Priest/Catholic U President: "Abortion is Not an Infallible Teaching" Local bishop's spokesman refuses comment stating, "I don't view LifeSite as a le

[sonofourlady]

But you have to relax a minute and see two points here.

1. The most important point is that they got their answer and the answer was correct.
2. The second, not as important, the Communications Director or whomever they spoke to in that office may not even know about Lifesite news. They are not a big organization that everyone knows. Even something as big as Catholic Answers is not known by many diocesan offices and parishes. If they’re not sure whom they’re speaking to, they could have just blown them off. We don’t know how the caller from Lifesite introduced him or herself to the other party. This does not mean that the diocese is resisting the pro-life movement. It means that they do not know who Lifesite is. They’re not going to answer questions about an internal matter to a stranger.

By the way, this does not mean that the Chancellor, whom I believe is the local bishop, may not have already filed a complaint with the university. Many of these things are done very quietly.

JR

You’re right about point #2. I hadn’t considered that.

 

[PerryJ]

So? That doesn’t make it a good news source.

I asked for reasons why you do not believe it is a good source. Can you identify errors? Can you identify any misstatements?

I always struggle with personal opinion interfering with facts. For one to have a legitimate opinion on a subject one should have facts to reinforce their beliefs.

Politicians are very good at marketing and it appears people vote for marketing concepts more than reality of facts. I post on several liberal sites and after months of posting I have found only one liberal able to provide any facts to support their beliefs and this was only on one issue. (I am not stating that you are a liberal.) My point is we need facts and I have not found any error in the information they provide.

If Lifesite is not to be trusted please provide support for the belief.

 

[Scottgun]

I believe it was Cardinal Newman that first identified the fallacy of discrediting a source at the outset as “poisoning the well”. It is amazing how this thread has gone from a point of fact (the teaching against abortion is indeed infallible by the ordinary magisterium) to impugning the messenger. We may not like Richard Dawkins, but if Richard Dawkins told you the Church teaching against abortion was infallible, he would be right regardless of whatever else he was wrong about. If one thinks a news source is dubious, fine. All that means is that you should take a careful look at their math. But you still have to do the work. If said dubious source manages to come up with 2+2=4, it is dishonest to cry, “bias!”

Just the facts, ma’am.

 

[TMC]

Lifesite is terrible. Its not event about bias - they admit upfront that they approach the news from a pro-life point of view. The problem is that they let their zeal skew the facts.

There are innumerable examples.

One recent one is that LifeSite ran an article that said it had been discovered that the stimulus bill contained discriminatory anti-religious language “stating that universities accepting funds for facility upgrades would be forbidden to allow religious activity in those areas.”

The provision referred to is a standard provision used in school appropriations for over forty years, which forbids using federal funds to build churches. This same clause has been in used in the last forty-odd federal education funding bills, but now its suddenly trumpted as a sneak attack on religion.

The problem is compounded when Catholics, relying on LifeSite, write their Congressman about things like this. When a Congressman gets a complaint alleging that a standard provision is an anti-religious Trojan Horse, he naturally pigeon-holes the complainer as a loon. Not helpful the next time that constituent has a legitimate complaint.

 

[Brendan]

The priest’s statement is a half-truth and it has to be taken that way.

The Church has never applied infalibility to abortion. This is true.

Actually, that is NOT true. What is true is that the Church has not used Extraordinary means ( Ex Cathedra statement, Concilluar Statements) in it’s declaration.

But the Ordinary means of infallible teachings are the of the Ordinary Magisterium, the consistant, Universal teachings of the Church since the time of the Apostles.

And the Church as consistantly held that the procurement of an abortion is a moral evil.

And thus it is an infallible teaching under the Ordinary Magisterium.

 

[Southparkmom]

LifeSite …how can one even call it ‘bias’. It is what it is. An Pro life web site. What? Does it need to show both sides of the issue? Of course not.

As far as being reliable, who knows. I wouldn’t call it a news source like, say foxnews.com.

But the Cathlic University President better speak out…this is more bad press for the church and good press for the anti-Catholic agenda that is out there.

 

[PerryJ]

Lifesite is terrible. Its not event about bias - they admit upfront that they approach the news from a pro-life point of view. The problem is that they let their zeal skew the facts.

There are innumerable examples.

One recent one is that LifeSite ran an article that said it had been discovered that the stimulus bill contained discriminatory anti-religious language “stating that universities accepting funds for facility upgrades would be forbidden to allow religious activity in those areas.”

The provision referred to is a standard provision used in school appropriations for over forty years, which forbids using federal funds to build churches. This same clause has been in used in the last forty-odd federal education funding bills, but now its suddenly trumpted as a sneak attack on religion.

The problem is compounded when Catholics, relying on LifeSite, write their Congressman about things like this. When a Congressman gets a complaint alleging that a standard provision is an anti-religious Trojan Horse, he naturally pigeon-holes the complainer as a loon. Not helpful the next time that constituent has a legitimate complaint.

So when St. Louis University denounced being Catholic they did this so they could build a Church? Your statement is incorrect in that federal funding is being denied Catholic schools because they are Catholic.

It denies funding for a lot more than building Churches.

 

[NReily]

I think its important to realize that Lifesite is not a conventional news site but a site of commentary on life related news.

In any event, calling Abortion what it is, is not twisting anything.

 

[Southparkmom]

I think its important to realize that Lifesite is not a conventional news site but a site of commentary on life related news.

In any event, calling Abortion what it is, is not twisting anything.

Now that is the truth.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think JR gave the best explanation as to why the Bishop’s spokesperson declined to comment to LifeSite.

The original comments are awful, but I agree that LifeSite is not a legitimate news source.

I would actually agree with that (to a point). If you want evidence, look at this from Jimmy Akin’s website:

LifeSiteNews Calls Kettle Black

It talks about LSN’s articles that “Pope Benedict condemns Harry Potter” because of a simple private letter written by Ratzinger before he was Pope thanking an author for sending him her book. (See also Pre-16 On Harry Potter).

I could dig around for more, but I have seen LSN do this on several occassions. They make intentionally provocative and misleading headlines. Not that LSN is all bad. They cover stories that other places don’t, and they should be commended for that. But I know I am always cautious of what they write.

Even the article in the OP has a bit of a misleading title. When they say “Catholic U President”, I immediately thought they were referring to the President of Catholic University of America. “Catholic U” is the way many people refer to this specific university. It would have been better for them to say them to say “a President of a Catholic University.” I know it seems nitpicky, but there are many people who just scan headlines and don’t read the rest of the story. If I hadn’t followed the link to this thread or the article, I would have left with the impression that the President of Catholic U made this statement and that Archbishop Wuerl declined to comment. That is not helpful.

 

[grampben]

I would actually agree with that (to a point). If you want evidence, look at this from Jimmy Akin’s website:

LifeSiteNews Calls Kettle Black

It talks about LSN’s articles that “Pope Benedict condemns Harry Potter” because of a simple private letter written by Ratzinger before he was Pope thanking an author for sending him her book. (See also Pre-16 On Harry Potter).

I could dig around for more, but I have seen LSN do this on several occassions. They make intentionally provocative and misleading headlines. Not that LSN is all bad. They cover stories that other places don’t, and they should be commended for that. But I know I am always cautious of what they write.

Wow interesting. I think you’re right, they’re over-sensationalist and misleading. Especially over anglican issues and European issues.

 

[JReducation]

Actually, that is NOT true. What is true is that the Church has not used Extraordinary means ( Ex Cathedra statement, Concilluar Statements) in it’s declaration.

But the Ordinary means of infallible teachings are the of the Ordinary Magisterium, the consistant, Universal teachings of the Church since the time of the Apostles.

And the Church as consistantly held that the procurement of an abortion is a moral evil.

And thus it is an infallible teaching under the Ordinary Magisterium.

You are saying the same thing I’m saying.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I think JR gave the best explanation as to why the Bishop’s spokesperson declined to comment to LifeSite.

Even the article in the OP has a bit of a misleading title. When they say “Catholic U President”, I immediately thought they were referring to the President of Catholic University of America. “Catholic U” is the way many people refer to this specific university. It would have been better for them to say them to say “a President of a Catholic University.” I know it seems nitpicky, but there are many people who just scan headlines and don’t read the rest of the story. If I hadn’t followed the link to this thread or the article, I would have left with the impression that the President of Catholic U made this statement and that Archbishop Wuerl declined to comment. That is not helpful.

It is extremely important for the laity to understand the difference between a university that is Catholic and A Catholic University.

1. A Catholic University is only one that is Pontifical. In the USA there are only to Catholic Universities: The Catholic University of America and the Josephinum.
2. There are universities that are Catholic, but are privately run by non profit organizations such as St. Leo’s University, Christendom College and the one in question.
3. There are universities that are Catholic, but are religious. They are owned and run by a religious order, such as Franciscan University, Georgetown, Boston, Notre Dame and many others.

The Church has no jurisdiction over two and three. They answer to their legitimate authority within their institution.

When speaking about such as school, we must make it clear what kind of school we’re speaking about.

When I saw the lead to the thread it made it sound as if it were the Josephinum or Catholic Universityof America. I don’t believe that the poster meant to confuse us. It’s just that most people don’t know the difference between these schools.

A good way of thinking about Catholic colleges and universities is this. Think about Public Schools, Charter Schools and Private Schools. They all operate within the state, but their relationship to the state varies and the Sate’s authority over them also varies.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[TMC]

So when St. Louis University denounced being Catholic they did this so they could build a Church? Your statement is incorrect in that federal funding is being denied Catholic schools because they are Catholic.

It denies funding for a lot more than building Churches.

I think that Father Biondi, the president of St. Louis University, would be surprised to learn that the University had “denounced being Catholic.” St. Louis Univeristy is a Catholic school and receives millions in federal funding, subject to precisely the same limitation LifeSite refers to in the article. The same is true for countless other religiously affiliated post-secondary schools in the US.

But whether we agree on the effect of this provision or not, my point that LifeSite portrayed the provision as a new thing slipped into the stimulus legislation, when it is the same language that has been used in funding bills for over 40 years. The problem is not that LifeSite is not “neutral,” the problem is that it is inaccurate.

 

[PerryJ]

I think that Father Biondi, the president of St. Louis University, would be surprised to learn that the University had “denounced being Catholic.” St. Louis Univeristy is a Catholic school and receives millions in federal funding, subject to precisely the same limitation LifeSite refers to in the article. The same is true for countless other religiously affiliated post-secondary schools in the US.

But whether we agree on the effect of this provision or not, my point that LifeSite portrayed the provision as a new thing slipped into the stimulus legislation, when it is the same language that has been used in funding bills for over 40 years. The problem is not that LifeSite is not “neutral,” the problem is that it is inaccurate.

I live in St. Louis and this was a much debated topic. St. Louis University is not a Catholic University. The majority of the board is now not even Catholic. Less then 1% of the professors are Jesuits.

Father Bionid would not be surprised as he helped create this situation. One has to look deeper than their marketing material. They are not Catholic and have denounced it for Federal Funding.

 

[JReducation]

Does anyone else feel that this thread has become a defense of Lifesite rather than a discussion on the event at the university?

Fraternally,

JR

 

[KathleenElsie]

LifeSite is what it is. It is not MSM by any stretch of the immagination. (Thank you God)
It provides information to people that want the pro-life side of other news.

LifeSiteNews Principles

1. 
   *]Accuracy in content is given high priority. News and information tips from readers are encouraged and validated. Valid corrections are always welcome. Writing and research is of a professional calibre.
   *]LifeSiteNews.com emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles but is also respectful of all authentic religions and cultures that esteem life, family and universal norms of morality.
   *]LifeSiteNews.com’s writers and its founders, have come to understand that respect for life and family are endangered by an international conflict. That conflict is between radically opposed views of the worth and dignity of every human life and of family life and community. It has been caused by secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality and natural law principles which are seen as the primary obstacles to implementing their new world order.
   *]LifeSiteNews.com understands that abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality and all other moral, life and family issues are part of the international conflict affecting all nations, even at the most local levels. LifeSiteNews attempts to provide its readers with the most useful and up-to-date information on this conflict.
   *]LifeSiteNews.com attempts to dispel confusion and ignorance, enable constructive dialogue and help informed decisions to be made and appropriate actions to be taken for the good of all.

 

[Teen4Christ]

And by most useful, i’m sure they mean most conservative

 

[JReducation]

Well, thank you for letting me participate. At this point I’m retiring from this thread, because we’ve turned it into a discussion on Lifesite.

I was hoping that we would be discussing what makes something infallible teaching and how differing systematic schools of theology nuance the term infallible, as well as a discussion on the hermaneutics of abortion and how the priest failed to look at both sides of the theological construct before making his comment. But I guess everyone else is interested in Lifesite, which is fine.

It’s not a topic that I am too interested in, though I enjoy some articles that they publish.

Anyway, thank you for sharing.

Pray for me.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[PerryJ]

I think that Father Biondi, the president of St. Louis University, would be surprised to learn that the University had “denounced being Catholic.” St. Louis Univeristy is a Catholic school and receives millions in federal funding, subject to precisely the same limitation LifeSite refers to in the article. The same is true for countless other religiously affiliated post-secondary schools in the US.

But whether we agree on the effect of this provision or not, my point that LifeSite portrayed the provision as a new thing slipped into the stimulus legislation, when it is the same language that has been used in funding bills for over 40 years. The problem is not that LifeSite is not “neutral,” the problem is that it is inaccurate.

Here is some info from court cases where SLU denied their Catholic Teachings to get federal funding. Truly sad when a Catholic University refutes Catholicism for money and yet pretends that it is Catholic to get students.

At the time, then board chairman Fr. Paul Reinert, SJ, stepped aside to be replaced by layman Daniel Schlafly. The board also shifted to an 18 to 10 majority of laypeople.[12] This was largely instituted due to the landmark Maryland Court of Appeals case, Horace Mann vs. the Board of Public Works of Maryland, in which grants to “largely sectarian” colleges were declared unconstitutional

SLU avoids violating the Federal Establishment Clause (which, apropos of Lemon v. Kurtzman means ‘excessive entanglement’ between religion and state) since it is not “an institution in which religion is so pervasive that a substantial portion of its functions are subsumed in the religious mission.”

In the Court’s opinion, “SLU’s mission is education, not indoctrination, and its focus is on development of students, not on the propagation of the Jesuits’ faith.” The fact that there are references to religion in SLU’s guiding documents does not change this.

Furthermore, the Court adds that “SLU’s president exercises restricted control over the university,” serving at the pleasure of an independent lay Board of Trustees. In fact then, SLU is run by a lay (or secular) board, a board that (and this is key to the argument) is independent from any direct influence of the Catholic Church or the Society of Jesus.

As SLU testified “SLU is merely affiliated with either the Catholic Church or the Jesuits.”