President Obama to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

[diggerdomer]

:banghead: It IS Church teaching.

Digger, you are still confused on what the Church teaches. The Bishops DID NOT say a Catholic can vote for a pro abortion candidate using their own judgement as to what issues were comparable to the Intrinsic Evil of abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexual marriage. There were NONE in THIS election. To get it straight, you and others are going to have to let go of your liberal mindset and see the truth for what it is.

I don’t know how else to explain it to you.

Explain it by providing some authoritative Church teaching.

You state: “The Bishops DID NOT say a Catholic can vote for a pro abortion candidate”

I agree.

Now, can you agree similarly that the Bishops also DID NOT say that a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate? If you cannot agree, please share specifically where the Bishops said that Catholics cannot, absolutely, vote for a candidate whose views on abortion do not coincide with the Church? Please, if you do disagree, respond to this specific question and not some other. Where does the Church teach that a Catholic is absolutely wrong, no matter the circumstances or context, to vote for a political candidate whose views on abortion (or whatever other single issue might be of interest) do not adhere to Catholic teaching?

The Bishops did say that Catholics cannot vote for abortion. I of course agree. But there’s an obvious distinction between voting for a specific candidate and voting for a specific issue. Sadly, too many apparently fail to recognize this despite the U.S. Bishops’ Conference teaching.

You might not see the distinction. Read what the Bishops teach, it’s there.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Whoa, hey there…the american “Republican” party is not much less socialist than the american Democrat party. They are both crooked as all get out. Right now there is no difference in the two other than the name.

Which is precisely why I was criticizing his positions; he is more loyal to a corrupt political party than he is to the Catholic Church.

If you mean the values the Republican party use to hold then I’d like to understand better how they go against everything Jesus said or did.

By “used to hold” do you mean Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt? If so I would agree with you, but then this isn’t the Republican party of today.

:banghead: It IS Church teaching.

Digger, you are still confused on what the Church teaches. The Bishops DID NOT say a Catholic can vote for a pro abortion candidate using their own judgement as to what issues were comparable to the Intrinsic Evil of abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexual marriage. There were NONE in THIS election. To get it straight, you and others are going to have to let go of your liberal mindset and see the truth for what it is.

I don’t know how else to explain it to you.

Err, of the four “intrinsic evils” you list, two are opposed by Obama (euthanasia and cloning), and one (gay marriage) isn’t even an intrinsic evil and besides Obama wanted to leave it up to the states, same as McCain. Oh, and by the way here are some intrinsic evils as written by the USCCB:
*
“Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.”*

The Iraq War was not a just one, as clearly stated by the Pope, and noncombatants were targeted.

 

[elts1956]

Explain it by providing some authoritative Church teaching.

You state: “The Bishops DID NOT say a Catholic can vote for a pro abortion candidate”

I agree.

Now, can you agree similarly that the Bishops also DID NOT say that a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate? If you cannot agree, please share specifically where the Bishops said that Catholics cannot, absolutely, vote for a candidate whose views on abortion do not coincide with the Church? Please, if you do disagree, respond to this specific question and not some other. Where does the Church teach that a Catholic is absolutely wrong, no matter the circumstances or context, to vote for a political candidate whose views on abortion (or whatever other single issue might be of interest) do not adhere to Catholic teaching?

The Bishops did say that Catholics cannot vote for abortion. I of course agree. But there’s an obvious distinction between voting for a specific candidate and voting for a specific issue. Sadly, too many apparently fail to recognize this despite the U.S. Bishops’ Conference teaching.

You might not see the distinction. Read what the Bishops teach, it’s there.

No Catholic can compartmenalize their morals. There is no comparison between an Intrinsic Evil such as abortion and the evil of other issues which aare also of deep concern. Abortion standas head above all the other issues put together. None of the other issues are of the same grave morality as abortion. There is abortion and then there are other issues. There were NO issues of equal gravity to choose/vote for in comparison to the choice of voting for life, or “compartmentalizing” (which is tricky) one’s conscience and choosing to vote because one hopes a LESSER evil will be defeated.

Apparently you and I have read the same USCCB document which was about as clear as a snow storm in Minnisota. I like to give that comparison. There were SO MANY other documents written by various individual Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals that give support to what I am saying. You wll find many posts on the dubious clarity of what the Bishops wrote in their USCCB documents. If you read other documents, exhortations by Bishops such as Finn, Martino, Hermann, Burke, the four Bishops of Kansas, the two Bishops of the Dallas Fort Worth area, (sorry, I don’t remember their names off hand.) the pure intention of the Catholic Church to protect human life AT ANY COST is made Crystal clear. The priests, Corapi, Eutenauer, Pavone who have spent years combating abortion have all said to vote for a pro abortion candidate, to agree that promoting their abortion agenda is alright in light of because of lesser grave issues is a moral mistake.

Unfortunately their voices were not heard, nor their writings read. Or if they were read, they were ignored. 54% of those calling themselves Catholic ignored the teachings of the Church and voted for bo. There is no getting around it. One cannot rationalize it away. Also one cannot judge individuals and their reasons for supporting Obama. The action was wrong, their soul is known by God.

There is no question, there is a rationalizing by some Bishops as to which issues are the most important, but when the Popes and the clergy who follow the thinking of the Popes say abortion, along with the other absolute life issues is of the GRAVEST concern, one cannot interpret through the use of one’s conscience that another issue is as grave a concern as abortion, etc.

I for one do not see how a practicing Catholic who understands what has been taught by the Church could vote for a pro abortion candidate thereby promoting either direclty, or indirectly, his policy of abortion. :coolinoff:

 

[elts1956]

Notre Dame students are still accepting red envelopes to give to Jenkins to give to bo. (That I would like to see.)

info. below.

We are still accepting red envelopes to be delivered to Fr. Jenkins. Envelopes may be dropped off at the Knights of Columbus building on campus, or mailed (enclosed in a second envelope)to:

Knights of Columbus Building
721 Corby Blvd.
South Bend, IN 46617
Further information, including instructions for what to write on the envelope can be found at our Red Envelope Day, Notre Dame Edition page.

General website is: www.ndresponse.com

 

[elts1956]

Which is precisely why I was criticizing his positions; he is more loyal to a corrupt political party than he is to the Catholic Church.

By “used to hold” do you mean Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt? If so I would agree with you, but then this isn’t the Republican party of today.

Err, of the four “intrinsic evils” you list, two are opposed by Obama (euthanasia and cloning), and one (gay marriage) isn’t even an intrinsic evil and besides Obama wanted to leave it up to the states, same as McCain. Oh, and by the way here are some intrinsic evils as written by the USCCB:
Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified Did they list these SPECIFICALLY as being Intrinsic Evils? I think not.The Iraq War was not a just one, as clearly stated by the Pope, and noncombatants were targeted.

You are wrong. So far bo supports all of the Intrinsic evils including cloning. Homosexual marriage is listed as an Intrinsic Evil.

 

[aicirt]

Not true. The USCCB themselves have said that the important thing is intent; Catholics cannot vote for politicians because they support intrinsic evils, but may vote for them in spite of their stance on these issues, because of other positions that are more in line with Catholic beliefs. You should really read this document yourself:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

Here’s an artice by Nicholas P. Cafardi on this subject:

I believe that abortion is an unspeakable evil, yet I support Sen. Barack Obama, who is pro-choice. I do not support him because he is pro-choice, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed Catholic?

As one of the inaugural members of the U.S. bishops’ National Review Board on clergy sexual abuse, and as a canon lawyer, I answer with a resounding yes.

Despite what some Republicans would like Catholics to believe, the list of what the church calls “intrinsically evil acts” does not begin and end with abortion. In fact, there are many intrinsically evil acts, and a committed Catholic must consider all of them in deciding how to vote.

Last November, the U.S. bishops released “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” a 30-page document that provides several examples of intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war.

Nicholas CafardiNicholas CafardiObama’s support for abortion rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That’s a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle – permanently. A vote for Sen. John McCain does not guarantee the end of abortion in America. Not even close.

Let’s suppose Roe v. Wade were overturned. What would happen? The matter would simply be kicked back to the states – where it was before 1973. Overturning Roe would not abolish abortion. It would just mean that abortion would be legal in some states and illegal in others. The number of abortions would remain unchanged as long as people could travel.

McCain has promised to appoint “strict constructionist” judges who would presumably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. But is that sufficient reason for a Catholic to vote Republican? To answer that question, let’s look at the rest of the church’s list of intrinsically evil acts.

Both McCain and Obama get failing marks on embryonic stem-cell research, which Catholic teaching opposes. The last time the issue was up for a vote in the Senate, both men voted to ease existing restrictions.

But what about an unjust war? In 2003, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said flatly that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist.” McCain voted for it; Obama opposed it.

What about torture? “There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” according to Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated abuses in Iraq. Obama opposes the use of torture in all cases; McCain, himself a victim of torture, voted to allow the CIA to use so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” – a euphemism for torture.

How, some may ask, can I compare these evils with abortion? The right to abortion is guaranteed by the federal judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution. And while the president appoints federal judges, the connection between a president’s appointments and the decisions rendered by his appointees is tenuous at best. After all, in 1992, five Republican-appointed justices voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yet on other intrinsic evils – an unjust war, torture, ignoring the poor – I can address those evils directly by changing the president.

There’s another distinction that is often lost in the culture-war rhetoric on abortion: There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions, and has consistently said that “we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.” He favors a “comprehensive approach where … we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.” And he wants to ensure that adoption is an option for women who might otherwise choose abortion.

Obama worked all of that into his party’s platform this year. By contrast, Republicans actually removed abortion-reduction language from their platform.

What’s more, as recent data show, abortion rates drop when the social safety net is strengthened. If Obama’s economic program will do more to reduce poverty than McCain’s, then is it wrong to conclude that an Obama presidency will also reduce abortions? Not at all.

Every faithful Catholic agrees that abortion is an unspeakable evil that must be minimized, if not eliminated. I can help to achieve that without endorsing Republicans’ immoral baggage. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not the only way to end abortion, and a vote for Obama is not somehow un-Catholic.

The U.S. bishops have urged a “different kind of political engagement,” one that is “shaped by the moral convictions of well-formed consciences.”

I have informed my conscience. I have weighed the facts. I have used my prudential judgment. And I conclude that it is a proper moral choice for this Catholic to support Barack Obama’s candidacy.

Cafardi is a civil and canon lawyer, and a professor and former dean at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh. His most recent book, Before Dallas, examines the bishops’ failures in handling the clergy sex abuse crisis.

Yes, Roe vs. Wade should be kicked back to the states. No, I don’t believe you’ll totally stop abortion but that doesn’t mean you should stop trying… And the article above may have convinced you but it doesn’t convince me.

Slavey was considered a right. Elimination of “mud people” was considered good for the state in Nazi Germany. It is amazing what you can do with people’s minds. Neither blacks, Jews, gypsies and many others were considered worthy of life ditto now for human babies. It is the same play with a different set of characters. But all of it is evil…period. And no matter what is being offered to gild the lily, you cannot involve yourself in evil.

Torture? You think that baby being pulled from its mothers womb isn’t being tortured as its limbs are removed or endures whatever else it takes to kill him? And you think a Catholic can vote for Obama who has changed policy so more abortions are available internationally?

 

[Trader]

Who can’t argue against what? That the Pope denounced the Iraq war? That capital punishment IS an intrinsic evil in the eyes of the Church? That the American Republican party goes against virtually everything Jesus ever said or did?

I can’t argue with that because it’s clear where his loyalties lie, and it’s not with Christ or the Catholic Church.

And before anyone accuses me of the reverse, I’m against abortion and gay marriage, I just think that first, it is impossible to make abortion illegal in the US through voting and second, that gay marriage is hardly among the biggest problems facing the world today.

So now the Catechism of the Catholic Church is more Republican than Catholic?

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

Since you have tried to make this personal because you are ignorant of the meaning of “intrinsic evil”, I beg for mercy on the grounds that I am a product of a mixed marriage. My father was a Democrat who once ran for minor office. My maternal great-grandfather held political office in a very large county as a Republican. My maternal grandfather once had to use his father’s position to negotiate with the Ku Klux Klan so that a Catholic parish could be establshed in a Chicago suburb in the 1920’s.

I vote for both Republicans and Democrats who are pro-life. I voted for Jimmy Carter twice. I had 17 years of catholic education before I voted for anyone. I will humbly correct anything I have said that is in conflict with doctrine believed and proclaimed to be revealed of God by the Catholic Church.

 

[davydamex]

Surely an Honourary Degree…For what.He is young to read and get a degree

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Yes, Roe vs. Wade should be kicked back to the states. No, I don’t believe you’ll totally stop abortion but that doesn’t mean you should stop trying… And the article above may have convinced you but it doesn’t convince me.

Slavey was considered a right. Elimination of “mud people” was considered good for the state in Nazi Germany. It is amazing what you can do with people’s minds. Neither blacks, Jews, gypsies and many others were considered worthy of life ditto now for human babies. It is the same play with a different set of characters. But all of it is evil…period. And no matter what is being offered to gild the lily, you cannot involve yourself in evil.

Torture? You think that baby being pulled from its mothers womb isn’t being tortured as its limbs are removed or endures whatever else it takes to kill him? And you think a Catholic can vote for Obama who has changed policy so more abortions are available internationally?

Ok, I messed up the definition of “intrinsic evil”, which was my fault. I believed it to refer to a different category of sin. Intrinsic evils refer to things that are always wrong no matter the circumstances. HOWEVER, “intrinsic evils” aren’t necessarily worse than evils that are not intrinsic. For instance, gay marriage isn’t worse than an unjust war in which innocents are killed.

Now I better understand what you mean when you say abortion is intrinsically evil. However, abortion does not fall into this category, interestingly enough:

In Catholic moral theology, the event of an ectopic pregnancy is one of the only cases where an abortion would in principle be allowed, since it is categorized as an indirect abortion. In the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, Paul VI writes that “the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever”. This view was also advocated by Pius XII in a 1953 address to the Italian Association of Urology.

So Catholic teaching is that in some instances, abortion is allowed if it would save the life of the mother.

You are wrong. So far bo supports all of the Intrinsic evils including cloning. Homosexual marriage is listed as an Intrinsic Evil.

Cloning? Euthenasia? Where did you hear that?

 

[magdelaine]

Cloning? Euthenasia? Where did you hear that?

Well, it depends on if you think that cloned human embryos are, indeed, human.

In lifting restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research this month, did President Obama leave the door open to human cloning? To hear Obama say it, the answer is unequivocally no. “We will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction,” he said in a speech before signing the executive order that reversed George W. Bush’s limits on embryonic stem cell research. “It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.”

In the days since, however, a slew of conservative Christian groups have charged Obama with misleading the public on human cloning. They accuse him of saying he’s taking a zero-tolerance approach when he’s not. That’s because the president may allow federal funding for somatic cell nuclear transfer, a cloning process in which scientists produce embryos to provide stem cells for research, not for implantation. Some religious groups argue that regardless of whether the embryos are created for research or for reproduction, it is cloning. But the cloned embryos have never been implanted in a woman’s uterus, and researchers say that they are unlikely to develop into viable fetuses even if they were. Scientists generally don’t consider the process to be human cloning. After all, nothing resembling a human being is ever produced.

usnews.com/articles/news/religion/2009/03/24/did-obama-open-the-door-to-human-cloning-with-his-stem-cell-order.html

Obama: “So, as long as they don’t look like people, go for it!”

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Well, it depends on if you think that cloned human embryos are, indeed, human.

This is neither explicitly allowed or disallowed by the funding bill, and would be unlikely to occur anyway. They have done this with animals, but doing it with human cells would have few if any research applications, and few researchers would be willing to risk the fallout. This would be like saying Obama supports human cloning because he supported a bill to fund Parkinson’s research, and that bill didn’t explicitly say there would be no human cloning involved.

Obama: “So, as long as they don’t look like people, go for it!”

That’s a gross oversimplification. And I still haven’t heard you say how Obama supports euthanasia.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Since you have tried to make this personal because you are ignorant of the meaning of “intrinsic evil”, I beg for mercy on the grounds that I am a product of a mixed marriage. My father was a Democrat who once ran for minor office. My maternal great-grandfather held political office in a very large county as a Republican. My maternal grandfather once had to use his father’s position to negotiate with the Ku Klux Klan so that a Catholic parish could be establshed in a Chicago suburb in the 1920’s.

I vote for both Republicans and Democrats who are pro-life. I voted for Jimmy Carter twice. I had 17 years of catholic education before I voted for anyone. I will humbly correct anything I have said that is in conflict with doctrine believed and proclaimed to be revealed of God by the Catholic Church.

You implied that the Iraq war and capital punishment were ok, despite being widely condemned by the Catholic Church. If this is not the case, I apologize. I also admit to have misused the term “intrinsic evil”, but I already elaborated on that.

If I have said things about you that are not true, again, I apologize. However, I have little patience with hypocrites like our former president, who claimed to be pro-life and yet authorized the bombing of a hotel full of civilians because he thought there was a chance Saddam Hussein was there (he wasn’t).

 

[magdelaine]

This is neither explicitly allowed or disallowed by the funding bill, and would be unlikely to occur anyway. They have done this with animals, but doing it with human cells would have few if any research applications, and few researchers would be willing to risk the fallout. This would be like saying Obama supports human cloning because he supported a bill to fund Parkinson’s research, and that bill didn’t explicitly say there would be no human cloning involved.

That’s a gross oversimplification. And I still haven’t heard you say how Obama supports euthanasia.

The only reason you can say this is because you really haven’t looked into ESCR and its goals. Human cloning is one of the primary ways that “therapies” can and will be developed. Why? Because the cells you are the most likely to NOT reject are cells that match your DNA. So, a little tiny “you” is created so that it can be torn apart and used by, well, you. We are truly on the verge of eating our selves for our greater glory, and MY tax dollars get to pay for it, thanks to O. And because it’s political, funding will go toward this abomination instead of adult stem cell breakthroughs that really work. Because if O really wanted to support said research, he could have explicitly stated that support for this research would continue. Instead, he explicitly did the exact opposite when he rescinded executive order 13435.

I did not say that O support euthanasia, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

Anyway, back to original thread topic…

 

[Luis_Santiago]

The only reason you can say this is because you really haven’t looked into ESCR and its goals. Human cloning is one of the primary ways that “therapies” can and will be developed. Why? Because the cells you are the most likely to NOT reject are cells that match your DNA. So, a little tiny “you” is created so that it can be torn apart and used by, well, you. We are truly on the verge of eating our selves for our greater glory, and MY tax dollars get to pay for it, thanks to O. And because it’s political, funding will go toward this abomination instead of adult stem cell breakthroughs that really work. Because if O really wanted to support said research, he could have explicitly stated that support for this research would continue. Instead, he explicitly did the exact opposite when he rescinded executive order 13435.

I did not say that O support euthanasia, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

Anyway, back to original thread topic…

There are two types of cloning, reproductive cloning and non-reproductive cloning. It is possible to clone just an organ or just a specific type of cell without first creating an embryo; this is the adult stem cell therapy you were talking about. They do really work, and have shown a lot of promise. However, in order to allow an adult stem cell to do this, you first have to reset it to a pluripotent stem cell, which could conceivably grow into an embryo if conditions were right. In fact, they did this already with mice. So I guess that means you have to denounce Bush for signing this second order, right? After all, research in that line has the potential to create cloned embryos.

Obama rescinded this second order because its only purpose was to clarify the first order, and the first order was now rescinded.

Back on topic, the University is only prohibited from honoring Obama if said honor suggests support from his pro-choice stance. From my understanding, this is not the case.

 

[Trader]

In Catholic moral theology, the event of an ectopic pregnancy is one of the only cases where an abortion would in principle be allowed, since it is categorized as an indirect abortion. In the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, Paul VI writes that “the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever”. This view was also advocated by Pius XII in a 1953 address to the Italian Association of Urology.

So Catholic teaching is that in some instances, abortion is allowed if it would save the life of the mother.

Please be more careful how you state this argument. Catholic teaching does not allow abortion to save the life of the mother. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, It permits the removal of the diseased organ to save the life of the mother, even though the intended action has the secondary effect of causing the death of the baby. The death of the innocent baby can never be the willed intent of the act. You cannot in one sense use the term indirect abortion or spontaneous abortion to prove the morality of a direct abortion which has a whole different meaning.

The priciple of secondary effect also applies in war. If a political leader is a legitimate military target, he is not immune from attack just because he uses civilians as human shields. The death of innocent civilians can never be the willed intent of an attack, but given the actual circumstances known as the fog of war, some unintended deaths may occur in pursuing a just objective. Care must be taken that collateral damage is proportional to the just objective, and at least some of the blame is on the person who uses his own people or POW’s as human shields.

There is no escaping the principle of proportionality. It would be acceptable to treat a pregnant woman with a drug dangerous to her baby to cure an otherwise fatal cancer. Using the same drug to cure acne would not be proprotional.

 

[magdelaine]

Back on topic, the University is only prohibited from honoring Obama if said honor suggests support from his pro-choice stance. From my understanding, this is not the case.

I really don’t care to correct your technical understanding of stem cell research and/or cloning here.

However, O is being honored with a doctorate of law from Notre Dame. This to an individual who has denied every and all legal protections and recourse to the pre-born at every opportunity. If this doesn’t constitute at least tacit approval for his stance on abortion, I don’t know what the word “honor” means.

In the words of Inego Montoya “I do not think that word means what you think it means”.

Anyway, Beckwith explains it better than I can.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Please be more careful how you state this argument. Catholic teaching does not allow abortion to save the life of the mother. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, It permits the removal of the diseased organ to save the life of the mother, even though the intended action has the secondary effect of causing the death of the baby. The death of the innocent baby can never be the willed intent of the act. You cannot in one sense use the term indirect abortion or spontaneous abortion to prove the morality of a direct abortion which has a whole different meaning.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the fetus is implanted somewhere where it shouldn’t be. Allowing it to grow would kill the mother. There is no diseased organ that needs to be removed, unless that is what you are calling the embryo. You are right that the death of the embryo cannot be the intent, but the fact remains that abortion is the only possible treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, and the Catholic Church allows this.

My point was that the concept of “intrinsic evil” is not a very good one for ranking the severity of injustices. Exceptions exist for many of them, including abortion. An intrinsic evil such as homosexual relations is not as great of an injustice as killing a person, which may not be evil under certain circumstances.

The priciple of secondary effect also applies in war. If a political leader is a legitimate military target, he is not immune from attack just because he uses civilians as human shields. The death of innocent civilians can never be the willed intent of an attack, but given the actual circumstances known as the fog of war, some unintended deaths may occur in pursuing a just objective. Care must be taken that collateral damage is proportional to the just objective, and at least some of the blame is on the person who uses his own people or POW’s as human shields.

But the war was never just or moral in the first place! This is exactly why the Pope opposed it! Because things like that are inevitable during war, which is exactly why Jesus and the Church are so against it.

There is no escaping the principle of proportionality. It would be acceptable to treat a pregnant woman with a drug dangerous to her baby to cure an otherwise fatal cancer. Using the same drug to cure acne would not be proprotional.

Then the bombed hotel is not proportional either. The US did not know for sure that Saddam Hussein was in that hotel, but bombed it anyway. As it turns out, he was not in the hotel, and all those people died for nothing.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

I really don’t care to correct your technical understanding of stem cell research and/or cloning here.

I guarantee you, I have more technical understanding than you on this subject, unless you’re directly involved in the field of medical research as well. Thankfully, my research focuses on the interpretation of endoscopic data acquisition and has nothing to do with embryonic stem cells.

However, O is being honored with a doctorate of law from Notre Dame. This to an individual who has denied every and all legal protections and recourse to the pre-born at every opportunity. If this doesn’t constitute at least tacit approval for his stance on abortion, I don’t know what the word “honor” means.

In the words of Inego Montoya “I do not think that word means what you think it means”.

Anyway, Beckwith explains it better than I can.

So Notre Dame imposes a pro-life litmus test on every doctorate of law they give out to graduates of their law school? This is news to me.

 

[magdelaine]

So Notre Dame imposes a pro-life litmus test on every doctorate of law they give out to graduates of their law school? This is news to me.

I do hope that you do this sleight-of-hand with words and meaning on purpose and that this is **not **the way you think.

To whit, Obama is being conferred an honorary degree, he was not enrolled as a student at Notre Dame, unlike the other graduates of which you speak. He is being honored, for his work and public record.

Did you read the Francis Beckwith peice? It’s well worth reading the entire thing, but I’ll quote:

I have no doubt that Notre Dame would never bestow an honorary doctorate in science to an astronomer who vigorously advances the agenda of geocentricity or a chemist who refuses to teach his students the periodic table, or award an honorary doctorate in divinity to a theologian who is an unrepentant apologist for racial apartheid and white supremacy, regardless of what these three individuals may have accomplished or how well their celebrity may be received by the wider culture and its influential institutions.

Why then would the University of Notre Dame bestow an honorary doctorate of laws on someone who for his entire public life has enthusiastically fought for a segment of the human population, the unborn, to remain permanently outside the protections of the law?

Why indeed?

 

[Luis_Santiago]

I do hope that you do this sleight-of-hand with words and meaning on purpose and that this is **not **the way you think.

To whit, Obama is being conferred an honorary degree, he was not enrolled as a student at Notre Dame, unlike the other graduates of which you speak. He is being honored, for his work and public record.

Did you read the Francis Beckwith peice? It’s well worth reading the entire thing, but I’ll quote:

Why indeed?

I did read the piece you posted, but it grossly mischaracterizes Obama’s record on abortion. I did a lot of research into the candidates last year, when deciding how to vote, and the charges he levies against Obama are the same discredited ones from back then. Obama voted against the partial-birth abortion ban because it didn’t contain exceptions to save the life of the mother, but he said he would have voted for it if it did. The “Born-alive infant protection act” that he voted “present” for, was a bill that the Illinois senate tried to pass for the sole purpose of using it against Democrats at election time. It was poorly-written, and there would be no conceivable way for that law to save a single life, since Illinois law already covered what the bill was ostensibly claiming to accomplish. Politicians pull these stunts all the time. Joe Biden did it too with his ridiculous “Violence Against Women Act”.

But the main reason I didn’t like it was because it basically ignores every time in the past where Obama has tried to find common ground with the pro-life movement. During the primary campaign last year, Hillary Clinton’s people were accusing Obama of “not supporting a woman’s right to choose”, and he was losing votes for it. He said he would support the partial birth abortion ban if it had those provisions I mentioned. He actually managed to add the goal of reducing the number of abortions to the Democratic party platform. I’m not saying we need to compromise on our morality, but we should at least recognize that Obama has been able to make a modicum of progress. If we can’t ever recognize this, then what incentive do Democrats have to incrementally change abortion laws for the better?