Catholic bishops send message to faithful: We oppose ObamaCare

posted at 12:00 pm on March 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The Obama administration last week week attempted to argue that Catholic bishops didn’t oppose the Senate version of the ObamaCare bill as a way of “proving” that the bill won’t fund abortions.  The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has responded by asking parishes to post and/or read aloud a statement that clarifies their position on the bill, which is adamant opposition.  In the statement that many Catholic parishioners will find greeting them as they attend Mass, the USCCB not only declares its opposition but also urges Catholics to contact their elected representatives in Washington to stop it:

As long-time advocates of health care reform, the U.S. Catholic bishops continue to make the moral case that genuine health care reform must protect the life, dignity, consciences and health of all, especially the poor and vulnerable. Health care reform should provide access to affordable and quality health care for all, and not advance a pro-abortion agenda in our country. Genuine health care reform is being blocked by those who insist on reversing widely supported policies against federal funding of abortion and plans which include abortion, not by those working simply to preserve these longstanding protections.

  • On November 7, the U.S. House of Representatives passed major health care reform that reaffirms the essential, longstanding and widely supported policy against using federal funds for elective abortions and includes positive measures on affordability and immigrants.
  • On December 24, the U.S. Senate rejected this policy and passed health care reform that requires federal funds to help subsidize and promote health plans that cover elective abortions. All purchasers of such plans will be required to pay for other people’s abortions through a separate payment solely to pay for abortion. And the affordability credits for very low income families purchasing private plans in a Health Insurance Exchange are inadequate and would leave families financially vulnerable.
  • Outside the abortion context, neither bill has adequate conscience protection for health care providers, plans or employers.
  • Congressional leaders are now trying to figure out how the rules of the House and Senate could allow the final passage of a modified bill that would satisfy disagreements between House and Senate versions.

ACTION: Contact your Representative and Senators today by e-mail, phone or FAX.

  • To send a pre-written, instant e-mail to Congress go to www.usccb.org/action.
  • Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: 202-224-3121, or call your Members’ local offices.  Contact info can be found on Members’ web sites at www.house.gov & www.senate.gov.

MESSAGE – HOUSE:

“I am pleased that the House health care bill maintains the longstanding policy against federal funding of abortion. On the other hand, the provisions on abortion funding in the current un-amended Senate health care bill are seriously deficient and unacceptable. I urge you to work to uphold essential provisions against abortion funding, to include full conscience protection and to ensure that health care is accessible and affordable for all. I urge you to oppose any bill unless and until these criteria are met.”

MESSAGE – SENATE:

“I am deeply disappointed that the current un-amended Senate health care bill fails to maintain the longstanding policy against federal funding of abortion and does not include adequate protection for conscience. I urge you to support essential provisions against abortion funding, similar to those in the House bill. Include full conscience protection and ensure that health care is accessible and affordable for all. I urge you to oppose any bill unless and until these criteria are met.”

WHEN: Votes in the House and Senate are expected at any time. Act today!

The USCCB is not known for its adherence to conservative political principles.  Had the House version passed in the Senate, the bishops would have likely been cheering as Barack Obama signed it into law.  Their opposition to the Senate version and their call to activism against it shows just how radically the Senate changed the abortion provisions.  This is not status quo ante on federal funding for abortion, and even the normal supporters of government intervention in health care know that.

I’ll update you after attending Mass tonight on whether that message gets read at my rather liberal parish.

Update: Steven Ertelt at Life News has the report about the endorsement from the Catholic Health Association:

The Catholic Health Association is coming under fire today for releasing a statement not only endorsing the pro-abortion Senate health care bill but issuing a misleading statement making it appear the bill does not fund abortions. The head of a national pro-life organization disabused the CHA in response. …

Despite the endorsement of the pro-abortion bill, Keehan claimed CHA hasn’t diluted its pro-life stance.

“On the moral issue of abortion, there is no disagreement,” Keehan contends. “On the technical issue of whether this bill prevents federal funding of abortions, we differ with Right to Life.”

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, spoke with LifeNews.com about Keehan’s statement and dismissed the so-called segregation of funds as an accounting gimmick.

“The House and Senate bills do not merely differ on a ‘technical issue,’as Carol Keehan would have people believe,” he said. “This is another regrettably attempt to minimize the substantive issues involved in order to smooth the way for the Obama legislation.”

“In reality, the Senate bill contains multiple pro-abortion provisions, which in total constitute the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation to reach the House floor since Roe v. Wade,” Johnson added.

The CHA didn’t convince the USCCB, either, a group that would have been predispositioned to buy Keehan’s spin.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

IlikedAUH2O on March 14, 2010 at 3:44 PM

I’m afraid you can’t draw a moral equivalence between abortion and war.

Trafalgar on March 14, 2010 at 3:51 PM

I don’t think that anyone here would disagree that an unwanted baby has a strong likelihood of becoming a problem and expense for our nation.

You have absolutely no basis for claiming this. I know it’s dogmatic among supporters of the abortion industry, but it is a false and evil dogma.

Pavel on March 14, 2010 at 4:04 PM

I attended a “Sunday” Mass on Saturday afternoon, and there was no announcement made.

We did, on the other hand, get to watch an extended video shilling for Catholic Charities.

Did I mention I live in the Brooklyn Archdiocese?

Did I mention that our church’s basement was filled wall to wall with borderline blasphemous images of Barack Obama for sale during a Christmas bazaar that took place right after Obama was elected?

Did I mention that during a homily a Deacon at this church once used Sarah Palin as an example of a “scandalous” politician in the same year that New York’s governor was forced out of office for a prostitution scandal and Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright were exposed?

Some times, it is very hard being a Catholic with the particularly hierarchy currently running things.

Kensington on March 14, 2010 at 4:30 PM

To my fellow Roman Catholics at HotAir and all those of good will:

This is the THIRD time I am writing this post out! I have finished it twice now, and right before I was going to send it I clicked something wrong and lost the whole thing. I was going to just chuck it, but something tells me there is a reason that this is so difficult to send, so I am going to write it again! I respectfully submit for the THIRD time – and pray there is no need for a fourth.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Pope are the final authority on the truth and teaching of the two-thousand year old Roman Catholic Church. Every Catholic has a obligation to know his/her faith and so should own a copy of the Catechism.

Any Bishops or priests who are sinning against others gravely, or teaching in contradiction of the Catechism are in error, and do much damage to the Body of Christ. I am guilty of being judgemental of them, but it is better to truly pray for them, that they may stop the damage and may be converted themselves.

However, what I will not do is leave the Church of my Baptism and commit the sin of abandoning the one true Faith because of any other human being.

It would be destructive to deprive myself of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the living Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist; to never again hear the words of Christ as He absolves me of all my sins in Confession, or to have His Presence with me in sickness or in death through the sacrament of the Annointing of the Sick.

We are living in dangerous times, times where the persecution may be greater than has ever been seen before.

We need the strength of the sacraments. Through them, the Life of Christ is imparted and lives within us so that we may live and die faithful to Him. That is why I seek out faithful, strong and saintly priests. They are all around us if you look for them, hiding in plain sight. They are HUMBLY caring for their flocks, and they need us to support them because the enemy, including the human enemy in the White House seeks to destroy them, to make us think all priests are horrors. They know that to destroy the priest is to scatter the flock and destroy the Church.

Please don’t leave. Stay and fight for our faith and for the saints among us. And invite others to join us.

And remember the words of Saint Peter, “To whom else will we go, Lord? You have the words of everlasting life.”

tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Kensington on March 14, 2010 at 4:30 PM

There is one of the strongest most saintly priests I have ever known living in your diocese. His name is Monsignor Philip Reilly. He is the founder of the Helpers of God’s Precious Infants, which he started with a handful of people in Brooklyn but now has scores of chapters all over the world. They have saved literally thousands of babies from abortion with their prayerful sidewalk counseling at hundreds of abortions mill around the globe. He says Mass quite frequently, in fact his fiftieth year of ordination is coming up in May and he will be having a Mass in Brooklyn. He preaches with power and one of the keenest intellects I have ever heard. He is also incredibly kind and humble. Look up Helpers of God’s Precious Infants and you will find out more about Masses and prayer vigils that Monsignor and your Bishop lead every month at abortion mills in your diocese. You will be refreshed with living waters.

tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 4:39 PM

tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Amen!

Trafalgar on March 14, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Pelosi is a dingbat and a liar, and you are a fool if you think she understands or represents Catholic teaching on abortion. It’s pathetic when social libtards like you go on record defending Pelosi, who LIED at that interview atheling on March 14, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Though you don’t address the arguments of Aquinas and Augustine. Nor do you account for the rulings of Popes who wrote that abortion was not the taking of an individual life.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Please don’t leave. Stay and fight for our faith and for the saints among us. And invite others to join us.tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM

To paraphrase my fav President, Ronald Reagan: I am not leaving the Catholic Church, it left me.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 4:45 PM

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 4:42 PM

While there were disagreements in the Church’s early history regarding whether unborn children have souls, the Catholic Church has always condemned abortion as a grave evil. Christian writers from the first-century author of the Didache to Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”) have maintained that the Bible forbids abortion.

See:

The Didache (A.D. 70)
The Letter of Barnabas (A.D. 74).
The Apocalypse of Peter (A.D. 137).
Athenagoras (A.D. 177)
Tertullian (Apology 9:8 (A.D. 197), The Soul 25 (A.D. 210)
Minucius Felix (A.D. 226)
Hippolytus (A.D. 228)
Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314)
Basil the Great (A.D. 374)
John Chrysostom (A.D. 391)
Jerome (A.D. 396)
The Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 400)

Trafalgar on March 14, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Thanks, Trafalgar. We need to stay in the boat with the “Fishers of Men” and “prepare for a huge catch”, as the Lord said. And there are some Bishops who have spoken forcefully about the immorality of healthcare because of abortion, the debt for us and future Americans and the loss of liberty. These voices of brillaince and reason are alive and well in our Church but of course get buried by the msm, who instead highlights the Bishops who are most in need of spiritual help and whose “teachings”, if they violate the Catechism of the Catholic Church, are invalid.

tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 5:02 PM

To paraphrase my fav President, Ronald Reagan: I am not leaving the Catholic Church, it left me.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 4:45 PM

If the teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are something that you disagree with, then you do have a problem. Anything else that is floating around/spouted by any Bishop or priest or deacon that contradicts the Catechism is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Who are you listening to?

tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Trafalgar on March 14, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Those references are pre-Augustine. He changed the thinking. Abortion was a sin but not murder. Hundreds of years later, as science better understood embryology, the RCC made clear the position it holds firmly today.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Please don’t leave. Stay and fight for our faith and for the saints among us. And invite others to join us.tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Sorry, can’t do it. When the Archdiocese of Chicago asked that I split the cost with my ex-husband, to the tune of $10,000 bucks to have my marriage of 25 years annuled so that he could get married in the church again, requesting that I fill out a 25+ page questionaire about my marriage and signing releases so that they could have access to all of my medical records, I walked away and will never look back.

That is not faith, it’s a money grab and in doing so, making my 25 year marriage non-existant in the eyes of the church. And what does that make my children?

Knucklehead on March 14, 2010 at 5:22 PM

I don’t think that anyone here would disagree that an unwanted baby has a strong likelihood of becoming a problem and expense for our nation.

1. Unwanted by one does not mean unwanted by anyone. Just ask my parents or any others who have adopted a baby.

2. Even if your ‘strong likelihood’ argument were true, you would have to agree that those born sick, mentally deficient, etc. also are more likely to become an “expense” for our nation. Would you advocate death for them, as well?

LASue on March 14, 2010 at 5:39 PM

If the teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are something that you disagree with, then you do have a problem. Anything else that is floating around/spouted by any Bishop or priest or deacon that contradicts the Catechism is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Who are you listening to?

tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 5:17 PM

I do agree with the catechism, but I cannot continue to attend or support a church that seeks to advance ‘social justice,’ economic justice, and look the other way at abortion. It violates my sense of intactness spiritually. I cannot make peace wit the disconnect.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 5:42 PM

To the Catholic bishops – YOU BUNCH OF IDIOTS! Do you know how difficult standing behind the Church has been with your back and forth on healtcare, having to listen to your injection supporting it in the weekly homilies from the priests? Do you know how disenchanted conservative Catholicsd have become because of this?

To the Catholic Health Association –

“On the moral issue of abortion, there is no disagreement,” Keehan contends. “On the technical issue of whether this bill prevents federal funding of abortions, we differ with Right to Life.”

God will not differentiate between “technical” and “moral” when you stand before Him. You either support abortion, or you don’t; and obviously, you support abortion.

madmonkphotog on March 14, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Did I mention that during a homily a Deacon at this church once used Sarah Palin as an example of a “scandalous” politician in the same year that New York’s governor was forced out of office for a prostitution scandal and Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright were exposed?

Some times, it is very hard being a Catholic with the particularly hierarchy currently running things.

Kensington on March 14, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Ugh! I wish had not read that, yet I am so glad I did. It confirms what I said previously about the church leaving me.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 5:49 PM

tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Your third attempt is the reason I checked HA today. I honestly believe in Devine intervention.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 5:42 PM

It truly hurts my heart that I am suffering the same as you. I can’t listen to the priests talk about equality in healthcare knowing the bishops, like Cardial DiNardo, want socialized medicine for all.

madmonkphotog on March 14, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Knucklehead on March 14, 2010 at 5:22 PM

I am sorry for what I know is a very painful situation.

A friend of mine annulled through the Archdiocese of Chicago. She started out with really horrible priests and people on the tribunal, but persevered until she found one priest who was truly kind.

She also filled out the 25+ pages and said it was the most painful yet most freeing thing she had ever done. It took her months to do it but it opened and then healed many old wounds.

I don’t know about whether all the med records would be cogent, since annulment basically says that at the time the marriage took place one or both parties could not validly enter into the sacrament due to an emotional, physical or psychological impediment. I also don’t know why they were asking for $10,000. What was that for?

I do know that a marriage is valid until declared invalid, therefore, at the time your children were born, you were in a marriage that was considered valid and recognized as such.
An annulment cannot go back into time and change what was true at the time your children were born.

Anyway, I am by far not an expert – do you know any really kind, holy priests that you could discuss this with? I know a few in Chicago; if you would like their names I would be happy to get them to you somehow or other.

tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 6:28 PM

tigerlily, you are awesome. You are doing God’s work today.

Kensington on March 14, 2010 at 6:44 PM

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 5:17 PM

You are quite dim and ready to spin. Which year do you live in?

So many idiots.

CWforFreedom on March 14, 2010 at 6:50 PM

And then we don’t have the resources to enforce our own laws and preserve our traditional culture.


IlikedAUH2O on March 14, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Wow you are nuts.

CWforFreedom on March 14, 2010 at 6:52 PM

I do agree with the catechism, but I cannot continue to attend or support a church that seeks to advance ’social justice,’ economic justice, and look the other way at abortion. It violates my sense of intactness spiritually. I cannot make peace wit the disconnect.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 5:42 PM

But, do you not see that the disconnect is their problem? Why should you make it yours and be the one to leave your Faith?

Yes, I have heard many stories like the deacon/Sarah Palin homily you just referenced, and have a few choice stories and experiences of my own that might curl your hair just a bit. But these experiences/clergy DO NOT represent the true Church, and THEY must answer for their words and deeds.

There are still many, many faithful priests and parishes out there. I make it my priority to find them, since the Mass and Sacraments are indispensible to the life of the soul, as you know. And in the final analysis, it isn’t about them and you, it’s about God and you; God working with you in the Church that He chose for you through His Sacramental life in you.

If you don’t think the USCCB makes me see red, (there’s a pun in there somewhere), then you would be mistaken. But when they contradict the Catechism they don’t speak for the Church, which remains unchanged because Christ, who is the Truth, cannot be changed.

Surely, we know the Church will outlast any quisling who attempts to distort Her teaching; our Lord Himself had to deal with poor Judas.

tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 6:54 PM

My very conservative aunt who attends daily Mass hasn’t heard about the letter. I just called her.

OmahaConservative on March 14, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Kensington on March 14, 2010 at 6:44 PM

It’s so funny you say that, because I was just thinking I feel like Catholics R Us today.

tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 7:00 PM

You are quite dim and ready to spin. Which year do you live in?

So many idiots.

CWforFreedom on March 14, 2010 at 6:50 PM

The question was historical in nature, so you might support your assertion with a reference to RCC history.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Some times, it is very hard being a Catholic with the particularly hierarchy currently running things

OK, but as a hard-core Protestant, I’ve met and dealt with some Roman brothers who are committed to the Words of Christ. DON’T SETTLE! You may have to dig to find “right thinking” priests, but I know they’re out there. Don’t let the Adversary beat you. Hang in there. If you need to worship elsewhere, take it as a step in your growth. Go back and re-read the comment from “tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM”

oldleprechaun on March 14, 2010 at 7:04 PM

I don’t know any RC who heard or received this letter in the bulletins this weekend. OTOH, some of us in Adult Bible Study at the Missouri Synod Lutheran parish I attended this morning had heard about it.

OmahaConservative on March 14, 2010 at 7:10 PM

PLEASE stop your Catholic bashing. I am sooo sick and tired of it. We all have sinned and we always will until we pass from this existence. I am angry at the Bishops for not taking a harder stance against this entire bill, not just the abortion issue. I am angry that the Church does not take a hard stance on what is going on. Social Justice that the Catholic Church speaks of is NOT the same thing as what the communists are speaking of when they say social justice. The CC is NOT socialist.

The Bishops are human and they too sin, we must pray for them. I am calling for all of you Christians, Jews and any other faith you may be to PLEASE STOP THE Catholic bashing, this especially means you exCatholics. To criticize a specific person or policy is one thing but to offend me and other Catholics by taking this to another level and to make it about making it known how much you hate Catholics and the faith is saddening. Please try to show some respect, especially during this season of Lent. Thank You and God Bless all of you.

margretto on March 14, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Y’all have to see this photo of our most exulted leader to truly appreciate how great He is!
How can you doubt a single syllable he utters?

Cybergeezer on March 14, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Why on Earth did the Catholics even entertain the thought that the Left would socialize medicine without providing taxpayer-funded abortions?

Sekhmet on March 14, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Not the flood of convenience abortions, that’s for certain.

Sometimes the process of childbirth goes wrong, and for thousands of years people have occasionally had to make the very hard choice of wether to save the mom or the baby. It’s just a cold fact of biology that the process does not always go right.

But thankfully, those situations are becoming much less common thanks to advances in medicine. That’s not a choice I’d wish on anyone.

Dark-Star on March 14, 2010 at 3:11 PM

The LDS Church takes the very same position that you just stated and their official position on abortion can be found here.

“Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church. (Source)

The LDS Church has been opposed to abortion since early 1970s. In 19723, the Church published a list of 15 reasons why making abortion laws easier was wrong. One of the prominent leaders of the LDS Church, in 2008, called abortion “an assault on the defenseless.”

The LDS Church has a website that encourages mothers who have an unplanned pregnancy not to have an abortion but give the child up for adoption.

Conservative Samizdat on March 14, 2010 at 8:01 PM

The LDS Church takes the very same position that you just stated and their official position on abortion can be found here.

Thanks for the heads-up and the link. I’m not LDS, but I had a friend who was not that long ago.

Dark-Star on March 14, 2010 at 8:17 PM

I believe the pro-life letter is coming next week. We were told a special collection for pro-life would be taken.

I don’t think that anyone here would disagree that an unwanted baby has a strong likelihood of becoming a problem and expense for our nation.

All babies are problems and expenses for somebody else. Even those prima-donnas in the Etrade ads can’t handle their income.

Pelosi’s statement was about the Catholic position on when life begins. She was likely referring to writings of Augustine and Aquinas, who the Church doesn’t consider goofy.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 2:16 PM

You can check the Brokaw interview. Pelosi is a dingbat, but that doesn’t absolve those refuting her arguments from having the facts of RCC history correct.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Those references are pre-Augustine. He changed the thinking. Abortion was a sin but not murder. Hundreds of years later, as science better understood embryology, the RCC made clear the position it holds firmly today.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Maybe its about time you actually quoted anything reflecting this alleged shift.

Chris_Balsz on March 14, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Social Justice that the Catholic Church speaks of is NOT the same thing as what the communists are speaking of when they say social justice. The CC is NOT socialist.

I beg to differ, please check out:
http://www.osjspm.org/social_teaching_documents.aspx, especially this lovely document Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1986
Responding to the contemporary curtailment of freedoms and widespread oppression, the Congregation reaffirms the Church’s determination to advocate for the rights of the poor and the workers, with a view towards establishing changes called for by justice in the social and political order.

And this: Society as a whole, acting through public and private institutions, has the moral responsibility to enhance human dignity and protect human rights. In addition to the clear responsibility of private institutions, government has an essential responsibility in this area. This does not mean that government has the primary or exclusive role, but it does have a positive moral responsibility in safeguarding human rights and ensuring that the minimum conditions of human dignity are met for all. In a democracy, government is a means by which we can act together to protect what is important to us and to promote our common values.

See all at: http://www.osjspm.org/catholic_social_teaching.aspx

For real heartache, google catholics + social justice. It’s painful, it’s from the Pope, and therefore, it is binding dogma.

This is why I am now a recovering catholic.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 8:40 PM

It’s painful, it’s from the Pope, and therefore, it is binding dogma.

Not so. It’s a doctrine but is not dogma. Meaning, you can disagree with it.

Chris_Balsz on March 14, 2010 at 8:43 PM

http://www.osjspm.org/catholic_social_teaching.aspx

Based on what I was taught in catholic school, the Pope’s words and proclamations are binding on the Church, whether he’s right or not, and whether we agree or not. It becomes the official church teaching. The proclimation is infallible.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 8:53 PM

When will Catholics learn that the Pope is just a man, he makes mistakes, and the doctrine that is made by man in fallible. Only the BIBLE is the divine inspired Word of God and it clearly states in many scriptures that life begins at conception. Read the scriptures – the words from Jesus – HE ONLY is the final Word. Remember, He will come back as King and will rule over the earth.

Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth

whatzit2u on March 14, 2010 at 8:55 PM

to the The enforser,

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

This is straight from the Catechism. I stand by my original statement. The Catholic Church is not communistic, or socialist, or progressive. I am not going to comment any further on this subject matter. The fact that you call yourself a recovering Catholic speaks for itself, I will not become your whipping boy for your hatred of the Church.

margretto on March 14, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Its unfortunate that CHA is opting to shill for the death mongers. I believe their charter should be revoked or placed on review by the USCCB pending further information.

Its appalling and indeed maddening beyond belief, that a group that identifies with the name Catholic would dare utter anything to the contrary to known theology and discipline on this issue. They know damn well this is a pro-abort bill.

May they rot in hell.

JP1986UM on March 14, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Though you don’t address the arguments of Aquinas and Augustine. Nor do you account for the rulings of Popes who wrote that abortion was not the taking of an individual life.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 4:42 PM

dedalus, you’ve tried peddling this crap several times. The answers remain the same as the last time.

unclesmrgol on March 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM

The LDS Church has a website that encourages mothers who have an unplanned pregnancy not to have an abortion but give the child up for adoption.

Conservative Samizdat on March 14, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Interesting. I wonder if they’ve called out Harry Reid on it.

sloopy on March 14, 2010 at 9:16 PM

whatzit2u on March 14, 2010 at 8:55 PM

So, explain to me what in the Bishops’ letter goes against your Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth?

unclesmrgol on March 14, 2010 at 9:20 PM

whatzit2u on March 14, 2010 at 8:55 PM

When was the Bible written and who produced it?

atheling on March 14, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Interesting. I wonder if they’ve called out Harry Reid on it.

sloopy on March 14, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Not to my knowedge; in a similar vein, I am deeply disappointed by politicians like Biden who make it clear publicly that they are Catholics but then choose not to follow the basic teachings of the Church. If a Catholic politician disagrees with the Church’s teachings on abortion, then at the very least he should not make it a point to publicly espouse his Catholicism. Case in point: Ash Wednesday ashes on Biden’s forehead. Joe wants everyone to know he’s Catholic.

Red State State of Mind on March 14, 2010 at 9:29 PM

dedalus, you’ve tried peddling this crap several times. The answers remain the same as the last time.

unclesmrgol on March 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM

You’ve linked to a post where you and I essentially agree. I’m not sure how that constitutes crap. Augustine and Aquinas believed in delayed ensoulment. At times Popes used this concept to identify abortion as not murder but instead a lesser sin.

It is accurate to say that the RCC has considered abortion murder for a long time. My 5:17 post concurs with your earlier point that advances in science informed Church opinion so that by 1869 Pius IX identified conception as the point when the soul enters the body.

The RCC is clear in its doctrine on abortion. However, those who claim that the doctrine has never changed are also wrong.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Ash Wednesday ashes on Biden’s forehead. Joe wants everyone to know he’s Catholic.

Lutherans receive the imposition of ashes as well to remind us of Genesis 3 and the fall of man.

19By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

OmahaConservative on March 14, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Based on what I was taught in catholic school, the Pope’s words and proclamations are binding on the Church, whether he’s right or not, and whether we agree or not. It becomes the official church teaching. The proclimation is infallible.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 8:53 PM

What is ex Cathedra?

unclesmrgol on March 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Ash Wednesday ashes on Biden’s forehead. Joe wants everyone to know he’s Catholic.

Lutherans receive the imposition of ashes as well to remind us of Genesis 3 and the fall of man

The Episcopalians do this also, and their leadership is very proud of its support for abortion.

sloopy on March 14, 2010 at 9:42 PM

It is accurate to say that the RCC has considered abortion murder for a long time. My 5:17 post concurs with your earlier point that advances in science informed Church opinion so that by 1869 Pius IX identified conception as the point when the soul enters the body.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 9:35 PM

the issue of human life originating at conception was of vital interest to the Church of God become Man long before the medical aspects were considered.

Chris_Balsz on March 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM

The RCC is clear in its doctrine on abortion. However, those who claim that the doctrine has never changed are also wrong.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Again, can you point to a time when abortion was found by the Church to be “not a sin”? Since we are taught by the Church to avoid both sins of commission and sins of omission, is there any way in which a dutiful Catholic can be pro-abortion?

unclesmrgol on March 14, 2010 at 9:44 PM

the Pope’s words and proclamations are binding on the Church, whether he’s right or not, and whether we agree or not. It becomes the official church teaching. The proclimation is infallible. theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 8:53 PM

I believe this is only true when the Pope is officially speaking, ex-cathedra (from the Chair of St Peter). These are special, stated circumstances, not just papal musings.

indypat on March 14, 2010 at 9:45 PM

The Episcopalians do this also, and their leadership is very proud of its support for abortion.

sloopy on March 14, 2010 at 9:42 PM

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is the liberal wing of the Lutheran church,and they are in full altar/pulpit fellowship with The Episcopalian Church. I am a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and we and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod oppose abortion and correctly label it a sin and murder.

OmahaConservative on March 14, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Again, can you point to a time when abortion was found by the Church to be “not a sin”? Since we are taught by the Church to avoid both sins of commission and sins of omission, is there any way in which a dutiful Catholic can be pro-abortion?

unclesmrgol on March 14, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Not all sin compels Catholic legislators to enact laws.

Artificial birth control is intrinsically evil. It is a sin for Catholics to use. However, public officials need not oppose its use by non-Catholics.

Today the Vatican is clear that Catholic public officials must use their offices to prevent the murder-by-abortion from being conducted legally. The Vatican didn’t always hold this position. Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV identified “quickening” as the point when an abortion could be considered murder.

Pelosi should stop implying that it is a matter of personal conscience for Catholics–it isn’t. The Bishops should stop implying that the RCC has had an unchanging 2000 year position on the topic–it hasn’t.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 9:57 PM

OmahaConservative on March 14, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Neither the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod or the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod are in fellowship with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. We consider the ELCA to be unLutheran in doctrine and practice. Marginally Christian at best with their emphasis on social gospel.

OmahaConservative on March 14, 2010 at 10:01 PM

When was the Bible written and who produced it?

atheling on March 14, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Amen!!!

margretto on March 14, 2010 at 10:06 PM

OmahaConservative on March 14, 2010 at 9:55 PM

May the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods hold to the faith forever!

I was brought up Episcopalian. It’s been many years since I darkened their doors but I’m still embarrassed by their actions.

sloopy on March 14, 2010 at 10:10 PM

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth
and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of His Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried.
And the third day He rose again
according to the Scriptures
and ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of the Father.
And He will come again with glory to judge
both the living and the dead,
whose kingdom will have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord and giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshiped and glorified,
who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins,
and I look for the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

OmahaConservative on March 14, 2010 at 10:15 PM

You’ve linked to a post where you and I essentially agree. I’m not sure how that constitutes crap. Augustine and Aquinas believed in delayed ensoulment. At times Popes used this concept to identify abortion as not murder but instead a lesser sin.

Delayed ensoulment. Here’s Augustine’s words specifically. In the Enchiridion:

Hence in the first place arises a question about abortive conceptions, which have indeed been born in the mother’s womb, but not so born that they could be born again. For if we shall decide that these are to rise again, we cannot object to any conclusion that may be drawn in regard to those which are fully formed. Now who is there that is not rather disposed to think that unformed abortions perish, like seeds that have never fructified? But who will dare to deny, though he may not dare to affirm, that at the resurrection every defect in the form shall be supplied, and that thus the perfection which time would have brought shall not be wanting, any more than the blemishes which time did bring shall be present: so that the nature shall neither want anything suitable and in harmony with it that length of days would have added, nor be debased by the presence of anything of an opposite kind that length of days has added; but that what is not yet complete shall be completed, just as what has been injured shall be renewed.

It seems to me here that Augustine is arguing rather forcefully that human-ness exists from conception unto death.

He then goes further in the same document:

And therefore the following question may be very carefully inquired into and discussed by learned men, though I do not know whether it is in man’s power to resolve it: At what time the infant begins to live in the womb: whether life exists in a latent form before it manifests itself in the motions of the living being. To deny that the young who are cut out limb by limb from the womb, lest if they were left there dead the mother should die too, have never been alive, seems too audacious. Now, from the time that a man begins to live, from that time it is possible for him to die. And if he die, wheresoever death may overtake him, I cannot discover on what principle he can be denied an interest in the resurrection of the dead.

Certainly Augustine is stating that he does not know when ensoulment takes place, but that he is willing to err in the direction of earlier rather than later.

In Sermon 126, he says the following:

Therefore brothers, you see how perverse they are and hastening wickedness, who are immature, they seek abortion of the conception before the birth; they are those who tell us, “I do not see that which you say must be believed.”

This is an interesting comment on the mindset of those who condone abortion — they must deny what science and, ultimately, their own eyes, tell them.

As for Aquinas, I have found no writings of his that justify the sin of abortion. He tried to determine when the animus occurred, and his reasoning with respect to semen and egg, based purely on speculation, matches very closely what we know happens at the point of conception. A reading of Summa Theologiciae, Book I, Chap 118 is instructive:

Consequently it must be said that the soul is in the embryo; the nutritive soul from the beginning, then the sensitive, lastly the intellectual soul.
Therefore some say that in addition to the vegetative soul
which existed first, another, namely the sensitive, soul supervenes; and in addition to this, again another, namely the intellectual soul. Thus there would be in man three souls of which one would be in potentiality to another. This has been disproved above (q. 76, a. 3).

Thus, Aquinas reasons that there is only one soul per human, and it exists from “the beginning” — in which he obviously in his words occurs at least at the beginning of the embryonic stage.

unclesmrgol on March 14, 2010 at 10:25 PM

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 8:53 PM
What is ex Cathedra?

unclesmrgol on March 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Speaking “from the seat”, the Pope speaking as the official head of the church on matters of faith and morals without error.

Based on what I was taught in catholic school, the Pope’s words and proclamations are binding on the Church, whether he’s right or not, and whether we agree or not. It becomes the official church teaching. The proclimation is infallible.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 8:53 PM

That’s not what infallible means. Infallible doctrine is so right, so obviously not wrong, that to disagree with it is a denial of faith in Christ.

Clearly social justice teaching is the operating doctrine of the Church. I don’t think it’s considered infallible doctrine that we have to work for amnesty for illegal aliens. I’ve never heard it declared as infallible doctrine by any bishop– and you gotta believe they would so declare. It is the policy of the Church in America and to disagree is to disagree with the Church on the political goals imposed by faith–but I don’t think anyone has said “if you don’t support amnesty to illegal aliens, you cannot receive the Sacraments”. If some bishop has declared that, lemme know.

Chris_Balsz on March 14, 2010 at 10:28 PM

declared as infallible doctrine by any bishop

meant “preached” not declared.

Chris_Balsz on March 14, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Based on what I was taught in catholic school, the Pope’s words and proclamations are binding on the Church, whether he’s right or not, and whether we agree or not. It becomes the official church teaching. The proclimation is infallible.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 8:53 PM

You are incorrect. Papal pronouncements are only infallible when: 1.) The Holy Father speaks ex cathedra, that is, from the chair of St. Peter with the full authority of his office, and 2.) on matters of faith and morals. Unless I am ill-informed the last time the Holy Father pronounced an infallible dogma was in 1950 then the assumption of Mary was decreed.

On another note, sadly I believe many commenters here unfortunately uninformed about the teachings of the Catholic church. I will certainly be the first to say, again sadly, that many of the clergy, including the bishops, do not well articulate the faith. And it’s easy to see why many of you think the Church is some kind of socialist force. It certainly is not true. The Church will always promote the dignity of man. Hence the Church will always promote “the economic welfare” of individuals. The Church has never called for the forced redistribution of wealth.

Goldenavatar on March 14, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Goldenavatar on March 14, 2010 at 10:37 PM and
Chris_Balsz on March 14, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Thank you for correcting my understanding, that does help a bit. But lately my stomach has become uneasy with how the church sees the operations of social and economic justice. Christ never set out to change social and political structures- he set out to convert individuals, to call them individually to repent. Had he preached changes in the economic and social structure to Ceasar, Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, etc., the current understanding of social and economic justice would be congruent.

I am so turned off by the idea of the church affecting social and economic changes in political institutions. My agreement with the catholic faith is intact in every other respect.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Not all sin compels Catholic legislators to enact laws.

Artificial birth control is intrinsically evil. It is a sin for Catholics to use. However, public officials need not oppose its use by non-Catholics.

Not all sin compels Catholic legislators to enact laws.

Artificial birth control is intrinsically evil. It is a sin for Catholics to use. However, public officials need not oppose its use by non-Catholics.

Today the Vatican is clear that Catholic public officials must use their offices to prevent the murder-by-abortion from being conducted legally. The Vatican didn’t always hold this position. Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV identified “quickening” as the point when an abortion could be considered murder.

Pelosi should stop implying that it is a matter of personal conscience for Catholics–it isn’t. The Bishops should stop implying that the RCC has had an unchanging 2000 year position on the topic–it hasn’t.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 9:57 PM

With respect to modern science, when does “quickening” occur?

And with respect to Catholic politicians, a vote to fund abortion or contraceptives, or to require others to participate in same, is a sin of commission, and an abstinence from such a vote is a sin of omission. Deliberately aiding another in their sins is participation in those sins

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.

unclesmrgol on March 14, 2010 at 10:58 PM

margretto on March 14, 2010 at 8:59 PM

I apologize if I came across angry at you, or if you felt that I was attacking you- I was not, and again apologize for the misunderstanding.

I am just angry, disillusioned and disgusted by changes going on with some members of the church w/ respect to abortion and social and economic justice. It’s a true perversion, and makes it hard to give my full support to the church.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 10:58 PM

unclesmrgol on March 14, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Thanks for the Augustine and Aquinas quotes above. I’ll respond, if not tonight then tomorrow since the evening is drawing to a close here. Quickening is a non-scientific term. It was used in law and philosophy before science created more technical terms. It can be found in English common law and in the early United States.If your point is that Catholic politicians have to treat contraceptives the same as abortion then I haven’t seen evidence of it from the US Bishops. However, if Catholic politicians are forced to do so by the Bishop, then few of the faith would ever get elected to influence other policy.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 11:12 PM

theenforser,

No need to apologize. I didn’t feel you were attacking me. I am just so tired of people attacking the church especially because they don’t understand the church or know the church. Unfortunately we have some members of the clergy who also don’t know the church. Be angry at those who distort church teachings not the church. I will keep you in my prayers. God Bless you!!!

margretto on March 14, 2010 at 11:19 PM

I am so turned off by the idea of the church affecting social and economic changes in political institutions. My agreement with the catholic faith is intact in every other respect.

theenforser on March 14, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Had Christ converted Caesar, what would be the resulting social and economic implications? I’m not disagreeing with you, but I am pointing out that a Christian ruler certainly can validly hold an obligation to have his/her state perform Christian acts of charity.

You will note that the Bible is mute on what kinds of good deeds the state may do. We are told that the tax gatherer should take no more than his due, but what is his due? That is up to the state.

Acts of charity must be unforced — otherwise, they are no longer acts of charity. And, of course, forcing the governed to contribute to these acts does not indicate beneficence on the part of the ruler.

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2010 at 1:14 AM

Interesting. I wonder if they’ve called out Harry Reid on it.

sloopy on March 14, 2010 at 9:16 PM

I don’t think they have and I don’t think they ever will. And its a good thing.

in a similar vein, I am deeply disappointed by politicians like Biden who make it clear publicly that they are Catholics but then choose not to follow the basic teachings of the Church. If a Catholic politician disagrees with the Church’s teachings on abortion, then at the very least he should not make it a point to publicly espouse his Catholicism. Case in point: Ash Wednesday ashes on Biden’s forehead. Joe wants everyone to know he’s Catholic.

Red State State of Mind on March 14, 2010 at 9:29 PM

I have mixed feelings about what you said. On one hand, I agree with you. If a politician of any faith wishes to go against the teachings of his own faith, then the least he should do is not make it a point to publicly espouse his faith.

But on the other hand, if Harry Reid or Joe Biden wants to let the world know that they are wrong in their understanding or following of their faith, they have every right to do so.

I think people can try to help another understand the doctrines of the church, but if they wish to be stubborn and intentionally not follow the Church’s teachings, they have a right to do so.

I can’t prevent any person, famous or not, from being ignorant or stupid in how they follow their faith.

What do you think?

P.S. I appreciate the debates among the Catholics here. You learn alot about the doctrines of a religion when people of that faith debate about the doctrines of their own faith.

It may sound strange but because I’m learning so much about the Catholic faith from what I’m reading here (and doing my own research so that I can understand what you guys are talking about) my respect for the Catholic Church is growing.

I hope that makes sense…

Conservative Samizdat on March 15, 2010 at 2:51 AM

Thus, Aquinas reasons that there is only one soul per human, and it exists from “the beginning” — in which he obviously in his words occurs at least at the beginning of the embryonic stage.

unclesmrgol on March 14, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Aquinas, like Aristotle, identifies multiple souls (e.g., vegetative (plant), sensory (animal), rational (human)). When he says “Thus there would be in man three souls of which one would be in potentiality to another. This has been disproved above”, he is refuting Aristotle and asserting that man has only one soul. He does this by assuming a metaphysical discontinuity where the lower souls are cast away when the higher soul is infused into the developing body.

In Summa Theologica chapter 118 (within the pdf you link) Aquinas states:

We must therefore say that since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it follows of necessity that both in men and in other animals, when a more perfect form supervenes the previous form is corrupted:

dedalus on March 15, 2010 at 4:02 AM

Yet if it weren’t for that pesky funding of abortion, the Catholic Church is all for StateCare, to transpose the duty of providing charity from the church to the state, all with the most corrupt and/or ignorant intentions.

maverick muse on March 15, 2010 at 11:23 AM

The best statement would have been, “No one should be compelled to pay for other peoples’ anything.”

Akzed on March 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM

The best statement would have been, “No one should be compelled to pay for other peoples’ anything.”

Akzed on March 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM

In principle, I agree with you 100%.

But putting that into practice would be a nightmare. The idea of playing “salad-bar government” isn’t really that wise when it comes down to brass tacks.

Dark-Star on March 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Why were these most educated bishops naive enough to encourage bringing it out of committee with their apparent imprimature? Is this but another “millions to ACORN” moment where they claim ignorance of the deceit sure to come? Aren’t these the shepherds commanded to be as wise as serpents? Why did they not once demand the principle of subsidiarity be followed? Why did they not heed John Paul II’s admonition against the evils of the welfare state? What about protection for the older sheep subjected to the death panels? Why would they demand the most anti-life president in history’s “comprehensive healthcare” instead of just getting the uninsured helped? What about the conscience clause that will be eagerly ignored? How many Catholics will have to lose their professions or turn to mortal sin? Whatever happened to staying out of politics? What about privacy rights with your doctor codified by Roe V Wade!

Don L on March 15, 2010 at 12:43 PM

dedalus on March 15, 2010 at 4:02 AM

The big question is what Aquinas means by “end of human generation”.

Aquinas was responding to those who believed that humans went through various forms before becoming human — quite the same philosophy espoused by pro-abortion people now. There’s a nutritive (plant-like) state, a sensitive (feeling) state, and, finally, a fully human intellectual (thinking) state, and that the plant-like state is certainly a state at which abortion should be permitted.

Aquinas stated quite emphatically that there is only one soul, and, like the good theologian that he is, attempted to ascertain when that soul joins the body.

His answer “at the end of human generation” is not defined further in his writings that I can see, but if I get his reasoning properly, there is only one soul, and it is present when the human has been created.

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Last year I was talking to my wife’s 27 year old female cousin that moved to the DC area a few years ago. She was talking about how the church that she attends in the DC area
is so involved in political issues. The church is St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Parish in Arlington, VA. After looking at the church web page I was shocked at how left-leaning this church is. Someone needs to remove Fr. Gerry Creedon from the Catholic Church. Fr. Gerry Creedon was Ted Kennedy’s friend and religious advisor.

On look at the front page of the St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Parish web page indicated that this parish is actively involved in social justice and Justice for Immigrants, and Virginians Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement (V.O.I.C.E.).

joest73 on March 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Aren’t these the shepherds commanded to be as wise as serpents?

I’m afraid a lot of Christians got it backwards and think they’re supposed to be gentle as serpents and wise as doves.

Eren on March 15, 2010 at 1:59 PM

I don’t think they have and I don’t think they ever will. And its a good thing.

But on the other hand, if Harry Reid or Joe Biden wants to let the world know that they are wrong in their understanding or following of their faith, they have every right to do so.

I think people can try to help another understand the doctrines of the church, but if they wish to be stubborn and intentionally not follow the Church’s teachings, they have a right to do so.

Okay, but are you saying, then, that the leadership for a faith don’t have the right to point out that their adherent is misrepresenting their faith?

Eren on March 15, 2010 at 2:04 PM

One does not need a religion to be against abortion but I must say that it is hard to be on the same side as that society which suborned the work of child molesters and yet can influence elected officials who must, to some degree, pretend to believe in order to get elected.

Annar on March 15, 2010 at 2:08 PM

The church is St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Parish in Arlington, VA. After looking at the church web page I was shocked at how left-leaning this church is. Someone needs to remove Fr. Gerry Creedon from the Catholic Church. Fr. Gerry Creedon was Ted Kennedy’s friend and religious advisor

She has picked the most liberal church in the entire metropolitan area. In fact every loony leftie in the surrounding area go to that church because of Gerry. I went to a meeting there once and he came in and launched into a global warming homeless anti-republican spin that went on forever—turned out it was his opening prayer. He is not at all liked by the rest of the priests in the diocese and not thought well of at the Chancery. I personally think he is creepy too. Most of the Arlington diocese is pretty conservative due to the leadership of the last Bishop Welsh. The current bishop, eh, not so much but still on the normal side. Gerry is poisoning thousands of people weekly and I think should be stopped. He has been at the same parish forever because I assume that the Bishop likes to keep all the loons in one pond and stifle the infection. She really needs to avoid that particular parish, there are plenty of others close by which aren’t founded on communist principles.

Haunches on March 15, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Catholic bishops send message to faithful: We oppose ObamaCare

But but but…AllahPundit says religion is the root of all evil!

Knott Buyinit on March 15, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Excellent article on Catholic Social Justice
http://catholicexchange.com/2010/03/15/128085/

quiz1 on March 15, 2010 at 4:02 PM

We are living in dangerous times, times where the persecution may be greater than has ever been seen before.

We need the strength of the sacraments. Through them, the Life of Christ is imparted and lives within us so that we may live and die faithful to Him. That is why I seek out faithful, strong and saintly priests. They are all around us if you look for them, hiding in plain sight. They are HUMBLY caring for their flocks, and they need us to support them because the enemy, including the human enemy in the White House seeks to destroy them, to make us think all priests are horrors. They know that to destroy the priest is to scatter the flock and destroy the Church.

Please don’t leave. Stay and fight for our faith and for the saints among us. And invite others to join us.

And remember the words of Saint Peter, “To whom else will we go, Lord? You have the words of everlasting life.”

tigerlily on March 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Thank you tigerlily. Let us be united in prayer for the Church and for our Nation.

DeoGratias on March 15, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Aquinas stated quite emphatically that there is only one soul, and, like the good theologian that he is, attempted to ascertain when that soul joins the body.

His answer “at the end of human generation” is not defined further in his writings that I can see, but if I get his reasoning properly, there is only one soul, and it is present when the human has been created.

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Like Aristotle, Aquinas believed that all living things had souls. These souls were what differentiated living from non-living things.

As I read Aquinas, he holds a position similar to what you ascribe to pro-abortion thinkers. In Summa Theologica, in response to question 76, he argues against Aristotle that:

“The embryo has first of all a soul which is merely sensitive, and when this is removed, it is supplanted by a more perfect soul, which is both sensitive and intellectual”

Aquinas agrees with you that there is only one human soul but contends that it is not there from the beginning. Rather, it is a replacement for a lower soul.

Personally I don’t agree with Aquinas and the modern RCC disagrees as well. However, we are looking at a historical opinion.

dedalus on March 15, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Aquinas agrees with you that there is only one human soul but contends that it is not there from the beginning. Rather, it is a replacement for a lower soul.

Again, 118:

We must therefore say that since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it follows of necessity that both in men and in other animals, when a more perfect form supervenes the previous form is corrupted: yet so that the supervening form contains the perfection of the previous form, and something in addition. It is in this way that through many generations and corruptions we arrive at the ultimate substantial form, both in man and other animals. This indeed is apparent to the senses in animals generated from putrefaction. We conclude therefore that the intellectual soul is created by God at the end of human generation, and this soul is at the same time sensitive and nutritive, the pre-existing forms being corrupted.

Agreed, therefore. But what, again, is the “end of human generation”? It is never clear that Aquinas is stating that what comes before is not human — he is describing evolution in a fashion before evolution was fashionable.

What he has to say about the thing evolving is this, however:

Man begets his like, forasmuch as by his seminal power the matter is disposed for the reception of a certain species of form.

By that reasoning, there can be no intermediate state where the thing begot or evolved is not human. All forms of the embryo must therefore be human.

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2010 at 10:07 PM

tigerlily, you are awesome. You are doing God’s work today.
Kensington on March 14, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Yes, she is. And may God bless tigerlily for it. I thank her from the bottom of my heart.

oldleprechaun on March 14, 2010 at 7:04 PM

That also touched my heart. It was very kind of you. Thank you.

God bless all of you and Conservative Samizdat is in my prayers as well.

Please, dear Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on our country and touch the hearts of those swing votes with your grace. To fight evil we will need Divine intervention.

Elisa on March 16, 2010 at 9:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2