Posted on 12/09/2022 3:59:02 PM PST by ebb tide
Francis rambled in his interview with AmericaMagazine.com that an unborn child is a living "human being," however, “I do not say 'a person,' because this is debated, but a living human being.”
Shaun Kenney, vice president for American Life League countered on CatholicWorldReport.com (December 5) that Francis' distinction makes no sense because personhood is essentially defined by two qualities: existence and a rational soul.
John Paul II writes in Evangelium Vitae (EV) that the terms "human being" and "human person" are synonymous, and that modern genetic science offers clear confirmation for this. From the first instant there is established the programme of what a living being will be: a person (EV, 60).
Therefore, Kenney concludes that “Francis’ answer is at odds with Evangelium Vitae in a most direct way.”
By separating being and personhood, Francis opens the door to phenomena like slavery, Holocaust, Holodomor, abortion, or Canada’s most recent attempt to euthanise the poor, Kenney explains.
Ping
Bergoglio is an embarrassment for the Roman Catholic church, though he’s a reflection of the majority left wing College of Cardinals who elected him.
Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time--a rather lengthy time--to find its place and to be in a position to act". Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?".
Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life"
EV is a magisterial document by a brilliant Pope bearing the full weight of Catholic teaching. Pope Francis's off the cuff musings to a left-wing CINO magazine are irrelevant both in authoritativeness and intellectual weight.
I once had occasion to ask an (then-) archbishop about abortion. He explained the teaching as simply NO, except where genuinely necessary to save the mother’s life.
(Which was understood to be a rare situation… not a crate Blanche for millions and millions of “emotional upset” excuses.)
Reasonable people may differ by adding a couple more possible limited exceptions — I can personally understand and respect this.
But the open free abortion policy that what we have had is unacceptable and criminal but any moral standards. Any at all. Demonic, if you will.
Any policy that fails to respect the sanctity of human life is in serious error, imho. And dangerous as all Hell
Saint JP2 and Pope Benedict, as different as they were, both respected the word of God and His basic moral teachings/ values. Say what anyone will, I cannot respect any cleric who doesn’t at least try to follow and teach core Moral principles - especially when human life is at stake.
Praying that the next pope will see his way to some position identifiably inside the field of legitimate moral teachings/ values.
And this one never will be because it defies Logic, Science, and Established Doctrine.
The second the sperm and egg are combined, a unique set of DNA that has never existed nor will ever exist again is created.
A better way to articulate it is: if there is a dire medical situation where the woman's life is in danger and the only way to save her life involves the possibility (or even the probability) of losing the child, then the procedure is permitted. At this point, it ceases to be an abortion (the direct and intentional killing of an unborn human being) but an effort to save the mother's life with the unfortunate risk of losing the child.
Yes. If a choice is necessary, there are people already dependent on the mother
Agreed
The point is that one must not directly intend to kill the unborn child as an end unto itself. Just the same as if the baby is an "inconvenience," or not physically or mentally perfect, or product of rape/incest, or any other reason you would not purposely kill a born person under the same circumstances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.