Saturday, November 22, 2008

Religious Extremists Attack Obama



Religious extremists are making the following attacks on the President Elect this week:

“aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic"

[Obama is] "the direct opposite of honourable black Americans," he is a "House Negro"

“We weep over the violence concealed behind his rhetoric and that of Joseph Biden and what appears to be that of the majority of the incoming Congress.”

[the election was a ] “a cultural earthquake”

"new face of America only masked a heart full of hate"


You can sort out for yourself which hatemongers made which statement. Regardless, none of them have a place in a serious discussion among a free people governing themselves.

34 comments:

shiloh said...

Most of this is passive/aggressive nonsense among the uneducated, racist yahoos and rednecks. Disappointing, but harmless peeps showing their SOUR GRAPES!!!

Unfortunately, on the other hand, there are many extreme radical, conservative groups and organizations that will be keeping the FBI, Secret Service extremely busy the next (8) years ...

take care, blessings

Rustler45 said...

The Death of Catholic Culture and the Election of Barack Obama

Commentary by Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President, Human Life International

November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - It is impossible to speak of a "Catholic culture" in America any longer. A whole segment of the populace who call themselves "Catholics" do not feel bound by any standard of Catholic orthodoxy or sanity. In fact, it is impossible to even speak of a Catholic culture in most parishes!

At a recent "ministry faire" of a large Catholic parish in south Florida, the Respect Life ministry of the parish displayed its pro-life materials next to the table of the "social justice" committee of the same parish. Any commonality between the two ministries was simply in the space they shared. Their worldviews could not have been further apart, but they both call themselves Catholic.

In fact, the "social justice" people were positively aglow about the election of their new messiah, Barack Obama. Several of them were speaking of their plans to attend the Inauguration and were utterly unaware that there would be 100,000 people marching on the nation's Capitol two days later for the right to life of unborn Americans which they had just voted into irrelevancy by electing Obama to the highest office of the land. One of them even expressed shock at the provisions of the upcoming Freedom of Choice Act until he was confronted with the nasty little fact that his messiah had been a sponsor of that pernicious bill in the last Congress. True to form, he steadfastly refused to allow that truth to have any effect on his euphoria. His mind was made up, and he would not let himself be confused by facts. Needless to say, the orthodox, practicing, believing Catholic pro-lifers will not be attending the Inauguration.

How can these two groups sit side-by-side in the same pews and display their ministries in the same space at the same Catholic parish? Simply because this contradiction has been tolerated for years by those in charge of our Church. In this election season neither of these two groups received any guidance about voting according to Catholic principles because, as per usual, there was silence from the pulpit on the issue. The absolute failure of our church leaders to define for us what membership in the Church means - and then to enforce it - has led to the degradation of Catholic culture and the loss of meaning for things that are sacred. When Christ and Belial are considered equal partners in the sanctuary, then nothing in the sanctuary means anything any more and no meaningful standard exists to distinguish a true Catholic from a false Catholic.

The degradation of Catholic culture is largely, but not exclusively, the fault of the clergy. For four decades in the Catholic Church in America we have seen:

1) Liturgical abuses run rampant, aided and abetted by those in charge
2) Two or three generations of Catholics left un-catechized or taught with flimsy, Protestantized fluff passed off as Catholic education
3) Sexual abuse by clergy excused and unaddressed by the hierarchy
4) A blind eye turned to high profile dissent and political class heretics
6) Wholesale attacks on sacred teachings that receive virtually no response from our pastors (and if it weren't for Catholic Answers, EWTN and the Catholic League we would have no defense whatsoever)
7) The succumbing of our Catholic institutions of higher education to the ravages of political correctness, and the list goes on.


In the face of all this, should we be surprised that 54% of "Catholics" voted for Barack? Hardly.

The battle for Catholic culture begins with us, and there is no time like the present to don the armor of spiritual warfare. We either believe and practice what the Church teaches or we live as part of the shadow church, falsely trading on the Name Catholic for its benefits without at the same time shouldering the crosses that this entails.

There is, however, great hope for the future because the battle has already been engaged: new Catholic colleges are springing up to replace the old decrepit houses of heresy, new religious orders with abundant vocations and orthodoxy have arisen, home schooling families and strong lay movements are abundant now. Only when we take back our beloved Church from the false Catholics and clerics will our Church be able to stand up and rebuke the storm winds of paganism that are building faster than we care to admit.

This project is not without its price, however. The cost of being a true believer will undoubtedly be much higher than ever before in our lifetime. Starting now and into the next generation we as Catholics will have to show the world not only what we believe but that we are willing to lay down our lives for it as a witness to the truth.

Rustler45 said...

“Misuse of funds”
Conservative groups urge Catholics not to give to Catholic Campaign for Human Development, but bishop pleads for faithful “to continue to give generously”


Citing a recent scandal involving grants made to a group accused of engaging in partisan political activity and alleged voter registration fraud, as well as what they say is a history of funding organizations unfriendly to the faith, some Catholics are urging the faithful not to give money to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development during a special annual collection planned at parishes across the country this weekend.

A flyer entitled “Notice to ALL Catholics” planned for distribution at some California parishes on Saturday and Sunday cites CCHD contributions to the group ACORN, currently under investigation for voter registration fraud in 13 states. On Nov. 11, Bishop Roger Morin, an auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of New Orleans who chairs the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ subcommittee overseeing the CCHD, announced that all funding to ACORN had been terminated, even though an ongoing investigation had yet to determine whether CCHD grants to ACORN had been used for fraudulent voter registration.

Marie-Elsie said...

The myth about voter registration fraud is just that a myth. With the advent of electronic systems and stringent ID verification, it is very difficult for someone to "game" the system and vote twice or fraudulently vote. If anything the fraud was committed against ACORN since the people who turned in fraudulent registrations were defrauding ACORN of their money. The more serious crimes are voter disenfranchisement where your vote is challenged because you are a minority or live in a certain area and vote rigging like the kind we saw in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

It is a magic trick that conservatives have perfected: look over here at voter registration fraud while I steal votes over there. Whenever they start making noise about an issue, look deeper and you will see that they are doing something far more egregious than what they are complaining about.

Marie-Elsie said...

Currently the talking heads on the right are starting to lay out the landscape to claim that this is an Obama recession. Last I check went to hell in a hand basket under President Bush. Like it or not the right failed to protect the American people and the people are not stupid and elected someone we hope who will fix the problem. That is if the whiny republicans let him.

These conservative groups are just mad that Obama is not the extreme socialist that they painted him to be. I guess it sucked not to have a divided country. People are tired and want solutions. If the Republicans try to block any legislations that will help the economy and move the country forward, the repudiation they experienced in 2008 will be nothing compared to the complete defeat of 2010.

Marie-Elsie said...

It doesn't matter anyway Obama's team has the forethought to warn everyone to lower their expectations of him. They are prepping the peeps for bad times that they know Obama does not understand. As long as he can establish our communist adgendas we really don't care if the people starve.

Lydia said...

Rustler said

"This project is not without its price, however. The cost of being a true believer will undoubtedly be much higher than ever before in our lifetime. Starting now and into the next generation we as Catholics will have to show the world not only what we believe but that we are willing to lay down our lives for it as a witness to the truth."

Lay down your lives? Please explain this, it disturbs me

Lydia said...

And ruster, to you I say this, I can find quotes refering to "life" in the bible as "blood" Also, I can find a quote in the bible that says life begins when a mother feels movement in her body, I will find them for you. for now, look at past Popes in the Church. Can you say they were not men of god? I know abortion is your big thing, look at this:

St. Augustine (354-430) condemned abortion because it breaks the connection between sex and procreation. 1 However, in the Enchiridion, he says, "But who is not rather disposed to think that unformed fetuses perish like seeds which have not fructified" — clearly seeing hominization as beginning or occurring at some point after the fetus has begun to grow. He held that abortion was not an act of homicide. Most theologians of his era agreed with him.

In 1140, Gratian compiled the first collection of canon law that was accepted as authoritative within the church. Gratian's code included the canon Aliquando, which concluded that "abortion was homicide only when the fetus was formed."4 If the fetus was not yet a formed human being, abortion was not homicide.
1312: "Delayed Hominization" Confirmed
The Council of Vienne, still very influential in Catholic hierarchical teaching, confirmed the conception of man put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas. While Aquinas had opposed abortion — as a form of contraception and a sin against marriage — he had maintained that the sin in abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was ensouled, and thus, a human being. Aquinas had said the fetus is first endowed with a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and then — when its body is developed — a rational soul. This theory of "delayed hominization" is the most consistent thread throughout church history on abortion.5
1591: Rules Quickly Relaxed
Only three years after Pope Sixtus V issued Effraenatam, he died. His successor, Gregory XIV, felt Sixtus's stand was too harsh and was in conflict with penitential practices and theological views on ensoulment. He issuedSedes Apostolica, which advised church officials, "where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does."7 This papal pronouncement lasted until 1869.
1679: Pregnant Girls Facing Murder by Their Families
Consistently, abortion had been considered wrong if used to conceal sexual sins. Taking this idea to its extreme, Pope Innocent XI declared abortion impermissible even when a girl's parents were likely to murder her for having become pregnant.
The church was still teaching delayed hominization, sure only that hominization occurred some time before birth.
circa 8th Century: Recognizing Women's Circumstances
In the Penitential Ascribed by Albers to Bede, the idea of delayed hominization is again supported, and women's circumstances acknowledged: "A mother who kills her child before the fortieth day shall do penance for one year. If it is after the child has become alive, [she shall do penance] as a murderess. But it makes a great difference whether a poor woman does it on account of the difficulty of supporting [the child] or a harlot for the sake of concealing her wickedness." 3
1140: Abortion of an Unformed Fetus Is Not Homicide
In 1140, Gratian compiled the first collection of canon law that was accepted as authoritative within the church. Gratian's code included the canon Aliquando, which concluded that "abortion was homicide only when the fetus was formed."4 If the fetus was not yet a formed human being, abortion was not homicide.
1312: "Delayed Hominization" Confirmed
The Council of Vienne, still very influential in Catholic hierarchical teaching, confirmed the conception of man put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas. While Aquinas had opposed abortion — as a form of contraception and a sin against marriage — he had maintained that the sin in abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was ensouled, and thus, a human being. Aquinas had said the fetus is first endowed with a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and then — when its body is developed — a rational soul. This theory of "delayed hominization" is the most consistent thread throughout church history on abortion.5
Only three years after Pope Sixtus V issued Effraenatam, he died. His successor, Gregory XIV, felt Sixtus's stand was too harsh and was in conflict with penitential practices and theological views on ensoulment. He issuedSedes Apostolica, which advised church officials, "where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does."7 This papal pronouncement lasted until 1869.
1974: The "Right-to-Life" Argument
In 1974, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith issued the "Declaration on Procured Abortion," which opposes abortion on the grounds that "one can never claim freedom of opinion as a pretext for attacking the rights of others, most especially the right to life." The key to this position is that the fetus is human life from the moment of conception, if not necessarily a full human being. With this position, the church has fully changed the terms of its argument.
Today: Abortion Ban Is Absolute

[url=http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law111/CatholicHistory.htm]article[/url]

FinishTheRace said...

Lydia unfortunately seems to be opposed to science. Science tells us that a new creation occurs at fertilation. What is that creation? It is new life. My wife did not give birth to a cow or horse. She give birth to a human person.

Lydia, tell us when a baby should be afforded rights that every other indivual in our society receives. (1 month post conception, 3 months post conception, 6 months post conception, 8.5 months post concepton, at birth??)

Why don't you just accept the teaching of the Church instead of rejecting her clear teaching.

Since we know a baby is present in the womb at the time of conception thanks to science, we can be sure that the Church will defend life in all stages. Try going to a science textbook and check it out for yourself.

Please keep on reading but don't decide for yourself what is true and what is not true when it comes to the Catholic Church's teaching.

Marie-Elsie said...

I am flattered by who ever is using my name to make comments.

ray jay said...

Those are indeed good and vital questions, Finish the Race.

I think they are particularly important because science is making it easier and easier to deliver babies at earlier and earlier dates.

At the same time, Church teaching has changed over time, as pointed out by Lydia.

I am wondering, however, Finish the Race, do believe that there is an individual human life present at conception? So that the fertized egg has individual rights?

Injun Joe said...

Injun Joe said...
"You can sort out for yourself which hatemongers made which statement. Regardless, none of them have a place in a serious discussion among a free people governing themselves."

Yeah yeah yeah hatemongers.... Oh baloney....

A hatemonger is someone who disagrees with the radical Marxist Democrat party extremists.

We've heard this whining before.

The Democrats have stuffed the ballot boxes to get an extremist in the White House. The Republicans didn't put up a fight and now we have a nitwit who's scheduled to bring on radical socialism (i.e., Marxism) and the rest of us 48% who voted against him are just racist hatemongers. Wah wah wah.

ray jay said...

Looks like Colt45 is too embarrassed to identify himself anymore. We don't care about your sexual orientation, 45!

Martin m. said...

Rustler45 is gay? Who would have thought it. I guess you learn something new every day.

FinishTheRace said...

"Ray Jay said: "At the same time, Church teaching has changed over time, as pointed out by Lydia.

I am wondering, however, Finish the Race, do believe that there is an individual human life present at conception? So that the fertized egg has individual rights?"

Our understanding of when a baby is present in the womb has developed over time but not changed. Abortion has always been considered wrong. We understand now thanks to science that a new life is created at conception. That life is nothing other than human.

Once againg, abortion has always been considered wrong. Please refer to the Didache for one example from the late first century. Sorry I don't have time to quote but can find the quote if you like.

Since we know that a baby is present at the moment of conception, an abortion would termintate the life of that baby. Do you deny that a human life is present at conception?

The Church teaches that at the moment of conception a new life is created and that time he/she is given a soul.

The bishops roundly corrected N. Pelosi and J. Biden for their erronious personal interpretation of what the Church has taught through the years.

To answer your question, yes, I believe there is a individual human person at conception and yes this person should be afforded human rights, the protections under the law. The rights come from God and not from man. The Declaration of Independence says that "...all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Also, the Constitution says that "...and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves to ourselves and our Posterity...". How are the Blessings of Liberty secured for our posterity if we allow our posterity to be terminated in the womb?

Kurt said...

FinishtheRace is correct. The Church has never taught that abortion is an objectively ethical act. The reasons for this have evolved over time. At times, the sin of abortion was more associated with the sin of contraception than of murder.

Biden and Pelosi were not wrong. They accurately quoted Aquinis and Augustine. However, they did not give all of the story nor did they noet that the Church admits it needs the enlightment of science, something these churchmen were lacking.

Modern science, more than the philosophical ponderings of the Scholastics, gives us the strongest arguements for the humanity of the unborn.

The conclusion we might come to is that we must all work for protection of the unborn as best we can. However, we also can recognize that not every pro-choice person is a knowing, blood-thirsty murderer. They are mistaken and their mistaken views can have tragic consequences.

ray jay said...

<> Our understanding of when a baby is present in the womb has developed over time but not changed. Abortion has always been considered wrong.

I can understand and agree as to the latter but not the former. I do not see how an *understanding* can develop over time but not change.

Moreover, the matter of individualization and individual rights is made a bit murky by the process of twinning which takes place after conception.

ray jay said...

And while "The Church has never taught that abortion is an objectively ethical act," we need to consider historically when and how the Church started making pronouncements to the effect that the act of abortion is unethical and sinful.

FinishTheRace said...

ray jay said...
And while "The Church has never taught that abortion is an objectively ethical act," we need to consider historically when and how the Church started making pronouncements to the effect that the act of abortion is unethical and sinful."

There are many quotes available but here are a few early Church exerpts:

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

The Didache (1st Century AD)

The Lord's Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles:

1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.

2 Now, this is the way of life:…

The second commandment of the Teaching: "Do not murder; do not commit adultery"; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; "do not steal"; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant. "Do not covet your neighbor's property; do not commit perjury; do not bear false witness"; do not slander; do not bear grudges. Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is "a deadly snare." Your words shall not be dishonest or hollow, but substantiated by action. Do not be greedy or extortionate or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant. Do not plot against your neighbor. Do not hate anybody; but reprove some, pray for others, and still others love more than your own life.

Council of Elvira (c. 305) - Canon 68: If a catechumen should conceive by an adulterer, and should procure the death of the child, she can be baptized only at the end of her life.


Council of Ancyra (314)- Canon 21: Women who prostitute themselves, and who kill the child thus begotten, or who try to destroy them when in their wombs, are by ancient law excommunicated to the end of their lives. We, however, have softened their punishment and condemned them to the various appointed degrees of penance for ten years.


The Apocalypse of Peter (ca. 135)


"I saw a gorge in which the discharge and excrement of the tortured ran down and became like a lake. There sat women, and the discharge came up to their throats; and opposite them sat many children, who were born prematurely, weeping. And from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women on the eyes. These were those who produced children outside of marriage and who procured abortions." 2:26



"Those who slew the unborn children will be tortured forever, for God wills it to so." 2:64

Tertullian (c. 160 - 240)


That the unborn child is alive:

How are they dead unless they were first alive? But still in the womb an infant by necessary cruelty is killed when lying twisted at the womb's mouth he prevents birth and is a matricide unless he dies. Therefore there is among the arms of physicians an instrument by which with a rotary movement the genital parts are first opened, then with a cervical instrument the interior members are slaughtered with careful judgment by a blunt barb, so that the whole criminal deed is extracted with a violent delivery. There is also the bronze needle by which the throat - cutting is carried out by a robbery in the dark; this instrument is called and embryo knife from its function of infanticide, as it is deadly for the living infant.

This Hippocrates taught, and Asclepiades, and Erasistratus and Herophilus, the dissector of adults, and the milder Soranos himself, - all of them certain that a living being had been conceived and so deploring the most unhappy infancy of one of this kind who had first to be killed lest a live woman be rent apart. Of this necessity of crime, Hicesius, I believe did not doubt, as he added souls to those being born from blows of cold air, because the word itself for "soul" among the Greek relates to such a cooling.

- De Anima 25.5 - 6



They [John and Jesus] were both alive while still in the womb. Elizabeth rejoiced as the infant leaped in her womb; Mary glorifies the Lord because Christ within inspired her. Each mother recognizes her child and each is known by her child who is alive, being not merely souls but also spirits.

- De Anima 26.4



Thus, you read the word of God, spoken to Jeremias: "Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee." If God forms us in the womb, He also breathes on us as He did in the beginning: "And God formed man and breathed into him the breath of life." Nor could God have known man in the womb unless he were a whole man. "And before thou camest forth from the womb, I sanctified thee." Was it, then, a dead body at that stage? Surely it was not, for "God is the God of the living and not the dead."

- De Anima 26.5



It is not permissible for us to destroy the seed by means of illicit manslaughter once it has been conceived in the womb, so long as blood remains in the person.

- Apologia, cap 25, line 42



To the governors of Roman provinces and to the Emperor Septimus Severus, defending Christianity against various charges:

'That I may refute more thoroughly these charges ['we are accused of observing a holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat it', Apologia 7.1], I will show that in part openly, in part secretly, practices prevail among you which have led you perhaps to credit similar things about us.

- Apologia 9.1



In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from 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 the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in the seed.

- Apologia 9.6



Give us your testimony, then, ye mothers, whether yet pregnant, or after delivery (let barren women and men keep silence), - the truth of your own nature is in question, the reality of your own suffering is the point to be decided. (Tell us, then,) whether you feel in the embryo within you any vital force other than your own, with which your bowels tremble, your sides shake, your entire womb throbs, and the burden which oppresses you constantly changes its position?

Are these movements a joy to you, and a positive removal of anxiety, as making you confident that your infant both possesses vitality and enjoys it? Or, should his restlessness cease, your first fear would be for him; and he would be aware of it within you, since he is disturbed at the novel sound; and you would crave for injurious diet, or would even loathe your food - all on his account; and then you and he, (in the closeness of your sympathy,) would share together your common ailments - so far that with your contusions and bruises would he actually become marked, - whilst within you, and even on the selfsame parts of the body, taking to himself thus peremptorily the injuries of his mother!

Now, whenever a livid hue and redness are incidents of the blood, the blood will not be without the vital principle, or soul; or when disease attacks the soul or vitality, (it becomes a proof of its real existence, since) there is no disease where there is no soul or principle of life. Again, inasmuch as sustenance by food, and the want thereof, growth and decay, fear and motion, are conditions of the soul or life, he who experiences them must be alive. And, so, he at last ceases to live, who ceases to experience them. And thus by and by infants are still - born; but how so, unless they had life? For how could any die, who had not previously lived? But sometimes by a cruel necessity, whilst yet in the womb, an infant is put to death, when lying awry in the orifice of the womb he impedes parturition, and kills his mother, if he is not to die himself.

Accordingly, among surgeons' tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely - adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all, and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery. There is also (another instrument in the shape of) a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: they give it, from its infanticide function, the name of ….., the slayer of the infant, which was of course alive.

Such apparatus was possessed both by Hippocrates, and Asclepiades, and Erasistratus, and Herophilus, that dissector of even adults, and the milder Soranus himself, who all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive.

Of the necessity of such harsh treatment I have no doubt even Hicesius was convinced, although he imported their soul into infants after birth from the stroke of the frigid air, because the very term for soul, forsooth, in Greek answered to such a refrigeration! Well, then, have the barbarian and Roman nations received souls by some other process, (I wonder) for they have called the soul by another name than ….? How many nations are there who commence life under the broiling sun of the torrid zone, scorching their skin into its swarthy hue? Whence do they get their souls, with no frosty air to help them? I say not a word of those well - warmed bed - rooms, and all that apparatus of heat which ladies in childbirth so greatly need, when a breath of cold air might endanger their life. But in the very bath almost a babe will slip into life, and at once his cry is heard! If, however, a good frosty air is to the soul so indispensable a treasure, then beyond the German and the Scythian tribes, and the Alpine and the Arguan heights, nobody ought ever to be born!

But the fact really is, that population is greater within the temperate regions of the East and the West, and men's minds are sharper; whilst there is not a Sarmatian whose wits are not dull and humdrum. The minds of men, too, would grow keener by reason of the cold, if their souls came into being amidst nipping frosts; for as the substance is, so must be its active power. Now, after these preliminary statements, we may also refer to the case of those who, having been cut out of their mother's womb, have breathed and retained life - your Bacchuses and Scipios.

If, however, there be any one who, like Plato, supposes that two souls cannot, more than two bodies could, co - exist in the same individual, I, on the contrary, could show him not merely the co-existence of two souls in one person, as also of two bodies in the same womb, but likewise the combination of many other things in natural connection with the soul - for instance, of demoniacal possession; and that not of one only, as in the case of Socrates' own demon; but of seven spirits as in the case of the Magdalene; and of a legion in number, as in the Gadarene.

Now one soul is naturally more susceptible of conjunction with another soul, by reason of the identity of their substance, than an evil spirit is, owing to their diverse natures. But when the same philosopher, in the sixth book of The Laws, warns us to beware lest a vitiation of seed should infuse a soil into both body and soul from an illicit or debased concubinage, I hardly know whether he is more inconsistent with himself in respect of one of his previous statements, or of that which he had just made. For he here shows us that the soul proceeds from human seed (and warns us to be on our guard about it), not, (as he had said before,) from the first breath of the new - born child.

Pray, whence comes it that from similarity of soul we resemble our parents in disposition, according to the testimony of Cleanthes, if we are not produced from this seed of the soul? Why, too, used the old astrologers to cast a man's nativity from his first conception, if his soul also draws not its origin from that moment? To this (nativity) likewise belongs the inbreathing of the soul, whatever that is.

- De Anima 25

Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).

The Law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex 21:22-24]" (ibid., 37).




Also, here are some pre-Christian sources (since this is part of the law written on our hearts - these are relevant from a natural law perspective):

Ovid (43 BC - AD 65)

Of what avail to fair woman to rest free from the burdens of war [i.e. pregnancy], nor choose with shield in arm to march in the fierce array, if, free from peril of battle, she suffer wounds from weapons of her own, and arm her unforeseeing hands to her own undoing?

She who first plucked forth the tender life deserved to die in the warfare she began. Can it be that, to spare your bosom the reproach of lines, you would scatter the tragic sands of deadly combat?

-De Nuce, lines 22-23; cf. Amores 2.13



Juvenal (c.57/67-127)

Poor women…endure the perils of childbirth, and all the troubles of nursing to which their lot condemns them; but how often does a gilded bed contain a woman that is lying in it? So great is the skill, so powerful the drugs, of the abortionist, paid to murder mankind within the womb.

-Satire 6.592-601



Musonius

In reference to Augustinian legislation of 28 BC and 9 AD:

-The lawgivers, who had the same task of searching out and finding what was good for the city and what bad, and what helped or harmed it, did not they also consider that it was most beneficial to their cities to fill the houses of the citizens, and most harmful to deplete them? They considered that childlessness, or small families, of citizens was unprofitable, while to have children, and in fact many children, was profitable. Therefore, they forbade the women to abort and attached a penalty to those who disobeyed; secondly they forbade them to use contraceptives on themselves and to prevent pregnancy; finally they established honors for both men and women who had many children and made childlessness punishable.

-Fragment 15a

Anonymous said...

Kurt,

They are "mistaken????????" That is
rather a strange way of describing someone who is pro-abortion. Would you say the same of someone who shoots someone dead on the street? Unless you think the life in the womb is somehow not as significant. Ah, maybe that is it.

ray jay said...

Thanks for taking the time to cut and paste those quotes, FtR.

All this is very well and good but I noted that I agreed with you as to the latter matter of the act of abortion being wrong.

And then, too, the points brought up by Lydia (and Kurt) need also be considered as well as the wider context of when restrictions against abortion became part of the Magisterium as defined by Church Councils, Papal pronouncements, etc.

>>>>>But none of the quotes really deals with the matter of when individuation occurs, especially as highlighted in the case of twins.<<<<<

So I welcome your coming up with something that addresses that issue.

And, finally, when you put forward the Didache as ultimately authoritative, you best be aware that it contains strictures such as "you who are slaves must be subject to your master, in reverence and fear, as if your master represented God."

Kurt said...

What do you say to women when you are witnessing outside of abortion clinics?

Susan said...

al-Zawahiri and Cardinal Stafford are the same???? You have really gone round the bend, Katherine.

ray jay said...

Pro-abortion?

If I hear that phrase one more time I'm afraid I will have to puke on the person making the claim.

And I'm still waiting for anyone to address the issue of twinning which takes place after conception.

FinishTheRace said...

Ray Jay said: "All this is very well and good but I noted that I agreed with you as to the latter matter of the act of abortion being wrong."

I understood you to say that the Church's teaching changed on the abortion issue. Since that is not what you are saying and if you agree the Church always saw abortion as morally wrong, then we agree.

As far as Lydia's historical analysis of the issue is concerned, I believe the bishops have recently dealt with this when addressing Senators Biden and Pelosi and I defer to their rebuttal of the Senator's misstatements.

It is evident in the quotes that I provided that the Church was opposed to abortion from the beginning. The Didache was quote was provided to show you historically where the Church stood.

I am not an expert on the abortion issue per se, however I accept the Church's teaching because She has spoken on a matter that involves morals.

Ray Jay also said:
">>>>>But none of the quotes really deals with the matter of when individuation occurs, especially as highlighted in the case of twins.<<<<<"

Here is an analysis of twinning, not a Church quote but an interesting analysis nevertheless.

This is an excerpt from Jimmy Akin's blog addressing the issue:

"The soul is the substantial form of the living human body, and so any time you have a new living human body, you have a new soul (the resurrection doesn't count, since that's not a new body; it's a resurrected old one).

It is very difficult to see how a single living human body could have two substantial forms. Indeed, classical metaphysics would say that this is impossible by definition, so I'm not inclined to go that route in explaining what happens in twinning.

Normally a new living human body comes into existence at conception, so that's normally when the soul comes into existence as well, but the phenomenon of identical twinning indicates that the situation is more complex than that.

It would seem that there are two possibilities. Either

1) Twinning occurs in such a fashion that Embryo A fissions off a new embryo, Embryo B, without losing its identity as Embryo A. (This is analogous to the way in which a Adult A could have a clone of himself made from a skin cell without losing his identity as Adult A.)

2) Embryo A fissions in such a way that neither resulting embryo can be said to be the same entity as Embryo A, so there are two new entities, Embryo B and Embryo C. (Imagine taking Adult A, splitting him down the middle, and regrowing the missing part of the body on each resulting half so that neither resulting individual has a greater claim than the other to being Adult A.)

In case (1), it would seem that Embryo A received his soul at the time of conception and Embryo B received his soul at the time he fissioned off from Embryo A since that was when Embryo B's body came into existence.

In case (2), it would seem that Embryo A received his soul at conception and that Embryo A was a short-lived individual who died when he fissioned into Embryo B and Embryo C, both of whom received their souls at the point of fissioning."

Mr. Akin goes on to say: "Because of difficulties in determining when a new individual has come into existence, it could be hard or impossible to distinguish between scenario (1) and (2) ... in practice, but these would seem to be what is happening, even if we cannot make the determination in a particular case due to the limits of present doctrinal development on the subject of individual identity."

I will defer to Mr. Akin's excellent analysis for now acknowledging the matter of individuation is still under development when it comes to twinning. I am not going to pretend to know more than the Church so I will follow Mr. Akin's lead.

Here is another lengthy treatment of the issue which I have not had an opportunity to read as of yet:

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3038&page=1

Ray Jay, maybe you should tell us how far into a pregnancy that an abortion procedure should be allowed, and if you have any doubt, why would you not err on the side of life?

Anonymous said...

Speaking of religious extremists, Fargo bishop Bishop Samuel Aquila echoed the kinds of statements other Catholic and Muslim extremists are saying in a sermon in Fargo, North Dakota. The threatened people who voted for Obama with hellfire.

ray jay said...

FtR,

Thanks again for being for taking the time.

The Akin commentary looks interesting but it's going to take me some time to go over it. When I get the chance, I'll also point out some articles on twinning to you.

In answer to your closing question, yes, I would opt to "err" on the side of life. The point of conception seems the safest bet to me.

But I'm a guy. A careful guy. Not a doctor. And not a politician.

And the matter of individual rights is tied in with who/what can be legally protected in the American system of law.

ray jay said...

I have looked over the Akin analysis.

It refuses to consider the possibility that individual human life may not start at conception.

One of his foundational statements: "a new living human body comes into existence at conception" seems rather strange to me. A fertilized egg will only develop into a human body, but it is not a human body at the point of conception.

And he keeps drawing analogies between the fertilized egg and the embryo to *adult* humans.

But at least he concedes that there are "limits of present doctrinal development on the subject of individual identity."

Anonymous said...

Subject: taxes




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At first I thought this was funny...then I realized the awful truth of
it. Be sure to read all the way to the end!

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers! ! ,
Then tax him more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
' Taxes drove me to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
It's time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog LicenseTax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Privilege Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational V ehi! ! cle T ax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Use Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was
the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class
in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians!'
And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?!?!?!?
I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!!!! YOU can
help it get there!!! ! !!
GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN !!!!!!

FinishTheRace said...

ray jay said...
"I have looked over the Akin analysis.

It refuses to consider the possibility that individual human life may not start at conception."

You are correct. Since the Church does not teach that life begins sometime after conception, Mr. Akin would not state it otherwise. He does believe life begins at conception, following the Church's lead. Also, he is following science that states a new creation occurs at fertilization. His position is consistent with Catholic Church teaching.

There is nothing wrong with trying to understand what is going on here but one must submit to the authority of the Church in this matter. Thanks for the interesting challenge but if you follow the Church, you won't struggle with the issue at hand.

CatholicsForDemocracy said...

"One of his foundational statements: 'a new living human body comes into existence at conception' seems rather strange to me. A fertilized egg will only develop into a human body, but it is not a human body at the point of conception.

"And he keeps drawing analogies between the fertilized egg and the embryo to *adult* humans."

I don't really think this is a rational problem. At the moment of conception, there is a new organism; even if we do not call it a "human body."

I think, though, Akin was right in calling the organism a "human body." The human organism is constantly developing or changing anatomically and physiologically; and the human mind is constantly changing, both in relation to physiological changes and in relation to new experiences.

To suggest that a fertilized human egg or embryo is less or other than a human body because it does not resemble a human person as we expect to perceive it or because it is not self-aware opens up the possibility for me to argue that a five-year-old is less than human because he is not yet fully developed physiologically and because he has yet to develop empathic cognition. It also opens up the possibility that the mentally disabled person is less or other than human because he never will develop the capacity for empathic cognition or that the handicapped is less than human because of developmental deficiencies.

The scientific fact is that a fertilized human egg is a living, developing organism. Reason tells us what kind of organism it is, a human organism. The question you seem to ask is whether the organism has sufficiently reached a stage of development where what you think a human person is has been actualized. I don't think that question is valid. It is a living, developing organism with the potential to develop to a stage where you can recognize it as a human person. Whether that state is actualized or potential does not matter. It's still a human person with an unbroken chain of development.

Nor is the question of the quantity of individuation, as seems implied in the issue of twinning, all that important. To begin with, whether an embryo will produce twins is genetically-determined at the moment of conception, even if we're ill-equipped to predict it. Secondly, whether an embryo results in one or more individuals does not take away from the fact that the embryo is already individuated from its mother (and father).

ray jay said...

A five year old is not an adult but it is obviously human. I don't think you can definitively draw the analogy here in the context of a discussion of individual rights by equating a five year old to a pre-twinned embryo. Sorry but I think you have posed a faulty analogy.

The matter of individual rights at the embryonic stage is still a concern because of the matter of twinning.

CfD: "The question you seem to ask is whether the organism has sufficiently reached a stage of development where what you think a human person is has been actualized. I don't think that question is valid."

--> I never asked that question. And I don't think it is valid. either. Actualization is a psychological concept.

My concern was/is with individualization and at which point of time individual legal rights can be conferred.
-

Lydia said...

Thank-you for listening ray jay :) and that's the thought process I was examining.

"And then, too, the points brought up by Lydia (and Kurt) need also be considered as well as the wider context of when restrictions against abortion became part of the Magisterium as defined by Church Councils, Papal pronouncements, etc."

I am not saying I would have an abortion, but there are arguments both scientific and spiritual that could lead someone to believe a fertilized egg has not reached the status of humanity. At what point this happens has been debated for centuries, and we must remember not all of these women belong to the church.

I do know one thing; women make the best possible moral choice they can in most cases. And it's the choice of a WOMAN only. If they choose to continue an unwanted pregnancy, I hope they would give the child up for adoption rather than abandoning it to walk the streets in search of love, food, and approval. I have seen too much of that. If adoption is to be encouraged we shouldn't put a scarlet letter on their back.

ray jay said...

There are quite a few excellent articles about the subject of twinning that address the matter of when human life begins in Commonweal, many of which are written by Cathleen Kaveny.

I should say, however, that I am going to have to disagree with you that it is "the choice of the woman only." Ultimately, it has to be given existing laws. But even then there had to be someone else involved for a pregnancy to occur. Certainly, the guy has and should have considerable influence on that choice.

And I would argue, too, that society has an obligation to protect the rights of the most innocent.