Pope: "Non-Negotiable Human Rights" include "Right to Life and Right to Freedom of Conscience"

Pope: "Non-Negotiable Human Rights" include "Right to Life and Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion"

VATICAN CITY, MAY 5, 2009 (LifeSIteNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI addressed members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences yesterday at their plenary session which is focused on the theme of Catholic social teaching and human rights, and called for the promotion of universal human rights based on both faith and reason, affirming the "right to life and the right to freedom of conscience and religion as being at the center of those rights that spring from human nature itself."

The Holy Father noted that though these human rights are not strictly "truths of faith, even though they are discoverable - and indeed come to full light - in the message of Christ who "reveals man to man himself," they do "receive further confirmation from faith."

Giving an historical perspective to human rights as "the reference point of a shared universal ethos - at least at the level of aspiration - for most of humankind," the Pope spoke of the "vast suffering caused by two terrible world wars and the unspeakable crimes perpetrated by totalitarian ideologies," as a consequence of which "the international community acquired a new system of international law based on human rights."

What I am amazed at is the collection of "saints" on these forums and what (in)significant portion of their community they represent. Last time I checked, scores of Catholics voted for Obama fully informed that he is an abrtionist, scores of Catholics practice sex outside of marriage, use contraceptives, and without much fanfare silently support abortion.

There seems to be a disconnect between the "theoretical Catholics" here on the FR, and the practicing Catholics in the real world.

Catholics have traditionally voted Democratic, even though the Democrats have been pro-abortion for decades, so one must really wonder why this is so if abortion is the most important "dogma" of the Church.

Open advocacy to deny the Eucharist to the pro-abortion politicians is also something very new, no doubt encouraged by the Vatican (and rightfully so); until now, the American bishops have been lying very low on this most important 'dogma' of the church. Mainstream Catholics were simply following in step. The most outpoken critics were the "other scismatics," the SSPX traditionalists who represent but a negligent minority in the Catholic world.

The important thing to remember is that you can't legislate morality. Catholics abortionists will stop advocating abortions when they realize the gravity of that evil act and not because the Church says so, just as Catholics who engage in pre-marital or out-of-wedlock sex, or use contraceptives, will stop their practice when they have internalized the teaching of the Church and not because the Church says so. Legislating morlaity is purely Pharisaical.

On the issue of bishops interfering in the diocese of another bishop, the canon is very clear: no interference. The bishops are free to express their opposition to other bishops without making it public.

Let us remember that Notre Dame University invited speakers who profess views favoring capital punishment, contraceptives, etc. and there was no outrage. Nothing is more sobering than a little dose of hypocrisy.

Obama's visit is a mistake made by the University, an invitation that is no more a mistake than to invite Nancy Pelosi to receive the Eucharist. I seriously doubt that Obama was invited to promote abortion, or to receive the Eucharist. I therefore think keeping Obama out of Notre Dame is no different than keeping Joe Biden out of entering a church.

After all, "true Catholics" can walk out and not give Obama the audience to speak to. I think "true Catholics" are not afraid of Obama "converting" anyone to a pro-baortion stance, but are afraid this will expose the existence of a whole population of "subtle Catholics" who will choose to listen to him, who have extramarital sex, use contraceptives and secretly support abortion, or who have consistently voted Democratic for decades.

As for anti-abortion the "most important dogma" I don't remember any Ecumenical Council making such a proclamation. Making it by any one member of the Church would qualify as heresy because it has never been officially designated as the most important "dogma" of the whole Church.

Historically, the Church struggled with first trimester abortions. The early Church, and all the way up to the 1700's, the Church teaching was swaying back and forth on this issue, but generally first trimester abortions were not considered murder.

Many an Early Church Father did not believe a first trimester fetus had human soul mainly because first trimester fetuses undergo various stages that don't "look human." And that which did not look human did not have human soul. Fetuses that still have gills were not seen as human beings.

The earliest Christian writing prohibiting "slaying" of the child (abortion or not) is Didache, believed to be a first century Christian document, but not necessarily a Church document.

This is only consistent with the general attitude of the early Church than any form of murder/killing is wrong. Infact, Christians could not serve in the military for that reason, but the idea what is a "child" is not addressed until much later.

Judaism does not specifically prohibit it except vis-avis property damage, and general law. The New testamnent doe snot specifically single out abortion, but it concentrates on adultery. The Church was opposed to any kind of killing, consistent with the New Testament witness, and abortion was included in general terms.

The only other documents are Epistle of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter, both now considered profane (even tough the former was considered inspired at one time and is in the oldest Bible, Codex Sinaiticus, from c. 350 AD). They pretty much reflect the same opinion as the Didache.

Tertullian (later denounced as heretic) calls abortion a murder without specifying the timing. he considered a fetus to have the soul form the moment of conception.

The first (local) Council to deal with this was that of Elvira in 306 AD, attended by a whopping 26 priests. The second (local) one was that Ancyra held in 314 AD, and attended by 12-18 bishops. The third Council (not recognized by the Latin Church) was the Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo) in 629 AD, attended by 215 Eastern bishops. None of these are "ecumenical" and therefore are not dogmatically binding to the whole Church.

In none of these is the concept of ensoulment defined, i.e. the point at which the fetus receives the soul. Fathers, including many popes, were extremely divided as to when the fetus receives the soul, i.e. when it is "fully formed." As Blessed Augustine wrote, one cannot kill that which is not alive. He admitted he did not know when ensoulment took place.

The Catholic Church did not finalize her stance of ensoulment until 1700's, with the advances of medical science, namely that ensoulment takes place at conception. The Church consistently remained opposed to any kind of murder; however, whether a first-trimester abortion was murder was not always the case.

Peple like Nacy Pelosi, & Co., are clearly in schism with the Church doctrine that life begins at conception, yet she and numerous others have been receiving Communion all along. Why was the Church of John Paul II silent on this issue and unwilling to take a tougher stance, while allowing all sorts of liturgical and other abominations to go unpunished as well? And why are all these bishops now up in arms over Notre Dame's invitation, as if they woke up from hibernation?

Kolokotronis:

I've been a "Western Catholic" (the alternative being not Eastern Orthodox but Eastern Uniate Catholic) all my long life. Having grown up during Pius XII, I almost headed in your direction during Paul VI following on the heels of John XXIII, when there seemed no relief in sight. Fortunately I resisted the urge and was rewarded by John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.

Onetime papal representative to the United States who was responsible for most of the bad bishops whom you reference,Archbishop Jadot, has recently died and was long separated from authority in any case. The Archdiocese of Chicago would not have been improved by allowing the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin to control it from beyond the grave. Msgr. Faggoty???? How about the notorious Cardinal Faggoty, Bernardin, no mere monsignor, who ordered that his funeral music be performed by The Windy City Gay Chorus? If my bishop had attacked that fiasco or the shenanigans of the notorious Fr. Phleger (sp.?) of Chicago, I would applaud my bishop. What you apparently see as mere politics and political agendas are actually, in our sorry age, matters of faith and morals.

You apparently are quite offended when bishops who have nothing to do with your church act vigorously within their and my own Church, regardless of diocesan boundaries, to uphold faith and morals. The pretense that each diocesan ordinary ought to be a god in his own diocese subject to no one and certainly not a pope is a religio/political agenda of its own and goes back to the time of Michael Celarius.

While you don't think my bishop has any business offering teaching as to the state of Catholicism in other dioceses, you think it is somehow your job to decide which CATHOLIC bishops are "heretics" including, I would suppose, the pope himself when you so imagine.

Speaking of political agendas, I recall a onetime Greek Orthodox Archbishop of North America lending his presence and prestige to the Demonratic Convention of 1988 on the occasion of the nomination of Magical Mike Dukakis as the Demonratic POTUS candidate. If Archbishop Iakovos (?) were any of my business, I would not have been pleased by such actions. OTOH, I really don't think that Archbishop Iakovos's presence at that Demonratic convention any more signified Greek Orthodox acceptance of homosexuality, abortion and even bestiality (all supported by Dukakis as a Taxachusetts legislator and governor) than Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Fr. Slattery of Boston, and some other notoriosos suggest that even the American branch of Roman Catholicism much less the Church Universal favor rampaging lavenderism.

I haven't seen any Somalis landing in the Rockford area, much less at the instigation of Bishop Doran. Bordermania has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith which generally favors reasonably free immigration everywhere. Don't underestimate the value of the right to leave one's nation of birth or citizenship, especially in the time of Obamamania.

Embrace Mohammedans???? On Sunday, September 16, 2001, at a confirmation in Rochelle, Illinois, Bishop Doran observed in his sermon that those who say that it does not matter to which church you belong so long as you believe in God were proven dramatically wrong by the 9/11 hijacker/terrorists. Moral truth and not political agenda.

As to "heretics" infesting the RCC hierarchy here, note that Rembert Weakland no longer has Milwaukee and was replaced by a Catholic. Likewise, Bernardin and Chicago, Flores and Galveston-Houston, May of St. Louis was replaced by Justin Cardinal Rigali (now of Philadelphia), and then by Archbishop Raymond Burke (now Chief Justice of the Signatura) and now Archbishop Robert Carlson), Bishop O'Brien of Phoenix was forced by circumstances felonious to resign in favor of the suberb Bishop Thomas Olmstead, Archbishop Dolan now presides in NY Archdiocese, O'Malley in Boston seems in over his head but Law is gone, Vigneron has been sent to long-suffering Detroit and Cordileone is replacing him in Oakland. There are still holdovers from the bad old days like Roger Cardinal Mahoney of LA but he will likely be replaced by a Catholic. Very few ecclesiastical liberals (generally actual heretics of one sort or another) have been appointed to significant sees in recent times. I get to make these observations as a member of the RCC.

Kolokotronis:

1. Whose canons and which canons are those? Were they the work of Eastern Councils which have no jurisdiction over Bishop Martino or any other Catholic bishop or Catholic lay person for that metter?

2. Your paternal Irish ancestors must be sooooo sorrowful.

3. You all are free to actually profess Roman Catholicism or not as you see fit. You are also free to retain your theological differences and ally with the RCC against our common enemies. You are also free to sit on the sidelines, refuse to fight our common enemies, and pat yourselves on the back for imagining yourselves to be correct while the world outside of you is necessarily in error for disagreeing with you. Free will and all that. What you are not free to do is to impose prudential error of a sort that you apparently regard as somehow "Orthodox" on the far larger RCC. The tail will not be allowed to wag the dog. If you are not impressed by 50 million innocents slaughtered in the USA alone since 1973, that is your problem and not ours, counselor.

4. Whether or not anything RCC "washes" in the East is no cause whatsoever for concern by the RCC or its members.

Kolokotronis: As to your objections:

1A. The pope is the bishop of Rome. By virtue of his office, he is absolutely entitled to interfere in the diocese of any bishop of the RCC. That is a major problem for Eastern Orthodoxy which rejects such authority and denies that it is vested in the bishop of Rome. You seem to assume that the pope is somehow bound by the imagined authority of Eastern Orthodoxy. Your bishops have apostolic succession. Your Masses and sacraments and orders are valid. The pope is not subject to Orthodox restraint.

1B. Is it only your laity who are empowered in your world to attack your bishops??? Are none of your bishops expected to attack bad behavior, bad teaching, maladministration or ecclesiastical crime in their fellow Orthodox bishops? Can your bishops attack our bishops? Or is that left to the laity or to the laity who are self-appointed experts on the faith and practices of churches other than their own?

1C. Opposition to abortion IS dogmatic. So is the virginity of Mary, the Trinity, the fact that salvation was made possible through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, transubstantiation, the resurrection, the assumption of Mary into heaven, the immaculate conception and a lot of other things. The ten commandments include: Thou shalt not kill (Who did God think He is making a commandment against murder but not regarding the Filioque?, you might ask, not that you should).

1D. One gets the impression that you would prefer submission to the evils of our courts and of our government until we have abolished each and every sin from the face of the earth. Or that we should remove the controversy from the public square. Or that diocesan bishops like Martino of Scranton should not exercise their duty to discipline the likes of Senator Casey who is a resident of the Scranton Diocese and engaged in ongoing public scandal in claiming to be a Catholic (and a pro-life Catholic at that) while supporting Obama's support of the continuing American Holocaust.

1E. If we ought to have a problem with American bishops as to their views on the appearance of the Illinois AntiChrist at Notre Dame or his receipt of an honorary doctorate (in law, no less), it should be with the dwindling band of aging liberal suspects and doormats for government posing as Catholic bishops who either disagree (privately, natch!) with Bishop D'Arcy or are cowering in their liberal-smooching hidey holes hoping that the intolerant pope in Rome will go away soon.

2A. If you think opposition to abortion is not dogmatic, you are wrong. John Paul the Great addressed the subject at great length in Evangelium Vitae.

2B. If you concede that opposition to abortion is dogmatic, you appear to argue that there is nothing special about it that elevates it above other dogmas. That is true but does not necessitate that a hierarch must couch every public pronouncement in a litany of all dogmas and address a litany of all sins or none at all. That would be a ponderous and burdensome inanity in prudential terms.

2C. If each and every dogma is equal and no dogma stands above the others in any fashion, then each (not none) must be ultimate dogma. You make no sense whatsoever on this score.

ALSO: That is a disingenuous argument when you observe only some of what the pope did not say. He also did not use the term "anti-abortionism" (a usage usually found in Planned Barrenhood and NARAL propaganda as opposed to "pro-life") say that abortion was not in some sense an "ultimate dogma." Come to think of it, I am not used to hearing Catholics use a term like "ultimate dogma," either. When my or any other bishop comments on the bad behavior of bad priests like Jenkins in ANY diocese, he exerts no authority in the other diocese because he has no authority (in his capacity as a diocesan bishop elsewhere). However, that is not the end of it because he DOES have authority in a different capacity.

IF, as I fervently hope, this latest Obamanation should come before the Signatura (the Church's Supreme Court) on which Bishop Doran sits with Archbishop Raymond Burke (the Chief Justice) among its 7 members, then two more votes out of five are all that is necessary to punish Jenkins and anyone in league with him. In the event that they should defrock and/or excommunicate Jenkins, I will applaud and I frankly don't give a darn WHAT you as an outsider may think. In fact, for old times sake, they ought to symbolically sentence the apostate Jenkins to be burned at the stake along with a few other useful and just preliminary entertainments of yesteryear.

***1A. The pope is the bishop of Rome. By virtue of his office, he is absolutely entitled to interfere in the diocese of any bishop of the RCC. ***

Right now, that’s what we’re having to count on, not knowing what else is going on behind closed doors. Jenkins’ superior is as responsible as Jenkins is. THAT is the way it works and so on up the hierarchy.

I have met Bishop D’Arcy a number of times and have deep respect for him. If he had authority over Jenkins, Jenkins would have been deep sixed about 10 minutes after the initial announcement. But he doesn’t.

***Are none of your bishops expected to attack bad behavior, bad teaching, maladministration or ecclesiastical crime in their fellow Orthodox bishops? Can your bishops attack our bishops?***

The Orthodox have had much more experience in the exercise of authority of the various bishoprics than we have. Their authority is exercised based upon Church law. Kolo’s point here is that we cannot violate Church law in order to right a wrong when there are the proper avenues in place to right that wrong.

***Opposition to abortion IS dogmatic. So is the virginity of Mary, the Trinity, the fact that salvation was made possible through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, transubstantiation, the resurrection, the assumption of Mary into heaven, the immaculate conception and a lot of other things. The ten commandments include: Thou shalt not kill ***

All Church law is to be defended; none at the sacrifice of another.

***One gets the impression that you would prefer submission to the evils of our courts and of our government until we have abolished each and every sin from the face of the earth. Or that we should remove the controversy from the public square. Or that diocesan bishops like Martino of Scranton should not exercise their duty to discipline the likes of Senator Casey who is a resident of the Scranton Diocese and engaged in ongoing public scandal in claiming to be a Catholic (and a pro-life Catholic at that) while supporting Obama’s support of the continuing American Holocaust.***

Each bishop is responsible for the goings-on in his diocese. Therefore his pronouncements in his own diocese are correct and proper within the law of the Church.

***IF, as I fervently hope, this latest Obamanation should come before the Signatura (the Church’s Supreme Court) on which Bishop Doran sits with Archbishop Raymond Burke (the Chief Justice) among its 7 members, then two more votes out of five are all that is necessary to punish Jenkins and anyone in league with him. In the event that they should defrock and/or excommunicate Jenkins, I will applaud and I frankly don’t give a darn WHAT you as an outsider may think. In fact, for old times sake, they ought to symbolically sentence the apostate Jenkins to be burned at the stake along with a few other useful and just preliminary entertainments of yesteryear.***

A cleansing of the Holy Cross order and the Jesuits in general would serve as a systemic solution and preventative action rather than simply go after one specific individual and address every other incident (or not) on an individual basis.

Burning at the stake, while emotionally satisfying, is less effective than adequate catechesis and belief in the Church. Calling for an individual’s head here is no different than any snake handling or outpost Baptist church’s pastor or lay person making pronouncements on an emotional rather than an ecclesiastical basis.

Kolokotronis: If the arguments of the Eastern Orthodox or, at least, of some of you were not so impudent but nonetheless mind-numbingly boring, confused, inconsistent and inane and sometimes even laced with Planned Barrenhood/NARAL codewords, maybe you would get more than yawns the old-fashioned way by earning it.

Second, you may be Christians and you are of the Eastern tradition but you are by no means the ONLY Eastern Christians. I suspect you are about a thousand years late trying to rustle the Melkites.

KOSTA50: I gather that you too are a stranger to the Catholic Faith (which means you have no horses in this race either). You run your church. We will run ours. You are also pushing the notion that pro-life is an uber dogma of some sort or that others who are Catholic treat it as such. First of all, I would imagine that there is a hierarchy of dogmas and that the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the Real Presence in the Eucharist would top the list if any do. That does not mean that any Catholic is absolved of the obligation to adhere to Church dogma on the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, protection of innocent human life, and a host of other dogmas. Also, FYI non-abortifacient contraceptives (generally morally wrong barrier methods) do not kill which distinguishes them from "the pill", the coil, the IUD, and others which ARE abortifacient and do kill. Banning capital punishment is hardly in a position of dogma unless you believe that morality "changes" with the times. At the papal coronation banquet of Sixtus V, two teenaged highwaymen (who had apparently only pulled an armed robbery were hanged by the neck until dead from the rafters of the banquet hall. While it is true that Sixtus and his colleagues were probably sinners in many respects, like most Catholics and even most Orthodox, hanging highwaymen was probably not a good or valid example. JPII saw a lot of unnecessary death during the Nazi occupation and Soviet occupation of Poland. By analogy, Francisco Franco told Spaniards that he had seen enough of politics in Spain and enough of Spain suffering from politics in his lifetime and he was determined to see no more of it while alive.

The ban on non-abortifacient contraceptives is well-explained as support for the dual nature: unitive and procreative of the MARITAL act and therefiore for the well-being of marriage. The Vatican probably does not stoop to give advice on better sexual relations to fornicators so that they may better enjoy their sins.

To the extent that the Vatican bans non-abortifacient contraceptives or, less likely, capital punishment (the execution of guilty murderers), these are strictly secondary issues. As to killing in war, the Vatican had major armies in the Middle Ages, led by popes in the field. The Swiss Guard do not carry their halberds merely for ceremonial purposes, etc.

To both of you, K & K, MYOB.

[You can't legislate morality]

Church Law does exactly that, civil law does as well.

What good is the law if it is ignored? Catholics traditionally voted for the Democratic Party despite the fact that it has a pro-abortion agenda. Are you going to tell me that Catholics didn't vote for Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Kennedy or John Kerry? How important was the abortion issue in casting those votes? Well, it certainly wasn't the "most important" issue for sure! How do you make Catholic women not engage in pre martial, or extramarital sex? How many Catholic women are on the pill? How do you make someone go to a Confession? Because someone legislated it? Don't be ridiculous!

For your information, Obama captured 53% of the Catholic vote! Chew on that for a while and try not to gag. You do your own embarrassing math to figure out how many Catholics voted for him despite the fact that he is pro abortion and then tell me how important is the abortion issue to millions of Catholics in this country!

Out of 26 Catholic US Senators, 17 are Democrats.

And what about the Catholic Italy and Catholic Spain and Catholic France and their predominant lifestyle? The legislated morality is a Phairsaical farce that looks good on paper, but it is blatantly hypocritical. It is meaningful only if people voluntarily adhere to the rules because they believe in them. Judging from that, I would say you are in a minority (assuming that you do live a sinless life).

As for my "drivel," if you were as good at providing facts as you are with "charitable" insults perhaps you would have a chance of making a valid point. According to Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

"The new study found that about six in 10 former Catholics who reported being unaffiliated said they left the church because of its teachings on abortion and homosexuality, while about half said they left the church because of its teachings on birth control." [April 27, 2009]

Not to talk about those who silently or even openly practice things the Church teaches against but stay in the faith (like all the above mentioned politicians)!

your odd view of what that means and what has happened is simply uninformed noise.

Excuse me, I will certainly grant that it is entirely possible that the Catholic Church somewhere along the line innovated that aspect as well (wouldn't be the first!) and allowed bishops to interfere in each other's diocese. Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that Catholic Bishops are allowed to interfere in each other's business?

I gather that you too are a stranger to the Catholic Faith (which means you have no horses in this race either). You run your church. We will run ours. You are also pushing the notion that pro-life is an uber dogma of some sort or that others who are Catholic treat it as such

Stranger or not; it's irrelevant. We are talking principles here. Please see the first part of my answer to narses. My views are based on facts. Now if you want to impress me, tell me that the 53% of the Catholics who voted for Obama basically said the Church's view on abortion didn't count very high no their list. And while you are at it, perhaps you can provide me with some underground statistics on how many Catholic women have extramarital sex, how many are on the pill or use other form of artificial contraception, and how many have had an abortion. You seem well informed. I am sure this will be no trouble for you. Thank you.

According to the world wide abortion statistics Hispanic women (who are predominantly Catholic at least on paper) are twice as likely to obtain an abortion as the while women!

In 2002 France (51% Catholic by 2007 census) there were 137,497 abortions as opposed to 792,025 live births, roughly one in eight pregnancies (12%).

In Italy (87.8% Catholic) there were 131,039 abortions (in 2002) compared to 538,198 live births, or roughly one in five pregnancies (20%).

In Spain (75% Catholic) in 2005 there were 88,945 abortions compared to 466,371 live birth pregnancies, or roughly the same as in Italy (20%).

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.