Posted on 04/21/2006 6:19:05 AM PDT by NYer
>>>And what of the Embryo Jesus 2005 years ago? I heard on
a Protestant radio station the comment that if Mary's ovum really contributed to Christ's earthly Body, if her DNA actually helped construct Christ's Body, then, of course
the Catholic Church would be right and proper to honor her! But nah, "God must have inserted a little preformed Embryo Jesus into Mary's womb, because no mere human could contribute so much to Jesus' Body."
What a trivialization and lack of understanding of God's desire to form a complete union with mankind, a desire so intense as to go through all stages of human development, from the very earliest until the time of death!
So would it have been acceptable biologically to kill that Zygote, the developing God-Man, in Mary's womb, before the 7-10 day-implantation-neural tube-whatever cutoff? Somehow, I don't think so.
That God Himself participated in all of human growth and development sanctifies it all, and this should make anyone tremble at the thought of killing a baby at any early embryonic stage, as Jesus Christ Himself once was!
"Whatever you do to these, the least of my brethren, you do to Me."<<<
I find this THE most compelling argument ever found for life beginning at conception if you are indeed a Christian. If we do believe that Christ was conceived when Mary was "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit," it must be true that Jesus Himself went through this most normal of human processes. So, was He not both God and Man developing in her womb at every instant?
Thanks for the link. It is marvelous on many levels.
Frank
If the first zygotic manifestation of Jesus wasn't Jesus, why would the Holy Spirit have placed Him in Mary's womb for the gestational age of His lifetime?
I'm no expert on the topic. But, my impression is that the Church should seize all asserts under Jesuit purview, kick them out and allow them to apply for reinstatement.
I don't know about G-D. But, I do trust God.
This would suggest that they have quite a parlous understanding of what it means for Jesus Christ to be "fully man." As the pundits say, bad Mariology is bad Christology.
His Holiness' reply may take the form of a rebuttal in “L’espresso,” among other things. My best guess is he will make it very clear that Martini's "teaching" with regard to the inception of human life is intolerable.
This should be clear to anyone who's read his first Encyclical, Deus Caritas Est.
Stay tuned and watch what happens.
Thanks so much for the ping to this aggravating article, alpha!
Thank you all
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"“Uno: I gave you article infore you can decide two different aspects of thinking.
Due: You do know His Majesty Holy of Holy intervene. And eto Queen of Heaven and Earth have His Majesty only Son. This is why my queen of my country is Immaculate Conception and blessed. This beloved one is new Eve. No sin infore has touch Her. Eto Queen is Immaculate.
If this article has created a doubt of my thinking of what I believe, forgive me.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
thank you all
We had a lovely Easter, Mr. Sheed. I hope you had the same.
Happy Easter!!!
Thank you, and the same to you!
:}}}}}}}}}}}Amen
Don't know for what or to whom this thanks is directed, anonymoussierra. However, if I might add to what I've already said....
On my view the problem that Benedict will have with Cardinal Martini's analysis is that the good Cardinal, wittingly or unwittingly, is separating the emergence of new human life from the erotic act which is its inception. The Church sees new life as the fruit of eros, of the dedicated love of one man and one woman, whose natural fruit is the child born out of their act of love. To say that life comes into existence at some time "after" the conjugal act separates life from love. This is what is "intolerable" to orthodox Christianity.
An idea with potential ...
From an address by Pope Benedict XVI to the Jesuits and the "Black Pope" given today in a ceremony celebrating the 500th anniversary of St. Francis Xavier and Blessed Peter Faber (from Whispers in the Loggia). Recall that the Black Pope is resigning in the near future:
"St Ignatius of Loyola was above all a man of God, who gave the first place of his life to God, to his greater glory and his greater service; he was a man of profound prayer, which found its center and its culmination in the daily Eucharistic Celebration. In this way he left his followers a a precious spiritual inheritance which must not be lost or forgotten. As a man of God, St Ignatius was a faithful servant of the Church, in which he saw and found the spouse of the Lord and the mother of Christians. And from the desire to serve the Church in a more useful and effective way was born the vow of special obedience to the Pope, who he classified as "our first and principal foundation" (Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, I,162). This ecclesial character, so specific to the Society of Jesus, continues to be present in your persons and in your apostolic activity, dear Jesuits, as you make yourselves able to encounter faithfully the Church's urgent necessities of each time. Among these, I find it important to mark out the cultural imperative in the areas of theology and philosophy, the traditional environs of the apostolic presence of the Society of Jesus, as well as the dialogue with modern culture which, [translation corrected in italics] (NOTE THIS) while on one part can boast of marvelous progresses in the scientific realm, remains firmly marked by positivist and materialist scientism.(NOTE ENDED) Certainly, the force of promoting in close collaboration with the other ecclesial realities a culture inspired toward the values of the Gospel calls for an intense spiritual and cultural formation. For this reason, St Ignatius wished that young Jesuits be formed for many years in the spiritual life and in their studies. It is good that this tradition be maintained and reinforced, given the growing complexities and vastness of modern culture. Another great preoccupation for him was that of Christian education and the cultural formation of the young: from this impulse with he gave to the institution of the "colleges" [high schools], which, after his death, sprung up in Europe and across the world. Continue, dear Jesuits, this important apostolate maintaining unaltered the spirit of your Founder."
Rorate Caeli has posts assessing the religious and political impacts of this interview. Here is an assessment of the political. I invite you to check out the moral impact which was dated Saturday:
"At first sight, the intervention of Cardinal Martini weighing in on the wrong side of some of the most important moral discussions of this age would seem irrelevant. It is true that he was the President (Rettore) of the most prestigious Pontifical University, the Gregoriana; and archbishop of the largest Italian diocese, Milan - from which the world received Popes Ratti and Montini in the 20th century - for more than 20 years. But he has been retired since 2002, and, according to most rumors, he was in an extremely weak position in the last conclave.
Therefore, to understand the relevance of the interview Martini gave to the most important Italian newsweekly, L'Espresso, one needs to consider the current political and religious circumstances in Italy.
First, though formatted to look like a "discussion" between a "man of science" (Doctor Ignazio Marino) and a "man of faith" (Cardinal Martini), it is actually an interview: Marino presents his philosophy and questions Martini, who virtually always agrees with him. It is all about Martini's answers, not about Marino's "parallel ideas".
Second, Ignazio Marino is not just any physician: he is a member of the Democratici di Sinistra-DS (the "Leftist Democrats"), the post-Cold War name of the largest Communist Party in the West, the Partito Comunista Italiano (PCI). The Communists are the main leftist components of the "center-left" coalition, the Unione, led by Romano Prodi which has recently won the Italian parliamentary elections. Marino has just been elected to one of the Communist seats in the Senate for the Latium region (Lazio).
So this interview by Marino, who presents himself as a "Catholic" (in the style of the Dossettian "Bologna School" of "Progressive Catholicism"), has the following meaning: the left asks the Church for its opinion, and Martini is chosen as the official spokesman by the Italian "progressive elite", represented by L'Espresso magazine and by the Unione.
It is clear that if Marino were to interview Cardinal Ruini, the Cardinal Vicar of Rome and President of the Italian Episcopal Conference, or Pope Benedict, he would not receive the answers he wants. So the progressive manipulation technique involves picking a specific person who will provide the desired answers; the second step is to wait for an official response by the Church, which will probably not come. Then, the preposterous answers provided by the favored churchman become, if not official opinions, at least acceptable positions in the "rainbow of opinions" which shape the Church.
____________________
Now, why is this "semi-official Church position" by a man like Martini so important at this moment? It is far from a coincidence that this interview has been released right after the official results of the elections were announced. Despite the great deterioration in its position in the post-Conciliar age, the Church is still an important player in Italian politics.
A center-left coalition which has barely won its majority in Parliament will force its leader, Romano Prodi, willingly or not, to give in to the most extremist forces inside his coalition if he wishes to remain in power. Ironically, Marino's DS (the "former" Communists) are among the most moderate forces in the Prodi coalition. However, among Italian leftwing politicians, the rage against the Church, against public funds given to the Church, against crucifixes in classrooms and courtrooms, against the Church's opposition to abortion, embryonic manipulation, "fast-track divorce" laws, homosexual civil unions is considerable -- especially as an angry response to a wrong perception of the Church (embodied in its most visible face in Italian politics, Ruini) as the "conservative anchor" of the leaving prime-minister, Silvio Berlusconi.
As prime-minister Rodríguez Zapatero in Spain, Prodi (though in many ways a much more moderate man than the Spaniard) will probably have to feed anti-clericalism to the extremists of his coalition. And this is where Martini's opinions are relevant, and it is why this ecclesiastical has-been is in the cover of this week's L'Espresso.
If the Italian public opinion may be persuaded, by Martini's words and by the official silence from the Vatican and from Ruini regarding those words, that opposition to the Magisterium is an acceptable position for Catholics, then the probable extreme measures which the center-left governing coalition will defend in moral matters will become more palatable to the population at large. And this is why this apparently unimportant intervention may mark a turning point in the Ratzinger pontificate."
_________________________
See the first post on the supernatural aspects of the "Martini intervention" here.
Thank you so much for all of those insights!
I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I am fairly sure you have no clue of what you are talking about.
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.