Abortion is NOT murder, but blasphemy?!?

[Super_Grover]

On the “Network of those Abused by Church” a Thomas Farrell publishes an open letter to the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States. religionandmorality.net/recent-news/SI-open-letter.html In the letter, he takes issue with what he claims is a failure of the Pope to denounce the killing of abortion doctors (this is just a slur because all adequately catechized Catholics immediately know this is wrong even without being told by the Pope). He also says that the Pope should declare that abortion is not murder but blasphemy. He cites a Sr. Carla Mae Streeter in support of this proposition.

In a recent e-mail exchange with me about abortion, Dr. Carla Mae Streeter, O.P., of the Aquinas Institute of Theology at Saint Louis University (email: deleted) declared unequivocally that abortion is not murder but blasphemy. But shouldn’t the Holy See enunciate this distinction just as unequivocally and clearly as she has?

I must admit that Sr. Carla Mae Streeter appeared much less authoritative to me when I found that she sits on the Board of Directors of a spirituality center called Living Insights in St. Louis. livinginsights.com/about.htm In their FAQ’s, there are these:

Q: Are you a New Age center?
A: It depends what this means. Like many “New Age” centers, we acknowledge that there is an ultimate reality no human description can capture, that no single religion can claim to be the only true path, and that each individual has a personal relationship with the source of our being.

Q: I want to visit your statue of St. Therese, but I’ve heard I need to go through Buddhist and Hindu rooms to get to her.
A: That’s true. To those who are uncomfortable with this, I like to point out that if St. Therese is happy being here, I hope everyone will be.

I am in the St. Louis area and know that this nun presents to parishioners in the Metro East (Illinois side of the river) about various topics including Eckhart Tolle. All of this strikes me as quite wrong, but since I attended Catholic schools for most of my education, my only real catechesis is self taught. If my concerns are off base, I welcome being set straight. “Murder” is a strong word, but is it not the appropriate word to describe an intentional, unjustified killing of another human being? Can anyone offer a sound theological argument that the term “blasphemy” is more appropriate? Does anyone believe that Farrell and Streeter are attempting to bring more clarity to the issue or the contrary? What is it with Lonergan theology and how, if at all, is it linked to the New Age movement?

 

[Sherry_G]

On the “Network of those Abused by Church” a Thomas Farrell publishes an open letter to the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States. religionandmorality.net/recent-news/SI-open-letter.html In the letter, he takes issue with what he claims is a failure of the Pope to denounce the killing of abortion doctors (this is just a slur because all adequately catechized Catholics immediately know this is wrong even without being told by the Pope). He also says that the Pope should declare that abortion is not murder but blasphemy. He cites a Sr. Carla Mae Streeter in support of this proposition.

I must admit that Sr. Carla Mae Streeter appeared much less authoritative to me when I found that she sits on the Board of Directors of a spirituality center called Living Insights in St. Louis. livinginsights.com/about.htm In their FAQ’s, there are these:

I am in the St. Louis area and know that this nun presents to parishioners in the Metro East (Illinois side of the river) about various topics including Eckhart Tolle. All of this strikes me as quite wrong, but since I attended Catholic schools for most of my education, my only real catechesis is self taught. If my concerns are off base, I welcome being set straight. “Murder” is a strong word, but is it not the appropriate word to describe an intentional, unjustified killing of another human being? Can anyone offer a sound theological argument that the term “blasphemy” is more appropriate? Does anyone believe that Farrell and Streeter are attempting to bring more clarity to the issue or the contrary? What is it with Lonergan theology and how, if at all, is it linked to the New Age movement?

Your insticnts are correct. Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being in the womb, hence it is murder, plain and simple. Anyone who claims to be a Catholic or even a Christian cannot possiblly claim otherwise. Ask any scientist or doctor, regardless of their faith. Look at just one ultrasound yourself if youhave any doubts about whether a human being is contained in a woman’s womb from conception.

Anyone who claims otherwise is either totally ignorant or must be under the evil influence of the devil.

 

[rpp]

Your insticnts are correct. Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being in the womb, hence it is murder, plain and simple. Anyone who claims to be a Catholic or even a Christian cannot possiblly claim otherwise. Ask any scientist or doctor, regardless of their faith. Look at just one ultrasound yourself if youhave any doubts about whether a human being is contained in a woman’s womb from conception.

Anyone who claims otherwise is either totally ignorant or must be under the evil influence of the devil.

 

[Super_Grover]

Your insticnts are correct. Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being in the womb, hence it is murder, plain and simple. Anyone who claims to be a Catholic or even a Christian cannot possiblly claim otherwise. Ask any scientist or doctor, regardless of their faith. Look at just one ultrasound yourself if youhave any doubts about whether a human being is contained in a woman’s womb from conception.

Anyone who claims otherwise is either totally ignorant or must be under the evil influence of the devil.

I’m with you. But there must exist some theological argument for this, even if it is a poor one, or a misunderstood one, for these people (including a nun) to express this. This argument that it’s blasphemy but not murder did not first appear in an email exchange between Streeter and Farrell, did it? I want to know because it is highly likely wrong. Then I want to know the origin of this type of argument so that I’m better able to refute it. This is not merely academic for me. I live close to where this nun presents to lay people. I know people who will accept anything that is presented at this parish because of the tacit impramatur of the priest in inviting her to speak.

 

[JimG]

“Dr. Farrell served as the senior co-editor and prime mover behind the 415-page anthology Communication and Lonergan: Common Ground for Forging the New Age.”

 

[Sherry_G]

I’m with you. But there must exist some theological argument for this, even if it is a poor one, or a misunderstood one, for these people (including a nun) to express this. This argument that it’s blasphemy but not murder did not first appear in an email exchange between Streeter and Farrell, did it? I want to know because it is highly likely wrong. Then I want to know the origin of this type of argument so that I’m better able to refute it. This is not merely academic for me. I live close to where this nun presents to lay people. I know people who will accept anything that is presented at this parish because of the tacit impramatur of the priest in inviting her to speak.

Gotcha! I checked out the website for the non-denominational spiritual center. Very “new age-y” and definitely would attract the nuts and flakes. So, her affiliation makes her suspect immediately to me. I did check her bio on the St. Thomas Acquinas site and saw her email address included. Why not ask her to give you her take on this? Many nuns are wonderful evangelists for our beautiful Catholic faith but I can’t imagine why one would associate with that new age stuff. I was taught by Catholic nuns in all my educational experience up thru some college level courses and could not imagine any one of them making such an outrageous statement, so I am hoping it’s not true. Then again, I see a few nuns now who are definitely not supporting the teachings of the Church in all cases.

 

[rpp]

“Dr. Farrell served as the senior co-editor and prime mover behind the 415-page anthology Communication and Lonergan: Common Ground for Forging the New Age.”

JimG, I know you always strive to ramain faithful to Curch teachings, but help me to understand the document you are referring to. (I am clueless about many things, including the “New Age” movement.) Thank you.

 

[markomalley]

Abortion is definitely homicide (the killing of one human being by another).

TECHNICALLY, it is not murder (the unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought). Even if it were not legal, with the wonderful job of brainwashing done by the public schools in teaching the populace that “it isn’t a life, it’s just a blob of protoplasm,” it would be very difficult in proving the required malice. For it to be able to be classed as a murder, the State would need to be able to prove that the mother had the thought process: “I know my baby is a living being; I know what I am doing will kill it, but I don’t care…I want to kill my baby.” That would be a tough thing to do.

It would be a far easier task to prosecute it as a manslaughter (the unlawful killing of a human being by another without the malice needed for it to rise to the level of “murder.”)

But one way or another, it is a homicide.

I don’t know if that’s what Sister meant with her statement.

On the other hand, there are many of us who state that abortion is the sacrifice of infants on the altar of Moloch.

[BIBLEDRB]Lev 18:21-23[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Lev 20:1-5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Jer 32:31-36[/BIBLEDRB]​

If Sister was using that construction, then abortion could definitely be seen as a blasphemy.

 

[Super_Grover]

Great responses. Kreeft is the first I ever heard make reference to abortion being sacrifices to Moloch, but I do not believe that he was trying to dilute the murderous reality of abortion. Abortion may well be blasphemy as well as murder, but not INSTEAD of murder. I understand the point about why abortions in some instances might not TECHNICALLY be considered murder. I also know that you are not adopting this argument, just pointing out that this argument exists. But I take exception to two aspects of this reasoning; 1) the focus on the conduct of the MOTHER, and 2) the reliance on a nation’s CIVIL law. Pre-Roe v. Wade abortion laws almost never criminalized the conduct of the mother but rather focused on the conduct of the abortionist. In any event, I think that the technical argument works with respect to most mothers who obtain abortions because they are typically not fully aware of the nature of their conduct. They are deceived by salespeople into believing that they are eliminating something akin to a malignant mass. So, yes, the women will usually lack the mental element necessary to call this “murder.” But the providers who are aware of what the ultrasounds actually show, who are aware of the heart beats, who are aware of the human inside who tries to squirm away from the abortionist’s instruments, who sell abortions the way dealers sell cars on commission, are knowing participants in an act rightly described as murder. I also think that this technical argument flies only if you rely exclusively on civil law. If Farrell and Streeter are arguing that the Pope’s own understanding and teaching should be constrained by U.S. Civil law, then NO abortion is murder or, indeed, even a lesser class of homicide. But we, members of the Body of Christ, members of Catholic Church, do not form our consciences based upon U.S. law. It is an eternal truth that an unjustified and intentional taking of a human life violates the Commandment against murder, regardless of the sacrosanct protection that abortion enjoys under U.S. law.

So, getting back to what Farrell and Streeter are up to and what they are advancing. Does their attempt to get the Pope to say “Abortion is not murder” advance a finer theological point? Or does it advance the pro-abortion cause by muddling the pro-life message? Imagine the pro-aborts throwing it in the face of the pro-life movement, “Even the Pope says abortion is not murder!” Imagine trying to respond with, “well, yeah, you’re right but, he still says it’s bad and it’s a blasphemy… no, that does not mean that it’s only as bad as swearing…” You would get nowhere and more would die. Make no mistake, there are those within the institution of the Church who seek to weaken the Church and recast it in a more secular humanist image. In their book, the more that those people whom they see as neanderthalic, hard line, conservatives who rigidly adhere to Magisterial teachings can be marginalized and discredited the better. I am not saying that this is what’s going on here and it is problematic trying draw conclusions about motivations. But how on Earth does Farrell’s (but not Streeter’s as far as I can tell) implied ad hominem by association using a “failure to denounce” to tie the Pope to the abominable murders of abortionists strengthen our Church and advance the cause of saving the unborn? It doesn’t. How on Earth does this attempt to get the Pope to acquiesce to a definition of murder that adheres to the laws of a nation that has killed millions upon millions of its unborn serve to strengthen the Church and advance the cause of saving the unborn? It doesn’t. So, what is the purpose of this entire “Abortion is Not Murder” argument from those within the institution of the Church? Seriously, there has to be someone in these forums willing to try to show that the argument of Farrell and Streeter advances the cause of Truth, the protection of innocents and strengthens the Body of Christ.

Anyone?

 

[lutherlic]

Abortion is definitely homicide (the killing of one human being by another).

TECHNICALLY, it is not murder (the unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought). Even if it were not legal

…

But one way or another, it is a homicide.

…

Just a small nit, by “technically” I think you are saying “technically by civil law”. To me, “technically” it is murder. Maybe “legally” would be a better word.

 

[markomalley]

Just a small nit, by “technically” I think you are saying “technically by civil law”. To me, “technically” it is murder. Maybe “legally” would be a better word.

IMHO, “to you” doesn’t matter. No offense. We have to ask if we can substantiate that there was malice aforethought.

 

[Super_Grover]

The exclusive reliance on the “malice aforethought” argument to say that abortion is not murder only works for those who reject the Church’s position on the unborn in favor of a government’s. I don’t think that anyone here is meaning to do that, but I think that there is a better way to approach this.

Excerpted from Wikipedia

the concept of “malice aforethought” is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of “malice aforethought”:

1. Intent to kill,
2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an “abandoned and malignant heart”), or
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the “felony-murder” doctrine).

Under state of mind (iii), an “abandoned and malignant heart”, the killing must result from defendant’s conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I can see why someone adherent to the U.S. legal view of the unborn would say that none of these apply to abortion. I don’t know why someone adherent to the Catholic view of the unborn would believe that none of those apply to abortion.

If a person want to say, “it’s not murder because a state defines murder and the state says abortion is not murder” then fine, we know that such person accepts the state’s position about the status of the unborn.

Sometimes we’re much more delicate about protection of the unborn than we would be in other instances. If a government effectively defined a certain ethnic/religious group as something less than human and then engaged in a systematic program of eliminating millions of those people, would we say, “well, technically it’s not murder because that government says it is not.”? Of course not.

The Church is not constrained in its language by a particular government’s unjust laws. The attempt to suggest that the Pope must denounce use of the term “murder” is simply wrong.

Attempting then to get back to what I originally was asking. Is there any sound THEOLOGICAL argument (not reliance of United States-specific legalisms) for Farrell and Streeter’s position? If Farrell was attempting to advance a purely legal argument, he would have been better off citing Obama who is at least an attorney. All Farrell does is summarily state that Streeter says unequivocally that abortion is not murder. Presumably, Farrell was relying on Sr. Streeter’s theological training, not legal acumen. Is this a sound theological position that will (if it’s sound) advance the cause of Truth among the faithful and serve to better protect innocents, or is it an unsound position that does just the opposite?

 

[markomalley]

The exclusive reliance on the “malice aforethought” argument to say that abortion is not murder only works for those who reject the Church’s position on the unborn in favor of a government’s. I don’t think that anyone here is meaning to do that, but I think that there is a better way to approach this.

Excerpted from Wikipedia

I can see why someone adherent to the U.S. legal view of the unborn would say that none of these apply to abortion. I don’t know why someone adherent to the Catholic view of the unborn would believe that none of those apply to abortion.

If a person want to say, “it’s not murder because a state defines murder and the state says abortion is not murder” then fine, we know that such person accepts the state’s position about the status of the unborn.

Sometimes we’re much more delicate about protection of the unborn than we would be in other instances. If a government effectively defined a certain ethnic/religious group as something less than human and then engaged in a systematic program of eliminating millions of those people, would we say, “well, technically it’s not murder because that government says it is not.”? Of course not.

The Church is not constrained in its language by a particular government’s unjust laws. The attempt to suggest that the Pope must denounce use of the term “murder” is simply wrong.

Attempting then to get back to what I originally was asking. Is there any sound THEOLOGICAL argument (not reliance of United States-specific legalisms) for Farrell and Streeter’s position? If Farrell was attempting to advance a purely legal argument, he would have been better off citing Obama who is at least an attorney. All Farrell does is summarily state that Streeter says unequivocally that abortion is not murder. Presumably, Farrell was relying on Sr. Streeter’s theological training, not legal acumen. Is this a sound theological position that will (if it’s sound) advance the cause of Truth among the faithful and serve to better protect innocents, or is it an unsound position that does just the opposite?

The malice aforethought argument must be considered to show the intent (note: I am not saying premeditation) of the subject. If, for whatever reason, the subject did not believe the pre-born baby to be a human life, then it would be problematic to prosecute such a case as murder. Manslaughter, yes. And either are types of homicide.

Keep in mind that schools have educated the young for years that what is in the woman’s womb is not a life, but is, rather, a blob. You and I know that this is not a factual argument, but the subjective state of mind is pertinent.

 

[Super_Grover]

The malice aforethought argument must be considered to show the intent (note: I am not saying premeditation) of the subject. If, for whatever reason, the subject did not believe the pre-born baby to be a human life, then it would be problematic to prosecute such a case as murder. Manslaughter, yes. And either are types of homicide.

Keep in mind that schools have educated the young for years that what is in the woman’s womb is not a life, but is, rather, a blob. You and I know that this is not a factual argument, but the subjective state of mind is pertinent.

Given the current state of federal and state laws in the U.S., it would not only be problematic to prosecute such a case as murder, it would be impossible. And if the laws ever changed to define an unborn child as a human with all the protections of the born, and if a person killed that unborn child in the belief that the child was not human, the person’s contrary-to-statute and subjectively held-belief would NOT trump, the statute would apply. Such a belief would hold no more legal sway than a white supremacist killing a minority because that white supremacist believed the victim to be inhuman.

But my point is that this focus on the vagaries of U.S. law is all beside the point. We both agree that the United States does not recognize the killing of the unborn as “murder.” I don’t want to misunderstand you, but are you saying that the Pope must adopt a definition of murder and insist up a usage of language that changes from country to country depending upon each individual country’s laws? I don’t believe that is what you are saying, so I’m trying to find what our common ground is on this.

Turning now not to you, but to this letter, why would a Catholic say that the Pope must adopt the language of an unjust legal system (such as that of the United States as it applies to the unborn)? What is the basis for insisting that the Pope issue a theological statement to make the Church come in line with a murderous regime (again, the United States as it applies to the unborn)?