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 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). ...

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.

You can read the rest if you'd like.

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 (Please do not publish my email address).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

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.)

Dear [gbm3]:

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 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)?

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?

(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.

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 19:9

The 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.

The Murphy Initiative for Justice and Peace

(Click on the images to see a larger version.)

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."

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.

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

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:
---

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?

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]