David Ancell's Virtual Home

Detroit’s Life Controversy

  /   Sunday October 20, 2002  

I’ve been following the blog of Mark Shea and probably a few others on the controversy of Michigan gubernatorial candidate Jennifer Granholm. The problem arises that she claims to be both Catholic and pro-“choice” at the same time. Of course, the absurdity of this matches that of being a member of the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan at the same time, but nevertheless, she claims to be such.

Some priests at the Ecumenical Theological Seminary Detroit (remind me never to go there) have taken to their defense as part of a debate. You can read their rather strange commentary at this site.

Victor Lams published Cardinal Maida’s pro-life letter as well as his own response on his blog.

A little integrity is in order. Let me explain some quotes of the pro-“choice” article.

Catholic church teaching throughout most of its history did not regard the embryo and fetus in its early stages of development as a full human being. According to that teaching, the developing life did not become human until the infusion of the soul, which, according to Thomas Aquinas and others, did not occur until at least six months.

Uh . . . . excuse me, but I do believe you have selectively quoted Aquinas. The Angelic Doctor would not have used this as a justification of abortion. As far as “Catholic teaching throughout most of its history” is concerned, let us recall that the earliest known explicit condemnation of abortion was found in no less ancient a source than Didache (dating around 100 A.D.).

Concerning Vatican II: Several bishops suggested that the word “conception” be changed to “fertilization” but after much discussion the bishops at Vatican II overwhelmingly rejected the recommendation.

Note that the very same quote earlier in the article regards abortion and infanticide as “unspeakable crimes.” This differentiation of “conception” and “fertilization” is difficult to take seriously, so I won’t even bother to waste any ammo on it.

The article goes on to say how pro-life theologians assume that biology confirms that there is human life at the moment of conception and that they have refused to “present all the evidence before drawing a conclusion.” This refusal to present “all the evidence,” of course, is the fact that they have not taken the words of dissenting theologians seriously. It is as though they think Catholic teaching to be a synthesis of what a group of theologians say rather than divinely revealed truth.

The article then goes on to speak of the usual follow-your-conscience stream as well as saying that we have to take into account “a whole spectrum of issues affecting life.” Hmmmmm . . . . . so somehow we can trust someone who doesn’t honor the right of vulnerable members of society to live to take care of the “other issues” affecting life in a morally responsible manner. I don’t think so.

The right to live is a basic, unalienable right. It is the foundation of other human rights. We must first affirm a right to life before we can even begin to say that people have rights to affordable housing, education, health care, etc. After all, how do people who don’t even have a right to live have a right to these other things?

Pray for the people who wrote this article. Pray also for those who read it that they not be fooled.

Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized



No comments have been made on this post.

Please note that all comments are moderated, and they will be posted once approved.

David's Pages

David's Pages

RSS Feed
Atom Feed