AmericanPapist Comments
Number 4 is totally absurd. By saying that, Martini implicitly states that abortion at that stage (abortive pill) would not mean the killing of a human being. He therefore dissents from the position of the Church's magisterium, according to which human life must be safeguarded from the frist moment of the conception until natural death.
Marini's opinion contradicts the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, set out in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes: "From the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes".
As pointed out by Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, issued in communion with the College of Bishops (according to the encyclical itself - third part of the introduction), that teaching is the constant teaching of the Church, from the earliest days, and was reaffirmed by several recent magisterial documents. In the said encyclical the late Pope declared:
"(...) John XXIII reaffirmed that human life is sacred because "from its very beginning it directly involves God's creative activity".67
(...)
Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. 72 Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 73
No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church."
Martini's exception regarding the zigote stage, therefore, clearly contradicts the Magisterium.
Reminds me of the oft-reported contention that JP1 wanted to reverse the Church's teaching on birth control. The question that always comes into my mind is why these hopeful dissidents think this is note-worthy. I mean, even if JP1 wanted to reverse the teaching (or even if Martino was almost elected), then is it just a coincidence that it didn't happen or is it possible that the Holy Spirit intervened to prevent it from happening?
I would say coincidence. I wouldn't want to think that the Holy Spirit goes around killing. But who am I to question God?
Since it seems that His Eminence supports abortion, doesn't that automatically excommunicate?
Just because there are 'no signs of singularly definable human life' doesn't mean that there isn't any human life, does it?
Three cheers to Martini. Finally some reasonable, humane thinking.
... some reasonable humane thinking that is going to do alot of real damage to souls and not help address the deeping underlying values.
yeah, that's very "humane."
On his #2 - I don't think that's at odds with any "leanings" of the Magisterium. Where there are "extra" embryos in a freezer in a fertility clinic, procreation (via an assisted fertility procedure) has already taken place. The question isn't whether it should - the question is whether there's a licit way of saving the embryo's life (rather than simply allowing it to die after it's determined that the couple whose egg and sperm were used to create it will never want it themselves).
Pray, pray, pray...
Condoms are humane. Spend all the time you want addressing "underlying values" in Africa. It's going to take a while. In the mean why not save a few million lives? Or do you think those lives are expendible?
I think sex is more expendible than lives. Condoms only have a 75% rate of saving lives.
So I ask you - who is REALLY more interested in saving lives? The Church? Or the people who hand out condoms?
Is that a Cruella De Vil (101 Dalmations movie) shawl he is wearing . Mike
I think it's an academic robe... but I thought the same thing. :)
I am a single woman. If point 2 becomes Church teaching, then I am presumably as guilty as an abortionist in causing the death of the unborn because I haven't gone to the rescue of an embryo left over from a fertility engineering procedure which I never wanted to happen in the first place.
Well, I'm not sure if it would actually be that extreme, Salome. I think the only question here is whether it is a moral act of HEROISM to elect to bring a fetus to term yourself... there's no question that there would be an OBLIGATION to make that choice...
Right. Even if you're allowed to do something, that doesn't mean you have an obligation to do it.
Commenting by HaloScan
