Newt’s ‘oops’ moment: Is Gingrich as Catholic as Pelosi on embryos?
Newt Gingrich has been on a tear, boosted, some of us have argued, by unexpected support from Christian conservatives.
But the new GOP frontrunner and Catholic convert may have stumbled in an interview with ABC’s Jake Tapper, broadcast this morning, in which he argued that life begins at successful implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, not at fertilization, as the Catholic Church now teaches:
TAPPER: Abortion is a big issue here in Iowa among conservative Republican voters and Rick Santorum has said you are inconsistent. The big argument here is that you have supported in the past embryonic stem cell research and you made a comment about how these fertilized eggs, these embryos are not yet “pre-human” because they have not been implanted. This has upset conservatives in this state who worry you don’t see these fertilized eggs as human life. When do you think human life begins?
GINGRICH: Well, I think the question of being implanted is a very big question. My friends who have ideological positions that sound good don’t then follow through the logic of: ‘So how many additional potential lives are they talking about? What are they going to do as a practical matter to make this real?’
I think that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life. because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions.
Yes, that does open up a range of difficult questions, and they are questions that another former House speaker and practicing Catholic, Nancy Pelosi, stumbled over back in 2008 — prompting a wave of criticism and scorn from conservative Catholics, as Bob Imbelli noted in a post at the time at dotCommonweal.
Maybe Pelosi’s lapse wasn’t as “teachable a moment” as we hoped. Will we hear catcalls for Gingrich on this one as well?
Perhaps. Over at CatholicVote.org, conservative activist Joshua Mercer is not amused. “An unforced error,” he calls it.
“Newt Gingrich’s answer on when human life begins is simply unacceptable. But his mistake isn’t due to timidness like when Pawlenty pulls his punch or from a profound lack of debate skills like Perry’s oops moment. No, Newt Gingrich’s error is much worse because he actually believes something which is wrong. And it has drastic consequences.”
Interestingly, Newt aced Catholic Vote’s Thanksgiving straw poll of more than 13,000 online ballots, with an impressive 44 percent take — far more than even uber-Catholic Rick Santorum’s second-place finish at 14 percent, and perhaps an early indicator of his current surge.
Could “oops” moments like this drain that religious support? Or can Newt row it back? or maybe he’ll say it’s just “a conscience thing”?
Cross-posted at S&P
While I am not a fan of Newt, I also think what he could be trying to discuss (and flubs) is that the Church doesn’t have a definite answer for ensoulment. While the popular view is at conception, based in part on science, nonetheless it has not been definitive and there are many good reasons for his (which I think Newt is hinting out, such as twinning). So it might be a flub, but I think it is because he is trying to point to a question in the Church but didn’t use the right words.
This, btw, doesn’t mean abortion is permitted at such stages — that is a different question.
I take this as something that is very characteristically Newt (and is characteristic of many successful politicians): he didn’t answer the question that Tappert posed. In the Republican debates, he’s been pretty openly scornful of a number of the questions asked of him. He’s said – pretty openly: I’m not going to answer your dumb/stupid/gotcha question – I’m going to talk about something I want to talk about instead.
In this instance, Tappert asked a theology and/or a philosophy and/or a biology question. Gingrich didn’t give a theology/philosophy/biology answer; he gave a policy answer.
Tappert: When do you think human life begins?
Gingrich: I think that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life. because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions.
My suggestion is that the “very difficult questions” to which he referred aren’t the questions of theology, philosophy or biology (although those certainly are difficult questions); he was referring to difficult *policy* questions.
Istm that one implication of this answer is that President Gingrich isn’t going to spend much political capital trying to roll back FDA approval of the “morning-after pill” or contraception that allegedly contains abortafacients. President Gingrich may well be willing to spend political capital on abortion that takes place after implantation, i.e. virtually every abortion that takes place in an abortion clinic. I guess that’s only 99.44% purity on pro-life issues :-)
I imagine that when Gingrich is confronted with the fact that he is not correct with respect to Catholic teaching, he will say that he made that mistake because he was partially driven by passion for his new Faith and its anti-abortion position.
Read what Newt said carefully and you’ll see that he hasn’t actually made a statement about when there is a person/baby/human being present.
The first paragraph begins with a statement about the importance of the question. The second sentence is about what some illogical friends say f(” My friends who have ideological positions that sound good don’t then follow through the logic of:”), and then come two questions (“‘So how many additional potential lives are they talking about? What are they going to do as a practical matter to make this real?’”). This is not a model of clarity.
In the second paragraph the first sentence merely says that if the creature has been implanted “that now you’re dealing with life”. However, he doesn’t actually say that this lifeis a person/baby/human being. He ends with a comment about the difficulty of any other position.
Note that what the questioner (Tapper) says is quite incoherent about the “pre-human”.
Oops, sorry, Jim P., I wrote my answer before I read yours. Your point about his really talking about policy is a good one. He’s a slippery one, he is, our Newt.
Now wait. Maybe, I am missing something here?
Newt Gingrich was asked the question: “When do you think human life begins?”
Any pro-life Catholic, recently converted or not, would answer: “at conception.”
Either his RCIA program was deficient and/or he and his Catholic backers are being overcome and deceived by their passion for his presidency.
Helen
Actually, it gets more complicated. When one realizes the question of ensloulment, and the soul is the “life force,” it really is as Newt himself said, a tricky question which has not really been fully answered by the Church. We don’t need to know the answer to be against abortion. That is a different issue, really. But there are good reasons why the question of ensloulment has not been answered — it is a philosophical/theological question more than biological.
Some things which might help:
http://vox-nova.com/2008/05/12/do-human-embryos-have-souls/
http://vox-nova.com/2010/11/29/some-thoughts-based-upon-a-reading-from-lombards-sentences/
http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2011/11/personhood.html
The correct answer from science is that life is a continuous process. There is no moment when life begins — it begins long _before_ conception. The real question I think the religious folks are trying to ask is either (1) when does the SOUL implant into the organism or perhaps (2) when does the life of value equal to that of an human child begin [obviously not before fertilization].
The more you know, the harder the question gets for religious nuts. For example, what if there is a fertilized egg, but shortly after it starts to divide into a multi-celled organism some developmental flaw occurs that guarantees it will never be able to develop anything resembling a brain. The pregnancy would fail naturally very soon after that, but it raises a question to someone who claims the fertilized egg had a soul or equal value to that of a human, since the event that made it impossible for it to develop into something more meaningful than a blob of tissue happened _after_ fertilization.
Hi, Ann, I agree with your analysis, and it’s much more succinct than mine :-)
I also think we need to give public figures of all stripes a certain amount of latitude for spontaneous and unprepared answers to questions in live interviews. If his campaign wishes to issue a clarification, and/or if reporters are able to follow up with him, we may learn more about what he thinks about this – and about him.
Henry Karlson:
Your links are interesting and informative and, lest you think that I am a rabid adherent to “life begins at conception”, let me tell you that I am quite open to discussion and dialogue.
The point I was trying to make is that Mr. Gingrich is going to present himself as “pro-life” and “Catholic”.
The Catholic position enunciated by the Church (and, I might add, the rational for opposition to embryonic stem cell research) is that “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely form the moment of conception.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270)
I don’t see how he can maneuver himself around that or avoid the wrath of the pro-life movement.
Helen
The Catholic position does not say, however, ensoulment (and so human life) necessarily happens at conception; again this is basic if one begins to see the possible things which happen after (twinning being a primary example). Human life must be respected and protected — yes — but that is a different question as to when ensoulment/human life happens. The Catholic answer has always seen protection as a different question. That is my point. I think Newt is trying to express this complexity and so I say let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.
As far as Newt Gingrich’s Catholic sensibilities, and his authority to speak for the rest of us, I remember that my sainted sixth-grade teacher, Sister Mary Adelaide, would often opine: “Beware of new Catholic converts in their first heat.”
I had the opportunity during my training to round with residents and interns on obstetrics units. I remember that one OB explaining to me that fully 40% of fertilized zygotes that fail to implant in the uterus. [I may not remember the correct percentage exactly, but I know it was a whopping stat - even if it only 33% or 20%, medically speaking that's still astonishing!]
If as the hierarchs say that human life begins at conception, this would mean that by far the greatest of “abortionists” is God because it was (S)He [What is God's gender anyway?] who so designed nature [stipulating that if one accepts the concept of "intelligent design" as proposed by the pseudo-science of creationism]???
If God is the primal abortionist, what does this say for Catholic moral teachings about when life supposedly begins?
This kind of intellectual conundrum is what happens when you let your patriarchal-inspired political ideology get ahead of the science.
For me it would be better if the bishops focused on the meaning of life, its implications and requirements for a moral existence, and how we honor and reverence all life on our planet, not just human life, because creation itself is God’s best image. [I know what Revelations says about Christ being the Alpha and the Omega - you'll have to cut me some slack.]
Ambitious politicians, including the clerical variety, should have the humility to acknowledge that the religious path to knowledge and consciousness, while rich and satisfying, is still limited. [I recall a class with a Christian philosopher who stated that faith gives us "certitude" but not "knowledge."]
And, we should have the intellectual rigor to acknowledge that science is better equipped to decide the “when and where and how” of life while religion should focus on the “why.”
There are really two issues here — one concerns Newt’s understanding of Catholic teaching or his acceptance of it, or not, or his prudential judgment on it, and also the teaching itself, ensoulment and personhood and such. That is a deep discussion with many avenues.
The other is the political calculus, which I think is clearer — Newt tripped a wire here. Jim P said, “I also think we need to give public figures of all stripes a certain amount of latitude for spontaneous and unprepared answers to questions in live interviews.” But that’s not what has traditionally occurred, at least for Pelosi and Obama and his “above my pay grade” answer. Whether Newt is right or not in his answer matters less if not at all in terms of the political fallout, or whether there is any political fallout.
The thing is, I thought the complaints against Obama saying he couldn’t answer the question were wrong, so when Newt says he can’t answer it, I won’t complain. For me, what I give to one I give to all.
Henry, I admire your generosity — but doubt others share it!
There are really two issues here — one concerns Newt’s understanding of Catholic teaching or his acceptance of it, or not, or his prudential judgment on it, and also the teaching itself, ensoulment and personhood and such. That is a deep discussion with many avenues.
I don’t see why any of this matters. Surely Catholics will be expected/required to vote for the Republican candidate, regardless of his/her views on ensoulment. Newt is a historian, not a theologian. (Is he in Opus Dei?)
—–
But that’s not what has traditionally occurred, at least for Pelosi and Obama and his “above my pay grade” answer. Whether Newt is right or not in his answer matters less if not at all in terms of the political fallout, or whether there is any political fallout.
I didn’t like seeing a candidate for president being questioned on theological matters by a minister. Why didn’t Obama sit down with a historian instead of with a mega-minister?
Newsflash: Newt Gingrich has been on the other side of every major position he now holds at least once. Individual mandate, climate, change, premium support reform for Medicare, Social Security – you name it, he’s taken the other side. Not to mention he’s one of the few people in public life who seems to be able to make enemies out of every single person with whom he works closely.
But it does give me the occasion to relay a great tweet about Newt from the incomparable Peggy Noonan: “Newt often seems to be playing a part in a historical novel he’s dictating in his mind.”
Coincidentally:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/on-abortion-and-defining-a-person/
Good Grief. Terrible answer.
Questions have ALREADY been opened up for almost a decade !! I guess by this he is saying that if you just say if you say new life occurs with implantation..poof..alakazam the issue disappears. Even scientists who do not view embryos as human life, still see it as having a status above that of any other kind of organism (this according to a biologist who works in the area). That status requires different kinds of approval processes for research because the fact is that the organism does in fact die once you begin to work on it.
. What about harvesting eggs then? Is that not problematic because you are not dealing with new life?
Plus, as mentioned he did not answer or address the question.
What is his view of when life begins?
What is his policy around funding of research involving embryos. I am assuming he is laissez faire and green light based on his answer.
But I just cannot see how American Republicans will vote for Newt. This leopard is not going to change his spots. It would allow Obama to cruise control back for another 8 years. All Obama would have to say is, you like to talk, keep talking people are listening.
It is true that the Church has no definitive revelation on ensoulment. But she does know–from science–that a genetically unique individual is present from the moment of fertilization. She therefore chooses to err(?) on the side of caution, and teaches that human life is to be presumed from that moment. It is logical, not ideological.
To Jim Jenkins:
A quick lookup will show you that “intelligent design” and “creationism” are not the same thing, and the Church does not formally endorse either. We must believe that God created all things, but how He did it is open to difference of opinion.
God is not a “primal abortionist”. He is the author of all life. If, for whatever reason, He allows a pregnancy to miscarry, He has the authority to do so. We do not.
” But there are good reasons why the question of ensloulment has not been answered — it is a philosophical/theological question more than biological.”
Henry –
I think you’ll find that for Aquinas biology furnished necessary premises for drawing a conclusion about ensoulment. For him all living things have souls, and each species has its own kind. Granted, 13th century biology was deficient. But all that means is that we have to work with the best biology we have at any point. I might add that this is a reason why the conclusion the Church draws can change — the biological premises can change.
Let me also add that even though the Church teaches that the non-person embryo has a right to life, I still haven’t found any argument justifying justifying that position. If you have any references for that argument, I’d appreciate them.
Ann/Mike
What about twins? Twinning doesn’t happen at the point of conception. Again that is just one example where the difficulties show up.
Ann
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0116.htm
Henry:
Fraternal twinning results from two different ova being fertilized by two different sperm, and is thus no different than a single fertilization. Identical twinning results from a single fertilized ovum splitting into two. God can certainly ensoul both. Exactly how or when He does so may not be clearly understood, but the result is still two soul-bearing human lives. I don’t see an issue here.
Identical twinning results from a single fertilized ovum splitting into two. God can certainly ensoul both. Exactly how or when He does so may not be clearly understood, but the result is still two soul-bearing human lives. I don’t see an issue here.
So, if someone is pregnant and on track to have identical twins, but takes medicine that ends the pregnancy after fertilization but before the egg has split and God has ensouled it/them, you also don’t have an issue with that.
Mike
You point out you don’t know how or when God gives the ensoulment. That is exactly the issue I believe Newt is trying to address — we don’t know!
Claire/Henry:
Please go back to my first comment, and read it all this time, especially that part about erring on the side of caution. That is most wise when all the facts are not clear in hand.
Claire: Yes I do have an issue with that, for precisely that reason.
Henry: That may indeed be Newt’s intention, but since he doesn’t articulate his answer well, it’s hard to be sure. In any case, he is unwise to assume that a fertilized ovum is not fully human at any point. The stakes are just too high.
That’s as much as I can say to this.
Henry –
The fact of early twinning is indeed evidence that it is false to say that there is one person (object with full human soul) at the time of conception. An even more important fact, in some cases zygotes are seen to twin and then *recombine* into one creature.
About my question: I’m not asking about the argument that it is wrong to kill an embryo when we aren’t sure whether it is a person or not. Obviously, we shouldn’t take a chance. That’s not what I’m asking about. I’m asking about the current Church’s standard claim that the non-person that exists before ensoulment has the same right to life as the person. It is said that the reason it has that right is because it is a “potential person”. But how can a potential person have the right belonging to an actual person? What that says is that an animal (the early embryo) has the same right to life as the human person. And the classic Church’s position IS that before ensoulment “the creature” is first a only a plant and then only an animal. Those are strange uses of those terms, but those conclusions do follow. That’s what needs to be established, but so far as I know, has not been. Or do you have some references?
I argue that a non-person cannot have a person’s right to life, even if the non-person has the same DNA. In other words, there is no reason to say that a plant or a mere animal has a human right to life. We say that the zygote is human, but only adjectivally — it is *like* a human insofar as it has a body like a human body (it includes biologically human DNA), but it is still not a person. In fact, to talk of “it” is an ambiguous use of thte pronoun because “it” actually is used in the argument to refer to two very *different* kinds of thing.
Sorry to get off-topic, but it needs to be noted that the official Church at this point is not looking at all the problems clearly, or at least I haven’t found it considering this problem. That’s why I keep asking for references about this particular point.
YOu say in your articlel: “We do not need an answer to this fascinating and speculative theological question, like counting angels on the head of a pin, in order to grasp the fundamental truth that human embryos are inviolable and deserving of unconditional respect at every stage of their existence.”
What are the premises that lead to this conclusion? What is your ground for saying this? How can a mere plant or animal have the right to life of a human *person*?
(And by the way there is no evidence whatsoever that the medievals argued about angels and pinheads. The had more important things to wonder about, like the morality of abortion.)
Gerelyn:
Surely you’re joking about Catholics being expected/required to vote for the Republican candidate regardless of his view on ensoulment. The only reason I as a Catholic vote Republican is the protection of innocent life. If the Republican candidate is not actually pro-life, then we have absolutely no obligation to vote for him, especially considering the Republican stances on the death penalty, war, torture, and even economy are all out of line with Catholic Social Teaching.
The other issue with Catholics wasting their vote on Republicans is that the Republican candidates are all banking on the pro-life vote and therefore never actually do anything to overturn Roe V. Wade. Ron Paul is the only candidate who said that as president he would bring it to a vote in Congress. And he sincerely would too: He has tried several times as a congressman, but it has constantly been pushed to the bottom of the pile and therefore avoided. As president he would have the power to bring it to the top, and with a current Republican majority, they would now have the chance to put their money where their mouth is. When it comes down to it, Catholics would therefore have more of an obligation to vote for Ron Paul than any other candidate, regardless of his political affiliation. (Especially when you consider many of his other stances AND POLICIES are actually more in line with Catholic Social teaching than the “Catholic” candidates!)
As a Jesuit university educated man, IMO, this is a classic Commonweal garbage piece that is offensive to what the Jesuits claim to represent educationally.
St Ignatious would never have rolled in the filth of intellectual dishonesty Garbageweal routinely wallows.
Clearly Gingrich avoided the political trap trying to be laid, and did so by changing the direction of focus to the real discussion regarding abortion; not is it murder or not, but rather pointing to the web of semantical dishonesty that pro-life AND Protostant-Catholic liberals employ (e.g. lost/selfish Jesuits and Notre Dame religious leaders).
Garbageweal and it’s intellectually stunted Sheeple editors are simply afraid of Newt.
As a conservative Roman Catholic, I hope Newt wins. And I am sorrowfully joyful as I watch the edifice of so much of what was created from lies and distortions of what Vatican II really said and intended comes tumbling down. Too many priests and laity walk parish property and enter the churches as “stewards” who are really nothing more than liberals who didn’t have the guts to lead a secular life as a social worker and rather choose the “safety” of the Sacristy to live out their personal feminist agendas and homosexual-Drama-Queen dreams.
AMDG.
Hi, Carolyn:
I wasn’t joking. I don’t joke about being told how to vote. I vote against Republicans.
I just finished reading Washington: A Life, by Ron Chernow. For Catholics unfamiliar with our country’s history, it’s a good starting point.
http://www.amazon.com/Washington-Life-Ron-Chernow/dp/1594202664/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322935270&sr=1-1#_
Sad to think of someone like Newt or Mitt or Ron Paul or Michelle Bachman or Herman Cain or Rick Perry being elected to the office once held by Washington, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, Clinton, et al.
—-
@ Mike Gootee:
You’re right about intelligent design and creationism not being the same thing.
I’ll leave it to others to try to explain or define just what these pseudoscientific notions are. Suffice it to say, for the unthinking and uneducated, they are threats to the integrity of science.
However, the more exotic notion of creationism [which bizarrely posits that humans and dinosaurs co-existed] has its genetic roots in the so-called principle of intelligent design [nature is the work product of the “divine watchmaker”].
While “the Church does not formally endorse either,” intelligent design or creationism as you say, little more than a year ago Cardinal Archbishop Christoph Schonborn, papabili to some, argued during lectures right here in Berkeley, CA to skeptical audiences and faculty/students that intelligent design was consistent with church tradition and that creationism should not be “dismissed out of hand.”
[I will stipulate that it seems that Schonborn does have a record of going off the Vatican reservation from time to time. But, he is a cardinal – they don’t let just anybody into that club.]
I’ll admit that spontaneous natural abortions are a stunning idea to take in – there are few biological processes in nature that have such a high occurrence rate. But these natural abortions are a demonstrable FACT or REALITY.
But, to assert that “God … allows a pregnancy to miscarry” because “He has the authority to do so,” is just not “err[ing] on the side of caution,” but more of a good old 60’s cop-out: In fact, it is a truly dangerous, mistaken belief.
In other words, since we can’t or won’t rationally confront the reality before us, just blame it on a capricious and/or frivolous divinity.
That is just not a rejection or denial of human knowledge and science, it is a form of idolatry. At least, it’s not a God I want to believe in.
Ann,
First that post was not written by me (the one you quoted). You asked for an example of someone talking about the issue and I gave you one (someone who is a scholar in medical ethics).
Second, I think you are missing a part of the point. I think his discussion of the body as temple is helpful because it allows us to engage in analogies to the world of construction. If a building is being established, it is in the process of being built, and someone sets fire to it – it is still arson and has the full effects as if someone destroyed an already built, already established building. We already understand treating the end point as the way to read something in the process of reaching that end. This of course also goes with the eschatological “already and not yet,” and I think that applies also to the developing child (and how the ancients saw it).
Third, my views on animals follow a different route than the article (or Aristotle) but that’s for another discussion another day.
What was that about lacking guts, “HCS Knight”? Why don’t you show some and use your real name?
Henry –
Thank you. The article is a good one, but it doesn’t address the question I asked.
By the way, since I know you and a few others here are interested in some basic philosophical issues, let me recommend a blog, the Thomist Edward Feser’s. He wrote the small, extremely lucid little work on Aquinas’ philosophy which I recommended some time ago. Since then I see that he is getting more and more attention from some really heavy=weight philosophers. He seems most interested in metaphysics, and not just Aquinas’, in philosophy of science, and political philosophy. (He used to be a libertarian but now calls himself an “ex-libertarian”. Too conservative for my taste!) I haven’t read much by him, but his ability to clarify fundamental issues is amazing.
Unfortunately he doesn’t get into the abortion issue, but he does get into the metaphysical presuppositions of the topic. What he has to say about the inability of empirical science to answer what are essentially philosophical questions is particularly fine.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com
I particularly like the blog because his students feel free to argue with him and each other. He gives a lot of references to his philosophical articles.
Ann
I felt the question was about abortion and an explanation for why it would not be allowed even if ensoulment did not happen at conception. I believe it gives a good introduction to the answer one could have.
As for Ed, I’ve debated him before (in blog comments) and I’ve never been too impressed with him or his work.
Thank you all (well, most of you) for a refreshingly intelligent and respectful discussion, regardless of agreement or disagreement. I don’t often see that in comboxes. I’ve said my piece and am done, but I leave wishing peace and a merry Christmas to all.
HCS Knight:
In the Catholic High School I attended, we wrote AMDG (as you wrote at the end of your comment) at the head of every paper and test. I took that as a reminder that I was responsible for the quality of my words. Perhaps, it would have been better had you written AMDG at the beginning of your comment.
As to Newt Gingrich being presidential caliber: “Nein, Nein, Nein.”
Re: Newt’s response to the question, “When do you think human life begins?”
I want to make three points:
One,
He has a pattern of weaseling around and shifting the focus of questions that he considers “gotcha” questions. (I doubt that the term, ensoulment, has ever crossed his mind.)
Two,
He is cagey about the issue because he knows that he has in the past defended embryonic stem cell research even though he thinks he has the Catholic vote in his pocket. (After all, he was received into the Catholic Church by no one less than now Cardinal Wuerl and he has produced with his wife a documentary on John Paul II, “Nine Days That Changed the World.”)
Three,
Let’s see. I can’t remember. Oops!
A couple of added comments from catholic moral experts:
- Bernard Haring speaking about “the beginning of persons”: “The Church does not have the competence to decide that”
- Charles Curran speaking about bishops’ statements about the right to life: “To say that life starts with conception – yes, can agree with that. But, the church is not able to make judgments about public and legal policy beyond that because the bishops do not have the “certitude” necessary to make those decisions. And in catholic morality, without certitude, one must allow for individuals to make choices that make not reflect one position.”
Hey, Conservatives =
David Frum has a good post today on the differences between real conservatives (the Russell Kirk kind) and “pretend conservatives” (the libertarian greedy kind) who pretend to be anti-abortion for pragmatic reasons.
http://www.frumforum.com/russell-kirk-would-not-recognize-these-conservatives
I wonder which kind he thinks Newt is.
What was that about lacking guts, “HCS Knight”? Why don’t you show some and use your real name?
Grant, you allow the use of pseuds. If you want real names, require them and verify them.
—-
Back to Newt: Maureen Dowd and Frank Bruni both good this morning.
http://www.nytimes.com/
One thing to consider is that Newt Gingrich is a relatively new Catholic, bur Catholic none the less. Conversion is on going and my bet it’s a work in progress with Newt, just like you and me. Sure he has said a lot of stuff and made lots of compromises. Haven’t we all. He’s not a machine. To go back a year ago or thirty years ago and hold him to everything that he has done and judge him by it may not be the best idea at this point. Remember, we are a new creation. Give peace and chance.
Jon, nice that you give Newt the benefit of the doubt. Not something the right tends to do for, oh, John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi.
Gerelyn, pseudonyms are allowed because for some people, usually of the official variety, commenting under their own name could be hazardous. There is room for the cloak of anonymity.
But like anything, it can be abused. “HCS Knight’s” comment was absurd and despicable in its content and also in the cowardice of hiding behind a pseud while calling out others for their presumed lack of courage.
Why should one person who abuses a privilege discount it for all?
Not everything is as black and white as you see it.
Thanks for the explanation, David.
I didn’t like Knight’s post, either, but since it revealed so much about him, a name would have added little. I guess he’s not “of the official variety” since he seems to think Commonweal is a Jesuit publication.
He claims to be “a Jesuit university educated man,” but misspells Ignatius.
His grammar, diction, punctuation, etc., cast further doubt on his claim.
Obviously we allow pseudonyms. My comment did not suggest otherwise. There are good reasons to use a nom de web. Hiding behind one so you can launch ad hominem attacks with impunity is not one of them.
I have been waiting with bated breath for Newt Gingrich to “weasel” himself out of his answer to Jake Tapper’s question about when life begins and here it is:
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/05/gingrich-restates-pro-life-views-says-life-begins-at-conception/
Hi all.
In light of some further research, which I should have done before posting at all, I must retract a comment from my first post. The Catholic Church does have definitive teaching on ensoulment. Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae and The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Declaration on Procured Abortion agree that ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception based on the fact that the fertilized ovum is alive and growing. Life can only exist when a soul is present (“The body apart from the spirit is dead” James 2:26). That should settle the matter for any Catholic. It does for me.
I apologize for speaking too quickly. I suspect that is what Newt Gingrich did, considering the statement he issued today.
Peace to all.
Mike:
The Declaration on Produced Abortion specifically said that it didn’t answer the question:
“19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.”
Pope John Paul II made it clear, the question was open and not answered:
“Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit”
No, the Church does not have a definitive teaching on when, but it does teach us that from the point of conception we have obligations for what is in the womb.
Mike and Henry –
Please note: there are really two big questions about ensoulment.
First, when is the little organism ensouled (i.e. a person)? (This asks for a positive answer, and JP II answers, “We can’t be sure at this point.”)
Second, when is the little creature NOT ensouled (not a person)? This is a negative question and quite different from the first. It is important in the debate about stem cell research. If the little organism is NOT a person early on, then most say that it does not have the right to life.
Though we CANNOT say we know the exact point at which it is ensouled, we can say that at some points that it is NOT ensouled. The arguments for the latter include the biological evidence that twins can form in the first few days after conception, and since one person never turns into two persons, the initial creature (the one which turns into two) is NOT ensouled (not one person).
A second, even stronger argument is that sometimes those two apparent persons (the apparent twins) *revert* into one blastocyte (the thing that turned into twins).
There is another argument which involves biological, psychology and philosophical principles which is essentially an Aristotelian one — that for a soul to be present there must be a body capable of performing the specifically human operations of intellect and/or will. (A football obviously isn’t a person, and, says this argument, neither is the blastocyte nor zygote, nor even the fetus in the early months.) This is a very abstract kind of argument which most philosophers do not accept, though some, like Peter Singer’s, do present basically one of these Aritotelian argumetns.
Yes, it is all very complex, but so is nature. If it were simple, we’d know it’s false.
Henry:
Thank you for the clarification. I stand corrected. And a little chastened.
Ann:
I like your final sentence there. But, I still stand by the principle–the Church’s priinciple–of erring on the side of caution. Since we cannot be absolutely certain of the time of ensoulment, dare we risk taking a human life just because we cannot be absolutely certain? All the more reason not to.
Aristotle was a brilliant philosopher and scientist for his time, but he was limited by the knowledge of his time. As are we. Since the Church has the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I will trust her judgement, even her non-infallible judgement, on moral questions while watching with interest as science sheds more light on scientific ones.
Peace out.
Mike –
I agree that we may not take a chance if we do not know whether the little creature is a person or not. But it seems to me that we do know that in the first several days that it is NOT a person.
As to Aristotle, he’s still a philosophical heavy-weight. Not only did he in a sense invent science itself by inventing the definition of scientific knowledge which even now expresses the ideal of science (“ordered, necessary, universal knowledge of the causes of things”), but he invented the first perfect science, Aristotelian logic, which is still part of scientific method. More important, his system of metaphysics is one of the greatest, and his notion of substantial human form (“human soul”) remains a central issue in the ethical debates. Without metaphysical grounding, any proof of the nature and existence of a human soul is bound to be deficient.
Yes, at times it’s right to simply accept the opinion of the theologians. But theological arguments would not help lawmakers struggling with abortion legislation. And as I understand it, there are no purely theological arguments for saying when the fetus becomes a person. So if the unborn are to be protected, we all need a sound proof which establishes when the person begins, and that argument must combine premises from the best available chemistry, biology, human psychology and (I say, Aristotelian) metaphysics. Mere empirical science can’t do it alone because we are not merely material beings.
Mike
Well, I know the issue is complex and confusing. It surprises many people to learn what the Church doesn’t teach. (And this happens on many issues, not just ensoulment).
For me, the respect for what is in the womb, whatever the status, is best, and I think the analogy of a building under construction is valid. If someone puts it to flame, they are treated as if they committed arson to a fully built structure.
Henry –
The problem is that for a woman or girl to become pregnant against her will is a terrible thing. Granted, there are relatively few cases in which that happens. But sometimes such cases do happen. In such cases a morning after pill is a blessing. And even if the sex is consensual, there are man times that the woman is better off without a child or another child. If the little creature is not a person, why should it have any rights in the matter? Not to mention the stem cell research problems.