AmericanPapist Comments
The Pope said:
"when it comes to molecules whose aim is to stop an embryo implanting or to cut short someone's life," the Pope said"
But that is what is in dispute in Connecticut...does plan B in fact vitiate the uterine lining in 2 pills within a 24 hour period. Let us see if the Pope in fact reverses the Connecticut decision since it will require him to read the scientific data involved from the various voices.
Interesting. To say the least.
I don't think this is interesting insomuch as it does not say anything new or controversial. I agree with AP that additional clarity would be welcome, but I'd rather have the clarity later and correct than sooner and incorrect. While the moral rules of engagement are fairly well-developed, they must be applied to difficult facts in that the science is difficult and developing. The Holy Father is wise to speak on a particular drug only after he has been fully briefed on the science; even then it may be more prudent to speak in terms of moral principles that must be applied by a laity informed by science. If the Holy Father should declare that X is an abortifacient and therefore morally prohibited, he will look foolish if it is later determined that he was wrong. The Church's charism includes morality, but does not include science.
Mike
If Rome is devoid of a charism that includes science, then we can expect them to say nothing definite also on the global warming issue.
If you are correct (I'm not saying you are), then Rome will not change the Connecticut decision via phone calls unless it does so without science at all...and based really instead on the scandal of some and not based on whether a real abortion ever happens as a result of Plan B. That will be helpful regarding those scandalized and will decrease Rome's credibility with part not all of the scientific community whose credibility will be an issue when other topics come up.
So Rome could take the easy path of not reading the science involved in Connecticut but if She does...She cannot expect to be believed in other scientific areas like global warming if she sends the signal that She is not reading science all that closely as a critical part of her decision making. When you give a dance, you have to pay the band.
I agree, Bill. And for that reason I think Rome would be foolish to pronounce something definitive re the science surrounding climate change. It is one thing to pronounce and apply moral principles to facts established by science. It is quite another to pronounce scientific facts and apply them to moral principles. Rome's charism most certainly does not extend to scientific matters. I would hope all Catholics could agree on that.
Commenting by HaloScan
