AmericanPapist Comments
Bizarre. Why would a right-wing site like WND pose a question so misleadingly slanted against the correct pro-life conclusions?
It's obvious from the follow up question that the reporter was looking to create a media scandal. It was probably wise not to comment.
I find the phrasing of the question deceiving. Today everyone knows that conception means when the egg and sperm unite creating a new human in embryonic form. But those saints had no idea that females had eggs - they pictured something more like a husband planting a seed in the soil of the his wife's womb which eventually developed into a baby.
Yet despite their lack of knowledge of biology, they all agreed that as soon as we could be certain that a human life existed - killing it would be murder. At the time, the only evidence they had was when the baby first moved on its own in the womb. So I wouldn't say that they "all disagreed that a human life begins at conception" per se. Rather, given the information available at that time, they disagreed on when they could know with certainty that an actual rather than potential human life existed.
I think there are 2 basic problems - 1) the media is just looking to create a story and drag someone down with Pelosi and Biden. Since the media likes to believe that Bush is evil incarnate, he is the obvious target. 2) The media as well as many people - Catholic and non-Catholic alike - do not understand the distinction between articles of faith and those of natural law. The timing with which a human life begins is a scientific fact. It is not an article of faith. They will deny it because if they accept that point, then even they cannot deny that abortion is murder.
It is a smart decision by the White House to let the Church and Pelosi/Biden fight among themselves.
Politically speaking, this administration cannot add anything to the conversation.
And people say Bush is dumb! I think we must all keep in mind that the media is largely anti-Christian and more pointedly, anti-Catholic. They are desparate to tar Republicans when it is the Democrats who support an intrinsic evil, And the Dems brought this problem on themselves. Let them cook in their own soup. Tom
I think that behind this question and the "theologizing" of Pelosi lies some absence of both logic and information.
1. Some Saints and Doctors held that life (animation) did not begin at conception.
2. This was a belief not held de fide, but as opinion.
3. Consequently, the Catholic Tradition has always held that abortion is wrong, even during the alleged 'pre-animation' stage.
4. The reason for this involves the sin of intention. precisely because there was no certainty, one could not be absolutely sure what abortion entailed in the alleged non-animate stage. In the absence of certainty, what at first sight might seem like a benign act to some, such as shooting at a noise in the woods, becomes sinful and/or criminal by intent. The possibility that the act might lead to the taking of a life shows this. As Father John Hardon wrote:
“The exact time when a fetus becomes ‘animated’ has no practical significance as far as the morality of abortion is concerned. By any theory of ‘animation’ abortion is gravely wrong. Why so? Because every direct abortion is a sin of murder by intent. It is, to say the least, probable that every developing fetus is a human being. To deliberately kill what is probably human is murder.
“If a person does not know for certain that his action is not killing another human being, he must accept the responsibility for doing so. Anyone who is willing to kill what may be human is, by his intention, willing to kill what is human. Consequently, the one who performs or consents to abortion inescapably assumes the guilt of voluntary homicide.” -The Catholic Catechism, John A. Hardon, S.J.
I cannot find any letter by Innocent III that speaks of quickening. I see many pro-abortion sites talking about it, but always with no reference to the actual name of the letter. Perhaps they are making it up?
anon,
They're referring to the canonical legislation issued by Innocent III in 1211. From at least the time of the Decretum Gratians men were forbidden from entering the priesthood if they had encouraged a woman to have an abortion. Such restrictions are known as irregularities, and the pope lifted this one as a hindrance to entrance to the priesthood. The waiving of such irregularities presupposes that the person is repentant. Needless to say, Canon Law is not a moral coed, but rather it is the administrative, civil, jurisdictional, procedural, and penal law of the Church. The moral teaching of the Church, per se belong to a different forum. Abortion remained then, as now and always, immoral; something not to be done, or, if done, to be repented of.
As I noted in my earlier post, questions or doubts of when life begins are ultimately irrelevant to the morality of the act of abortion. As long as the question remains in doubt, the sin of intention remains.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge and better writing skills (such as Thomas or his Dad) could address these issues more fully.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge and better writing skills (such as Thomas or his Dad) could address these issues more fully.
I don't know, Dim Bulb. That post was pretty good. :-)
Commenting by HaloScan
