Cardinal (Keeler) Criticizes Sen. Bill Frist

NewsMax ^ | July 29, 2005

[NYer]

Cardinal William H. Keeler, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee for Pro-life Activities, criticized Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's announcement today that he will support federally funded stem cell research that requires destroying human embryos.

Cardinal Keeler's statement follows.

* * * * *

"Today Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced he will support using federal funds to encourage the destruction of living human embryos for their stem cells. Despite the Senator's disclaimers to the contrary, this position is not 'pro-life.'

"Especially disturbing is the Senator's insistence that human embryos unwanted by their own parents are owed 'the same dignity and respect' as children and adults, but may nevertheless be killed for research material.

"Such destruction of innocent human life, even out of a desire to help others, rests on a utilitarian view that undermines human dignity and human respect, as Senator Sam Brownback ably pointed out today in his response.

"Senator Frist's effort to make an analogy with organ transplants also fails, because it would be gravely immoral as well as illegal to harvest any patient's vital organs when he or she is still alive.

"Despite his warning against offering 'false hope' to patients, Senator Frist also repeated claims that are untrue or misleading about the unique 'promise' of embryonic stem cells. No one has identified any disease that can be treated only with these cells; no one even knows whether they will ever provide a safe and reliable treatment for the conditions already being successfully treated using adult stem cells.

"These factual issues will no doubt be explored by others. My own central concern is that neither sound ethics nor good government can rest on the principle that 'the end justifies the means.' I commend President Bush for his laudable pledge to veto such legislation."

[zarf]

I am curious. Frist has not changed his position in several years, but he is being condemned for "capitulation".

Capitutlation to who?

I oppose all abortion after the first 6 weeks. I am condemned by other Christians because I do not share their position. My position is supported by history, the bible and science. However it is being described as killing babies by fanatics. The hypocrisy of the Christian right on this issue is rampant. Until the mid 1800s, i.e. for nearly 2000 years, Christians thought that human life started with quickening, or late in the first trimester.

The bible says NOTHING on this issue or else why would many Saints and great Christians for 2000 years have believed this? God himself "kills" over 1/3 of all "conceptions" through failure to become a fetus or miscarriage

. The belief by some so-called Christians that anyone who disagees with their OPINION that life starts with conception are evil and "killers" is the most contemptuously self righteous view of all time. It is NOT a Christian issue.

It is an issue of arrogant bigots who ignore science and the bible.

[Proud2BAmerican]

After 6 weeks? Do you mean 6, 7-day weeks? So 42 days? What about 41 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes --- is that murder? Or how about 41 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds? Is THAT murder?

Please don't think I'm being antagonistic; I'm just trying to flush out the details of your position.

[Siobhan]

May He Who is the Creator of life have mercy on all of us.

Amen and Amen.

God bless you, dearest Elena.

[Siobhan]

How do we mobilize Catholics to call his office and keep his fax machine busy non-stop so that Sen. Frist's staff cannot conduct business until he recants?

[afraidfortherepublic]

Sen. Rick Santorum has spoken outon this tipic many times. Frist said this on Thursday, or Friday. Santorum will speak again, I'm sure.

[sitetest]

Dear zarf,

"My position is supported by history, the bible and science. However it is being described as killing babies by fanatics."

Well, not quite.

"The hypocrisy of the Christian right on this issue is rampant."

There is no hypocrisy.

"Until the mid 1800s, i.e. for nearly 2000 years, Christians thought that human life started with quickening, or late in the first trimester."

Well, that was the scientific knowledge of the time. We are not bound by the inaccurate science of 200 years ago. Why would we form our policies based on previous, inaccurate science? Should we form social policies based on the idea that the sun revolves around a flat Earth?

Even so, the irony is that even when there was a debate as to when a human life began, as to when "ensoulment" began, the Catholic Church has always and everywhere at all times condemned abortion, at any time during pregnancy. Don't mistake the philosophical debate over "when human life begins," for the sure and constant teaching of the Church, that abortion at any time is always a great objective moral crime.

Including during the first six weeks of pregnancy.

Here is the Didache, the teaching of the Twelve Apostles, late first century:

"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

Is that early enough for you?

Here is Tertullian in the second century:

"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

St. Hippolytus, in the third century:

"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).

St. Basil the Great in the fourth century:

"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).

St. John Chrysostum in the fourth century:

"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . 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 you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution 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 prevents its being born. Why then do thou 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? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

The Apostolic Constitutions in the fifth century:

"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

" The bible says NOTHING on this issue or else why would many Saints and great Christians for 2000 years have believed this?"

Well, judging from the preceding, it seems that you're in error. The witness of the Church has been consistent from the first days, abortion is murder. No distinctions have ever been made between "early abortion," or "late abortion." All abortion is murder, according to the Church, for 2,000 years.

The first proscriptions against abortion can be found in the late first century AD, and continue uniformly throughout the millenia. Christians have condemned abortion, from the beginning of pregnancy, right from the start. Please name a canonized saint who otherwise gave his approval for early abortions. Mind you, I'm not asking about one who was iffy when human life began, or ensoulment occurred, but rather, one who said that early abortions were acceptable.

"God himself 'kills' over 1/3 of all "conceptions" through failure to become a fetus or miscarriage."

Well, I guess God "kills" a lot of people, LOL! My mother died of cancer at age 77. I guess God killed her! My grandmother died at age 98 - she just wore out - I guess God killed her!

More sadly, I've known young children who died of awful diseases. I guess God killed them.

What a silly way to put it! Everyone dies, and most folks are not the object of homicide. That we each will live for only a time, and then die, some a very short time, others, a little longer, and others still longer, is not justification that human beings may engage in homicide, willy-nilly, 1.2 million per year.

"The belief by some so-called Christians that anyone who disagees with their OPINION that life starts with conception are evil and 'killers' is the most contemptuously self righteous view of all time. It is NOT a Christian issue."

Well, that abortion is never permissible is a view that has been constantly held by the Church throughout 2,000 years of history. I suggest that you do a little bit of research.

"It is an issue of arrogant bigots who ignore science and the bible."

Nothing in either science nor in the Bible conform to your faulty acceptance of the murder of human beings up to six weeks of pregnancy.


sitetest

[RKBA Democrat]

"Here in Los Angeles awhile back, our diocesan newspaper spent a whole page applauding 2 pro-life democrat legislators, with nary a word for the many, many GOP pro-lifers."

You might want to read Luke, 14-16.

[DBeers]

It is an issue of arrogant bigots who ignore science and the bible.

Justifying the murder of innocents may be better received on DU... Hearing the pro-death partly line gets boring after awhile...

Signed proud arrogant bigot

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Btt

[CWOJackson]

I am disappointed in the Frisk decision but Cardinal William H. Keeler really doesn't have much room to talk:

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Unfortunately, the church has failed, the bishops have failed, and Catholic physicians have failed, by pandering to the medical industry. They have failed to articulate and defend clear guidelines on the whole organ donation racket. It never should have been allowed for Motor Vehicles Adminstration clerks to be given jurisdiction for soliciting organ donation signatures in the first place. No one should EVER be harvested of their organs without a clear WRITTEN statement of permission to do so with CLEAR medical and legal advice on what this involves, ONLY when the person granting such donation has done so with a clear understanding of what they were agreeing to in every sense, in every possible case and with the precaution that this would NEVER be done while they were still ALIVE. Since an unborn child CANNOT offer such a written agreement, the whole sordid mess of donating stem cells is absurd and ridiculous and macabre from a moral and legal point of view. The bishops need to define Catholics' rights to non-self-mutilation. And their rights for their bodies to be buried.

It needs to be enshrined in LAW that no one has a right to any part of anyone else's BODY. Catholic bishops and Catholic legislators have a MORAL DUTY to campaign for legal reform on organ donation. Those who fail to do so do not deserve the name "Catholic." Catholics also have a RIGHT NEVER to be injected with anything DERIVED FROM AN ABORTION. How's that for a "seamless garment" for you?

"Cardinal Bernardin, call your office." -
[irony, sarcasm, extra dripping sarcasm, dark Swiftian/Menippean Satire, sinister flippancy, black humor]

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Keeler is a worthless wuss who sits on his duff while Catholics in his own diocese are brutalized by the anti-Catholic antics of the wacko liberals ruining the Catholic institutions within his own jurisdiction.

Either he is a complete phony, or he is compromised and they have something on him. Or he is one of...them. Take your pick.

[redgolum]

This is a reinterpretation of the Carthaginian practice of killing the young for the benefit of the old.

Only what the practicer's worship is different. Then it was Moloch, now it is science.

[redgolum]

Don't forget that even some old Roman doctors considered abortion murder, even if it was done early.

[CWOJackson]

My sons were in a Catholic School in Toledo, OH back in the early 90's. One of the local Church organizations invited a guest speaker who was in the area to give a talk: Bill Bradley, one of the biggest defenders of abortion.

I complained to the Diocese of Toledo and was told that Mr. Bradley was a man of many fine qualities and worthy of being a guest speaker. My kids were in public school two days later; turned out the schools in our township (not Toledo) were better!

[sitetest]

Dear redgolum,

Yeah, like that old, obscure fellow named Hippocrates, huh?

But who ever heard of him??


sitetest

[AFPhys]

Senator Frist's actual remarks:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1453358/posts
FRIST COMMENTS ON STEM CELL RESEARCH - Floor Statement -- Remarks As Prepared For Delivery

There are some substantial differences between what he said, and what people are saying he said.

[DBeers]

From his statement (this is where he crosses the line):

I’ll come back to that later. Right now, though, let me say this: I believe today -- as I believed and stated in 2001, prior to the establishment of current policy -- that the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research. And as I said four years ago, we should federally fund research only on embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts leftover from fertility therapy, which will not be implanted or adopted but instead are otherwise destined by the parents with absolute certainty to be discarded and destroyed.

In essence he is saying that since those selfishly in pursuit of their own interests with an ends justify the means mindset assist in the creation of numerous humans (blastocysts) that are subsequently not needed and are going to be murdered (discarded) anyway let us use them for some federally funded research...

I oppose this -I oppose my taxes funding this and as a Catholic it is quite clear to me why the Church condemns in vitro fertilization...

[AFPhys]

I've said in many threads that I would support a ban on IVF.

That is not politically likely, at all, in any nation.

Given that reality, what ought be done?

[DBeers]

Well -I am Catholic... duh... You came to a Catholic thread -expect a Catholic answer... I oppose BOTH -just because one evil happens does not justify another...

The reality is yours -not mine...