendments to ratify Lincoln's Proclamation. It's been too long for Reagan's to go unamended.
I wonder when it will. Just like slavery, it took a while for the effect to take place, but it was the right thing to do (there's even slavery/human trafficking today). Abortion will obviously be a similar deal when outlawed, but it's worth all that comes with it.
I've recently read that outlawing abortion will be like prohibition since it will just essentially create speakeasy environments. However, you know what, there are people who are for decriminalizing currently illegal drugs AND outlawing abortion (Ron Paul for instance; BTW, I think some drugs need to be illegal). They are for decriminalizing the former since it has been a dismal failure. However, he and others are for criminalizing the latter (with similar laws as before Roe v. Wade) since the US Constitution is in effect to protect the innocent from unjust aggression.
Well, I can't wait until I can celebrate Janteenth.
19 June 2010
17 June 2010
Unitarian Universalist Obama
I've been doing a heck of a lot of research on Unitarian Universalists (UU) and Quakers regarding their views on abortion, and I just realized that, by gosh, Obama is a UU!
Of course this is just speculation, but look at the facts about Obama that correspond to UU's:
Of course this is just speculation, but look at the facts about Obama that correspond to UU's:
- He is pushing hard for the homosexual agenda - as hard as any President can. This is also gay pride month!
- Abortion is really sacred.
- He uses biblical references all the time without actually using their context in the overall picture of Christianity - the Bible (and sometimes Catholic tradition - soul of St. Aquinas via Aristotle) is used as a prop for his agenda. (Does he really believe it all? See the inaugural address too.)
- His way defines sin.
- He hasn't gone to any Church (or ecclesial community) for a while.
- His daughters go to a Quaker school. (I was personally told once by a UU (and former Catholic) that Quakers are kissing cousins.)
- One explanation why he's so open to Muslims.
16 June 2010
Same Sex "Marriage" Questionable History
From Lawyer: Gays denied right by Calif marriage ban:
Interracial marriage! (of all places right)
From F. Beckwith:
Olson said the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized marriage as a fundamental right — one afforded to prisoners serving life sentences and child support scofflaws — while refusing to make procreation a precondition of marriage, as evidenced by laws allowing divorces and contraception.Whenever someone says that something never happened or was never viewed a certain way in history, my alarms go off. It first went off in the abortion debate with Roe v. Wade's biased, untrue, and socially devastating accounting of history. Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History by (lapsed Unitarian Universalist) Joseph W. Dellapenna has gone into excruciating detail against the following myths of abortion:
"It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence to be dispensed by the state," Olson said. "The right to marry, to choose to marry, has never been tied to procreation." (emphasis added)
(1) that abortion was always a common practice in human history; (2) that voluntary early abortions were not crimes until the nineteenth century; (3) that the nineteenth-century abortion statutes were designed to protect the life of the mother rather the life of the child; and (4) that the statutes were enacted through a conspiracy of men to accomplish several nefarious purposes—to subordinate women, to eliminate competition from women health-care workers with male physicians, and to ensure adequate birth rates among white, Protestant women to prevent “race suicide.”Well, guess what, marriage has been tied to procreation. Guess in which controversial issue.
Interracial marriage! (of all places right)
From F. Beckwith:
Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory. (original emphasis)When (not if) this goes to the Supreme Court, I hope to God that the majority gets history right. If not, orthodox Christians and Mormons (LDS) get ready for some real romping on our Earthly pilgrimage, Indian style.
15 June 2010
Unitarian Universalists for Life
Last year, the community choir that I was in set up rehearsals at a Unitarian Universalist (UU) Church (really pseudo-ecclesial community). When you came in the door (or came up the stairs from the bathrooms), there was a big sign that read, "The inherent dignity and worth of all people" with some silhouettes of mature humans kneeling down.
I got to wondering since that's what I sometimes do.
Could a UU person be prolife, or OTAAAC since "The inherent dignity and worth of all people" is a principal held by UU's. After a long search, it didn't look like it was possible.
Even though it didn't look like it, I started a dialog with a UU here. I'll let you know how it goes.
I got to wondering since that's what I sometimes do.
Could a UU person be prolife, or OTAAAC since "The inherent dignity and worth of all people" is a principal held by UU's. After a long search, it didn't look like it was possible.
Even though it didn't look like it, I started a dialog with a UU here. I'll let you know how it goes.
14 June 2010
Intelligent Design Problems
Please view this video before reading on:
At about 1:08 in the video above, Fr. Barron posits that the new Atheists make a "category error", i.e., God is one cause among many other causes of material processes. I think that the video above can be used in a previous discussion about Intelligent Design (ID). (BTW, Cathorick is my other poetic blog.)
There are many different approaches to ID theory.
I used to strongly believe in a version (I don't know the exact label) that went something like this:
All life, including human life, came about in an evolutionary way. The most efficient way to change said life is to change it at the conception stage. Yes, natural selection happens, but the process by which natural selection is made possible is through creating variations of, or changes in DNA. The way that one species takes on features that allow it to survive more frequently is through changes in DNA sequencing. These changes can occur through physical DNA problems, radiation (sun) changes, or other means. The above natural changes do not occur by random; there is no such thing as randomness since God directs things in a particular way that we can only view as random (at this point in our history). Since God directs the changes of DNA matter, God is the Intelligent Designer of all life. The end.
After viewing Fr. Barron's video, I think that those who hold ID views and I are making a "category error" in a similar way that the new Atheists are.
God is not one cause among many, but the cause of all things. God is "being", and all matter is contingent on God; if God, or "being" doesn't exist, than no matter can exist. (Fr. Barron said elsewhere that contingent creation still exists because of God's Love; Love is a matter of God's will.)
As a Catholic caveat, the idea that miracles take place, such as regenerating a lung or overcoming some deathly illness, I now find troubling. Please let me explain.
The reason that some events are seen as miracles is that there is no explanation for them. In other words, there is no scientific or physical explanation that would account for the miracle other than God's action. Another Atheistic way to frame the problem is that God is needed to fill in the gap of our understanding for why something unexplainable takes place.
One thing that ZippyCatholic was getting to (as I understand) was that God created life from a miracle or that life is a continuum of events that leads to said life. Why can't it be both in light of Fr. Barron's comments?
The way that life comes about is through God's being. We don't need God to fill in the gaps (the gap(s) would ultimately be infinite in width and number anyway), God is the reason said question and all questions exist anyway.
So for the miracles in general, why not view everything as a miracle? As far as the sainthood miracles, I'll leave that up to the Church.
While we're at it, you might like Fr. Barron's take on "The [Four] YouTube Heresies".
At about 1:08 in the video above, Fr. Barron posits that the new Atheists make a "category error", i.e., God is one cause among many other causes of material processes. I think that the video above can be used in a previous discussion about Intelligent Design (ID). (BTW, Cathorick is my other poetic blog.)
There are many different approaches to ID theory.
I used to strongly believe in a version (I don't know the exact label) that went something like this:
All life, including human life, came about in an evolutionary way. The most efficient way to change said life is to change it at the conception stage. Yes, natural selection happens, but the process by which natural selection is made possible is through creating variations of, or changes in DNA. The way that one species takes on features that allow it to survive more frequently is through changes in DNA sequencing. These changes can occur through physical DNA problems, radiation (sun) changes, or other means. The above natural changes do not occur by random; there is no such thing as randomness since God directs things in a particular way that we can only view as random (at this point in our history). Since God directs the changes of DNA matter, God is the Intelligent Designer of all life. The end.
After viewing Fr. Barron's video, I think that those who hold ID views and I are making a "category error" in a similar way that the new Atheists are.
God is not one cause among many, but the cause of all things. God is "being", and all matter is contingent on God; if God, or "being" doesn't exist, than no matter can exist. (Fr. Barron said elsewhere that contingent creation still exists because of God's Love; Love is a matter of God's will.)
As a Catholic caveat, the idea that miracles take place, such as regenerating a lung or overcoming some deathly illness, I now find troubling. Please let me explain.
The reason that some events are seen as miracles is that there is no explanation for them. In other words, there is no scientific or physical explanation that would account for the miracle other than God's action. Another Atheistic way to frame the problem is that God is needed to fill in the gap of our understanding for why something unexplainable takes place.
One thing that ZippyCatholic was getting to (as I understand) was that God created life from a miracle or that life is a continuum of events that leads to said life. Why can't it be both in light of Fr. Barron's comments?
The way that life comes about is through God's being. We don't need God to fill in the gaps (the gap(s) would ultimately be infinite in width and number anyway), God is the reason said question and all questions exist anyway.
So for the miracles in general, why not view everything as a miracle? As far as the sainthood miracles, I'll leave that up to the Church.
While we're at it, you might like Fr. Barron's take on "The [Four] YouTube Heresies".
12 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog VIII
This is part VIII of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
----------------------
Hello again,
St. Aquinas also said, "But Debbora exercised authority in temporal, not in priestly matters, even as now woman may have temporal power." This says a lot (I can only say a little of it at this point). Even in his day (as well as in biblical time with Debbora), St. Aquinas acknowledged that many women had "temporal power", or power in everyday-goings-on. However, the matters that pertained to the Church have a proper order. Christ is head of the Church in the same way as male ordained ministers are head of the Church in priestly matters. Priestly matters have to mainly do with the Eucharist and handing over their life for the Church in persona Christi.
I would never say that Christ was in the state of subjection to the Church; the Church, the mystical bride of Christ, is in the state of subjection to Christ, the bridegroom (Eph 5; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians5.htm ). The essence of man and woman as St. Aquinas outlines, although controvertial to many, is still true and can't change (until Christ comes again).
Again, this is a matter of faith and not a temporal matter (as also explained by St. Aquinas).
[gbm3]
----------------------
[I also emailed back the reply below.]
Hello,
Really, when you get down to it, having the ministerial priesthood only for men saves women who would supposedly become priests from lying. I think this is the best explanation (however, as I have written, JPII made the final call and reasons).
Let me explain. At the consecration, the priest is to say, "This is my body." and "This is my blood." If a woman said it, it would be lying since the consecrated body is of male essence since Christ was male and a woman is of different female essence.
I've seen a Episcopal "priestess" "consecrate" their communion (it's definitely not valid orders there since they're separated brethren). I thought the process was ludicrous since she was essentially saying (literally in essence) that the body of Christ she was "consecrating" with her words was female (the words and body of the priest transubstantiates the bread and wine as I understand it).
The Catholic Church can't go there.
[gbm3]
[Aquinasblog author has not emailed me back after this email. I will post the reply if it is sent in the future.]
[What do you think about the dialog?]
----------------------
Hello again,
St. Aquinas also said, "But Debbora exercised authority in temporal, not in priestly matters, even as now woman may have temporal power." This says a lot (I can only say a little of it at this point). Even in his day (as well as in biblical time with Debbora), St. Aquinas acknowledged that many women had "temporal power", or power in everyday-goings-on. However, the matters that pertained to the Church have a proper order. Christ is head of the Church in the same way as male ordained ministers are head of the Church in priestly matters. Priestly matters have to mainly do with the Eucharist and handing over their life for the Church in persona Christi.
I would never say that Christ was in the state of subjection to the Church; the Church, the mystical bride of Christ, is in the state of subjection to Christ, the bridegroom (Eph 5; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians5.htm ). The essence of man and woman as St. Aquinas outlines, although controvertial to many, is still true and can't change (until Christ comes again).
Again, this is a matter of faith and not a temporal matter (as also explained by St. Aquinas).
[gbm3]
----------------------
[I also emailed back the reply below.]
Hello,
Really, when you get down to it, having the ministerial priesthood only for men saves women who would supposedly become priests from lying. I think this is the best explanation (however, as I have written, JPII made the final call and reasons).
Let me explain. At the consecration, the priest is to say, "This is my body." and "This is my blood." If a woman said it, it would be lying since the consecrated body is of male essence since Christ was male and a woman is of different female essence.
I've seen a Episcopal "priestess" "consecrate" their communion (it's definitely not valid orders there since they're separated brethren). I thought the process was ludicrous since she was essentially saying (literally in essence) that the body of Christ she was "consecrating" with her words was female (the words and body of the priest transubstantiates the bread and wine as I understand it).
The Catholic Church can't go there.
[gbm3]
[Aquinasblog author has not emailed me back after this email. I will post the reply if it is sent in the future.]
[What do you think about the dialog?]
11 June 2010
A Pro-Abort Facade
(1) Women Deliver: Panel Pushes 'Harm Reduction' as Effective 'Facade' for Dismantling Pro-Life Laws
(2) UN Leadership in Disarray as New Research Shatters Consensus on Maternal Health
The million dollar quote:
I wonder what the guy on the right of the picture thinks (Vicente Diaz, Director IPPF WHR; Lifesitenews.com). Is he finally fed up with all he sees and hears? May God open his eyes and ears.
(2) UN Leadership in Disarray as New Research Shatters Consensus on Maternal Health
The million dollar quote:
In a conversation following the session, a third audience member asked Csete about the objection that, because the model was being used to push abortion as a value, some may call the "value-neutral" claim a mere facade.In other words, lie and the money will come.
"Yeah, I think facade is the right word," Csete conceded. "Sometimes it's the only choice you have to get anywhere politically and protect services ... I think it's really the sort of desperate, structurally very hostile circumstances where that becomes a very useful thing to fall back on."
Aquinasblog Dialog VII
This is part VII of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
----------------------
Hello,
I just found this site regarding St. Aquinas' logic on woman ordination in Summa Theologica: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum584.htm (I suggest doing a text search with "woman").
Summa Theologica was written in the 12 hundreds. I'd say at least about 800 years is a long time for debate.
I'd thought you'd be interested in the Angelic Doctor's thoughts since he is your blog's namesake.
Good day,
[gbm3]
-------------------
Hi [gbm3],
Here's what Aquinas says: "Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order."
He ties the reason precisely to the fact that a woman is in the state of subjection. That has changed, especially in the past 50 years. That is exactly the reason the question should be debated; women are no longer seen as being in the state of subjection.
[Aquinasblog author]
[More to come ...]
----------------------
Hello,
I just found this site regarding St. Aquinas' logic on woman ordination in Summa Theologica: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum584.htm (I suggest doing a text search with "woman").
Summa Theologica was written in the 12 hundreds. I'd say at least about 800 years is a long time for debate.
I'd thought you'd be interested in the Angelic Doctor's thoughts since he is your blog's namesake.
Good day,
[gbm3]
-------------------
Hi [gbm3],
Here's what Aquinas says: "Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order."
He ties the reason precisely to the fact that a woman is in the state of subjection. That has changed, especially in the past 50 years. That is exactly the reason the question should be debated; women are no longer seen as being in the state of subjection.
[Aquinasblog author]
[More to come ...]
10 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog VI
This is part VI of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
------------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thanks for getting back to me again.
I think it's a good time to bring back what you first wrote,
"I take the long view -- a hundred years ago, the papacy condemned democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and even freedom of conscience. It has reversed its position on all of those; I expect it will someday also reverse its position on women's ordination, which is why I think it should continue to be discussed. That's how we figure things out. Aquinas was never afraid to argue about anything. The spirit of disputation has been lost and should be regained because it's the practical result of the belief in the harmony of faith and reason."
The quote above actually reminds me now of the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts ( http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts15.htm ). "After much debate had taken place" a decision was made about circumcision of the Gentile converts. The faithful were to assent to the teaching.
I understand that "[I] consider authority [to be sufficient] and [you] do not." for the question at hand. In the end, more fundamental to the question of woman ordination is the nature and authority of the Catholic Church (both big C). If one believes that the CC has the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised would lead the Church to all truth, then the Church can't err in certain areas including faith and morals.
Reasons behind faith and morals can't be contrary to each other, but if there are reasons for two sides of an issue that are valid, the Church has to come to a decision that is binding (like that in Acts).
It seems like I'm using brute force, but I think that some questions just have to be deferred to a higher authority, namely the Holy Spirit.
As far as women being treated as chattel, it is obviously true that women have been in such a position. However, saying that since men can have a role that women cannot because women are just not worthy of it (or something), wife reminded me, is like saying that men are not as worthy as women since they can't bear children (she's done it a few times, but she is not more worthy of dignity than me because of it). We all have dignity no matter our gender or role.
Well, in the end it does come down to authority. I think the Church has it, you do not think so in this and many other matters. You believe the Church has changed its position 180 degrees on many things that I do not think it has.
Ultimately, in matters of faith and morals, I believe being Catholic is to ultimately defer to the authority of the Church as headed by the Pope and his fellow Bishops that is guided by the Spirit who Jesus gave in the Upper Room ("He breathed on them" John 20:22; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htm ) and at Pentecost (Acts 2; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts2.htm ) in Jerusalem.
I know that many who call themselves Catholic including yourself do not agree with the statement above, but ultimately what's the difference between being a Protestant and a Catholic if my Catholic statement above is considered false? Vatican II didn't make the CC Protestant, VII relied on "the authority of the Church as headed by the Pope and his fellow Bishops that is guided by the Spirit who Jesus gave".
At this point I'll leave the discussion in disagreement. Along our earthly pilgrimage, may we all strive to do God's will. Amen.
[BTW, the dialog isn't over yet.]
God bless,
[gbm3]
------------------------
Hi [gbm3],
Thanks for your response. Just to be clear, I do agree that being Catholic means deferring to the Pope and the Bishops; it's what has gotten us through 2000 years. On the question of women's ordination, I do defer to that authority -- I don't think Catholic women should go around ordaining themselves. That doesn't mean I agree with the Church's stand. I feel that unlike the Council of Jerusalem, much debate has not taken place, and therein lies the problem.
In any case, good luck and God bless!
[Aquinasblog author]
[BTW, the dialog isn't over yet.]
------------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thanks for getting back to me again.
I think it's a good time to bring back what you first wrote,
"I take the long view -- a hundred years ago, the papacy condemned democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and even freedom of conscience. It has reversed its position on all of those; I expect it will someday also reverse its position on women's ordination, which is why I think it should continue to be discussed. That's how we figure things out. Aquinas was never afraid to argue about anything. The spirit of disputation has been lost and should be regained because it's the practical result of the belief in the harmony of faith and reason."
The quote above actually reminds me now of the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts ( http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts15.htm ). "After much debate had taken place" a decision was made about circumcision of the Gentile converts. The faithful were to assent to the teaching.
I understand that "[I] consider authority [to be sufficient] and [you] do not." for the question at hand. In the end, more fundamental to the question of woman ordination is the nature and authority of the Catholic Church (both big C). If one believes that the CC has the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised would lead the Church to all truth, then the Church can't err in certain areas including faith and morals.
Reasons behind faith and morals can't be contrary to each other, but if there are reasons for two sides of an issue that are valid, the Church has to come to a decision that is binding (like that in Acts).
It seems like I'm using brute force, but I think that some questions just have to be deferred to a higher authority, namely the Holy Spirit.
As far as women being treated as chattel, it is obviously true that women have been in such a position. However, saying that since men can have a role that women cannot because women are just not worthy of it (or something), wife reminded me, is like saying that men are not as worthy as women since they can't bear children (she's done it a few times, but she is not more worthy of dignity than me because of it). We all have dignity no matter our gender or role.
Well, in the end it does come down to authority. I think the Church has it, you do not think so in this and many other matters. You believe the Church has changed its position 180 degrees on many things that I do not think it has.
Ultimately, in matters of faith and morals, I believe being Catholic is to ultimately defer to the authority of the Church as headed by the Pope and his fellow Bishops that is guided by the Spirit who Jesus gave in the Upper Room ("He breathed on them" John 20:22; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htm ) and at Pentecost (Acts 2; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts2.htm ) in Jerusalem.
I know that many who call themselves Catholic including yourself do not agree with the statement above, but ultimately what's the difference between being a Protestant and a Catholic if my Catholic statement above is considered false? Vatican II didn't make the CC Protestant, VII relied on "the authority of the Church as headed by the Pope and his fellow Bishops that is guided by the Spirit who Jesus gave".
At this point I'll leave the discussion in disagreement. Along our earthly pilgrimage, may we all strive to do God's will. Amen.
[BTW, the dialog isn't over yet.]
God bless,
[gbm3]
------------------------
Hi [gbm3],
Thanks for your response. Just to be clear, I do agree that being Catholic means deferring to the Pope and the Bishops; it's what has gotten us through 2000 years. On the question of women's ordination, I do defer to that authority -- I don't think Catholic women should go around ordaining themselves. That doesn't mean I agree with the Church's stand. I feel that unlike the Council of Jerusalem, much debate has not taken place, and therein lies the problem.
In any case, good luck and God bless!
[Aquinasblog author]
[BTW, the dialog isn't over yet.]
09 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog V
This is part V of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
-----------------------
Hello [Aquinasblog author],
Thanks for writing back. I won't keep writing you back indefinitely, but I think there's still something to the discussion.
As I understand you, you believe that cultural forces are the reasons for the Church's stance on woman ordination. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ( http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html ), JPII brings up this point (asterisks and [ ] added by me):
... "To these fundamental reasons the document [by Paul VI] adds other theological reasons [for the Church's stance on woman ordination] which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ's way of acting did not proceed from ***sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time***. As Paul VI later explained: 'The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition- Christ established things in this way.'
"In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: 'In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, ***without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time***.' ...
"Furthermore, the fact that the ***Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination*** cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them." ...
So, JPII did positively note in his Apostolic Letter (not Papal Encyclical, BTW) that cultural dicta did not influence Christ's call to men only for the ministerial priesthood.
I agree that the Holy Spirit moves and guides the Church to all Truth; that is why I believe that JPII and the constant Tradition of the Church all the way back to Jesus himself has concluded that ministerial priesthood is to be for men only.
You wrote, "That's where we have to look for evidence, not just in a trail of encyclicals." (a) In general, what specific "evidence" are you looking for? (b) Where are you specifically looking for this evidence? (a) and (b) for woman ordination?
As an aside, St. Aquinas' understanding of the Sacred Sacraments can help show that only men are to be ordained priests whose main function is to consecrate the host in persona Christi. The matter (of his "substance and matter" in all Sacraments (if I remember right)) for the sacrament of Holy Orders is a man since Christ was bodily a man. So when the priest says, "This is my body/blood." the host truly becomes Christ's body and blood that was of masculine essence.
St. Aquinas was giving theological reasons for the Truth of what is happening. I don't think he would conclude that a man was not necessary since Christ ordained or called men to do what he commanded at the Last Supper ("Do this in memory of me.").
As far as the cultural approval of slavery, see http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html (from an Evangelical magazine), _The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery_, "The problem wasn't that the leadership was silent. It was that almost nobody listened." The Church was against slavery since at least the 7th century (also against gladiator fighting; gladiators were slaves).
Thanks again for the discussion,
[gbm3]
-----------------------
[gbm3],
The fact that John Paul II said that the church's stand on the ordination of women did not arise from cultural forces does not make it so. I think that's where we differ; you consider that sufficient authority and I do not.
I look at the whole of history, in which women were treated as chattel until the 20th century in the West (and in many other places on the globe, still are), and find it impossible to imagine that this did not affect the attitude of the people in the Church thru time towards women's ordination.
[Aquinasblog author]
-----------------------
Hello [Aquinasblog author],
Thanks for writing back. I won't keep writing you back indefinitely, but I think there's still something to the discussion.
As I understand you, you believe that cultural forces are the reasons for the Church's stance on woman ordination. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ( http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html ), JPII brings up this point (asterisks and [ ] added by me):
... "To these fundamental reasons the document [by Paul VI] adds other theological reasons [for the Church's stance on woman ordination] which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ's way of acting did not proceed from ***sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time***. As Paul VI later explained: 'The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition- Christ established things in this way.'
"In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: 'In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, ***without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time***.' ...
"Furthermore, the fact that the ***Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination*** cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them." ...
So, JPII did positively note in his Apostolic Letter (not Papal Encyclical, BTW) that cultural dicta did not influence Christ's call to men only for the ministerial priesthood.
I agree that the Holy Spirit moves and guides the Church to all Truth; that is why I believe that JPII and the constant Tradition of the Church all the way back to Jesus himself has concluded that ministerial priesthood is to be for men only.
You wrote, "That's where we have to look for evidence, not just in a trail of encyclicals." (a) In general, what specific "evidence" are you looking for? (b) Where are you specifically looking for this evidence? (a) and (b) for woman ordination?
As an aside, St. Aquinas' understanding of the Sacred Sacraments can help show that only men are to be ordained priests whose main function is to consecrate the host in persona Christi. The matter (of his "substance and matter" in all Sacraments (if I remember right)) for the sacrament of Holy Orders is a man since Christ was bodily a man. So when the priest says, "This is my body/blood." the host truly becomes Christ's body and blood that was of masculine essence.
St. Aquinas was giving theological reasons for the Truth of what is happening. I don't think he would conclude that a man was not necessary since Christ ordained or called men to do what he commanded at the Last Supper ("Do this in memory of me.").
As far as the cultural approval of slavery, see http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html (from an Evangelical magazine), _The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery_, "The problem wasn't that the leadership was silent. It was that almost nobody listened." The Church was against slavery since at least the 7th century (also against gladiator fighting; gladiators were slaves).
Thanks again for the discussion,
[gbm3]
-----------------------
[gbm3],
The fact that John Paul II said that the church's stand on the ordination of women did not arise from cultural forces does not make it so. I think that's where we differ; you consider that sufficient authority and I do not.
I look at the whole of history, in which women were treated as chattel until the 20th century in the West (and in many other places on the globe, still are), and find it impossible to imagine that this did not affect the attitude of the people in the Church thru time towards women's ordination.
[Aquinasblog author]
08 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog IV
This is part IV of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
-----------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thank you for getting back with the last email. Another good document for assessing development of Catholic doctrine is Cardinal Newman's "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" ( http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html ). I haven't read it (or the book you cited), but I've heard Newman's Essay basically says that there can't be a strong break in teachings of faith and morals by the Church.
Your point about clerical celibacy is not really a controversial topic since, as even we speak, many former clergy of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) have swam the Tiber and have stayed married and have remained active clergy.
The thing is with the ordination of women is that it is not done, has not been done, will not be done, and that there are consequences for it ( http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052008.html ). The reason: celibacy is a discipline question and woman ordination is a faith and morals question.
Again from JPII in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis"
"Although the ***teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church*** and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate [i.e., it shouldn't be open to debate], or the Church's judgment that women are ***not*** to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely ***disciplinary force***." (asterisks and [ ] added by me)
To make the assertion that it's up to debate is to say that the doctrine of
transubstantiation is up to debate. A debate about transubstantiation with a Protestant would be understandable, but not with a Catholic.
Agreeing to disagree on this topic is like saying that the Church is
simply wrong (and has always been wrong) about a matter of faith. I can't say that.
It seems that you put into one basket topics of faith & morals and prudential judgments. (Did you read the post from First Things blog that I cited in the last email (on limbo)?)
Sorry, --deep breaths-- I'll just have to read that book you suggested. I don't want to attack (I don't think I have): I'll look at the book's (and Card. Newman's Essay) arguments since I might be ignorant of some thing(s).
God bless,
[gbm3]
http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/
http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
------------
Hi again [gbm3],
I would not put the topic of women's ordination in the same category as the transubstantiation. I agree one wouldn't argue about the reality of the transubstantiation, but I do think each generation has to come to an understanding of it on its own that both fits their perspective and is in line with the tradition, which would require thoughtful discussion. That's what keeps the faith alive, tradition recreating itself in line with itself.
I think an argument can and should be made that women have been excluded from ordination for cultural reasons, just like for cultural reasons the church once accepted slavery. Saying such a topic cannot even be discussed cuts off development of the idea. If the Holy Spirit chooses at some point in the future to move the church in this direction, forbidding discussion gets in the way. And who's to predict how the Holy Spirit moves the church?
As Catholics, I think we need to pay attention to the good developments of the secular world. As Ladislas Orsy says, "God is in the real." To me that means in the world fully and completely. That's where we have to look for evidence, not just in a trail of encyclicals.
[Aquinasblog author]
-----------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thank you for getting back with the last email. Another good document for assessing development of Catholic doctrine is Cardinal Newman's "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" ( http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html ). I haven't read it (or the book you cited), but I've heard Newman's Essay basically says that there can't be a strong break in teachings of faith and morals by the Church.
Your point about clerical celibacy is not really a controversial topic since, as even we speak, many former clergy of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) have swam the Tiber and have stayed married and have remained active clergy.
The thing is with the ordination of women is that it is not done, has not been done, will not be done, and that there are consequences for it ( http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052008.html ). The reason: celibacy is a discipline question and woman ordination is a faith and morals question.
Again from JPII in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis"
"Although the ***teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church*** and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate [i.e., it shouldn't be open to debate], or the Church's judgment that women are ***not*** to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely ***disciplinary force***." (asterisks and [ ] added by me)
To make the assertion that it's up to debate is to say that the doctrine of
transubstantiation is up to debate. A debate about transubstantiation with a Protestant would be understandable, but not with a Catholic.
Agreeing to disagree on this topic is like saying that the Church is
simply wrong (and has always been wrong) about a matter of faith. I can't say that.
It seems that you put into one basket topics of faith & morals and prudential judgments. (Did you read the post from First Things blog that I cited in the last email (on limbo)?)
Sorry, --deep breaths-- I'll just have to read that book you suggested. I don't want to attack (I don't think I have): I'll look at the book's (and Card. Newman's Essay) arguments since I might be ignorant of some thing(s).
God bless,
[gbm3]
http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/
http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
------------
Hi again [gbm3],
I would not put the topic of women's ordination in the same category as the transubstantiation. I agree one wouldn't argue about the reality of the transubstantiation, but I do think each generation has to come to an understanding of it on its own that both fits their perspective and is in line with the tradition, which would require thoughtful discussion. That's what keeps the faith alive, tradition recreating itself in line with itself.
I think an argument can and should be made that women have been excluded from ordination for cultural reasons, just like for cultural reasons the church once accepted slavery. Saying such a topic cannot even be discussed cuts off development of the idea. If the Holy Spirit chooses at some point in the future to move the church in this direction, forbidding discussion gets in the way. And who's to predict how the Holy Spirit moves the church?
As Catholics, I think we need to pay attention to the good developments of the secular world. As Ladislas Orsy says, "God is in the real." To me that means in the world fully and completely. That's where we have to look for evidence, not just in a trail of encyclicals.
[Aquinasblog author]
07 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog III
This is part III of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
---------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thank you for the time you put into compiling the list. I will read the documents promptly.
In the mean time, as far as woman ordination, please see Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html , section 4. This belief of the Church is also part of the reason why a whole lot of people converted to the Church from other Ecclesial Communities (see Dominus Iesus; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html ), esp the COE one.
I'll email back when I read and take notes on the emailed documents (in about a week).
Thanks,
[gbm3]
http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
---------------------
[I replied again below]
Hello [Aquinasblog author],
I had a chance to read most of the encyclicals except the last one (Pascendi) in which I searched some terms. I am also familiar with the last encyclicals of JPII and BXVI first two. In general, when the Popes wrote about faith and morals, they were consistent and clear about the authority upon which they drew. When it came to more state related questions, it was less clear. Also, some of the ideas that you identified as changing have either not changed or not gone away completely. I’ll go through them in your order (from your last email).
In Mirari Vos, Gregory XVI condemned “liberty of conscience” and “freedom to publish”. The former was dealt in a similar fashion recently by Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop here http://www.catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=4&id=56744 . He wrote, “It is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right.” Also, paraphrasing the Bishop, “liberty of conscience” still doesn’t mean “any old liberty of conscience,” it relates to a correctly formed conscience.
For the latter, there are still Imprimaturs who review Catholic books for doctrinal accuracies. The freedom to publish issue is still around in Catholic publishing yet not so severe. There are also commissions to determine if theology teachers/professors are heretical.
Regarding the Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX was unclear about Catholicism and the state. In errors 77-79 it seems that the only religion of the state should be Catholicism, but then immediately after the error list, he goes into how the city of God and man are different entities (from Augustine’s _City of God_). However, even in today’s Church, the idea that there is an *absolute* separation of church and state (from JFK speech) is not held. See here http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3489 . Regarding error 80, no Pope has fully reconciled himself with his generation in matters of faith and morals.
Regarding the last two encyclicals, like all systems of government, there are down falls to democracy (tyranny of the majority is cited). I couldn’t find what particulars about the freedom of speech or religion that were criticized. Regarding historical analysis in paragraph 9 of Pascendi, he made valid points about its problems.
Actually, most modern encyclicals I’ve read (I read most of JPII’s later ones) have had valid points with regards to many topics, but they have not all been about authoritative instructions about faith and morals.
One thing that really stuck out for me that not one of the popes’ encyclicals that you cited made a statement like JPII did in Evangelium Vitae or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis regarding faith and morals. For example, in the former JPII (in paragraph 57 and 62),
“Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life, especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church's Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defence of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The Papal Magisterium, particularly insistent in this regard, has always been seconded by that of the Bishops, with numerous and comprehensive doctrinal and pastoral documents issued either by Episcopal Conferences or by individual Bishops. The Second Vatican Council also addressed the matter forcefully, in a brief but incisive passage.
“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
“The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. ‘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. Furthermore, 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’” -Paragraph 57
In the later, (paragraph 4),
“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.” - paragraph 4
The Syllabus of Errors and the other encyclicals did not have a statement like those above. Lamentabili comes close with its preamble.
However, while the ideas in the encyclicals have been reduced in severity, the ideas are still within the Church. For instance, while individual members of the Church may read and talk about the Catholic Bible, no one has the authority to undermine the Church’s official teaching regarding it. For instance, the canon of the Bible was determined in the fourth century, however Martin Luther declared that some books were not to be included. He did not have the authority to decide what the canon of scripture included. A second example: regarding interpretation of John 6, the Church teaches authoritatively that bread and wine actually is transubstantiated into (not consubstantiated into or symbolizes) the body and blood of Jesus.
In the encyclicals I cited above from JPII, it’s almost as if there were ordinary ex cathedra statements, whereas the encyclicals you cited don’t have such clearly authoritative statements regarding faith and morals.
The wo/man ordination question would fall under a faith declaration since Jesus chose only men by His authority to be Apostles (Bishops/Presbyters). In a similar way, He declared that bread and wine would become his body and blood by His authority.
I found the discussion here ( http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/03/a-doctrine-in-limbo/ ) very relevant to our discussion. The question is whether limbo exists or not. It seems that the only authoritative declaration is that unbaptized babies enter hell. However, it was also authoritatively decided that water baptism is not needed to “count” as a baptism: there are baptisms by desire, Spirit, and fire. However, young babies and preborn babies can’t consciously desire baptism, so they most likely end up in hell. Yet, no council or Pope has authoritatively taught about limbo (for vs. against). Therefore, faithful Catholics are free to decide what they think about limbo and leave it up to God’s Wisdom and Will.
Well, thanks for hanging in there. I might have missed something. If I did, especially if it’s a specific passage in an encyclical, please bring my attention to it.
I look forward to hearing from you,
[gbm3]
You might want to read here ( http://article.nationalreview.com/432597/nun-sense-women-in-the-catholic-church/kathryn-jean-lopez ) about the women religious visitation. It’s an interview with a sister who heads an order that will be visited. I still don’t think the visitations are mean in nature just as my reviews at work are not mean, just necessary for the company and myself.
http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
-----------------------
Hi [gbm3],
[ ]
I think the real question comes down to what's called development of doctrine. In his book What Happened at Vatican II, John O’Malley S.J. states that the three underlying issues of the council were:
1. When change in the church is appropriate and how that change is justified.
2. Who gets to authorize that change.
3. What is the style or model according to which such authorization is exercised.
This is a difficult question and hinges on the understanding of authority that people share and what of the history of the Church they choose to remember (e.g., when we think of celibacy, do we choose to remember the traditions of the first millennium or the traditions of the second; do we remember when bishops were elected, etc.).
On this, we may need to agree to disagree.
[Aquinasblog author]
PS besides the O'Malley book, another really good book is Receiving the Council, by canon lawyer Ladislas Orsy, SJ. He grapples well with the questions of tradition, authority and change.
[BTW, the dialog is not over.]
---------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thank you for the time you put into compiling the list. I will read the documents promptly.
In the mean time, as far as woman ordination, please see Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html , section 4. This belief of the Church is also part of the reason why a whole lot of people converted to the Church from other Ecclesial Communities (see Dominus Iesus; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html ), esp the COE one.
I'll email back when I read and take notes on the emailed documents (in about a week).
Thanks,
[gbm3]
http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
---------------------
[I replied again below]
Hello [Aquinasblog author],
I had a chance to read most of the encyclicals except the last one (Pascendi) in which I searched some terms. I am also familiar with the last encyclicals of JPII and BXVI first two. In general, when the Popes wrote about faith and morals, they were consistent and clear about the authority upon which they drew. When it came to more state related questions, it was less clear. Also, some of the ideas that you identified as changing have either not changed or not gone away completely. I’ll go through them in your order (from your last email).
In Mirari Vos, Gregory XVI condemned “liberty of conscience” and “freedom to publish”. The former was dealt in a similar fashion recently by Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop here http://www.catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=4&id=56744 . He wrote, “It is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right.” Also, paraphrasing the Bishop, “liberty of conscience” still doesn’t mean “any old liberty of conscience,” it relates to a correctly formed conscience.
For the latter, there are still Imprimaturs who review Catholic books for doctrinal accuracies. The freedom to publish issue is still around in Catholic publishing yet not so severe. There are also commissions to determine if theology teachers/professors are heretical.
Regarding the Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX was unclear about Catholicism and the state. In errors 77-79 it seems that the only religion of the state should be Catholicism, but then immediately after the error list, he goes into how the city of God and man are different entities (from Augustine’s _City of God_). However, even in today’s Church, the idea that there is an *absolute* separation of church and state (from JFK speech) is not held. See here http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3489 . Regarding error 80, no Pope has fully reconciled himself with his generation in matters of faith and morals.
Regarding the last two encyclicals, like all systems of government, there are down falls to democracy (tyranny of the majority is cited). I couldn’t find what particulars about the freedom of speech or religion that were criticized. Regarding historical analysis in paragraph 9 of Pascendi, he made valid points about its problems.
Actually, most modern encyclicals I’ve read (I read most of JPII’s later ones) have had valid points with regards to many topics, but they have not all been about authoritative instructions about faith and morals.
One thing that really stuck out for me that not one of the popes’ encyclicals that you cited made a statement like JPII did in Evangelium Vitae or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis regarding faith and morals. For example, in the former JPII (in paragraph 57 and 62),
“Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life, especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church's Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defence of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The Papal Magisterium, particularly insistent in this regard, has always been seconded by that of the Bishops, with numerous and comprehensive doctrinal and pastoral documents issued either by Episcopal Conferences or by individual Bishops. The Second Vatican Council also addressed the matter forcefully, in a brief but incisive passage.
“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
“The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. ‘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. Furthermore, 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’” -Paragraph 57
In the later, (paragraph 4),
“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.” - paragraph 4
The Syllabus of Errors and the other encyclicals did not have a statement like those above. Lamentabili comes close with its preamble.
However, while the ideas in the encyclicals have been reduced in severity, the ideas are still within the Church. For instance, while individual members of the Church may read and talk about the Catholic Bible, no one has the authority to undermine the Church’s official teaching regarding it. For instance, the canon of the Bible was determined in the fourth century, however Martin Luther declared that some books were not to be included. He did not have the authority to decide what the canon of scripture included. A second example: regarding interpretation of John 6, the Church teaches authoritatively that bread and wine actually is transubstantiated into (not consubstantiated into or symbolizes) the body and blood of Jesus.
In the encyclicals I cited above from JPII, it’s almost as if there were ordinary ex cathedra statements, whereas the encyclicals you cited don’t have such clearly authoritative statements regarding faith and morals.
The wo/man ordination question would fall under a faith declaration since Jesus chose only men by His authority to be Apostles (Bishops/Presbyters). In a similar way, He declared that bread and wine would become his body and blood by His authority.
I found the discussion here ( http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/03/a-doctrine-in-limbo/ ) very relevant to our discussion. The question is whether limbo exists or not. It seems that the only authoritative declaration is that unbaptized babies enter hell. However, it was also authoritatively decided that water baptism is not needed to “count” as a baptism: there are baptisms by desire, Spirit, and fire. However, young babies and preborn babies can’t consciously desire baptism, so they most likely end up in hell. Yet, no council or Pope has authoritatively taught about limbo (for vs. against). Therefore, faithful Catholics are free to decide what they think about limbo and leave it up to God’s Wisdom and Will.
Well, thanks for hanging in there. I might have missed something. If I did, especially if it’s a specific passage in an encyclical, please bring my attention to it.
I look forward to hearing from you,
[gbm3]
You might want to read here ( http://article.nationalreview.com/432597/nun-sense-women-in-the-catholic-church/kathryn-jean-lopez ) about the women religious visitation. It’s an interview with a sister who heads an order that will be visited. I still don’t think the visitations are mean in nature just as my reviews at work are not mean, just necessary for the company and myself.
http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
-----------------------
Hi [gbm3],
[ ]
I think the real question comes down to what's called development of doctrine. In his book What Happened at Vatican II, John O’Malley S.J. states that the three underlying issues of the council were:
1. When change in the church is appropriate and how that change is justified.
2. Who gets to authorize that change.
3. What is the style or model according to which such authorization is exercised.
This is a difficult question and hinges on the understanding of authority that people share and what of the history of the Church they choose to remember (e.g., when we think of celibacy, do we choose to remember the traditions of the first millennium or the traditions of the second; do we remember when bishops were elected, etc.).
On this, we may need to agree to disagree.
[Aquinasblog author]
PS besides the O'Malley book, another really good book is Receiving the Council, by canon lawyer Ladislas Orsy, SJ. He grapples well with the questions of tradition, authority and change.
[BTW, the dialog is not over.]
05 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog II
This is part II of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
---------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thanks for getting back so quickly. I was wondering if you could send me some papal quotes/links (with originating document/encycl./letter) that show "[papal condemnation of] democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and [] freedom of conscience." (If not, I understand.) People such as Sp. Pelosi and VP Biden have said similar things about abortion.
Also, what about the visitation issue is "rude"?
Regarding debating, you might be interested in my other more controvertial blog at http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/
God bless,
[gbm3]
---------------------
Hi [gbm3],
Well there's Gregory XVI's encyclical Mirari Vos, which condemned freedom of conscience and freedom of the press:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm
Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the following opinions:
That Catholicism should no longer be the established religion of the state
That non-Catholics should be allowed to openly practice their religion
That people should be at liberty to express their ideas
That the Roman Pontiff should reconcile himself with progress, liberalism and modern civilization
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
Two others of note are the 1907 decree called Lamentabili and the Pius X encyclical Pascendi. These works denounced democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, historical analysis, literary criticism of the Bible, the study of the early church fathers, and ecumenism.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
These things do change!
[Aquinasblog author]
---------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thanks for getting back so quickly. I was wondering if you could send me some papal quotes/links (with originating document/encycl./letter) that show "[papal condemnation of] democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and [] freedom of conscience." (If not, I understand.) People such as Sp. Pelosi and VP Biden have said similar things about abortion.
Also, what about the visitation issue is "rude"?
Regarding debating, you might be interested in my other more controvertial blog at http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/
God bless,
[gbm3]
---------------------
Hi [gbm3],
Well there's Gregory XVI's encyclical Mirari Vos, which condemned freedom of conscience and freedom of the press:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm
Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the following opinions:
That Catholicism should no longer be the established religion of the state
That non-Catholics should be allowed to openly practice their religion
That people should be at liberty to express their ideas
That the Roman Pontiff should reconcile himself with progress, liberalism and modern civilization
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
Two others of note are the 1907 decree called Lamentabili and the Pius X encyclical Pascendi. These works denounced democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, historical analysis, literary criticism of the Bible, the study of the early church fathers, and ecumenism.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
These things do change!
[Aquinasblog author]
04 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog I
I came across Aquinasblog after viewing new blogs at St. Blog Parish a couple o' weeks back.
I read a couple of the posts at Aquinasblog and thought I would inquire about the author's thoughts on women ordination since they were not clear. In a series starting in this post, the dialog that ensued will be shared for your evaluation.
Near the end of the dialog, I found this part of the website about a book the author is writing very telling on the author's view. Some examples:
The dialog starts here:
-------
Hello,
I noticed that aquinasblog.com was just added to the St. Blog Parish as was my blog cathorick.blogspot.com. Upon reading some of your first posts and looking at your papal authority tags, I noticed that you're not too keen on the woman religious visitations and are actually for woman ordination. This does not seem to be a Catholic orthodox position on these issues. On the former, why can't Church superiors look into woman orthodoxy just as I looked at your blog? Finally, John Paul II closed the debate about women ordination and said faithful Catholics must assent to the teaching.
Please let me know what you think. (Please do not publish my email address).
Thank you,
[gbm3]
-------
Hi [gbm3],
I take the long view -- a hundred years ago, the papacy condemned democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and even freedom of conscience. It has reversed its position on all of those; I expect it will someday also reverse its position on women's ordination, which is why I think it should continue to be discussed. That's how we figure things out. Aquinas was never afraid to argue about anything. The spirit of disputation has been lost and should be regained because it's the practical result of the belief in the harmony of faith and reason. As to the nuns, well, I think the way they went about it was just rude.
[Aquinasblog author]
---------------------------
Update: the other dialogs are here:
II III IV V VI VII VIII
I read a couple of the posts at Aquinasblog and thought I would inquire about the author's thoughts on women ordination since they were not clear. In a series starting in this post, the dialog that ensued will be shared for your evaluation.
Near the end of the dialog, I found this part of the website about a book the author is writing very telling on the author's view. Some examples:
The faithful then concluded that if something might change, it would change, so they just went ahead and acted as though it did change. As a result, they started taking belief on our own terms, no longer looking to the Church to define sin or dogma and often actively disregarding it. The tipping point was Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae which reaffirmed the papacy’s thoroughly illogical condemnation of artificial birth control (and which was subsequently thoroughly ignored). ...You can read the rest if you'd like.
As a result of the breaking of authority, the faithful tended to accept only what made sense and to turn away from the mysterious and that associated with authority and tradition. But the downside was that individuals had to figure everything out for themselves and had the full burden of making meaning in their lives, rather than receiving it from the institution.
The dialog starts here:
-------
Hello,
I noticed that aquinasblog.com was just added to the St. Blog Parish as was my blog cathorick.blogspot.com. Upon reading some of your first posts and looking at your papal authority tags, I noticed that you're not too keen on the woman religious visitations and are actually for woman ordination. This does not seem to be a Catholic orthodox position on these issues. On the former, why can't Church superiors look into woman orthodoxy just as I looked at your blog? Finally, John Paul II closed the debate about women ordination and said faithful Catholics must assent to the teaching.
Please let me know what you think. (Please do not publish my email address).
Thank you,
[gbm3]
-------
Hi [gbm3],
I take the long view -- a hundred years ago, the papacy condemned democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and even freedom of conscience. It has reversed its position on all of those; I expect it will someday also reverse its position on women's ordination, which is why I think it should continue to be discussed. That's how we figure things out. Aquinas was never afraid to argue about anything. The spirit of disputation has been lost and should be regained because it's the practical result of the belief in the harmony of faith and reason. As to the nuns, well, I think the way they went about it was just rude.
[Aquinasblog author]
---------------------------
Update: the other dialogs are here:
II III IV V VI VII VIII
02 June 2010
US Sen Mikulski and the PPACA email
I just got this email from the staff of my US Sen. Mikulski (D-MD). (She's up for reelection this year.)
The way I read it, a health care plan that covers abortion requires two checks for two funds, one for abortion and one for healthcare to be paid into. (Abortion is not healthcare.)
Tax money (including mine) will be used to subsidize all insurances (unless a State explicitly ops out of ones that carry abortion coverage; I bet in MD all plans will have abortion coverage).
In the end, I will be paying for abortion since tax money is used to subsidize all insurance, including the ones which have a separate fund for abortion. I don't want my tax money going to any insurance plan which has an option for abortion.
Further, money is money; the insurance companies with abortion coverage can allocate money however they want. I don't expect the government (esp. Obama's) to be keeping tabs on the money flow.
Anyone have comments about my conclusion and/or the email above?
Dear [gbm3]:The first paragraph in red above is a red herring for the second paragraph. One can be lead to believe that women have to solely use their own money to pay for abortions. Why have two checks and two funds for two "premiums"? Shouldn't abortions be paid with a personal check (etc)?
Thank you for getting in touch with me about abortion and health care reform. It's great to hear from you.
I appreciate hearing your opposition to the health care reform bills that have been signed into law - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (Public Law 111-152). While these bills are not perfect, I am proud of what we were able to accomplish. We passed a health reform law that saves and strengthens Medicare; makes sure insurance companies can't discriminate against you because of a pre-existing condition, or because of your age or gender; provides universal access to health care, and emphasizes quality, prevention and integrative health to save lives and save money. These are the principles of health reform that I have been committed to and have been fighting for throughout my career.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) follows settled law on abortion and prohibits federal funds from being used to fund abortions. On March 24, 2010, President Obama signed an executive order ensuring enforcement of these abortion restrictions in the PPACA. To make sure that no federal funds are used to fund abortions, the final version of health care reform bill requires women to write two separate premium checks - one for abortion and one for all other health care. These premiums collected in state insurance exchanges will then remain in two separate funds.
I would also like you to know that no health care plan can be required to cover abortion. PPACA requires every state insurance exchange to include at least one plan that does not cover abortion. States will also have the right to pass laws prohibiting any plan participating in a state insurance exchange from covering abortion.
I also support the rights of health professional to choose whether to perform abortions. That's why I also support the strong conscience clause in the bill which protects providers and hospitals from having to perform abortions if it goes against their religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.
Again, thanks for contacting me. Please let me know if I can be of help to you in the future.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator
The way I read it, a health care plan that covers abortion requires two checks for two funds, one for abortion and one for healthcare to be paid into. (Abortion is not healthcare.)
Tax money (including mine) will be used to subsidize all insurances (unless a State explicitly ops out of ones that carry abortion coverage; I bet in MD all plans will have abortion coverage).
In the end, I will be paying for abortion since tax money is used to subsidize all insurance, including the ones which have a separate fund for abortion. I don't want my tax money going to any insurance plan which has an option for abortion.
Further, money is money; the insurance companies with abortion coverage can allocate money however they want. I don't expect the government (esp. Obama's) to be keeping tabs on the money flow.
Anyone have comments about my conclusion and/or the email above?
21 May 2010
(I) No One's Born Gay and (II) New Ways Ministry
(I) I wrote before that people think same-sex "marriage" should be permitted because gay people are born that gay or that being gay is an accidental property like skin color. Well, I've seen some recent articles (besides the one I cited in the linked post above) that go against that inkling of some.
(1) "Luiz Mott, the undisputed leader of Brazil's homosexual movement, has admitted on national television that no one is born homosexual, and that people can change their sexual orientations."
(2) Analysis: Childhood Family Structure Linked to Rate of Female Homosexuality
---
(II) Regarding the last posting here on WZE, I cited an advertisement of "New Ways Ministry" (NWM) that was inside a program of a "Catholic" Postulate, "The Murphy Initiative for Justice and Peace". NWM is a group for practicing gay "Catholics".
I find the title "New Ways Ministry" extremely telling of their heretical Catholic views. In Acts of the Apostles of the (Catholic) Bible, Christians were said to follow "The Way" of Jesus the Christ.
May NWM (and organizations like "Catholics for Free [Abortion] Choice") be denounced by faithful Catholics whenever possible.
People who want to destroy the Church know that the presence and strength of these organizations divide Catholics so that the witness and mission of the Church is weakened.
May God have mercy on all of us.
(1) "Luiz Mott, the undisputed leader of Brazil's homosexual movement, has admitted on national television that no one is born homosexual, and that people can change their sexual orientations."
(2) Analysis: Childhood Family Structure Linked to Rate of Female Homosexuality
---
(II) Regarding the last posting here on WZE, I cited an advertisement of "New Ways Ministry" (NWM) that was inside a program of a "Catholic" Postulate, "The Murphy Initiative for Justice and Peace". NWM is a group for practicing gay "Catholics".
I find the title "New Ways Ministry" extremely telling of their heretical Catholic views. In Acts of the Apostles of the (Catholic) Bible, Christians were said to follow "The Way" of Jesus the Christ.
But when some in their obstinacy and disbelief disparaged the Way before the assembly, [Paul] withdrew and took his disciples with him and began to hold daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. Acts 19:9The ones who founded, run, and are part of NWM are like those "in their obstinacy and disbelief disparaged the Way" in their New Ways. Faithful Catholics should have nothing to do with NWM as they continue to cause division within the Church upon which Christ gave His Spirit.
May NWM (and organizations like "Catholics for Free [Abortion] Choice") be denounced by faithful Catholics whenever possible.
People who want to destroy the Church know that the presence and strength of these organizations divide Catholics so that the witness and mission of the Church is weakened.
May God have mercy on all of us.
14 April 2010
The Murphy Initiative for Justice and Peace
I acquired this program and am simply reporting some of its content. Take it as it is.
Page 4 ad from Baltimore Catholic Worker, "The sin of sexism in the Church:/ordain the women./Plain and simple truth./No hedging./Frank Murphy, bishop./Our bishop./One of those shepherds who didn't run,/who spoke the truth/and lived it./Deo Gratias!"
Page 13 quote from Bishop Frank Murphy, "I do not believe, however, that we will be credible as a church in our call for justice ... until we find a way to integrate the full humanity and dignity of women within our ecclesial community."
[I don't know what this means exactly.]
Page 6 ad, "New Ways/Ministry/A gay-positive ministry of/advocacy and justice/for lesbian and gay Catholics/and reconciliation within the/larger Christian and civil/communities."
06 April 2010
Personhood Proofs
The below personhood proofs have been in the works for a while. The comments/debate here made me push a little on the publication of the proofs.
(Click on it to see a larger version)
A not-perfectly-reproduced production is below:
A+ = (I) Active and (II) actual properties of an adult human with moral worth (high reasoning/moral conscience/etc)
A- = (III) No active and (IV) active potential (capacity) for properties of an adult human with moral worth
wT(x) = Total worth of x
wa(x) = Actual worth of x
wc(x) = Capacitive worth of x
w(x) = 1 = actual worth
w(x) = 0 = no actual worth
[equations are on picture above]
(Total worth of A+ is equal to total worth of A-)
and
(Actual worth of A+ is equal to capacitive worth of A-)
Inductive Reasoning
Assume: Actual properties of adult human (high reasoning/moral conscience/etc) are required for moral worth.
Postulate: When sleep, coma, etc., adult human does not have actual properties of adult human, only capacity for such.
Postulate: When sleep, coma, etc., an adult human that does NOT have actual properties of adult human has moral worth.
Conclusion: Actual properties of adult human (high reasoning/moral conscience/etc) are NOT required for moral worth, only capacity for such.
Corollary: A human zygote has capacity for properties of adult human, therefore, they have moral worth.
(Click on it to see a larger version)
A+ = (I) Active and (II) actual properties of an adult human with moral worth (high reasoning/moral conscience/etc)
A- = (III) No active and (IV) active potential (capacity) for properties of an adult human with moral worth
wT(x) = Total worth of x
wa(x) = Actual worth of x
wc(x) = Capacitive worth of x
w(x) = 1 = actual worth
w(x) = 0 = no actual worth
[equations are on picture above]
(Total worth of A+ is equal to total worth of A-)
and
(Actual worth of A+ is equal to capacitive worth of A-)
Inductive Reasoning
Assume: Actual properties of adult human (high reasoning/moral conscience/etc) are required for moral worth.
Postulate: When sleep, coma, etc., adult human does not have actual properties of adult human, only capacity for such.
Postulate: When sleep, coma, etc., an adult human that does NOT have actual properties of adult human has moral worth.
Conclusion: Actual properties of adult human (high reasoning/moral conscience/etc) are NOT required for moral worth, only capacity for such.
Corollary: A human zygote has capacity for properties of adult human, therefore, they have moral worth.
30 March 2010
LSN Letter to Editor
I wrote the following letter to the editor to Lifesitenews.com. It was published on 25 March 2010.
---
Re: LifeSiteNews is Under Attack
Mr. Westen,
You said, "Some Church leaders have shown that they do not comprehend the great social and spiritual dangers of our times - the D&P and US CCHD scandals have demonstrated that more than a few within those organizations have no understanding of the Christian principles they supposedly strive to promote and would rather continue their 'inadvertent' funding of pro-abortion and otherwise anti-Christian groups than admit the truth."
I understand what you mean. I once gave a few printed articles that you had on Amnesty International (AI) to someone in my Church (Catholic) who financially contributed to AI. He said that he didn't believe the articles and that AI continues to do great humanitarian work.
Catholics, such as the Catholics at my Church or the Catholics at Zenit, just can't believe the truth about their social justice organizations in relation to abortion no matter what facts are presented to the contrary. Even when they entertain the possibility that their organization contributes to the killing of innocents in abortion, they downplay their significance.
I answered my fellow parishioner's conundrums in two ways. (1) Like the segregation issue (read David Duke), if some entity or person is for abortion, they should be automatically disqualified from anyone's money and/or vote. (2) It's a priority issue; I would venture to say that there are fewer people killed or imprisoned unjustly in one year around the world than there are killed in abortion in one year or even one day. Everyone in the world, especially Catholics, should fight as hard as they can against abortion: the most tragic civil rights violation of our day.
I pray that you keep up the Good Work that God has given you and your staff to do in telling the Truth no matter what the consequences.
Sincerely,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD, USA
---
Re: LifeSiteNews is Under Attack
Mr. Westen,
You said, "Some Church leaders have shown that they do not comprehend the great social and spiritual dangers of our times - the D&P and US CCHD scandals have demonstrated that more than a few within those organizations have no understanding of the Christian principles they supposedly strive to promote and would rather continue their 'inadvertent' funding of pro-abortion and otherwise anti-Christian groups than admit the truth."
I understand what you mean. I once gave a few printed articles that you had on Amnesty International (AI) to someone in my Church (Catholic) who financially contributed to AI. He said that he didn't believe the articles and that AI continues to do great humanitarian work.
Catholics, such as the Catholics at my Church or the Catholics at Zenit, just can't believe the truth about their social justice organizations in relation to abortion no matter what facts are presented to the contrary. Even when they entertain the possibility that their organization contributes to the killing of innocents in abortion, they downplay their significance.
I answered my fellow parishioner's conundrums in two ways. (1) Like the segregation issue (read David Duke), if some entity or person is for abortion, they should be automatically disqualified from anyone's money and/or vote. (2) It's a priority issue; I would venture to say that there are fewer people killed or imprisoned unjustly in one year around the world than there are killed in abortion in one year or even one day. Everyone in the world, especially Catholics, should fight as hard as they can against abortion: the most tragic civil rights violation of our day.
I pray that you keep up the Good Work that God has given you and your staff to do in telling the Truth no matter what the consequences.
Sincerely,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD, USA
13 March 2010
Open Letter to US Senator Mikulski (D-MD)
Back in 2008, I visited US senior Senator Mikulski's office to present ideas about FOCA.
Below is a series of inquiries about a quote from Sen. Mikulski found here that was very peculiar.
"Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." -Sen. Mikulski
First I wrote this via email:
---
---
I received this politically correct response via email.
---
---
I wrote this in reply to the office comment form:
---
---
I wonder if anyone will join me in writing Sen. Mikulski to try to outlaw abortion?
Below is a series of inquiries about a quote from Sen. Mikulski found here that was very peculiar.
"Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." -Sen. Mikulski
First I wrote this via email:
---
Ms. [Medical Staffer],
I just read a speech given by Sen. Mikulski on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (at http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=81192&keyword=abortion&phrase=&contain= ). She said, "Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." Could you let me know what this really means in layman terms? According to the Senator, when should abortion be used if not for family planning? The vast majority (>>50%, not ready/cannot afford baby) of abortions are used for family planning. I am confused about the Senator's position. Please clarify.
Thank you,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD
---
I received this politically correct response via email.
---
Dear [gbm3]:
Thanks for getting in touch with me. It's nice to hear from you.
I appreciate knowing of your opposition to abortion. I have given the abortion issue very serious consideration. As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each woman can decide for herself whether and when to have a child. That means that I also support the rights of medical students and doctors to choose whether to perform abortions.
I also support a ban on all post‑viability abortions except where necessary to save the woman's life or to protect her from a serious and debilitating threat to her physical health. I voted for a bipartisan bill which would have done just this, and I am disappointed that this alternative was not passed by the Senate. I am disappointed because this measure was built on common ground which reflected the views of the American people. [Is this FOCA???]
In my view, abortion should only be an option of last resort. We need to concentrate on the prevention of unintended pregnancies ‑‑ from support for abstinence programs for teenagers to support for family planning information and services.
Again, thanks for contacting me. Please let me know if I can be of help to you in the future.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator
Responding to your message
Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:48 AM
---
I wrote this in reply to the office comment form:
---
(1) "Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." ( http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=81192&keyword=abortion&phrase=&contain= )
(2) "As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each woman can decide for herself whether and when to have a child."
Senator Mikulski,
I originally contacted you and your staff to clarify the first statement above that was voiced by you on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (regarding what "a tool for family planning" meant).
As a reply, the second statement was sent by you and your staff.
I am now more confused than before my first inquiry. If abortion is never to be used for family planning, how can it be said that a woman can decide between bearing a child or terminating that child once s/he is conceived after fertilization? (A woman is pregnant if and only if she is bearing a child after fertilization.)
I know you are a champion against human trafficking, or the slave trade. Consider two statements that would not make sense on the 30th anniversary of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857):
"Now, working a slave is never and never should be used as a tool for farming or industry."; and
"As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each plantation or industrial owner can decide for himself whether and when to own a slave."
I agree with your statement that "[ ] abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." Viability, skin color genetics, nor nationality of a preborn boy or girl should be criteria whether abortion is to be used.
I agree that "abortions [can be used] where necessary to save the woman's life or to protect her from a serious and debilitating threat to her physical health" as a compromise, but abortion, like human trafficking or slavery should be outlawed nationally (even in Southern States of the Union).
Instead of a compromise, consider changing your position on this most pressing issue of our time by legislatively limiting abortion only "where necessary to save the woman's life or to protect her from a serious and debilitating threat to her physical health", whether the preborn human is viable or not?
As a final note, please consider Francis Beckwith's pro-life position in Defending Life (p. 57):
1. The unborn [I prefer preborn] entity, from the moment of conception [or fertilization, depending on the conception definition], is a full-fledged member of the human community.
2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.
3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.
I encourage you and your staff to read Mr. Beckwith's book.
Sincerely,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD
---
I wonder if anyone will join me in writing Sen. Mikulski to try to outlaw abortion?
06 February 2010
Zygotic Inquiry V
This is the last post in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---
Hello,
Thank you for writing back so promptly. I understand if such a timely response will not be forthcoming.
I will contact the researchers regarding my morula question. I'll let you know what I find out (after all the holidays).
You mention that you do not have "a checklist" for rendering an answer for the moral worth of a human, ie a person.
However, at the end of your last response you assert, "[I]t is impossible for us to reconcile or differences on this issue once we move beyond the black and white of what is observable and testable."
What observable and testable criteria are to be shown? What is the purpose of these observable and testable criteria? ("Brain activity"? What specific activity(ies)?)
I assert that these observable and testable criteria of which you speak, whatever they (it) are (is), will by necessity require you to make a moral or metaphysical determination of whether a human has moral worth, ie, s/he is not to be killed.
My criteria is the capacity for sentient cognition, not the actual realization, if ever, of these capacities, but the capacity itself. I'm glad you brought up the example of "adults with severe mental handicaps [that] may have cognitive abilities below those of a healthy infant." I have a nephew who probably won't mentally reach beyond 9 mo. However, since he is the son of my sister and brother-in-law who are human persons with the same capacity, he is a person with moral worth who should not be killed for any reason.
Without your specific definition of a person with moral worth (who should not be killed for any reason, save self defense in clear and present danger), I cannot go forward with that part of our mind opening dialog (I thank you for being so civil).
Good day,
gbm3
---
[Extra email]
Hello [ThiZ],
A while back, you wrote:
"No, I'm actually ok with embryonic stem cells too. There are methods of removing cells from a morula in a way which then allows the main body of cells to continue development. The morula then becomes a blastula, ready for implantation and fetal development, and the cells which have been removed can be grown as a culture composed entirely of undifferentiated, pulripotent cells. It's a win-win if you ask me, but most people who support one side or the other just hear the term 'embryonic stem cells' and stop paying attention when anyone tries to explain further."
I looked up some references for further information before I contact scientists directly. Are the following references relevent towards the procedure of which you write above regarding obtaining ESC from morulas? Which articles are not relevant (and why)?
http://wf-f.org/OAR_StemCells.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec06/stemcells_08-24.html
http://www.cbhd.org/content/%E2%80%9Cethical%E2%80%9D-embryonic-stem-cell-research
http://media.www.lewisflyer.com/media/storage/paper638/news/2009/02/11/News/The-Church.And.Stem.Cell.Research-3623523.shtml
Thank you for your time,
gbm3
---
I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner, and I apologize for this profuesly, but I will not be able to continue to communicate with you on this subject. I am not qualified to give your questions the treatment they deserve. I am a science fan, and a student, and while I have my own opinions, I am not an activist for either side. I'm having a difficult time restarting this blog after a few incidents last semester, and I cannot afford the time or energy to play devils advocate for subjects for which I am not entirely devoted.
I would, however, like to thank you for your courtesy in our conversations, despite our differing opinions, I am truly grateful for that.
-[ThiZ]
---
[[My last email:]
Hello [ThiZ],
Well, I'm sorry to read that you're not going forward on this fruitful dialog (I like to read your point of view). I hope you all the best in your studies and in all that you do. If you feel like starting this conversation up again, by all means do so.
Thank you and God bless you,
[gbm3]
---
Hello,
Thank you for writing back so promptly. I understand if such a timely response will not be forthcoming.
I will contact the researchers regarding my morula question. I'll let you know what I find out (after all the holidays).
You mention that you do not have "a checklist" for rendering an answer for the moral worth of a human, ie a person.
However, at the end of your last response you assert, "[I]t is impossible for us to reconcile or differences on this issue once we move beyond the black and white of what is observable and testable."
What observable and testable criteria are to be shown? What is the purpose of these observable and testable criteria? ("Brain activity"? What specific activity(ies)?)
I assert that these observable and testable criteria of which you speak, whatever they (it) are (is), will by necessity require you to make a moral or metaphysical determination of whether a human has moral worth, ie, s/he is not to be killed.
My criteria is the capacity for sentient cognition, not the actual realization, if ever, of these capacities, but the capacity itself. I'm glad you brought up the example of "adults with severe mental handicaps [that] may have cognitive abilities below those of a healthy infant." I have a nephew who probably won't mentally reach beyond 9 mo. However, since he is the son of my sister and brother-in-law who are human persons with the same capacity, he is a person with moral worth who should not be killed for any reason.
Without your specific definition of a person with moral worth (who should not be killed for any reason, save self defense in clear and present danger), I cannot go forward with that part of our mind opening dialog (I thank you for being so civil).
Good day,
gbm3
---
[Extra email]
Hello [ThiZ],
A while back, you wrote:
"No, I'm actually ok with embryonic stem cells too. There are methods of removing cells from a morula in a way which then allows the main body of cells to continue development. The morula then becomes a blastula, ready for implantation and fetal development, and the cells which have been removed can be grown as a culture composed entirely of undifferentiated, pulripotent cells. It's a win-win if you ask me, but most people who support one side or the other just hear the term 'embryonic stem cells' and stop paying attention when anyone tries to explain further."
I looked up some references for further information before I contact scientists directly. Are the following references relevent towards the procedure of which you write above regarding obtaining ESC from morulas? Which articles are not relevant (and why)?
http://wf-f.org/OAR_StemCells.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec06/stemcells_08-24.html
http://www.cbhd.org/content/%E2%80%9Cethical%E2%80%9D-embryonic-stem-cell-research
http://media.www.lewisflyer.com/media/storage/paper638/news/2009/02/11/News/The-Church.And.Stem.Cell.Research-3623523.shtml
Thank you for your time,
gbm3
---
I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner, and I apologize for this profuesly, but I will not be able to continue to communicate with you on this subject. I am not qualified to give your questions the treatment they deserve. I am a science fan, and a student, and while I have my own opinions, I am not an activist for either side. I'm having a difficult time restarting this blog after a few incidents last semester, and I cannot afford the time or energy to play devils advocate for subjects for which I am not entirely devoted.
I would, however, like to thank you for your courtesy in our conversations, despite our differing opinions, I am truly grateful for that.
-[ThiZ]
---
[[My last email:]
Hello [ThiZ],
Well, I'm sorry to read that you're not going forward on this fruitful dialog (I like to read your point of view). I hope you all the best in your studies and in all that you do. If you feel like starting this conversation up again, by all means do so.
Thank you and God bless you,
[gbm3]
Zygotic Inquiry IV
This is forth in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---
Hello,
Way back, I thought it prudent to wait a while before responding to your last email ("I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow").
I would like to first take up the issue of personhood (again). You said, "I do not believe it is possible to say 'this is a person and that is not' based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one." I totally agree that a zygote is not a child in the same way that a 2 mo. infant is not the same as an adult (say, >30 yrs). There are criteria of being a human that are met by the adult that the infant cannot realize in actuality. An infant cannot reproduce since the reproductive organs do not function yet. The infant cannot actually communicate about last week. Yet, the infant has the potential to become an adult.
I don't think there can be any argument about the above observations, but do you really mean to say that the "[human zygote (with a gender assigned at fertilization)] has the potential to become *a person*"? In other words, are you saying that an infant has moral worth that needs to be protected and the human zygote potentially has moral worth which s/he does not have at his/her level of development? Please advise on these important questions for my understanding of your position (I'm still not clear, sorry).
At this point, I would like to posit an important distinction between potential and capacity, or passive potential and active potential. I pile of metal and parts has a passive potential to become a car since outside forces must do the work to assemble the car. A monarch caterpillar has the active potential to become a monarch butterfly since the monarch itself causes itself internally to obtain wings. Active potential is a peculiarly particular aspect of biological systems. A monarch will never have the capacity of talking about last week while a human does not have the capacity to fly with wings.
"By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, 'you' will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant."
This phrase curiously mixes beginning of life ideas with end of life ones. On its face, it seems (probably mistakenly in confusion) that if one does not have a brain, s/he is dead. Further, a zygote actually is forming a brain from fertilization in that the zygote has the information (programmed) to form the brain internally. However, objectively the human zygote is not dead since it is constantly creating by itself the systems of the body including the brain. The human without a brain with an active potential of human cognizance has already lived its life to its conscious end (although s/he still has worth / is a person; see below).
The criterion of having a functioning brain (human level cognition) is a troubling one since in a metaphysical sense, if one does not have this, one is not a person (moral worth attached as a human). (I disagree that this is "an uncommon position".)
Consider the example of a reversibly comatose human. S/he does not have human level cognition in actuality, but they have the active potential, or capacity to gain it in a finite time. This state is analogous to a human zygote: the human zygote has the capacity to gain human level cognition in a finite time. The fact that one has an actual brain is irrelevant since they both have the same potential (finite time needed) to gain human level cognition. Of course this assumes that the reversibly comatose human has moral worth, or is a person.
So, please permit me to deal my cards. To have moral worth as a person does not come down to what one does (human level cognition), but what one is (capacity for human level cognition). As soon as a human zygote is created with a gender (no longer gametes of sperm or egg; "fertilized egg" is a misnomer since an egg has no gender), they must be protected as every other person must be protected.
"Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means.
"As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them?"
Even though it may seem convoluted in some way, can't your observation be said about all crimes? As a Christian, I realize all people sin, some to criminal proportions. However, the rule of law set by our US and state constitutions must be observed unless they be ignored and lay the path toward anarchy and destroy the common good.
Obviously not all crimes carry the same weight in penalty. However, crimes against humanity (even if technically legal; I suggest reading Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html ) cannot be condoned by any civilized society including ours.
Slavery was once legal. Now, even though its still illegal, slavery/human trafficking is still going on right under our noses in this country. Should it become legal again? Of course not.
[break]
About the ESCR ("morula-derived stem cells"), none of the articles mention what is done with the embryos after they survive the taking of some of their cells.
Well, I'm done for now. Let me know what you think.
BTW, I noticed you like debates on line. I didn't know if you saw this one: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102308.html .
Good day,
gbm3
---
Mr. gmb3,
Thank you for waiting, my schedule has indeed been extremely full in recent weeks, and I am taking advantage of my Thanksgiving free time to respond to this message before I have to return to my previous schedule.
Before anything else, I would like to address your question about the morulas used during the research we discussed earlier. While I do not have an exact answer, I do know that many embryos are either re-frozen, or discarded. If you wish to know more, I suggest you contact the researchers themselves about the matter.
Regarding your position on personhood, I do not view the matter in the same way as you do. Nor do I, as you seem to insinuate with your comments regarding communication and reproductive ability, have some kind of check off list about whether or not something has a “moral worth”. Furthermore, while I do understand your analogies regarding the two types of potential you have outlined, I do not agree with your position that a potential brain is equal to that of an active one. I apologize for troubling you, but as someone who does not believe in the metaphysical, I have no evidence that there is any sort of consciousness or “anyone” in a given body if there is no brain activity.
You bring up the case of a reversibly comatose human, but not an irreversibly damaged one. If a person has been damaged to that extent, then I do believe that what has made them, them, is indeed dead. Furthermore, while the body that remains is human, there is no “person” inside. In the case of a reversibly comatose human, they are still functioning to a degree as to be visible to outside forces, perhaps not physically, but brain scans are fantastic sources of information, and there are obvious differences between someone in a vegetative state, and someone who is simply trapped. If moral worth is a matter of one’s capacity for human level cognition, then one is presented with a new problem as adults with severe mental handicaps may have cognitive abilities below those of a healthy infant.
Your conclusion that a zygote must be protected rests on the following propositions: that there is such a thing as moral worth, that people have moral worth, and that people are those members of homo sapiens who are capable (or will eventually be capable) of “human level cognition”. However, I do not agree with these propositions, as such I cannot accept the conclusion, nor will I be able to change your mind of the matters (not that I would ever intend to do so). I am grateful for having someone with whom to speak, and I hope I have helped you in some way, but it is impossible for us to reconcile or differences on this issue once we move beyond the black and white of what is observable and testable.
-ThiZ
---
Hello,
Way back, I thought it prudent to wait a while before responding to your last email ("I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow").
I would like to first take up the issue of personhood (again). You said, "I do not believe it is possible to say 'this is a person and that is not' based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one." I totally agree that a zygote is not a child in the same way that a 2 mo. infant is not the same as an adult (say, >30 yrs). There are criteria of being a human that are met by the adult that the infant cannot realize in actuality. An infant cannot reproduce since the reproductive organs do not function yet. The infant cannot actually communicate about last week. Yet, the infant has the potential to become an adult.
I don't think there can be any argument about the above observations, but do you really mean to say that the "[human zygote (with a gender assigned at fertilization)] has the potential to become *a person*"? In other words, are you saying that an infant has moral worth that needs to be protected and the human zygote potentially has moral worth which s/he does not have at his/her level of development? Please advise on these important questions for my understanding of your position (I'm still not clear, sorry).
At this point, I would like to posit an important distinction between potential and capacity, or passive potential and active potential. I pile of metal and parts has a passive potential to become a car since outside forces must do the work to assemble the car. A monarch caterpillar has the active potential to become a monarch butterfly since the monarch itself causes itself internally to obtain wings. Active potential is a peculiarly particular aspect of biological systems. A monarch will never have the capacity of talking about last week while a human does not have the capacity to fly with wings.
"By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, 'you' will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant."
This phrase curiously mixes beginning of life ideas with end of life ones. On its face, it seems (probably mistakenly in confusion) that if one does not have a brain, s/he is dead. Further, a zygote actually is forming a brain from fertilization in that the zygote has the information (programmed) to form the brain internally. However, objectively the human zygote is not dead since it is constantly creating by itself the systems of the body including the brain. The human without a brain with an active potential of human cognizance has already lived its life to its conscious end (although s/he still has worth / is a person; see below).
The criterion of having a functioning brain (human level cognition) is a troubling one since in a metaphysical sense, if one does not have this, one is not a person (moral worth attached as a human). (I disagree that this is "an uncommon position".)
Consider the example of a reversibly comatose human. S/he does not have human level cognition in actuality, but they have the active potential, or capacity to gain it in a finite time. This state is analogous to a human zygote: the human zygote has the capacity to gain human level cognition in a finite time. The fact that one has an actual brain is irrelevant since they both have the same potential (finite time needed) to gain human level cognition. Of course this assumes that the reversibly comatose human has moral worth, or is a person.
So, please permit me to deal my cards. To have moral worth as a person does not come down to what one does (human level cognition), but what one is (capacity for human level cognition). As soon as a human zygote is created with a gender (no longer gametes of sperm or egg; "fertilized egg" is a misnomer since an egg has no gender), they must be protected as every other person must be protected.
"Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means.
"As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them?"
Even though it may seem convoluted in some way, can't your observation be said about all crimes? As a Christian, I realize all people sin, some to criminal proportions. However, the rule of law set by our US and state constitutions must be observed unless they be ignored and lay the path toward anarchy and destroy the common good.
Obviously not all crimes carry the same weight in penalty. However, crimes against humanity (even if technically legal; I suggest reading Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html ) cannot be condoned by any civilized society including ours.
Slavery was once legal. Now, even though its still illegal, slavery/human trafficking is still going on right under our noses in this country. Should it become legal again? Of course not.
[break]
About the ESCR ("morula-derived stem cells"), none of the articles mention what is done with the embryos after they survive the taking of some of their cells.
Well, I'm done for now. Let me know what you think.
BTW, I noticed you like debates on line. I didn't know if you saw this one: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102308.html .
Good day,
gbm3
---
Mr. gmb3,
Thank you for waiting, my schedule has indeed been extremely full in recent weeks, and I am taking advantage of my Thanksgiving free time to respond to this message before I have to return to my previous schedule.
Before anything else, I would like to address your question about the morulas used during the research we discussed earlier. While I do not have an exact answer, I do know that many embryos are either re-frozen, or discarded. If you wish to know more, I suggest you contact the researchers themselves about the matter.
Regarding your position on personhood, I do not view the matter in the same way as you do. Nor do I, as you seem to insinuate with your comments regarding communication and reproductive ability, have some kind of check off list about whether or not something has a “moral worth”. Furthermore, while I do understand your analogies regarding the two types of potential you have outlined, I do not agree with your position that a potential brain is equal to that of an active one. I apologize for troubling you, but as someone who does not believe in the metaphysical, I have no evidence that there is any sort of consciousness or “anyone” in a given body if there is no brain activity.
You bring up the case of a reversibly comatose human, but not an irreversibly damaged one. If a person has been damaged to that extent, then I do believe that what has made them, them, is indeed dead. Furthermore, while the body that remains is human, there is no “person” inside. In the case of a reversibly comatose human, they are still functioning to a degree as to be visible to outside forces, perhaps not physically, but brain scans are fantastic sources of information, and there are obvious differences between someone in a vegetative state, and someone who is simply trapped. If moral worth is a matter of one’s capacity for human level cognition, then one is presented with a new problem as adults with severe mental handicaps may have cognitive abilities below those of a healthy infant.
Your conclusion that a zygote must be protected rests on the following propositions: that there is such a thing as moral worth, that people have moral worth, and that people are those members of homo sapiens who are capable (or will eventually be capable) of “human level cognition”. However, I do not agree with these propositions, as such I cannot accept the conclusion, nor will I be able to change your mind of the matters (not that I would ever intend to do so). I am grateful for having someone with whom to speak, and I hope I have helped you in some way, but it is impossible for us to reconcile or differences on this issue once we move beyond the black and white of what is observable and testable.
-ThiZ
Zygotic Inquiry III
This is third in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---
Hello,
Could you please provide some resources for the [non-destructive?] ESCR procedure you describe below? I can't find any with ease. What happens to the embryonic human when the stem cell is extracted? Implanted into woman? Discarded? Dies (I assume not)?
It is refreshing to hear that you think the "personhood" concept is "patently ridiculous".
"Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?"
Abortion, the Pill, and the "morning-after pill" were once illegal. They can be again. When they were illegal before, the punishments were not equal for each crime against humanity. Further, the doctor usually received the punishment in accordance with the severity with the crime. Nonetheless, abortion was still a crime.
Even M. Sanger (founder of Pl. Parenthood) said, "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." and "...abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life.." (from "Margaret Sanger Was Against Abortion?")
"What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a [I assume "human"] fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without [I assume you meant "with", not "without"] the sense of self-awereness?"
Actually, it's a human zygote. Calling it a "fertilized egg" is like calling you and me a "fertilized egg" at our current stages of devel. A human zygote is part of the human family, the animal (mature) is not. From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights<, "...the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." "Binary system"? What do you mean by this (please clarify)? Either one is alive or dead? Black and white for morality/ethical nature of abortion/destructive ESCR? Thank you in advance for your reply.
gbm3
---
I am running low of time for today, so I apologize in advance for the inarticulate manner in which I will be attempting to answer your questions as soon as possible. I actually did mean "without" a sense of self-awareness. While the capacity for self-awareness if difficult to test in animals, it is impossible for it to exist in an embryo of any type before the creation of even the most rudimentary of neural systems. I do not look to any religious system OR man made entity such as the UN as my source of guidence about how to regard other living creatures. Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means. As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them? Here are links to four scientific papers addressing the topic of morula-derived stem cells:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109898906/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5664/1669
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15670408
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120703181/abstract
By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, "you" will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant.
Furthermore, you are twisting what I said in regards to "personhood" and while I apologize for any unintentional obfuscation on my part (I do not believe it is possible to say "this is a person and that is not" based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one.) I must also state that I am somewhat taken aback by your manner of drawing attention to the matter.
Again, please forgive my terseness, and I thank you for being so civil, despite our different backgrounds. I look forward to hearing from you again, but I must also warn you that I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow.
-ThiZ
---
Hello,
Could you please provide some resources for the [non-destructive?] ESCR procedure you describe below? I can't find any with ease. What happens to the embryonic human when the stem cell is extracted? Implanted into woman? Discarded? Dies (I assume not)?
It is refreshing to hear that you think the "personhood" concept is "patently ridiculous".
"Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?"
Abortion, the Pill, and the "morning-after pill" were once illegal. They can be again. When they were illegal before, the punishments were not equal for each crime against humanity. Further, the doctor usually received the punishment in accordance with the severity with the crime. Nonetheless, abortion was still a crime.
Even M. Sanger (founder of Pl. Parenthood) said, "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." and "...abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life.." (from "Margaret Sanger Was Against Abortion?")
"What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a [I assume "human"] fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without [I assume you meant "with", not "without"] the sense of self-awereness?"
Actually, it's a human zygote. Calling it a "fertilized egg" is like calling you and me a "fertilized egg" at our current stages of devel. A human zygote is part of the human family, the animal (mature) is not. From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights<, "...the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." "Binary system"? What do you mean by this (please clarify)? Either one is alive or dead? Black and white for morality/ethical nature of abortion/destructive ESCR? Thank you in advance for your reply.
gbm3
---
I am running low of time for today, so I apologize in advance for the inarticulate manner in which I will be attempting to answer your questions as soon as possible. I actually did mean "without" a sense of self-awareness. While the capacity for self-awareness if difficult to test in animals, it is impossible for it to exist in an embryo of any type before the creation of even the most rudimentary of neural systems. I do not look to any religious system OR man made entity such as the UN as my source of guidence about how to regard other living creatures. Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means. As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them? Here are links to four scientific papers addressing the topic of morula-derived stem cells:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109898906/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5664/1669
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15670408
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120703181/abstract
By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, "you" will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant.
Furthermore, you are twisting what I said in regards to "personhood" and while I apologize for any unintentional obfuscation on my part (I do not believe it is possible to say "this is a person and that is not" based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one.) I must also state that I am somewhat taken aback by your manner of drawing attention to the matter.
Again, please forgive my terseness, and I thank you for being so civil, despite our different backgrounds. I look forward to hearing from you again, but I must also warn you that I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow.
-ThiZ
Zygotic Inquiry II
This is second in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---
Hello,
Thank you for your response.
I did hear about the prenatal short-term memory from a site I visit daily: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09071602.html.
Re. ESCR, you seem to indicate that you are only for adult stem cell research ("just" stem cells) and against embryonic SCR. Correct?
Re. abortion, you are against it unless external factors (not related to the preborn human's self-perpetuating development) should potentially suppress the preborn human's "brilliant" future. Correct?
Do you believe that a human starts as a non-person and then turns into a person at some point? (person=human with value/worth: to be protected by laws) If so, what are criteria(n) for personhood (when is a human a person)?
Thank you for answering my questions in advance.
Good day,
gbm3
---
No, I'm actually ok with embryonic stem cells too. There are methods of removing cells from a morula in a way which then allows the main body of cells to continue development. The morula then becomes a blastula, ready for implantation and fetal development, and the cells which have been removed can be grown as a culture composed entirely of undifferentiated, pulripotent cells. It's a win-win if you ask me, but most people who support one side or the other just hear the term "embryonic stem cells" and stop paying attention when anyone tries to explain further.
What a waste.
As for your other topic, I am not of the mind that it matters what one believes about "personhood." Personally, I think that all things are transitional, but that means nothing to the legislative process. We, as a species, like to draw lines and put boxes around things, but nature doesn't work like that. There is no magical instant when something is transformed into something else, so trying to define what is a person and what is not is patently ridiculous. Even if abortion was illegal, people would still do it, and what then? Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?
What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without the sense of self-awereness?
I don't mean to be dramatic, but it truely is diffcult for me to understand those who see this, who see life itself, as a binary system, and I apologize for that handicap.
-ThiZ
---
Hello,
Thank you for your response.
I did hear about the prenatal short-term memory from a site I visit daily: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09071602.html.
Re. ESCR, you seem to indicate that you are only for adult stem cell research ("just" stem cells) and against embryonic SCR. Correct?
Re. abortion, you are against it unless external factors (not related to the preborn human's self-perpetuating development) should potentially suppress the preborn human's "brilliant" future. Correct?
Do you believe that a human starts as a non-person and then turns into a person at some point? (person=human with value/worth: to be protected by laws) If so, what are criteria(n) for personhood (when is a human a person)?
Thank you for answering my questions in advance.
Good day,
gbm3
---
No, I'm actually ok with embryonic stem cells too. There are methods of removing cells from a morula in a way which then allows the main body of cells to continue development. The morula then becomes a blastula, ready for implantation and fetal development, and the cells which have been removed can be grown as a culture composed entirely of undifferentiated, pulripotent cells. It's a win-win if you ask me, but most people who support one side or the other just hear the term "embryonic stem cells" and stop paying attention when anyone tries to explain further.
What a waste.
As for your other topic, I am not of the mind that it matters what one believes about "personhood." Personally, I think that all things are transitional, but that means nothing to the legislative process. We, as a species, like to draw lines and put boxes around things, but nature doesn't work like that. There is no magical instant when something is transformed into something else, so trying to define what is a person and what is not is patently ridiculous. Even if abortion was illegal, people would still do it, and what then? Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?
What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without the sense of self-awereness?
I don't mean to be dramatic, but it truely is diffcult for me to understand those who see this, who see life itself, as a binary system, and I apologize for that handicap.
-ThiZ
Zygotic Inquiry I
Since I'm snowed in, I thought I would start a series of posts (now instead of later) that will consist of an email conversation I had with "ThiZ", an atheist who writes from Colorado (each post will begin with my email and end with hers). It regards beginning of human life issues, mainly abortion and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). I think it was a fruitful discussion in which I learned some new things about a unique perspective.
Enjoy! I surely did.
---
Hello,
I have a question: As a thinking person who used to be a zygote, do you think abortion and/or ESCR are immoral/unethical? (I didn't get a hit with an "abortion" search of your site.)
Thanks. [gbm3]
---
Greetings Mr. gbm3,
I apologize profusely for my tardiness, as you may have noticed by the great length between blog posts, I have been indisposed for several weeks.
My answer to your question is a rather complicated one, and worthy of discussion and perhaps a post of its own, however, I will attempt to give you the best quick answer I can.
I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, but only so long as the cells in question are just that, stem cells. I'm actually more upset when the created zygotes (human OR animal) are allowed to actually differentiate and grow, only to be killed because they are no longer useful.
Additionally, while I do advocate the use of the morning-after pill and do not believe abortion should be outlawed, I still wish it wasn't necessary. Yes, "necessary", certainly not under all circumstances, not even close, but I truly do believe there are times when there is no other option.
When I consider the actual processes of fetal development, I find it remarkable, beautiful even. I don't like to think of it being interrupted, not for any religious reasons, but simply because life itself, is so amazing. However, if there is a chance that a child, or an animal, will only experience pain when it enters this world, if would be unwanted, hurt, or abandoned, then I would rather see the whole thing stopped before it can even begin, because once it is, it's BRILLIANT.
If you want to see to fascinating studies regarding what we do as early as 30 weeks in, check out this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715074924.htm from Science News. Also, here's an abstract about how we first learn taste for certain flavors: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/6/e88.
I hope this email has answered your questions, at least partially. If you have any more, please don't hesitate to write again. I hope you enjoy the articles
-ThiZ
Enjoy! I surely did.
---
Hello,
I have a question: As a thinking person who used to be a zygote, do you think abortion and/or ESCR are immoral/unethical? (I didn't get a hit with an "abortion" search of your site.)
Thanks. [gbm3]
---
Greetings Mr. gbm3,
I apologize profusely for my tardiness, as you may have noticed by the great length between blog posts, I have been indisposed for several weeks.
My answer to your question is a rather complicated one, and worthy of discussion and perhaps a post of its own, however, I will attempt to give you the best quick answer I can.
I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, but only so long as the cells in question are just that, stem cells. I'm actually more upset when the created zygotes (human OR animal) are allowed to actually differentiate and grow, only to be killed because they are no longer useful.
Additionally, while I do advocate the use of the morning-after pill and do not believe abortion should be outlawed, I still wish it wasn't necessary. Yes, "necessary", certainly not under all circumstances, not even close, but I truly do believe there are times when there is no other option.
When I consider the actual processes of fetal development, I find it remarkable, beautiful even. I don't like to think of it being interrupted, not for any religious reasons, but simply because life itself, is so amazing. However, if there is a chance that a child, or an animal, will only experience pain when it enters this world, if would be unwanted, hurt, or abandoned, then I would rather see the whole thing stopped before it can even begin, because once it is, it's BRILLIANT.
If you want to see to fascinating studies regarding what we do as early as 30 weeks in, check out this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715074924.htm from Science News. Also, here's an abstract about how we first learn taste for certain flavors: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/6/e88.
I hope this email has answered your questions, at least partially. If you have any more, please don't hesitate to write again. I hope you enjoy the articles
-ThiZ
08 January 2010
Same-Sex Conversation
This week, I had a conversation with someone from the Episcopal Church. He has a family member that is a "woman priestess" (Christians in the Protestant Ecclesial Communities don't have valid sacramental ordinations). Obviously, he's not from the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), but the more liberal portion of the Anglican Communion (of which the Episcopal (U.S.) Church is a part, at least in the state of Maryland).
After he talked about some of his family swimming the Tiber (converting to Catholicism from the liberal "Christianity" of the Episcopal Church), we talked about the openly and practicing lesbian (I don't know her name) who is originally from Maryland that is to be newly "ordained" in the Episcopal conference of California. She would be the second practicing homosexual to be "ordained" Episcopal bishop behind Gene Robinson of New England.
We then got onto same-sex "marriage". His main point was that gay people were born gay, and we all have to accept it and not discriminate against them. Among other things I've said before (on Youtube etc.), I countered briefly that we are all born into sin (except for two people, Jesus and Mary (Immaculate Conception) via Catholic theology), implying that same-sex attraction was one among many sins.
Well, in New Jersey's Senate, of all places, this point about being born gay has come up again. From Lifesitenews.com:
Further there are more testimonies at a Catholic Apostolate website that ministers to people with same-sex attraction, Courage Apostolate.
Well, if two thousand years of Tradition and the Bible (and current science) won't convince someone, I wonder what will?
(BTW, as far as I know the man with whom I was conversing does not have same-sex attraction and is married (without quotes) to a woman.)
After he talked about some of his family swimming the Tiber (converting to Catholicism from the liberal "Christianity" of the Episcopal Church), we talked about the openly and practicing lesbian (I don't know her name) who is originally from Maryland that is to be newly "ordained" in the Episcopal conference of California. She would be the second practicing homosexual to be "ordained" Episcopal bishop behind Gene Robinson of New England.
We then got onto same-sex "marriage". His main point was that gay people were born gay, and we all have to accept it and not discriminate against them. Among other things I've said before (on Youtube etc.), I countered briefly that we are all born into sin (except for two people, Jesus and Mary (Immaculate Conception) via Catholic theology), implying that same-sex attraction was one among many sins.
Well, in New Jersey's Senate, of all places, this point about being born gay has come up again. From Lifesitenews.com:
Regina Griggs, director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), criticized the comparison of homosexuality to racial issues.
"Contrary to Bond's statement equating skin color with homosexual behavior, major scientific studies and mental health associations have stated homosexuality is not innate," said Griggs in a statement. "No replicated scientific study has found a gay gene, gay DNA, or gay center of the brain.
"Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. Many African-Americans have come out of homosexuality, proving sexual orientation can change, but skin color does not."
Further there are more testimonies at a Catholic Apostolate website that ministers to people with same-sex attraction, Courage Apostolate.
Well, if two thousand years of Tradition and the Bible (and current science) won't convince someone, I wonder what will?
(BTW, as far as I know the man with whom I was conversing does not have same-sex attraction and is married (without quotes) to a woman.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)