Z
zz912
Guest
You threw out a leading question wondering if I was calling him a liar. That’s simply uncharitable, as I hadn’t discussed Fr. Tad at all.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JimG
Guest
This is what Fr.Pacholczyk concludes at the link you provided:I think the potential human being is certainly alive before birth; I think it’s alive at conception, no doubt about that. John the Baptist “leaping” in his mother’s womb indicates only life, not an immortal soul. I, personally, always believed that the soul was infused by God at conception, but after all this, I have to re-think it. It might not be, and I can’t speak for anyone but myself. If you read Fr. Pacholczyk’s article here:
catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/do-embryos-have-souls.html
…you’ll have more clarity on what the NCBC means when it says the Church teaches no specific time for the creation of the soul. I do not speak for Fr. Pacholczyk nor am I a spokesperson for the NCBC, just a humble member. I speak only for myself.
“That being said, the moral teaching of the Church is that the human embryo must be treated as if it were already ensouled, even if it might not yet be so.** It must be treated as if it were a person from the moment of conception**, even if there exists the theoretical possibility that it might not yet be so.”
In fact I have not the slightest doubt that a new human being is ensouled at conception, because conception is biologically the beginning of a new human being. But even if there were a doubt, Father Pacholczyk says we must treat the new embryo as ensouled from conception.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
You said the statement, which Fr. Pacholczyk’s agrees with, was false.You threw out a leading question wondering if I was calling him a liar. That’s simply uncharitable, as I hadn’t discussed Fr. Tad at all.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I agree with that and posted a link saying as much, but the Church still teaches no definite time when God infuses the soul. That is my point. I’m not an advocate of abortion at any time, early, middle, late, not any time. I’m not an advocate of contraception. My point was only that the Church does not teach a specific time when the human being is infused with a soul. It had nothing to do with abortion. If I were a proponent of abortion, I wouldn’t have posted a link to an article that is so anti-abortion, an article I use in my own Catholic Bioethics classes. Most of my students believe it’s fine for a woman to have an abortion if the embryo does not have a soul. The article makes it clear that it is even worse.This is what Fr.Pacholczyk concludes at the link you provided:
“That being said, the moral teaching of the Church is that the human embryo must be treated as if it were already ensouled, even if it might not yet be so.** It must be treated as if it were a person from the moment of conception**, even if there exists the theoretical possibility that it might not yet be so.”
In fact I have not the slightest doubt that a new human being is ensouled at conception, because conception is biologically the beginning of a new human being. But even if there were a doubt, Father Pacholczyk says we must treat the new embryo as ensouled from conception.
J
JimG
Guest
If it has nothing to do with abortion, then why bring up the subject of ensoulment? Father Pacholczyk makes the point repeatedly in his essay that regardless of ensoulment, new human beings must be treated as human persons from the moment of conception. The issue of ensoulment is irrelevant.I agree with that and posted a link saying as much, but the Church still teaches no definite time when God infuses the soul. That is my point. I’m not an advocate of abortion at any time, early, middle, late, not any time. I’m not an advocate of contraception. My point was only that the Church does not teach a specific time when the human being is infused with a soul. It had nothing to do with abortion.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
With God there is no “time”. He intends all things from all eternity. So we really don’t know that Jesus didn’t.The Son did not have a human soul from all eternity.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Why, then, is it okay for someone to support a person like Hillary Clinton, who not only advocates that very thing, but wants you and me not only to pay for it, but to provide it for others?If you read what I posted, it makes killing an embryo that may not have an immortal soul worse than killing one that does. It in no way excuses it.
E
estesbob
Guest
Hillary Clinton primer for catholic Voters:
Politicians have no business interfering with women’s personal health decisions. I will oppose efforts to roll back women’s access to reproductive health care, including Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. As president, I’ll stand up for Planned Parenthood and women’s access to critical health services, including safe, legal abortion.
Hillary Clinton January 2016
The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
Pope Benedict XVI
“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”
“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone”
Cardinal Burke
In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).
Cardinal Burke
]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions
Bishop Joseph A. Galante
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”
Bishop Rene Gracida
What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .
What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?
Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate
Archbishop John J. Myers
What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be
Cardinal Burke
Politicians have no business interfering with women’s personal health decisions. I will oppose efforts to roll back women’s access to reproductive health care, including Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. As president, I’ll stand up for Planned Parenthood and women’s access to critical health services, including safe, legal abortion.
Hillary Clinton January 2016
The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
Pope Benedict XVI
“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”
“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone”
Cardinal Burke
In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).
Cardinal Burke
]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions
Bishop Joseph A. Galante
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”
Bishop Rene Gracida
What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .
What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?
Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate
Archbishop John J. Myers
What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be
Cardinal Burke
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
You are right that God lives outside of time and space, however most theologians agree that since humans are created, Jesus did not have a body or human soul prior to his human creation.With God there is no “time”. He intends all things from all eternity. So we really don’t know that Jesus didn’t.
And you said it: we really don’t know.
That’s the bottom line: we really don’t know.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Because it’s remote material cooperation with evil and carries no culpability. Hillary Clinton isn’t going to be performing abortions or pulling people off the street and driving them to abortion clinics, etc. Voting for her isn’t going to change the mind of anyone who opts for an abortion. If a woman doesn’t want an abortion, Hillary Clinton isn’t going to try to talk her into one.Why, then, is it okay for someone to support a person like Hillary Clinton, who not only advocates that very thing, but wants you and me not only to pay for it, but to provide it for others?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
It’s remote material cooperation to vote for a pro-choice candidate IF there are proportionate reasons: americamagazine.org/issue/753/article/catholics-citizensBecause it’s remote material cooperation with evil and carries no culpability. Hillary Clinton isn’t going to be performing abortions or pulling people off the street and driving them to abortion clinics, etc. Voting for her isn’t going to change the mind of anyone who opts for an abortion. If a woman doesn’t want an abortion, Hillary Clinton isn’t going to try to talk her into one.
If then Archbishop Burke went as far as to say on the issue of proportionate reasons, (source) “It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be.” - then what could possibly be a proportionate reason in the current US presidential election that would allow a person to vote for a pro-choice candidate if there is an alternative who wants more restrictions or is pro-life?!
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
To me, there are proportionate reasons aplenty. I wouldn’t vote for any of the Republicans except under duress. And my conscience is clear with my vote. Even my pastor supports Clinton. And BTW, I voted for Sanders. I will vote for the Democratic candidate be it Sanders or Clinton.It’s remote material cooperation to vote for a pro-choice candidate IF there are proportionate reasons: americamagazine.org/issue/753/article/catholics-citizens
If then Archbishop Burke went as far as to say on the issue of proportionate reasons, (source) “It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be.” - then what could possibly be a proportionate reason in the current US presidential election that would allow a person to vote for a pro-choice candidate if there is an alternative who wants more restrictions or is pro-life?!
And we’ve been over all this before. Every person has to follow his or her conscience and vote for the candidate he or she thinks is best.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
You say there are, but you are not saying what they are. Are you willing to say? Obviously none of the candidates are the nominees yet, but say it’s Clinton vs Cruz. Presumably you’d vote for Clinton. What do you think are proportionate reasons to vote for Clinton given her stance on abortion, over Cruz?To me, there are proportionate reasons aplenty. I wouldn’t vote for any of the Republicans except under duress. And my conscience is clear with my vote. Even my pastor supports Clinton. And BTW, I voted for Sanders.
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
If catholic priests can support hillary, then we’ve found the reason behind the culture of death. There is no use bending out of shape to find a perfect 100% pro-life candidate when you have catholic priests supporting a candidate like hillary. No use at all. If the church doesn’t become more forceful on social issues, abortion will never be banned. It’s not going to happen.To me, there are proportionate reasons aplenty. I wouldn’t vote for any of the Republicans except under duress. And my conscience is clear with my vote. Even my pastor supports Clinton. And BTW, I voted for Sanders. I will vote for the Democratic candidate be it Sanders or Clinton.
And we’ve been over all this before. Every person has to follow his or her conscience and vote for the candidate he or she things is best.
Z
zz912
Guest
Name someTo me, there are proportionate reasons aplenty.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
No, I’m not a part of Hillary’s or Bernie’s campaign committee, and I don’t have to justify my vote to anyone but God. When one of them starts paying me, I’ll start campaigning for them.Name some
I’m not out to change anyone’s mind. Vote for the candidate you think is best, just as I did and will do.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
If you haven’t read Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, and I know you many have, read it. The “culture of death” is caused by contraceptives.If catholic priests can support hillary, then we’ve found the reason behind the culture of death. There is no use bending out of shape to find a perfect 100% pro-life candidate when you have catholic priests supporting a candidate like hillary. No use at all. If the church doesn’t become more forceful on social issues, abortion will never be banned. It’s not going to happen.
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
The culture of death may have started with contraceptives, but the protestant denominations have all accepted them now, thereby assisting the prolongation of evil. Abortion may have come as a result of contraceptives and the sexual revolution.If you haven’t read Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, and I know you many have, read it. The “culture of death” is caused by contraceptives.
The Catholic Church is the last bastion of truth. If our priests see no wrong with supporting pro-abortion candidates like hillary, it is no wonder that we can’t reverse the trend.
If there comes a day when our church formally legitimizes contraceptives, abortion, gay marriage, the church will have been dead. I don’t care how many dollars it gives to the poor.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
How would you know that, BTW?To me, there are proportionate reasons aplenty. I wouldn’t vote for any of the Republicans except under duress. And my conscience is clear with my vote. Even my pastor supports Clinton. And BTW, I voted for Sanders. I will vote for the Democratic candidate be it Sanders or Clinton.
And we’ve been over all this before. Every person has to follow his or her conscience and vote for the candidate he or she thinks is best.
J
JimG
Guest
I agree with this. The acceptance and widespread use of contraception started the culture of death by breaking the link between children and marriage, even breaking the link between children and sex. Breaking the link between the procreative and the unitive. This has led to a whole host of social ills outlined in the book “Adam and Eve After the Pill.”If you haven’t read Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, and I know you many have, read it. The “culture of death” is caused by contraceptives.
But who is the biggest promoter of contraception? The Obama administration. Think HHS mandate and loss of religious liberty. But the Democratic Party supports not only contraception but abortion and same sex marriage, all moral evils. I cannot support them in any way. I cannot understand a Catholic priest supporting these moral evils by supporting Democrat candidates.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.