This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
Twitter @ressourcement Twitter @ltdan4123
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Virginia Democrat tells Bush there's a 'better way'
Gov. Timothy Kaine is a pro-life Catholic elected in a very red-state... For more information on him, check out this article and others.
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
""I want to reduce abortions, and there are proven ways to do it -- better education, better access to health care and contraception; enforce the restrictions we have. But I will veto legislation that criminalizes women or doctors for their health care decisions"
"He also said in a recent debate that if the abortion landscape changed, the practice should not be criminalized. Now this is contrary to Catholic teaching, which (in very brief summary) is that 1) a politician cannot materially cooperate in procurement of abortions, which a Catholic governor certainly would be doing by not signing a ban on abortion; and 2) likewise one may never materially cooperate in the use of artificial contraception, especially since most of the non-barrier methods are potentially abortifacient. Summary of bishops' statements here.
My, Kaine is getting quite a boost at this site. If I recall, similar promotion elsewhere had Bush as "pro-life" prior to his election, didn't it? Before allowing idealism and a certain naive hope to cloud our vision any more than it already has when it comes to politicians, just ask the souls of those little embryos whose remains were desecrated as a consequence of Bush's "pro-life", stem-cell decision in 2001 whether or not they think he read Donum Vitae before making it. And anyone that can "support" hunters as it is said Kaine does in the article needs to ask themselves if the Incarnation was aimed solely at the sin of man or whether, more importantly, it was intended as the vehicle for the redemption of the world as well. The form of Christ stands behind the victims of a hunter's bloodlust. And Kaine is "pro-life"? Spare me.
I'm from the Show-Me State, show me what evidence that you have that he is Pro-Choice. Everything that I have read states that he is Pro-Life, including his own comments. How he chooses to implement specific policies is a matter of prudence. To state he is Pro-Choice is unfair and erroneous.
Dr. Janet Smith endorsed the Bush stem-cell decision and she is one of the smartest persons I know on this topic. I had an extensive personal conversation on this exact topic with her. Many other respected moral theologians also endorsed the plan as well, i.e. Leon Kass, etc.
There is no perfect Pro-Life politician. There is no prefect Pro-Life party. I view any movement (however slight) of either party in right direction on this topic as positive, but especially that of the Dem. Party. Gov. Kaine is a breath of flesh air, something that we have not seen since the days of Gov. Casey in PA. I also greatly encourage and support the work of the Democrats for Life (DFLA).
With respect to you personally, and to Dr. Smith, whomever she may be, both Vatican radio the USCCB denounced the Bush stem-cell decision most utterly when it was announced, calling it in one place at least a betrayal of a campaign promise which it was, of course. All of the blurring of lines and the assertions of purity because no lives were being taken in the cases of the approved 60 stem-cell lines served only to point out that a subtle migration had occured in what was now seen by some as the ground of pro-life orthodoxy: While prior to the decision the larger question of instrumentality was considered decisive, now it sufficed if you simply didn't kill something. It was perfectly OK to allow federal funds to be used to dismember the remains of already murdered embryos, but it was not OK if you murdered them first. We Catholic have clear instuctions on these matters in Donum Vitae and they don't permit of the instumental use of human corpses. If Dr. Smith is Catholic and as "smart" as you claim, she'll be well advised to retrace her steps. No Catholic serious about their faith and conscious of this crystal clear teaching could ever feel themselves comfortable with the Bush stem-cell compromise. Yet there are those that suit up as Catholic, Neuhaus most notably, who preferred to remain silent on the matter thus assuring the approval of those closest to the seat of power. Neuhaus' well-known subsequent rationalization of the Iraq agression becomes exhibit B in that dossier. He's an embarrassment to Catholicism, every bit as much as Charles Curren.
I'm copying below the pertinent matter from Donum Vitae for you:
"To use human embryos or fetuses as the object or instrument of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings having a right to the same respect that is due to the child already born and to every human person.
The Charter or the Rights of the Family published by the Holy See affirms: "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo."[30] The practice of keeping alive human embryos in vivo or in vitro for experimental or commercial purposes is totally opposed to human dignity.
In the case of experimentation that is clearly therapeutic, namely, when it is a matter of experimental forms of therapy used for the benefit of the embryo itself in a final attempt to save its life, and in the absence of other reliable forms of therapy, recourse to drugs or procedures not yet fully tested can be licit.[31]
The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. In particular, they cannot be subjected to mutilation or to autopsies if their death has not yet been verified and without the consent of the parents or of the mother. Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided. Also, in the case of dead fetuses, as for the corpses of adult persons, all commercial trafficking must be considered illicit and should be prohibited."
The clear requirement of the last sentence above can hardly be considered to have been observed when one considers the content of the Bush stem-cell compromise. Not one moral theologian who has given their backing to the compromise has addressed this critical point head on. And the best Dr. Smith seems to have been able to do with it is to concede it, allowing in favor of Bush only that it might be possible to assume consent by the living embryo when alive, a very peculiar agrument at best. Most "moral theologians" that supported the decision did so citing their belief that the stem-cells were no longer persons and that questions of material and formal complicity were avoided but those arguments merely begged the question. The Vatican and the Bishops Conference in opposing the decision can hardly be seen as having been unguided as to the moral theologically, eh? There are all manner of questions about these supporting moral theologies not the least of which the contention that dead stem cells are no longer persons. The teaching of the Church is unsettled on whether there is any connection between persons in the intermediate state and the matter of Creation. Karl Rahner - not an inconsiderable intellect, of course - judges that there is. Personally, it's my feeling that the tortured arguments they made against complicity could as easily have been made of the camp guards at Bergen-Belsen that extracted the gold from the teeth of the dead Jews they gassed. It's enough for me that the Church opposed the compromise. Isn't it for you?
I need to be more clear here. I never did nor still dont support Bush's stem-cell decision. This is why the long dialog with Dr. Janet Smith occurred. I was trying understand how she could support it.
Dr. Smith is a highly regarded orthodox Catholic philosopher/moral theologian who specializes on these issues.
Not that my approval is critical to your self respect, David, but I'm happy to learn that you stood with the Church on the stem-cell compromise.
You know, the fact that a number of supposedly "well regarded" Catholic moral theologians, Smith among them, supported this decision is perhaps revealing of just how deeply the bacillus of Catholicanism has penetrated in the Catholic quarter of academia. These folks are prominent enough in their professional environment and well enough aware of the risks to endowments, salaries and the like not to be too controversial in their opinions. While I can't be certain of the presence of this kind of taint in Smith, the suspicion is there. I mean here is Smith word for word addressing the point from Donum Vitae I'd raised earlier on the remains of embryos destroyed by stem-cell research:
"That the embryos did not give consent to the use of their cells presents another moral challenge. Yet, perhaps it is reasonable to assume consent on the part of the embryos; indeed, if I were the victim of some crime, I would approve use of my cells and organs for medical and research purposes and I suspect others would also, especially if it would prevent other innocent human beings from being killed for such purposes."
Huh? She judges the likelihood of an embryos' consent to its own dismemberment by her own personal standard? Talk about relativism! Here Smith concedes the very morality she imagines exists for the research itself. Since the embryo is destroyed without it's consent in the very process of experimentation the morality of the experimentation itself is called into question. You may be experimenting on a cell that no longer possesses earthly life but your experimentation violates the right of that embryos to determine the disposition of it's own remains. In the absence of certainty, we only can assume safely that the wish of the embryo would have been to have remained intact. I'm stunned by Smith's lack of professionalism here. And she's orthodox? Hooey!
9 comments:
""I want to reduce abortions, and there are proven ways to do it -- better education, better access to health care and contraception; enforce the restrictions we have. But I will veto legislation that criminalizes women or doctors for their health care decisions"
"He also said in a recent debate that if the abortion landscape changed, the practice should not be criminalized. Now this is contrary to Catholic teaching, which (in very brief summary) is that 1) a politician cannot materially cooperate in procurement of abortions, which a Catholic governor certainly would be doing by not signing a ban on abortion; and 2) likewise one may never materially cooperate in the use of artificial contraception, especially since most of the non-barrier methods are potentially abortifacient. Summary of bishops' statements here.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783887404
Kaine is not more prolife than Bush, they are both the same.
Matt
My, Kaine is getting quite a boost at this site. If I recall, similar promotion elsewhere had Bush as "pro-life" prior to his election, didn't it? Before allowing idealism and a certain naive hope to cloud our vision any more than it already has when it comes to politicians, just ask the souls of those little embryos whose remains were desecrated as a consequence of Bush's "pro-life", stem-cell decision in 2001 whether or not they think he read Donum Vitae before making it. And anyone that can "support" hunters as it is said Kaine does in the article needs to ask themselves if the Incarnation was aimed solely at the sin of man or whether, more importantly, it was intended as the vehicle for the redemption of the world as well. The form of Christ stands behind the victims of a hunter's bloodlust. And Kaine is "pro-life"? Spare me.
John Lowell
Matt,
I'm from the Show-Me State, show me what evidence that you have that he is Pro-Choice. Everything that I have read states that he is Pro-Life, including his own comments. How he chooses to implement specific policies is a matter of prudence. To state he is Pro-Choice is unfair and erroneous.
Virginia Politics - Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Timothy M. Kaine
Kilgore on Abortion -- Kaine on Faith and the Death Penalty
I for one will not be the judge of any man's faith, including Gov. Kaines' Catholicism.
David,
Did you read his quote? He supports abortifacient contraception...which kills more babies than surgical abortion.
Matt
Dr. Janet Smith endorsed the Bush stem-cell decision and she is one of the smartest persons I know on this topic. I had an extensive personal conversation on this exact topic with her. Many other respected moral theologians also endorsed the plan as well, i.e. Leon Kass, etc.
There is no perfect Pro-Life politician. There is no prefect Pro-Life party. I view any movement (however slight) of either party in right direction on this topic as positive, but especially that of the Dem. Party. Gov. Kaine is a breath of flesh air, something that we have not seen since the days of Gov. Casey in PA. I also greatly encourage and support the work of the Democrats for Life (DFLA).
David,
With respect to you personally, and to Dr. Smith, whomever she may be, both Vatican radio the USCCB denounced the Bush stem-cell decision most utterly when it was announced, calling it in one place at least a betrayal of a campaign promise which it was, of course. All of the blurring of lines and the assertions of purity because no lives were being taken in the cases of the approved 60 stem-cell lines served only to point out that a subtle migration had occured in what was now seen by some as the ground of pro-life orthodoxy: While prior to the decision the larger question of instrumentality was considered decisive, now it sufficed if you simply didn't kill something. It was perfectly OK to allow federal funds to be used to dismember the remains of already murdered embryos, but it was not OK if you murdered them first. We Catholic have clear instuctions on these matters in Donum Vitae and they don't permit of the instumental use of human corpses. If Dr. Smith is Catholic and as "smart" as you claim, she'll be well advised to retrace her steps. No Catholic serious about their faith and conscious of this crystal clear teaching could ever feel themselves comfortable with the Bush stem-cell compromise. Yet there are those that suit up as Catholic, Neuhaus most notably, who preferred to remain silent on the matter thus assuring the approval of those closest to the seat of power. Neuhaus' well-known subsequent rationalization of the Iraq agression becomes
exhibit B in that dossier. He's an embarrassment to Catholicism, every bit as much as Charles Curren.
John Lowell
David,
I'm copying below the pertinent matter from Donum Vitae for you:
"To use human embryos or fetuses as the object or instrument of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings having a right to the same respect that is due to the child already born and to every human person.
The Charter or the Rights of the Family published by the Holy See affirms: "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo."[30] The practice of keeping alive human embryos in vivo or in vitro for experimental or commercial purposes is totally opposed to human dignity.
In the case of experimentation that is clearly therapeutic, namely, when it is a matter of experimental forms of therapy used for the benefit of the embryo itself in a final attempt to save its life, and in the absence of other reliable forms of therapy, recourse to drugs or procedures not yet fully tested can be licit.[31]
The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. In particular, they cannot be subjected to mutilation or to autopsies if their death has not yet been verified and without the consent of the parents or of the mother. Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided. Also, in the case of dead fetuses, as for the corpses of adult persons, all commercial trafficking must be considered illicit and should be prohibited."
The clear requirement of the last sentence above can hardly be considered to have been observed when one considers the content of the Bush stem-cell compromise. Not one moral theologian who has given their backing to the compromise has addressed this critical point head on. And the best Dr. Smith seems to have been able to do with it is to concede it, allowing in favor of Bush only that it might be possible to assume consent by the living embryo when alive, a very peculiar agrument at best. Most "moral theologians" that supported the decision did so citing their belief that the stem-cells were no longer persons and that questions of material and formal complicity were avoided but those arguments merely begged the question. The Vatican and the Bishops Conference in opposing the decision can hardly be seen as having been unguided as to the moral theologically, eh? There are all manner of questions about these supporting moral theologies not the least of which the contention that dead stem cells are no longer persons. The teaching of the Church is unsettled on whether there is any connection between persons in the intermediate state and the matter of Creation. Karl Rahner - not an inconsiderable intellect, of course - judges that there is. Personally, it's my feeling that the tortured arguments they made against complicity could as easily have been made of the camp guards at Bergen-Belsen that extracted the gold from the teeth of the dead Jews they gassed. It's enough for me that the Church opposed the compromise. Isn't it for you?
John Lowell
John,
I need to be more clear here. I never did nor still dont support Bush's stem-cell decision. This is why the long dialog with Dr. Janet Smith occurred. I was trying understand how she could support it.
Dr. Smith is a highly regarded orthodox Catholic philosopher/moral theologian who specializes on these issues.
academic homepage
David,
Not that my approval is critical to your self respect, David, but I'm happy to learn that you stood with the Church on the stem-cell compromise.
You know, the fact that a number of supposedly "well regarded" Catholic moral theologians, Smith among them, supported this decision is perhaps revealing of just how deeply the bacillus of Catholicanism has penetrated in the Catholic quarter of academia. These folks are prominent enough in their professional environment and well enough aware of the risks to endowments, salaries and the like not to be too controversial in their opinions. While I can't be certain of the presence of this kind of taint in Smith, the suspicion is there. I mean here is Smith word for word addressing the point from Donum Vitae I'd raised earlier on the remains of embryos destroyed by stem-cell research:
"That the embryos did not give consent to the use of their cells presents another moral challenge. Yet, perhaps it is reasonable to assume consent on the part of the embryos; indeed, if I were the victim of some crime, I would approve use of my cells and organs for medical and research purposes and I suspect others would also, especially if it would prevent other innocent human beings from being killed for such purposes."
Huh? She judges the likelihood of an embryos' consent to its own dismemberment by her own personal standard? Talk about relativism!
Here Smith concedes the very morality she imagines exists for the research itself. Since the embryo is destroyed without it's consent in the very process of experimentation the morality of the experimentation itself is called into question. You may be experimenting on a cell that no longer possesses earthly life but your experimentation violates the right of that embryos to determine the disposition of it's own remains. In the absence of certainty, we only can assume safely that the wish of the embryo would have been to have remained intact. I'm stunned by Smith's lack of professionalism here. And she's orthodox? Hooey!
John Lowell
Post a Comment