Pelosi on Meet The Press talking about abortion...Did you see this?

[Beth in SW WA]

I'm not Catholic, but if I was, I'd be ticked! Here is one response:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603215.html

[Dayle in Guatemala]

I saw this. She's entitled to her opinion, but, when she brings the church into it, she needs to expect the correction I suppose. The views of the Catholic church have been publicly firm on this since I can remember.

[Melinda in VT]

Ticked at Pelosi? Or ticked at the archbishop's response?

 

I guess I don't think either of them acted inappropriately, based on what I read in the link. (I didn't see Pelosi on Meet the Press.)

 

Pelosi expressed her views and how she arrived at them, which included reading various Catholic theologians. And the archbishop clarified that her views are not the official Catholic position.

[Elaine]

Ugh. Nancy Pelosi.:glare:

 

That is all I am saying.

[Jami]

Ugh. Nancy Pelosi.:glare:

 

That is all I am saying.

 

What she said. Or didn't say. :leaving:

[Retired]

I know is against abortion. I can't remember what commentary I heard this from but it seems Bidden was picked for VP because he is Catholic and this would help Obama get the Catholic vote. Bidden votes pro choice. My Catholic friends don't consider a pro choice catholic as a "good Catholic"

 

She is entitled to her own opinion but I am glad that the church spoke up.

 

I wish more evangelical church pastor would be vocal against abortion.

[Mama Lynx]

All I have read is the article linked. That article made it sound like she was not expressing disagreement with the Church, but that she had no idea what the actual Church teachings are.

 

Disagreement is one thing. Ignorance is another. Hopefully her ignorance is not as bad as that article made it sound. Not that I'm a fan of hers - I am not.

[Beth in SW WA]

Ticked at Pelosi? Or ticked at the archbishop's response?

 

 

 

Ticked at Pelosi. My dh and I were watching MTP on Sunday morn and could not believe she said that the Catholic church doctors didn't have a definitive answer on when life begins.

 

The Catholics I know believe that life begins at conception.

[Beth in SW WA]

All I have read is the article linked. That article made it sound like she was not expressing disagreement with the Church, but that she had no idea what the actual Church teachings are.

 

Disagreement is one thing. Ignorance is another. Hopefully her ignorance is not as bad as that article made it sound. Not that I'm a fan of hers - I am not.

 

Here is transcript. Sorry, I should have included it originally:

 

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?†what would you tell him?

 

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

 

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

 

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

 

MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.

 

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.

[8filltheheart]

Ticked at Pelosi? Or ticked at the archbishop's response?

 

I guess I don't think either of them acted inappropriately, based on what I read in the link. (I didn't see Pelosi on Meet the Press.)

 

Pelosi expressed her views and how she arrived at them, which included reading various Catholic theologians. And the archbishop clarified that her views are not the official Catholic position.

 

 

Pelosi is simply not being truthful. The Church's teachings against abortion and birth control go back to its origins.

 

St. Epiphanius (ca 315-403) They exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption.

 

St. Jerome (384 AD) Epistle 22.13 Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.

 

St. John Chrysostom (ca 347-407) Homily 24 on the Epistle to the Romans:

Why sow where reaping is impossible, or rather even if thou dost reap, the fruit brings you great shame? For even if a child be born, it at once disgraces yourself, and has itself had injustice done it in being born through you illegitimate and base. And if thou leave it never so much money, both the son of an harlot, and that of a servant-maid, is disreputable at home, disreputable in the city, disreputable in a court of law: disreputable too will you be also, both in your lifetime, and when dead. For if thou have departed even, the memorials of your unseemliness abide. Why then bring disgrace upon all these? Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? where there are many efforts at abortion? where there is murder before the birth? for even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?

 

If Pelosi really wanted to know what the Church teaches, it is there to know. It has been taught from the beginning and has been repeatedly expounded upon. I think you have to have been living in a cave to be Catholic and not know the teaching of Humanae Vitae. To state that this is a modern teaching of 50 yrs or so is trying to play on what she hopes is the ignorance of the uneducated. All it does is affirm in my mind that they are willing to twist anything in an attempt to support their position.

 

That she disagrees......that she can do. To state that the Church's teaching is unclear is blatantly false.

[Melinda in VT]

Pelosi is simply not being truthful. The Church's teachings against abortion and birth control go back to its origins.

 

St. Epiphanius (ca 315-403) They exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption.

 

<snipped for brevity>

 

If Pelosi really wanted to know what the Church teaches, it is there to know. It has been taught from the beginning and has been repeatedly expounded upon. I think you have to have been living in a cave to be Catholic and not know the teaching of Humanae Vitae.

 

That she disagrees......that she can do. To state that the Church's teaching is unclear is blatantly false.

 

I'm not trying to defend Pelosi. (I'm not Catholic, and I don't have a dog in this fight, as my dad says.) But I'm curious. Do these quotations trump the St. Augustine quotation Pelosi referenced in the article?

 

It seems to me what Pelosi is saying is that it is not a new thing to have Catholics disagreeing with the life-begins-at-conception teaching. That historically there have been Catholic theologians who espoused different views on the subject.

 

I have a feeling she is right about that, even if the Church's position has been consistent throughout the years. History always tends to be more pluralistic than we think.

 

(Reading over this, I can't tell if I have been clear at all.)

[Mama Lynx]

I'm not trying to defend Pelosi. (I'm not Catholic, and I don't have a dog in this fight, as my dad says.) But I'm curious. Do these quotations trump the St. Augustine quotation Pelosi referenced in the article?

 

It seems to me what Pelosi is saying is that it is not a new thing to have Catholics disagreeing with the life-begins-at-conception teaching. That historically there have been Catholic theologians who espoused different views on the subject.

 

I have a feeling she is right about that, even if the Church's position has been consistent throughout the years. History always tends to be more pluralistic than we think.

 

(Reading over this, I can't tell if I have been clear at all.)

 

I'm not Catholic, but this is my impression of how it works: Theologians may disagree, and argue, but in the end the Church has an official statement, and that is how it is. At some point the issue may be revisited, and officially changed, but the official statement is the official statement.

 

Now we need an actual Catholic to tell me if I have a clue :D

[Beth in SW WA]

 

I have a feeling she is right about that, even if the Church's position has been consistent throughout the years. History always tends to be more pluralistic than we think.

 

 

This article addresses this issue:

http://home.earthlink.net/~davidlperry/abortion.htm

 

Augustine said that we don't have a soul immediately at conception. He was wrong. The Church recognizes that now, doesn't it?

 

Yes, Momof7, she said the Church is unclear because only in the last 50 years has the Church said life begins at conception.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Brigitte]

Here is transcript. ... My Republican colleagues do not support contraception.

 

...So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.[/color]

 

What planet is she on to say essentially that all Republicans do not support contraception???

 

Not "politicize" it.....And, that last statement about the Republicans was doing what? Both sides have politicized it. Let's not pretend we haven't. I mean really!

 

After reading her self-satisfied interview in Reader's Digest, I think there is very little she could say that I would want to hear.

 

Sorry.

[HRAAB]

I was going to say something, but momof7 has done so quite well.

 

Theologians will say what theologians will say; the Church has the final word.

 

Janet

[8filltheheart]

Beth, you are correct. Augustine was discussing ensoulment. He never stated anywhere "3 months" as Pelosi stated.

 

Historically, "during the reign of Pope Innocent XI in 1679, the Church unequivocally stated it is an error for Catholics to believe fetuses do not have a soul; and confirmed the teaching that abortion constitutes homicide."

 

Beyond that, the teaching of life begins at conception is de fide. It is binding on your conscience. She can say whatever she wants. She is 100% wrong.

[Beth in SW WA]

It sounds like Pelosi is causing a stir beyond just our Hive. She enraged conservative Dems all over America w/ her comments on Sunday.

 

I wonder how soon Obama will comment on this. After the convention, most likely.

[In The Great White North]

http://www.archden.org/images/ArchbishopCorner/ByTopic/onseparationofsense%26state_openlettercjc8.25.08.pdf

 

Here's a much better explanantion, with pertinent quotes, than I could put together of why the Chruch takes issue with her statements.

 

Pelosi is being dishonest. There's no way anyone in the Western world over the age of 10 could possibly have missed the fact that the Church is against abortion.

 

As a person of some authority, there will be those who do not have the education to refute her and could be persuaded by her trying to divert attention away from the immorality of abortion, onto the defined moment of ensoulment. This is why the Church has to stand up and say that what she claimed was Church teaching is not really Church teaching.

 

 

This quote by Augustine has nothing to do with the morality of abortion; she is trying to muddy the waters. Abortion was always taught as wrong, even when science had no idea of when conception even happened.

[sleepy]

Ugh. Nancy Pelosi.:glare:

 

That is all I am saying.

 

:iagree: My thoughts exactly. :tongue_smilie:

[Murphy101]

I'm not trying to defend Pelosi. (I'm not Catholic, and I don't have a dog in this fight, as my dad says.) But I'm curious. Do these quotations trump the St. Augustine quotation Pelosi referenced in the article?

 

Well let's look at that then, shall we?:)

The quote was:

But Pelosi refused to back down yesterday. A spokesman said she has studied the matter closely and her views have been influenced by St. Augustine, a leading 4th century theologian, who wrote that "the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation . . . "

 

 

Even if we were to go with St. Augustine, which we don't because he wasn't a Pope or in any way even speaking from or for official church teaching then or now, given what we know today St. Augustine would very likely completely change his mind. He was basicly saying that he defined life as 1. a live soul in a body and 2. that a soul was not present in a body without sensation.

 

1. We know that a soul, or a conscious, can function even in a body without sensation. Quadrapalgeics for example are most certainly still living beings with thinking aware souls!

 

2. Pertaining directly to fetus, we now know that as early as the 1st trimester the baby can move, hear, has a heart beat and so forth. Thus even a fetus does indeed have body sensation.

 

So if she wants to define life according to St. Agusutine, she's still wrong because St. Augustine with today's knowledge would most certainly consider a 1st trimester pregnancy to contain a live soul.

 

Aside from that glaring lack of logic on her part to suit her own desires..:glare:

 

Even during St. Augustine's time ALL abortion was considered evil. Even theologeans who did not consider it homicide viewed it as evil because it was purposely chosing to thwart God's desire to develop a life/soul.

 

As for whatever alternate universe she lives in where contraception is widely argued against by republicans (can we find even ONE?!) - that's pure blarney.

 

Oh and if contraception stopped abortions, we should have nearly eradicated abortion by now as what? 90%+? of the population uses some form of contraception except for when they are actually wanting to conceive their 2.5 children?

 

The people who do not use contraception don't use it because they are willing and open to have children - not because it isn't readily available. Heck, in my state I can walk into any lack of planned parenthood and get FREE birth control of my choice. They don't even ask for medical records or proof of low income. So she's going to have to get a reality check if she wants me to buy that load of poo about people getting abortions because they can't get birthcontrol.

 

Now, why all the abortions then? Well I think there are many reasons.

It's pushed as safer than it is. Touted basicly as completely risk free.

 

It's pushed as an easy out. (you can't be a single mother! you can't afford to be a parent right now! you're too poor! it'll ruin your life! what about your education/career/family!)

 

People don't know basic physical health and development. "It" is a "fetus" is much easier to abort than, "the baby with a heartbeat and 10 tiny fingers and toes". Dead serious folks I'm met grown women who didn't know that at just 10 weeks their fetus has a heartbeat. What's the saying? "If it's not a baby, then you don't have anything to worry about because you are not pregnant?":D

 

Time after time, it's been shown that women who have support networks and encouragement and can see that beating heart - keep their babies!

 

I don't think abortion can be stopped entirely. Ever since adam and eve, women have known what herb or whatever to do to abort and sadly some will always choose that.

 

But if we want to reduce abortions, what we need to do is let pregnant women know they can continue the pregnancy and they don't have to do it alone. If they genuinely can't or don't want the baby, then they can adopt out and we should make it easier for them to do so.

[DB in NJ]

Pelosi is simply not being truthful. The Church's teachings against abortion and birth control go back to its origins.

 

If Pelosi really wanted to know what the Church teaches, it is there to know. It has been taught from the beginning and has been repeatedly expounded upon. I think you have to have been living in a cave to be Catholic and not know the teaching of Humanae Vitae. To state that this is a modern teaching of 50 yrs or so is trying to play on what she hopes is the ignorance of the uneducated. All it does is affirm in my mind that they are willing to twist anything in an attempt to support their position.

 

That she disagrees......that she can do. To state that the Church's teaching is unclear is blatantly false.

 

Yes!!! Mom and I, former Catholics both, watched the clip of her on MTP and actually gasped out loud at her comments and yelled "WHAT?!?!". She is counting on the public being uneducated on the subject. Her statement later released by her publicist acknowledging the church's teaching is all but lost. She has to KNOW the official church teaching, yet she willingly spoke a lie on MTP.

 

Doesn't change my opinion of her as a public servant; it was already about as low as it can possibly get.

[Tammyla]

:iagree:

 

Pelosi is simply not being truthful. The Church's teachings against abortion and birth control go back to its origins.

 

St. Epiphanius (ca 315-403) They exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption.

 

St. Jerome (384 AD) Epistle 22.13 Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.

 

St. John Chrysostom (ca 347-407) Homily 24 on the Epistle to the Romans:

Why sow where reaping is impossible, or rather even if thou dost reap, the fruit brings you great shame? For even if a child be born, it at once disgraces yourself, and has itself had injustice done it in being born through you illegitimate and base. And if thou leave it never so much money, both the son of an harlot, and that of a servant-maid, is disreputable at home, disreputable in the city, disreputable in a court of law: disreputable too will you be also, both in your lifetime, and when dead. For if thou have departed even, the memorials of your unseemliness abide. Why then bring disgrace upon all these? Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? where there are many efforts at abortion? where there is murder before the birth? for even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?

 

If Pelosi really wanted to know what the Church teaches, it is there to know. It has been taught from the beginning and has been repeatedly expounded upon. I think you have to have been living in a cave to be Catholic and not know the teaching of Humanae Vitae. To state that this is a modern teaching of 50 yrs or so is trying to play on what she hopes is the ignorance of the uneducated. All it does is affirm in my mind that they are willing to twist anything in an attempt to support their position.

 

That she disagrees......that she can do. To state that the Church's teaching is unclear is blatantly false.

[Adrianne]

Ugh. Nancy Pelosi.:glare:

 

That is all I am saying.

 

 

:iagree:

[PariSarah]

It seems to me what Pelosi is saying is that it is not a new thing to have Catholics disagreeing with the life-begins-at-conception teaching. That historically there have been Catholic theologians who espoused different views on the subject.

 

The Catholic Church has never been pro-choice, and practically no Catholic theologian before the modern period even ventured towards something like a neutral stand on abortion. All the Catholics that are chiming in are absolutely right on that point: the church's teaching is absolutely clear and absolutely consistent on abortion.

 

But that is not what she's saying. She's saying that the Catholic Church has only recently defined ensoulment as happening at birth. She's absolutely right on that, no question whatsover. She's sloppy to use the word "life," but not horrifically so, since ensoulment was usually equated with the beginning of specifically human life. It was a genuine, historical controversy in the Catholic Church, and she's absolutely right that it has only been recently that the Vatican has taken a strong stand on this.

 

Her misstep is trying to associate this controversy with abortion. The historical controversy over ensoulment has never been used to support abortion (ETA: I meant, not by the Magesterium!!). It was an instance of the Church trying to reconcile theology with science--when did theologically significant yet invisible events match up with scientifically measurable events?

 

Now, to put her comments in some context, pro-choice Catholics are trying to use this historical teaching to do an end run around the pope and try and get abortion and embryonic experimentation in there. They say something like, "Well, if Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between conception and ensoulment, why can't we? And why can't abortion happen before ensoulment?"

 

That move is not currently (and probably won't ever be) supported by the Vatican.

[HRAAB]

 

But that is not what she's saying. She's saying that the Catholic Church has only recently defined ensoulment as happening at birth. She's absolutely right on that, no question whatsover. She's sloppy to use the word "life," but not horrifically so, since ensoulment was usually equated with the beginning of specifically human life. It was a genuine, historical controversy in the Catholic Church, and she's absolutely right that it has only been recently that the Vatican has taken a strong stand on this.

 

Have I missed a huge announcement? Please some information on this. A link to a document?

 

Janet

[Wendi]

(And Obama's, too, I guess.) If we "don't know" whether an embryo or fetus is a person or not, shouldn't we err on the side of caution? (Or at least show greater understanding for those who are convinced - i.e., not go around accusing pro-life people of just wanting to control women's bodies?) I don't get the attitude of, "Well, we're not really SURE it's a person, so we should be able to destroy it!" They'e not saying, "We're positive this is not a person." They're saying, "We're not convinced it is a person; that's for someone else (a higher pay grade?) to decide. In the meantime, let's just assume they're not people, and let them be destroyed."

 

Wendi :confused:

[Murphy101]

Now, to put her comments in some context, pro-choice Catholics are trying to use this historical teaching to do an end run around the pope and try and get abortion and embryonic experimentation in there. They say something like, "Well, if Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between conception and ensoulment, why can't we? And why can't abortion happen before ensoulment?"

 

That move is not currently (and probably won't ever be) supported by the Vatican.

 

:iagree:

 

There seems to be a notion amoung some Catholics that they can be calim be be "an ardent, practicing Catholic" without actually living or believing what the Catholic Church teaches and practices. How reliable can I take the faith or the mental ability of a woman who claims that ardent and practicing can be compatible with heresy? Either she's genuinely ignorant and needs to go study a heck of a lot more or she's just full blarney?:glare:

[8filltheheart]

The Catholic Church has never been pro-choice, and practically no Catholic theologian before the modern period even ventured towards something like a neutral stand on abortion. All the Catholics that are chiming in are absolutely right on that point: the church's teaching is absolutely clear and absolutely consistent on abortion.

 

But that is not what she's saying. She's saying that the Catholic Church has only recently defined ensoulment as happening at birth. She's absolutely right on that, no question whatsover. She's sloppy to use the word "life," but not horrifically so, since ensoulment was usually equated with the beginning of specifically human life. It was a genuine, historical controversy in the Catholic Church, and she's absolutely right that it has only been recently that the Vatican has taken a strong stand on this.

 

Her misstep is trying to associate this controversy with abortion. The historical controversy over ensoulment has never been, at least not up until 50 years or so ago, used to support abortion. It was an instance of the Church trying to reconcile theology with science--when did theologically significant yet invisible events match up with scientifically measurable events?

 

Now, to put her comments in some context, pro-choice Catholics are trying to use this historical teaching to do an end run around the pope and try and get abortion and embryonic experimentation in there. They say something like, "Well, if Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between conception and ensoulment, why can't we? And why can't abortion happen before ensoulment?"

 

That move is not currently (and probably won't ever be) supported by the Vatican.

 

 

Sarah, that is not completely accurate. I have limited time, so I am copying and pasting this from a secular site, Arizona State University! There is a lot of info out there, and yes, ensoulment was a discussion while abortion was always considered an evil. But this is not recent by any stretch.

 

In a papal bull issued in 1679, “Sanctissimus Dominus,” Innocent XI condemned sixty-five propositions that favored a laxist or liberal approach to moral theology, including two related to abortion. The first that he rejected, proposition thirty-four, stated: “It is lawful to procure abortion before ensoulment of the fetus lest a girl, detected as pregnant, be killed or defamed.” The second, proposition thirty-five, stated: “It seems probable that the fetus (as long as it is in the uterus) lacks a rational soul and begins first to have one when it is born; and consequently it must be said that no abortion is a homicide.” The modern Roman Catholic Church still rejects these statements. The denunciation of these propositions clarified the Church’s doctrine regarding abortion as homicide, and distanced the Church from claims that the value of the fetus depended on the moment at which it became ensouled.

 

 

ETA: and again......theological discussions and de fide teaching do not always mirror each other. Abortion has always been seen as an evil. The discussion about ensoulment was "heady," for lack of a better descriptor.

[PariSarah]

It's good to know some dates on when the ensoulment vs. abortion argument was being clarified.

 

I'm still not sure when the ensoulment-happens-at-birth position was given papal approval. Throughout the Middle Ages and into the Reformation period, at the very least, didn't canon law state the dates of ensoulment as 40 days for male fetuses and 80 days for female fetuses? (Even though it was explicitly rejected that this should be a justification of abortion, yes, I know! But wasn't that ecclesiastical law?) I can't find any documentation on when that teaching changed. My (shaky!!) recollection was that it changed with Humanae Vitae. But was it earlier?

 

ETA: Holy Crap. CONCEPTION!! Ensoulment-at-conception!!!

 

Is it better that I'm wasting time here than working on my diss? 'Cause if I were making these kinds of typos on my diss . . .

[HRAAB]

I'm still not sure when the ensoulment-happens-at-birth position was given papal approval. Throughout the Middle Ages and into the Reformation period, at the very least, didn't canon law state the dates of ensoulment as 40 days for male fetuses and 80 days for female fetuses? (Even though it was explicitly rejected that this should be a justification of abortion, yes, I know! But wasn't that ecclesiastical law?) I can't find any documentation on when that teaching changed. My (shaky!!) recollection was that it changed with Humanae Vitae. But was it earlier?

 

Thanks. I've been looking and can't find anything. It was my understanding that the Magesterium had never made any definitive statement on when ensoulment occurs.

 

Janet

[PariSarah]

It says here that "every spiritual soul is created immediately by God." I've been reading that as a temporal "immediately," but it's an "immediately" of agency.

 

DOH!!!!

 

{Silly Protestant runs off and resolves never to pontificate on the Catholic Catechism again :leaving:}

[clwcain]

Thanks. I've been looking and can't find anything. It was my understanding that the Magesterium had never made any definitive statement on when ensoulment occurs.

 

Janet

 

This is true. And, as noted, the question of ensoulment is a completely separate question from that of procured abortion or infanticide.

 

Ensoulment was only a relevant question before the science of embryology settled the question definitively over 150 years ago. And it was only relevant insofar as to determine whether abortion was a type of homicide or not.

 

The Church has taught, with one voice, for 2000 years that abortion is an evil without qualification or mitigation. It is never an acceptable practice. Period. Full stop.

 

And, because of the nature of the Church, Catholics believe that this teaching cannot be changed. Ever. Period. Full stop.

 

Since someone will ask, or at least wonder, I'll note the following with the plea to refrain from derailing this thread with a discussion of the following bulleted items:

 

• Birth control and assisted fertility treatments (in vitro, etc.) fall under a similar category (intrinsically evil acts, but for different reasons too complicated to discuss fully here).

• War, capital punishment, killing in self-defense, etc. do not fall under the category intrinsically evil actions.

So the question of ensoulment, like Communism, is just a red herring.

 

Madame Speaker is factually wrong, empirically wrong, and theologically wrong. Her comments, and her follow up comments uttered through her mouthpiece, indicate not only gross ignorance of matters she claims to have studied in depth, but a stunning disregard for the loving correction offered by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

 

Anyone who does want to keep up on all this is welcome to check out the blog of Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, What Does The Prayer Really Say. He's not only providing the play-by-play, but he's also offering plenty of commentary on Augustine.

 

HTH

[8filltheheart]

Ok, I just went and ate lunch and came back. I totally missed your statement about ensoulment at birth in my first read and only noted the recent comment.

 

Definitely at conception!

 

But, I have heard Jewish commentators state at birth. I have very little understanding of Jewish theology and whether these speakers were speaking along the lines of Pelosi or officially. Their pro-choice argument via ensoulment at birth was the first I had ever heard along the lines of that argument before.

[clwcain]

It says here that "every spiritual soul is created immediately by God." I've been reading that as a temporal "immediately," but it's an "immediately" of agency.

 

DOH!!!!

 

{Silly Protestant runs off and resolves never to pontificate on the Catholic Catechism again :leaving:}

 

Oh don't feel bad. And don't flee.

 

The Catholic understanding of the marital act is one that must be open to life, since we believe that God Himself is present in the marital act and elects to create new life at His Discretion.

 

So, from a Catholic POV, artificial birth control frustrates this by impeding the natural state of the generative act and by foreclosing God's participation, essentially telling Him that He has no place in that union.

 

Abortion ends a life that God has willed into being in a unique act of creation that He permitted the parents of the child to participate in through marital intercourse.

 

Without an extended treatise on moral theology, I'm not sure I can be much clearer. But if anyone is really interested, I can provide links to articles by several learned theologians on this and related matters.

 

And, FWIW, I'm not seeking agreement from anyone. I'm merely attempting, in my own inadequate way, to explicate the teaching of Holy Mother Church on the matters at hand.

[HRAAB]

Ok, I just went and ate lunch and came back. I totally missed your statement about ensoulment at birth in my first read and only noted the recent comment.

 

Definitely at conception!

 

But, I have heard Jewish commentators state at birth. I have very little understanding of Jewish theology and whether these speakers were speaking along the lines of Pelosi or officially. Their pro-choice argument via ensoulment at birth was the first I had ever heard along the lines of that argument before.

 

I guess my question still is: does the Magesterium definitively teach that ensoulment occurs at conception. As I said before, I understood that the Church has never made a definitive statement on this. Although, in my mind, this has nothing to do with the abortion argument. I've had this discussion before with non-Catholics and have always said that the Church has never stated exactly when ensoulment occurs. Have I been giving incorrect information.

 

My personal belief is that the soul is present from the moment of conception. Just like to have my facts correct.

 

Thanks,

Janet

[8filltheheart]

I guess my question still is: does the Magesterium definitively teach that ensoulment occurs at conception. As I said before, I understood that the Church has never made a definitive statement on this. Although, in my mind, this has nothing to do with the abortion argument. I've had this discussion before with non-Catholics and have always said that the Church has never stated exactly when ensoulment occurs. Have I been giving incorrect information.

 

My personal belief is that the soul is present from the moment of conception. Just like to have my facts correct.

 

Thanks,

Janet

 

Frome the CCC:

 

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

 

 

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233

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

 

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people "wholly", with "spirit and soul and body" kept sound and blameless at the Lord's coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 "Spirit" signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238

 

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one's being, where the person decides for or against God.239

 

 

In essence, this is the basis IMHO of the Theology of the Body. If the soul was not created at the moment of conception, the triune aspect of the theology would be lacking. ETA: this is MY understanding, btw. I might be quite wrong about the Theology of the Body piece. When I read it, however, that is what I understood John Paul to be saying.

[lovemyboys]

Ugh. Nancy Pelosi.:glare:

 

That is all I am saying.

 

:iagree: Ugh is right.

 

 

Did you notice from Beth's transcript this line:

 

[Pelosi] it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. []

 

She goes on from there to say that abortions should be safe, available and fewer in number. But the above quote sounds like she's inadvertently agreeing that abortion is wrong. Right after Brokaw says the church holds that life begins at conception, here she is saying that each person is responsible "to answer for our actions."

 

You don't usually hear that we're "answering for" our good and wonderful actions, right?

[clwcain]

In essence, this is the basis IMHO of the Theology of the Body.

 

That, and the writings of the Jonh Chrysostom and the Cappadocian Fathers.

[PariSarah]

Ok, I just went and ate lunch and came back. I totally missed your statement about ensoulment at birth in my first read and only noted the recent comment.

 

. . . to put up with me. I mistyped "birth" where I meant to say "conception." Please forgive my idiocy.

[newbie]

This is funny, because I watch EWTN, every nite. and as soon as Fr. Mitch Pacwa came on, he was all over it. He basically covered every point you guys have just mentioned.

 

I cant get into debate about abortion, but Pelosi was wrong to drag the Catholic Church into her conversation. Huge misstep.

 

Jet

[clwcain]

I guess my question still is: does the Magesterium definitively teach that ensoulment occurs at conception. As I said before, I understood that the Church has never made a definitive statement on this. Although, in my mind, this has nothing to do with the abortion argument. I've had this discussion before with non-Catholics and have always said that the Church has never stated exactly when ensoulment occurs. Have I been giving incorrect information.

 

My personal belief is that the soul is present from the moment of conception. Just like to have my facts correct.

 

Thanks,

Janet

 

The question is moot, due to scientific discovery. It's been a long time since anyone discussed ensoulment seriously, and it's only been bandied about in the last 35-odd years because some wicked theologians decided it could provide cover for politicians.

 

The Church definitively teaches that the soul is present from the moment of conception. There is no ensoulment, as the very concept presumes a period of time where there is a growing, but inanimate, body receiving a soul.

 

It was a theological theory, like Limbo for unbaptized infants, that never rose to the status of doctrine. With the advent of the science of embryology, the question ceased to have any relevance.

 

HTH

[Plaid Dad]

I have never understood how certain politicians can keep their heads from exploding from the sheer force of the internal contradictions bouncing around in there. :001_huh:

[clwcain]

I have never understood how certain politicians can keep their heads from exploding from the sheer force of the internal contradictions bouncing around in there. :001_huh:

 

Postmodernism? :lol:

[HRAAB]

Thank you momof7 and clwcain. I just read that portion of the Catechism today, however, sometimes my befuddled brain doesn't work.

 

I think it's time to get down to some domestic duties - like washing dishes.

 

Janet

[HRAAB]

. . . to put up with me. I mistyped "birth" where I meant to say "conception." Please forgive my idiocy.

 

This makes me feel much better. Thanks.

 

Janet

[PariSarah]

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

 

. . . that "immediately" as a temporal immediately. I'm not crazy, then?

 

I've just been rereading Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor and Casti Connubii and trying to figure out where I got this crazy idea that the Magisterium has come out definitively in favor of ensoulment at conception.

[PariSarah]

Bwa ha ha ha!

 

:lol::lol:

[Michelle in MO]

It says here that "every spiritual soul is created immediately by God." I've been reading that as a temporal "immediately," but it's an "immediately" of agency.

 

DOH!!!!

 

{Silly Protestant runs off and resolves never to pontificate on the Catholic Catechism again :leaving:}

 

Sarah, you're great---you really are!

 

Anyone who does want to keep up on all this is welcome to check out the blog of Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, What Does The Prayer Really Say. He's not only providing the play-by-play, but he's also offering plenty of commentary on Augustine.

 

Thanks for posting this website!

 

My personal belief is that the soul is present from the moment of conception. Just like to have my facts correct.

 

I feel the same way, and I'm Protestant.

 

I have never understood how certain politicians can keep their heads from exploding from the sheer force of the internal contradictions bouncing around in there. :001_huh:

 

:iagree:

[8filltheheart]

. . . that "immediately" as a temporal immediately. I'm not crazy, then?

 

I've just been rereading Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor and Casti Connubii and trying to figure out where I got this crazy idea that the Magisterium has come out definitively in favor of ensoulment at conception.

 

 

I'm not sure I really understand what you are asking.

 

My kids are getting frustrated with me, so I am going to have to be brief and get off of the computer.......so I'll answer what I know vs. your question. ;)

 

Man exits as both soul and body. The body cannot exist without its soul. Death is what occurs when there is separation.

 

According to my understanding, the infusion of the soul at conception according to the theology of the body is the "invisible made visible" understanding which underlies sacramental thinking. God is the creator, we are the instruments. The physical uniting of the egg and sperm is the visible, the infusion of the soul the invisible. The two exist together.

 

Does that make any sense? I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for or not.