Hillary Clinton Thread

[stinkcat_14]

Well, for whatever reasons, CAF members are able to justify voting for a party that keeps abortion legal, and at the same time state that women are murderers who need to be punished.

At least we have clarity on the position of at least three people here, and it is not all that different from Trump’s musings.

Just because one thinks that people who hire hitmen, even hitmen with white coats, ought to be punished, this does not imply that they are arguing for voting for democrats. To argue that people who arrange murder should be punished is a pro-life position. To believe such does not make one pro-death in any way.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

No personal attacks upon candidates. That includes spreading gossip

 

[zz912]

The Church teaches that life begins at conception, but nowhere does the Church teach that ensoulment begins at conception. Nowhere. It teaches that life must be protected from conception, but it teaches that no one knows when the soul is infused:

Ahem…

CCC 366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Ahem…

CCC 366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

I’m aware of that, and I know the soul isn’t created gradually, but nowhere in that teaching does it say if the soul is infused at conception, implantation, viability, birth, etc. It could be created immediately at conception, it could be created immediately at implantation, it could be created immediately at viability, which would probably vary for each child, it could be created immediately at birth.

I’m a member of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, and they print this from the Declaration on Procured Abortion released from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.”

catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/do-embryos-have-souls.html

Read what they say. That the soul is created immediately by God isn’t in question. It’s when it’s created immediately by God. No one knows. The Church teaches no specific time.

This is really philosophical and not political and not about Hillary Clinton.

 

[queenofheartscv]

I’m aware of that, and I know the soul isn’t created gradually, but nowhere in that teaching does it say if the soul is infused at conception, implantation, viability, birth, etc. It could be created immediately at conception, it could be created immediate at implantation, it could be created immediately at viability, which would probably vary for each child, it could be created immediately at birth.

I’m a member of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, and they print this from the Declaration on Procured Abortion released from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.”

catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/do-embryos-have-souls.html

Read what they say. That the soul is created immediately by God isn’t in question. It’s when it’s created immediately by God.

Remember the story of John the Baptist leaping for joy in his mother’s womb when visited upon by the Virgin Mary pregnant with Jesus? Pretty sure the soul is there before baby is born.

If the church can’t even be sure enough to say the soul exists before birth, I’m not sure I can be catholic anymore. Seriously.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Remember the story of John the Baptist leaping for joy in his mother’s womb when visited upon by the Virgin Mary pregnant with Jesus? Pretty sure the soul is there before baby is born.

If the church can’t even be sure enough to say the soul exists before birth, I’m not sure I can be catholic anymore. Seriously.

Don’t worry.

Remember Our Lady and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. She was conceived without sin. That means she had a soul at conception. Her soul was Immaculate at conception, not ensoulment.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Don’t worry.

Remember Our Lady and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. She was conceived without sin. That means she had a soul at conception. Her soul was Immaculate at conception, not ensoulment.

She was an exception. No other human being is without sin.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

She was an exception. No other human being is without sin.

She was the exception regarding being immaculate, not the exception regarding having a soul.

 

[zz912]

I’m aware of that, and I know the soul isn’t created gradually, but nowhere in that teaching does it say if the soul is infused at conception, implantation, viability, birth, etc. It could be created immediately at conception, it could be created immediately at implantation, it could be created immediately at viability, which would probably vary for each child, it could be created immediately at birth.

I’m a member of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, and they print this from the Declaration on Procured Abortion released from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.”

catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/do-embryos-have-souls.html

Read what they say. That the soul is created immediately by God isn’t in question. It’s when it’s created immediately by God. No one knows. The Church teaches no specific time.

Nice try, but no. When you read the entirety of the section, it is clear that the Church teaches that the soul is infused at conception. That is the “immediately” it refers to. The Church teaches that the soul gives the body life. The Church blatantly says that life begins at conception. So the soul is there from conception. This is Church teaching.

II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”

362 The human person, created in the image of God,** is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. **The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture **the term “soul” often refers to human life **or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

382 “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity” (GS 14 § 1). The doctrine of the faith affirms that the spiritual and immortal soul is created immediately by God.

This is really philosophical and not political and not about Hillary Clinton.

No, it’s a sly way of excusing support for abortion and voting for a virulently pro-abortion politician (Clinton) which is contrary to Church teaching.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Remember the story of John the Baptist leaping for joy in his mother’s womb when visited upon by the Virgin Mary pregnant with Jesus? Pretty sure the soul is there before baby is born.

If the church can’t even be sure enough to say the soul exists before birth, I’m not sure I can be catholic anymore. Seriously.

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.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Nice try, but no. When you read the entirety of the section, it is clear that the Church teaches that the soul is infused at conception. That is the “immediately” it refers to. The Church teaches that the soul gives the body life. The Church blatantly says that life begins at conception. So the soul is there from conception. This is Church teaching.

II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”

362 The human person, created in the image of God,** is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. **The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture **the term “soul” often refers to human life **or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

382 “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity” (GS 14 § 1). The doctrine of the faith affirms that the spiritual and immortal soul is created immediately by God.

No, it’s a sly way of excusing support for abortion and voting for a virulently pro-abortion politician (Clinton) which is contrary to Church teaching.

No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not write a document contrary to Church teaching, and they explicitly said:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused.”

Are you calling Fr. Pacholczyk a liar?

Um, no. If you’d read the article, you’d know. Fr. Pacholczyk goes on to write:

“Some scientists and philosophers will attempt to argue that if an early embryo might not yet have received its immortal soul from God, it must be OK to destroy that embryo for research since he or she would not yet be a person. But it would actually be the reverse; that is to say, it would be more immoral to destroy an embryo that had not yet received an immortal soul than to destroy an ensouled embryo. Why? Because the immortal soul is the principle by which that person could come to an eternal destiny with God in heaven, so the one who destroyed the embryo, in this scenario, would preclude that young human from ever receiving an immortal soul (or becoming a person) and making his or her way to God. This would be the gravest of evils, as the stem cell researcher would forcibly derail the entire eternal design of God over that unique and unrepeatable person, via an action that would be, in some sense, worse than murder. The human person, then, even in his or her most incipient form as an embryonic human being, must always be safeguarded in an absolute and unconditional way, and speculation about the timing of personhood cannot alter this fundamental truth.”

Nothing you put in red says anything about when the human soul is infused into a living embryo. And if you’d read the short article, you’d know, it’s not a “sly” or otherwise attempt to whitewash abortion. Just the opposite.

I can only speak for myself, and I need no excuses to vote Democratic.

 

[zz912]

No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not write a document contrary to Church teaching, and they explicitly said:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused.”

Leaving a question aside means leaving a question aside. It means the question wasn’t answered, so I fail to see how an unanswered question in one document means there is no other Church teaching on the issue. It also means the document can’t contradict Church teaching because there is nothing posited to contradict against.

Are you calling Fr. Pacholczyk a liar?

This is an uncharitable comment and attack. I didn’t mention Fr. Pacholczyk and haven’t discussed anything about him. Your uncharitable behavior is noted.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Don’t worry.

Remember Our Lady and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. She was conceived without sin. That means she had a soul at conception. Her soul was Immaculate at conception, not ensoulment.

Obviously that suggests immediate ensoulment upon conception.

But I think we need to think about it on a deeper level than Obama’s “that’s above my pay grade”.

In committing abortion, (thus in supporting it) we are, at absolute minimum, taking a tremendous chance of killing a human being. Now, if I wanted to fire a high-powered rifle into a crowded stadium a half mile away with iron sights and without aiming at a particular person, I could excuse myself by saying there is no certainty that I would hit anyone or kill them if I did hit someone. But there is, of course, a significant chance that I would. So am I really excused by saying “knowing there are unknowable variables of ballistics, air speed, percentage of human flesh to the whole arena, it is above my pay grade to know whether I’m killing anyone, so I’ll fire”.

No one would excuse that, ethically or morally. And yet, some use the mysteries around the timing of ensoulment (which again, the “Immaculate Conception” seems to make fairly clear) to excuse that very thing.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Leaving a question aside means leaving a question aside. It means the question wasn’t answered, so I fail to see how an unanswered question in one document means there is no other Church teaching on the issue. It also means the document can’t contradict Church teaching because there is nothing posited to contradict against.

This is an uncharitable comment and attack. I didn’t mention Fr. Pacholczyk and haven’t discussed anything about him. Your uncharitable behavior is noted.

I don’t see anything uncharitable about it. You’re the one who is taking issue with what he said, I am not. I can’t speak for him, but I take him at his word. He’s a wonderful and extremely educated priest and ethicist.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

I think that this is a bit off topic, but really Lily, baby John the Baptist leaped for joy because he recognized Mary carrying the Savior. There is a strong tradition that because St. John recognized the Savior, he was born without original sin.

John the Baptist was 6 months old. So you are asserting that the Church hasn’t even said a six month old pre born baby has a soul?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Obviously that suggests immediate ensoulment upon conception.

But I think we need to think about it on a deeper level than Obama’s “that’s above my pay grade”.

In committing abortion, (thus in supporting it) we are, at absolute minimum, taking a tremendous chance of killing a human being. Now, if I wanted to fire a high-powered rifle into a crowded stadium a half mile away with iron sights and without aiming at a particular person, I could excuse myself by saying there is no certainty that I would hit anyone or kill them if I did hit someone. But there is, of course, a significant chance that I would. So am I really excused by saying “knowing there are unknowable variables of ballistics, air speed, percentage of human flesh to the whole arena, it is above my pay grade to know whether I’m killing anyone, so I’ll fire”.

No one would excuse that, ethically or morally. And yet, some use the mysteries around the timing of ensoulment (which again, the “Immaculate Conception” seems to make fairly clear) to excuse that very thing.

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.

 

[zz912]

I think that this is a bit off topic, but really Lily, baby John the Baptist leaped for joy because he recognized Mary carrying the Savior. There is a strong tradition that because St. John recognized the Savior, he was born without original sin.

John the Baptist was 6 months old. So you are asserting that the Church hasn’t even said a six month old pre born baby has a soul?

At that same moment, the Holy Spirit/God declared through Elizabeth that Mary was ALREADY the Mother of God. Mary was in her first trimester.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

At that same moment, the Holy Spirit/God declared through Elizabeth that Mary was ALREADY the Mother of God. Mary was in her first trimester.

Christ was hardly a normal human being. He didn’t lose his divinity in taking on humanity, so of course he had a soul from the very beginning! Human beings are not divine.

I don’t know why you want to dispute the word of a highly educated priest and ethicist, who is very much anti-abortion.

Since you do, you can write him at the NCBC, though. I do not speak for him, I only post what he has written.

Here is his short biography:

“Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk earned a Ph. D. in Neuroscience from Yale University. Father Tad did post-doctoral research at Massachusetts General Hospital/ Harvard Medical School. He subsequently studied in Rome where he did advanced studies in theology and in bioethics. He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA, and serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk is a member of the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.”

Again, I can’t speak for him, but I feel he’d be glad to answer your questions.

 

[zz912]

I don’t see anything uncharitable about it. You’re the one who is taking issue with what he said, I am not. I can’t speak for him, but I take him at his word. He’s a wonderful and extremely educated priest and ethicist.

Well let’s take a look at what he’s said about voting for a pro-abortion politician…

catholicexchange.com/voting-to-make-a-difference

When casting our votes, then, we ought to begin from a key and unmovable position — that every human being has a right to life, and that fundamental right makes all other rights possible. Absolute protection for the gift of life is the foundation of all the other goods we hope to promote and enjoy within our society.

While certain kinds of violence like abortion and embryo destruction can never be directly supported under any circumstances, other forms of violence like war and the death penalty may be morally tolerated in very limited circumstances. The difference lies in the fact that human life in the womb is, by definition, completely innocent, while the criminal in the electric chair (or the unjust wartime aggressor threatening a sovereign state) is no longer innocent, but is guilty of serious wrongdoing beyond any reasonable doubt.

Inasmuch as an accused criminal or a wartime aggressor is guilty of radical evil, war and the death penalty may at times, and in limited circumstances, represent a legitimate societal response. War and capital punishment, then, cannot be deemed intrinsically immoral. Any direct attack on innocent human life — whether through abortion, embryonic stem-cell research or euthanasia — will always remain intrinsically immoral. Voting for a candidate who supports war or capital punishment in very limited circumstances is not the moral equivalent of voting for a candidate who supports the killing of innocent human life in the womb or in the research laboratory.

Would it ever be morally justifiable to vote for a candidate who supports abortion or other intrinsic evils? Possibly. To vote this way, however, would require a proportionate reason for doing so. We can begin to understand what is meant by a “proportionate reason” if we consider a hypothetical case of two candidates running for president of the United States, one of whom favors a law that would authorize the killing of all Muslims living within the country (because the candidate claims that a small percentage of them might pose a terrorist threat someday). The second candidate, meanwhile, opposes any such genocide, but supports and encourages the killing of the unborn through abortion.

It might be permissible to vote for this pro-abortion candidate, not to support his pro-abortion agenda, but as a means to prevent the killing of Muslims. Roughly 1 million children are killed annually by abortion in the United States, while there are about 5 million citizens who are Muslims. Insofar as a vote for the pro-abortion candidate would help prevent the unjust killing of nearly five times as many Muslims as unborn humans, one could safely say that there was a “proportionate reason” to vote in this way. One might prefer to refrain from voting altogether in these circumstances, considering that both candidates are supporting intrinsic evils in their platforms. We must exercise caution, however: abstaining from the voting booth can unintentionally lead to support for the more evil platform. We should probably refrain from voting only when the platforms of all candidates support intrinsic evils to a similar degree.

 

[zz912]

Christ was hardly a normal human being. He didn’t lose his divinity in taking on humanity, so of course he had a soul from the very beginning! Human beings are not divine.

The Son did not have a human soul from all eternity.