Cardinal Bernadin and Artificial insemination

[Sure]

Yes he was a Cardinal, but a respected one? I suppose that depends on who you ask. He was the hero of many progressive Catholic groups that defied the Church’s teachings about various issues. He, of course, deserves the respect due to any clergyman- but from what I understand, he wasn’t in line with the Church’s teachings when it came to some issues of moral theology.

This is a popular misconception of Cardinal Bernadin. Was he a good administrator? Probably not. Was he solid on moral theology? Absolutely.

Here is one of my favorite quotes:

“I don’t see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and then vote for someone who feels that abortion is a ‘basic right’ of the individual. I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don’t hold anybody’s feet to the fire just on abortion. That’s a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it.”

~ Cardinal Joseph Bernardin in a front-page interview in the June 12, 1988 National Catholic Register

Let’s remember there weren’t too many bishops talking like that in 1988.

Cardinal Bernadin did a good job speaking about the abortion issue as interconnected to all the other issues. The problem was liberals quoted him selectively and portrayed him badly.

 

[cmudd]

Joseph Cardinal Bernardin… of Chicago? When did he become a respected voice on the life issues, or any issue for that matter? If you are looking for someone to guide you in in matters of faith and sexual morality, check out Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln Nebraska, Archbishop Burke, Justin Cardinal Rigali, Pope Benedict XVI, JPII, Paul VI, John XXIII, etc. Bernardin and the other AmChurch crowd did everything they could to destroy the Church in Chicago and the rest of the US.

KEEP THE FAITH AND SEEK ALWAYS THE MAGESTERIUM’S TEACHING! You will never go wrong with this!

 

[cmudd]

Check out “TheSeemless Garment.” Great look into Bernardin. He may have been thuroughly pro-life, but a faithfull witness to the magesterium? …this is highly questionable?

 

[Aramis]

Anyone who rejects the Church’s teachings is a heretic and consequently in a state of mortal sin.

wrong. Only those who reject dogma or publicly reject doctrine are heretics.

Not all teachings of the church rise to the level of “rejection=heresy.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

So what you’re saying is that you can be a Catholic in good standing and believe that the death penalty should be used even if bloodless means were possible? Many conservative Catholics are of this persuasion. What if such a politician were running for office? Anyone here want to condemn Alan Keyes for his stance? Read it for yourself.

ontheissues.org/Celeb/Alan_Keyes_Crime.htm

I agree with you, the opinion stated in that article goes against Church teaching on the death penalty. It’s a good example of how conservatives can be cafeteria catholics too. Another good example is the church teachings on immigration, minimum wages, etc.

Another poster mentioned that there are moral ways of doing AI, I hope you look into that.

While its tempting to break the rule in your situation please consider two things:

1. the difficulty of repenting in the future - this decision to sin will always be associated with the existence of your future child. Imagine coming to the realization many years later that the act that led to the conception of your child was a sin. How would that make you feel?
2. Another serious sin here is that you’re putting your own opinions over those of the church. It’s a sin of pride, and of lack of thanksgiving for the wisdom that the Church gives us. How can any of us really know better than the Church?

 

[rlg94086]

In Matthew Jesus criticises the pharasies for setting the bar so high that none will be able to follow it. Sometimes the Church does the same.

Seriously? You think that banning Artificial Insemination is “setting the bar so high that none will be able to follow it?” I’m pretty certain that everyone can avoid Artificial Insemination. It isn’t a “high bar.” It’s actually pretty easy not to schedule the procedure and pay the money…

 

[manualman]

Why on earth would you submit to “plain” artificial insemination when you can ask for and undergo an artificial insemination that is a mere assistance to the natural way???

Let’s put it in plain English. Consult several physicians (the Paul VI Institute would likely be a big help). Find one with a doctor NOT too arrogant to be flexible to your catholic convictions (harder than it sounds). Coordinate a semen collection program in which you use a PERFORATED condom with your wife and thus collect a portion (but not ALL) of the semen and preserve it for future use. Upon collection of an adequate sample, have the doctor do the insemination procedure and then immediately kick him out of the room and make your baby! (Lock the door!)

In this way, you’ve preserved the role of the husband and wife making love and the child resulting from that outporing of love. As far as I understand it, anyways.

 

[leonie]

Dear Posters:

This is kind of getting old…

PLEASE NOTE:

Homologous Artificial Insemination IS PERMITTED as long as it assists the marital act and does not replace it.

Artificial Insemination is not the same as In Vitro Fertilization (which is intrinsically evil).

This is new information to me. Thank you for providing it. Just when I thought I was pretty well set on moral teaching…

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t know much about the details of what kind of artificial insemination is allowed, and what isn’t, so I won’t comment except to say that it would be a good idea to check out some of the Catholic groups with expertise in that stuff.

But I would like to say that I think I understand your feeling with regard to the comparison you made with the death penalty. The line that gets used is that Catholics are allowed to make their own decision (based on Catholic principles, but that seems to be forgotten often) on the death penalty. Many do, and even seem to do it against the principles that are laid out, and everyone excuses it as a matter of conscience. OTOH, many fertility issues seem much more complex and situation dependent, but people get really bent out of shape at the idea that one might use one’s own conscience.

I think the answer is that the death penalty advocates who operate that way are simply not really making Catholic decisions, and they will probably find out one day. I don’t know why they don’t get called on it more in the US where most such people seem to live.

But, that still doesn’t really help you - your obligations are the same.

FWIW, I believe the Orthodox do not yet have a consensus of opinion on this yet.

This kind of thing is very hard. It may be that you will have to consider becoming parents some other way, or think about what other purpose God may be wishing for in your marriage.

 

[manualman]

Bluegoat,

The difference is profound, but easily missed on casual examination.

The catholic catechesis is VERY clear that the Death Penalty is NOT an inherently evil recourse. It goes on to say that it is not appropriate when other means are available to reliably protect the public against repeat offenses. This squarely puts the decision in the hands of the state to make a prudential judgement based on the circumstances. In short, it IS a matter of conscience for the government decision makers (and the electorate who puts them there in representative governments).

Abortion, contraception, IVF and such things are INHERENTLY immoral behaviors. That is a very different matter as an inherently evil action can never be justified.

So why is the modified AI (possibly) OK when plain old laboratory AI isn’t? Because it addresses what is wrong with laboratory AI. When the creation of new life is reduced to a technological procedure, the dignity of the new human being is degraded. Much like punching somebody in the nose while saying “I love you”, the action over-rides the words. But when the AI merely supplements the natural life giving love between husband and wife, there is no replacement of that loving act with mere technology. The dignity of the new person is preserved.

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat,

The difference is profound, but easily missed on casual examination.

The catholic catechesis is VERY clear that the Death Penalty is NOT an inherently evil recourse. It goes on to say that it is not appropriate when other means are available to reliably protect the public against repeat offenses. This squarely puts the decision in the hands of the state to make a prudential judgement based on the circumstances. In short, it IS a matter of conscience for the government decision makers (and the electorate who puts them there in representative governments).

Abortion, contraception, IVF and such things are INHERENTLY immoral behaviors. That is a very different matter as an inherently evil action can never be justified.

So why is the modified AI (possibly) OK when plain old laboratory AI isn’t? Because it addresses what is wrong with laboratory AI. When the creation of new life is reduced to a technological procedure, the dignity of the new human being is degraded. Much like punching somebody in the nose while saying “I love you”, the action over-rides the words. But when the AI merely supplements the natural life giving love between husband and wife, there is no replacement of that loving act with mere technology. The dignity of the new person is preserved.

My point was that his feelings about the difference are understandable, especially since “theoretically ok” in the case of the death penalty is often used as an excuse to support it inappropriately with seemingly no condemnation.

 

[YADA]

With regard to Dr. Keyes position from the website, no…I did NOT get that. He DID NOT emphasize rare use. In fact, the word “rare” doesn’t appear in his statement a single time. He said under “certain circumstances.” That is not the same thing as rare use, because “certain” circumstances can occur frequently. Read it AGAIN if you like.

Thanks for your reply.

Well perhaps it is YOU who should raed closer …from the link you provided:

**Capital punishment is necessary to show respect for life **

Q: The Pope condemned capital punishment.
A: Having read the Encyclical, the Pope reasserted the Church’s traditional doctrine on capital punishment and He cautioned against the abuse of that position and said that it would be very rare.
Q: You do agree it should be rare?
A: Certainly. I’ve never been somebody who thought that you should be applying capital punishment indiscriminately. But I do believe that it is necessary in certain instances in order for a society to show due respect for life.
Source: Interview on Larry King Live Apr 4, 1995

Bolding mine … so what is it you don’t get … Mr Keys stated that the Pope cautioned against abuse and that capital punishment would be rare … Larry King then asked specifically if Mr. Keyes agreed that captl punishment should be rare … Keyes answered "CERTAINLY and furhtered stated that it should not be applied “indiscriminately” …

Your apology accepted …now apologize to Mr. Keyes … you set him up as the “Bad” guys , attributed posiitons to him that he does not hold in order to make a point that allows your own ‘wrong’ position to seem mermissable … again :tsktsk:

 

[YADA]

I agree with you, the opinion stated in that article goes against Church teaching on the death penalty. It’s a good example of how conservatives can be cafeteria catholics too. Another good example is the church teachings on immigration, minimum wages, etc. …

Well the opinion stated in the link was not against church teachings as I pointed out … Mr. Keyes reiterated Pope John Paul II’s position and stated clearly that he thought capital punishment should be “rare” … and though the poster told me that was not the case - it is - in fact - he who is mistaken and needs to read with greater clarity … he is trying to use Keyes [the man - the ‘bad guy’ - not Keyes actual position] to mitigate his on position …

When conservative catholics start justifying ‘intrinsic evils’ they will have become cafeteria catholics … but to disagree on what a particular minimum wage should be [or if it is governments role to set minimum wages] is not immoral nor does it go against church teaching … the Church teaches that workers deserve a just wage … to be treated with justice … ergo they deserve respect, a safe working environment and a just wage … the church does not state that the wage should be $XX.XX …

And by the way … I have yet to ever hear a conservative [catholic or not] argue for workers to be enslaved or to be paid an ‘unjust’ wage … I do not hear conservatives talking about “greedy, evil workers” … like we hear regarding “corporations” and “big business”… I hear much about how mean conservatives are but all the really hateful and explitive speech is found on Air America and similar venues …

 

[YADA]

TheAdvocate …

Have you gone back to read your LINK with greater attention to detail yet?

 

[TheAdvocate]

Well perhaps it is YOU who should raed closer …from the link you provided:

Bolding mine … so what is it you don’t get … Mr Keys stated that the Pope cautioned against abuse and that capital punishment would be rare … Larry King then asked specifically if Mr. Keyes agreed that captl punishment should be rare … Keyes answered "CERTAINLY and furhtered stated that it should not be applied “indiscriminately” …

Your apology accepted …now apologize to Mr. Keyes … you set him up as the “Bad” guys , attributed posiitons to him that he does not hold in order to make a point that allows your own ‘wrong’ position to seem mermissable … again :tsktsk:

Yes, I did. And I stand corrected and I thank you for correcting me. There were two different links that discussed the death penalty on that site. But still, Dr. Keyes supports the death penalty because it “is necessary in certain instances in order for a society to show due respect for life.” This is not the Catholic position. The Catholic position is, the death penalty may be administered if it is the only way society can be protected. Here, Keyes is saying that killing a criminal is way for society to “show due respect for life!”

By the way, your tone is really intense. Geez, have a massage or something. Calm down. And don’t send me any more creepy personal messages asking me “Did you read my post yet??? How come you haven’t yet responded to my post!!! Let me show you how wrong you are!!!” Incidentally, you should never accept an apology before forgiveness is asked for.

I always meant for these boards to be discussions, but so frequently turn into polarizing debates. I’ve already been called a heretic!!!

(Who knows…maybe you’ll be obsessing about this email too. Don’t lose any sleep just because I’m a tad more liberal than you. Relax, maybe I won’t go to hell after all.)

 

[Brendan]

Yes, I did. And I stand corrected and I thank you for correcting me. There were two different links that discussed the death penalty on that site. But still, Dr. Keyes supports the death penalty because it “is necessary in certain instances in order for a society to show due respect for life.” This is not the Catholic position. The Catholic position is, the death penalty may be administered if it is the only way society can be protected. Here, Keyes is saying that killing a criminal is way for society to “show due respect for life!” ll.)

Actually, he is correct on that. Here is Trent on the 5th Commandment.

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

When the circumstances for the use of the Death Penalty are met (just use), it’s use BECOMES “an act of paramount obedience to the [5th] commandment” and notes that the reason for it is that it gives security to life.

We also know this to be true, in that there where times where God commanded that the death penalty be applied, and God can only be pro-life.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Actually, he is correct on that. Here is Trent on the 5th Commandment.

When the circumstances for the use of the Death Penalty are met (just use), it’s use BECOMES “an act of paramount obedience to the [5th] commandment” and notes that the reason for it is that it gives security to life.

We also know this to be true, in that there where times where God commanded that the death penalty be applied, and God can only be pro-life.

Brendan, I appreciate your contribution, it’s very thought provoking. But we don’t find such language in the current catechism (except for the allusion to the “traditional teaching of the Church” of which Trent is, of course, a part). Still, it seems this issue is heavily debated in the Church, with some Catholics attending candlelight vigils as often as they can to stop an execution, and others Catholics are fine would like to see the death penalty used more regularly; after all, if this penalty is to be used “in cases of extreme gravity,” as the CCC says, well, frankly, we see extreme cases all the time in this country. So one could therefore be a Catholic and call for the death penalty frequently and legitimately.

Thanks for replying to my post without stomping on me. Civil discussion is the key – that is the Christian way.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Please pray to Saint Philomena! She is most wonderful in every situation. Through her intercession, I conceived my son who will be 7 weeks tomorrow and I’m praying, if God wills it, for another child.

God bless you through Mary’s Immaculate Heart.

Thanks. I’m sure you already pray for a zillion people. Could you please throw one (or many) in for me too?

 

[TheAdvocate]

I agree with you, the opinion stated in that article goes against Church teaching on the death penalty. It’s a good example of how conservatives can be cafeteria catholics too. Another good example is the church teachings on immigration, minimum wages, etc.

Another poster mentioned that there are moral ways of doing AI, I hope you look into that.

While its tempting to break the rule in your situation please consider two things:

1. the difficulty of repenting in the future - this decision to sin will always be associated with the existence of your future child. Imagine coming to the realization many years later that the act that led to the conception of your child was a sin. How would that make you feel?
2. Another serious sin here is that you’re putting your own opinions over those of the church. It’s a sin of pride, and of lack of thanksgiving for the wisdom that the Church gives us. How can any of us really know better than the Church?

Thanks for your post.

First off, I don’t know of any “moral means” to do an AI–if it’s artificial, then it’s artificial (hence the “A” before the “I”). But if someone does, and can explain how such a method would be morally acceptable, I’d like to hear it. I’m trying to follow Church doctrine as much as I can. In the end, though, if after many months of trying we don’t succeed, I’m still open to AI. If we succeed, then maybe that particular conception wouldn’t be the result of a “unitive” marital act. But why be so legalistic. The insemination would be in the context of a loving marriage and many other acts of lovemaking.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan, I appreciate your contribution, it’s very thought provoking. But we don’t find such language in the current catechism (except for the allusion to the “traditional teaching of the Church” of which Trent is, of course, a part).

The Church’s teaching on moral issues are always complementary, never contradictory.

That is how Trent and the CCC need to be viewed. Trent outlines that it is not intrincically immoral, and it’s “just use” really is a good thing. But Trent didn’t define what was meant by a “just” use.

And that is where the current CCC comes it. It touches slightly on Trent in that it says that it can be used ( but doesn’t bother or need to restate Trent’s Cathechism). Instead it expands on where Trent was abigious.

It notes that the death penalty should be used rarely, and in circumstances where other means are not effective in maintaing public safety. Note that the CCC also qualies other means in regards to effectiveness. Other means available have to be effective to disqualify the D.P. That is somewhat problematic, in that ‘effective’ is a subjective term. That is why Catholics may legitimately differ on particular cases of the death penalty. It, like a ‘just wage’ are matters of prudential judgement.

Thanks for replying to my post without stomping on me. Civil discussion is the key – that is the Christian way.

No problem, rational discussions are best done without any stomping. Thank you for taking my post in the way it was intended