Card. Cottier on Obama
July 6, 2009, 8:59 am
Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
Sandro Magister today draws attention to an article in 30 days in which Card. Georges Cottier, O.P., former theologian of the papal household (Magister Sacri Palatii–a great title!), comments on the speeches given at the Notre Dame commencement, particularly that of President Obama. Magister (not of the sacred palace) says that the journal has close ties with the Vatican, and implies, it seems that Cottier’s piece must have been vetted on high.
Am I correct in reading Cottier as saying that making abortion illegal should perhaps not be the strategy of the pro life movement? I am surprised.
Cottier said: “There are those who, as we do, consider abortion an “intrinsece malum,” there are those who accept it, and then there are those who assert it as a right. The president never takes this last position.”
While it is true that the president didn’t take the last position in the speech, doesn’t Cottier know that Roe establishes a right to abortion and that the president has said many times that he supports Roe?
I wonder if Cottier really understands Roe, and how it ties the pro-life movement’s hands.
Cottier is a Thomist–he’s following Aquinas’s theory of law. One criterion of good law according to Aquinas is that it not be too onerous, and that it be accepted by the majority of people, lest they break out in worse wrongdoing.
This is the paragraph I think is the most important:
“The Church as well has always perceived as distant and dangerous the illusion of completely eliminating evil from history through legal, political, or religious means. Recent history is also rife with disasters caused by the fanaticism of those who presumed to dry up the wells of evil in human history, and ended up turning everything into a huge cemetery. The communist regimes followed precisely this logic. So does religious terrorism, which kills in nothing less than the name of God. And when an abortion doctor is killed by antiabortion militants – as happened recently in the United States – it must be admitted that even the most noble causes, like the sacrosanct defense of the absolute value of human life, can be corrupted and transformed into their opposite, becoming code words at the disposal of an aberrant ideology.”
we must be persuaded, as pre-judice (for once giving a positive meaning to the word) that the other is in good faith. Even those who do not think like me. We must avoid caricaturing the other, respect the other, not demonize him.
Does he mean like the way people like Dick Chaney are demonized by, oh I don’t know, Commonweal bloggers? Just wondering.
These are the sentences I think are most important because they expose the error of the argument of finding common ground regarding the issue of abortion:
“For us, what is at stake is the defense of the human person and his unalienable rights, the first of which is precisely that to life. Now in pluralistic society there are radical differences on this point.”
The fact that there may be radical differences on this point in a pluralistic society doesn’t change the Universal, Divine Truth regarding the Sanctity of every Human Life from the beginning, which is why our Founding Fathers based our Government on the Universal, Divine, unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, that our Creator has endowed to all Mankind from the beginning.
What is at stake for EVERYONE of us is the defense of the Human Person from the beginning.
“There will be more, not less, Respect for Human Rights if they can be treated as Divine Rights.” -Chesterton And every Divine Right exists from the beginning.
Bob Schwartz–At least I always try to spell Cheney’s name correctly when I demonize him.
I think there is often a misconception regarding “common ground,” as though it is compromising our beliefs and principles to find agreement rather than finding areas where we can agree, and most importantly areas in the secular sphere where we can work together to make the world conform more plausibly–though never perfectly–to our principles. That is where Obama’s vision I think coincides more closely with that of many in Rome, and perhaps Joseph Bernardin’s.
Also, it is in that journey that conversion can, though not always, happen, and that is where the presumption of good faith comes in as a necessity for Christians who want to evangelize and who believe in grace.
David, the principles of our Founding Fathers, the belief in the Divine Right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness for the Good of all Mankind, is the “common ground” everyone of us has to begin with.
From the beginning, President Obama’s vision does not coincide with the Divine, Universal Truth of the unalienable Right to Life endowed to EVERY Man from the Creator, nor does President Obama’s vision coincide with the principles of our Founding Fathers.
When I noted this article on another thread, I had hoped we get some serious relections, instead of prepackaged simnplicities.
I think the Cardinal points out in “temporal society” the need of moving toward (forward) common ground on issues of the common good through genuine dialogue (not one proceeding from “I’m right, you’re wrong.”)
That sense of dialogue is missing in several posts here that are more interesrted in “refuting” the Cardinal than the dialogue he calls for.
Nancy: Your pronouncements will contribute to the discussion only if you bring them down to earth and engage the questions at the level at which Cardinal Cottier, a firm believer in Eternal Truth, engages them. Do you have any comments on his arguments?
If it is true that Cardinal Cottier is a firm believer in Eternal Truth, then he should have stated that although it may be true that we live in a pluralistic society, what is at stake for all of us is the defense of the Human Person and his inalienable Right to Life to begin with. Such a statement would be consistent with someone who believes that Eternal Truth is not a matter of opinion but rather a Universal Truth.
If our beliefs and principles do not coincide with Christ, then we are not starting with a “seamless” garment to begin with.
Georges Cottier, O.P., was the theologian to the papal household for a couple of decades. One of his roles was to vet Vatican documents, including those of the Pope, for orthodoxy. There is no reason to question his devotion to Eternal Truth. That he comes to a different practical conclusion than you do needs explaining, then. He might be wrong, and you might be right, but it requires an argument to establish either of these alternatives. It is not enough to simply repeat your view without an argument on behalf of your position and an argument that shows the fallacy of his.
This is how another great devotee of Eternal Truth, St. Thomas Aquinas (great patron of Card. Cottier’s religious order), addressed disputed questions. This is how the question now being disputed might have been handled by him:
1) There would first be a statement of the question: Should abortion be prohibited by civil law?
2) The arguments in favor of a negative answer would then be set out: Videtur quod non.
3) The arguments in favor of a positive answer would then be set out: Sed contra.
4) The position of St. Thomas would then be set out, with the principles stated from which it is concluded and the distinctions set out that might need to be made in order to clarify the question.
5) An answer would be provided to all of the arguments advanced in favor of the position with which St. Thomas disagreed.
This method, it has been argued, was the main engine of the advance of theology during the Middle Ages. It has lost none of its value today, and would be helpfully adopted by anyone who wishes to deal with a disputed question. I would in particular draw attention to (1) and (5) above, which enshrined in method what Newman would declare seven centuries later: “That is no intellectual triumph of any truth of Religion, which has not been preceded by a full statement of what can be said against it.”
Simply put, the problem lies in equating a specific end with specific means.
It’s interesting that Cottier could write a line like this:
This is a falsehood. The President has described abortion not only as a “right,” but as a “fundamental right” and as “one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country,” to quote from a Planned Parenthood speech.
It’s also incoherent for Cottier to suggest that the “non-negotiable values” related to abortion could fall sway before the “radical differences” in a “pluralistic society.” If you take “radical differences” in a “pluralistic society” into account, then you are precisely engaged in negotiating about that thing.
Father, do you mean the argument should read : If abortion is allowed by law then the “unalienable” Right to Life is no longer “unalienable” and becomes “negotiable”?
David Gibson: Thank you for pointing out my spelling error.
Nancy: Your question has nothing to do with my comment. I am asking you to address Card. Cottier’s argument, not mine.
Cottier’s sympathetic comments on Obama’s effort to find common ground with Catholics mirror in their spirit the generous, courteous approach to the discussion of differences projected in the two Obama speeches cited. What a refreshing and positive way to go.
I think JC is correct in his observation that the Cardinal doesn’t seem to understand the nature of the legal and political debate in the US. Abortion is not just something permitted in the US, it is something that must be permitted – a right. A position that Obama clearly holds, having never once supported any limit or condition of any kind related to abortion, and having stated on many occasions he supports a woman’s right to have an abortion. Another problem I see is that the Cardinal’s entire analysis is bounded by the speeches alone. The President said a lot of nice things. The problem is that much of what he said doesn’t actually line up with positions he has taken. For example, he says “[Obama] adds that any legal regulation of the matter must guarantee in absolute fashion conscientious objection for health workers who do not want to engage in the practice of abortion.” Do we really think he will turn against the abortion lobby to “guarantee in absolute fashion conscientious objection for health workers”? He is on record as supporting the requirement that pharmacies and emergency rooms provide “emergency contraception” without exceptions.
I am also concerned with equating the “common ground” political initiative with the Catholic concept of the “common good,” particularly as this debate is being carried on in the US. I think this also is a misreading of American politics. I would like someone, anyone, to explain to me how the “common ground” initiative is anything other than an exercise in labeling policies as “abortion reduction initiatives” that the proponents would have supported even if it had no effect on abortion – something they can’t prove anyway.
Non-negotiable is not a term found in Catholic moral theology. Its roots are in the 60′s protest movements, not in any kind of Catholic thought. The term was inserted into the discourse by Catholic Answers, an apologetic group composed of no one, as far as I can see, who has any formal training in moral theology. It was used in one papal talk once–and in quotes, and has not been used again. My guess is that’s because it is simply not a term in or used by the tradition.
In Latin, the word “negotium” means “business , occupation, employment, task; pains, trouble, difficulty; a matter, piece of business.” Roughly speaking, one might translate it as practical, goal-oriented activity. Law is, as St. Thomas Aquinas, practical, goal oriented activity. Good law always takes into account of where a community is at a particular point in time.
In his treatise on law, Aquinas endorses Isidore of Seville’s definition of good law: It must be “: “Law shall be virtuous, just, possible to nature, according to the custom of the country, suitable to place and time, necessary, useful; clearly expressed, lest by its obscurity it lead to misunderstanding; framed for no private benefit, but for the common good.”
It strikes me that law- making, in general, is very much about “negotium.”
Finding “common ground” on a non- negotiable Truth would require changing The Truth to begin with. We can not transform Divine Truth, The Word of God Made Flesh, it is Christ who transforms us.
Do we really think he will turn against the abortion lobby to “guarantee in absolute fashion conscientious objection for health workers”? He is on record as supporting the requirement that pharmacies and emergency rooms provide “emergency contraception” without exceptions.
Sean,
Is there absolutely no way for individuals to be allowed to have rights of conscience and, at the same time, require certain things of pharmacies and emergency rooms? And aren’t Catholic hospitals already providing emergency contraception (at east for rape victims)? Pharmacies and emergency rooms don’t have consciences. People do.
David
Here in Massachusetts Catholic hospitals are not providing “emergency contraception” and many in state government want to require them to. Emergency rooms and pharmacies don’t have consciences – but the people who work in them do. The people who own and operate them do. Remember – the Cardinal says Obama proposes to “guarantee in absolute fashion conscientious objection for health workers.” Obama has already stopped implementation of properly proposed and approved conscience protection regulations with nothing to replace them. I am simply pointing out that despite any speech he has made, the president has never supported a “guarantee in absolute fashion conscientious objection for health workers.”
Prof. Kaveny,
Your point about the term “non-negotiable” is interesting, but it doesn’t answer the point that it is completely incoherent to announce that one is prepared to negotiate over a non-negotiable principle. If Cottier is prepared to negotiate, then he doesn’t really think of the principle as “non-negotiable” after all, and therefore shouldn’t have said that he did.
Shamelessly, I’m going to use Fr. Komonchak’s thread as a platform to hop onto a hobbyhorse of mine.
Cardinal Cottier’s remarks, when taken together with Pope Benedict’s message to the G-8 meeting in Italy this week, makes it unmistakably clear that what happens to people–not just “good” or “deserving” people– in this life is and ought to be a serious concern for all Christians.
Yes, we believe that our eternal life is immeasurably more important than our earthly life. But it simply does not follow that what goes on in people’s lives on this earth is a minor matter. As the pope says, all people need and deserve food, all need and deserve education. All need and deserve respect. Anyone else hear in the pope’s words the sound of Social Justice?
(Lest I get cut off, I’ll continue below.)
God has creeated us with noteworthy abilities. We can talk, we can choose, we can do and make things, we can assess the worth of things. Some people are more talented in some respects than others are, but all of us, except perhaps the most handicapped, do things that bring about changes in God’s world. God created us as we are so that we would make changes. It’s uncontestably good that we acan and do act on the world and affect one another. With the eyes of faith, we believe that even the most severely handicapped person is a manifestation of the goodness of God’s crreation and thee abilities He has endowed people with.
It’s easy for us to see all this in the achievements of poets, mathematicians, theologians, musicians, etc. But our faith tells us that everyone can and ought to be of service to one another. Who of us would not be in bad shape without the work of butchers, bakers, candlestick makers? Without truck drivers, sanitation workers, and janitors? And again, what about the sick, the broken, the deformed? No one, neither illegal immigrant, nor convict, nor thug, lies outside God’s love and His injunction to love others as Christ Himself loves them.
(Morre below)
I’m sorry to say that in my experience of sermons, talks on christian life, etc., I have rarely heard preachers or speakers single out for recognition the contributions to good human life in this world made by “the last” who, Jesus says, shall be first. We hear, appropriately enough, about the good work of priests, nuns, and lay ecclesial ministers. We also hear about the good deed of parish volunteers and others make to “church work.” And even so, all too of ten these people are praised not in terms of what they do to make this world a better place, but rather in terms of”laying up treasures for themselves in heaven.”
Bottom line. Until it becomes second nature for us to care about what happens in THIS LIFE to one another, to each and every person, and especially to the”least” among us, wwe won’t have fully grasped Jesus’s message. And, perhaps more importantly, few if any of us comes close to fully living the message’s implications. Yes, this is seamless garment talk. It is talk about a garment that is glorious, but heavy as hell to wear.
All this, I take it, follows from the pope’s letter and, perhaps more obliquely, from Cardinal Cottier’s remarks.
My hobbyhorse.
I suppose that the irony is that there is not a single “pro-life” American politician who has ever taken a non-negotiable political position in the matter of abortion. They may all say that they believe that it is non-negotiable that abortion is a great evil that should be opposed. And they may take a consistent “pro-life” position on those rare occasions when something comes up for a vote. But in the absence of something coming up for a vote, you don’t see anyone trying, say, to shut the government down, or halting all other business until their non-negotiable business is met.
The negotiation doesn’t come with the vote. It comes before the vote. The compromise comes in keeping the government running despite the supposed “non-negotiable” nature of the issue. Absolutely everyone negotiates before the vote. Politics is not just about attitude; it is about action.
My point: the process of good law-making, according to Aquinas, is always a matter of “negotium”–paying attention to contingencies, to the art of the possible, in a particular community.
Your point is good, but again it has absolutely nothing to do with mine.
“Studebaker”? Stuart Buck, you don’t like your real name? Or are you really an obsolete model?
(Just kidding.)
When you say that Prof. Kaveny’s point has nothing to do with yours, then you seem to be saying you are not discussing what everyone else here is discussing–namely, trying to work for justice in this world through the political process. So I’m not sure I understand what point you are raising, but also why it is relevant. Cardinal Cottier is not willing to compromise his beliefs, nor is anyone here.
To Sean Hannaway: I have questions on two of your statements.
You write: “I think JC is correct in his observation that the Cardinal doesn’t seem to understand the nature of the legal and political debate in the US. Abortion is not just something permitted in the US, it is something that must be permitted – a right….” Are you suggesting that the American political view trumps the Roman Catholic Church Theological view? And that the Cardinal must reinterpret his understanding of theology to conform with American politics of the early 21st century?
You also wrote: ” A position that Obama clearly holds, having never once supported any limit or condition of any kind related to abortion” This is simply false. The GIVE Legislation (HR 1388) which is the Voluntarism Bill that President Obama stumped for during the election and which was passed by the House and Senate in March and was signed by the President in April specifically excludes any funding for volunteer activities supporting abortion services or even referrals thereto.
This just happens to be one piece of legislation I followed … it tells me that there is, indeed, room for common ground.
I don’t read what he is saying as a negotiation over the principle itself but of a negotiation over how it can be reflected in legal doctrine to the degree possible in a society where a lot of people don’t agree with the underlying principle.
I agree that his statement about what Obama believes is inaccurate. I interpret this as either wishful thinking or simply intended to preserve the greatest room for further dialogue.
“Non-negotiable is not a term found in Catholic moral theology. Its roots are in the 60’s protest movements, not in any kind of Catholic thought. The term was inserted into the discourse by Catholic Answers, an apologetic group composed of no one, as far as I can see, who has any formal training in moral theology. It was used in one papal talk once–and in quotes, and has not been used again. My guess is that’s because it is simply not a term in or used by the tradition.”
Cathy–
It’s not often we’re on the same side of an issue so I wanted to mention I’m in complete agreement with your sentiment here. Though I understand what Catholic Answers was trying to get at, I abhor the term “non-negotiable” when applied to moral theology. To my mind, it’s a category error and implies that there are other truths which are negotiable, which is silly, and leads to a cluttered mind. I think the term “non-negotiable” should be removed from the Catholic lexicon and my position on that is…er…non-negotiable.
When you say that Prof. Kaveny’s point has nothing to do with yours, then you seem to be saying you are not discussing what everyone else here is discussing–namely, trying to work for justice in this world through the political process.
This is missing the point. My point was that Cottier fundamentally contradicts himself. He says that abortion is non-negotiable, but hey we’ll negotiate about it anyway (pluralistic society, etc.). All Prof. Kaveny is saying is that we should indeed negotiate about it. Well, fine, but that is completely beside the point that Cottier is trying to have it both ways. And it’s troublesome to see such elementary errors of fact and logic.
Prof. Kaveny:
February 2007:
Sacramentum Caritatis, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html
Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms (230). These values are not negotiable.
Well, the formatting got messed up, but the point is that like it or not, Pope Benedict has used the term “non negotiable” in at least two talks and one Apostolic Exhortation, and that’s just what I could find in looking at the first page of Google results.
The idea of non-negotiable issues in a democratic election is pretty much a joke, at least as it was widely interpreted in the 2008 presidential election.
It was impermissible, many argued — a mortal sin, some said — to vote for Obama, because that would be remote material cooperation with the intrinsic evil of abortion. But how could you vote for McCain, some asked, when he supported embryonic stem-cell research? Wouldn’t a vote for McCain be remote material cooperation with stem-cell research? The answer was that both Obama and McCain supported embryonic stem-cell research, so they cancelled each other out, and embryonic stem-cell research became a non-issue.
One would have thought that a candidate who took the wrong position on any “non-negotiable” issue would be unacceptable under any circumstances, no matter what his opponent’s position was. But no!
Cindy,
You ask – Are you suggesting that the American political view trumps the Roman Catholic Church Theological view? And that the Cardinal must reinterpret his understanding of theology to conform with American politics of the early 21st century?
Of course not. I was only observing that the Cardinal’s characterization of what the President’s views are is mistaken, and that some of his comments are based on the false premise that abortion in America is based in forebearance and not asserted as a right.
I also stand by my statement about limitation on abortion for two reasons. First, I hardly think not providing funding for volunteer advocacy is a limitation. Second, that this provision is in the bill does not mean that Obama “supported” it. In fact, the provision was added to the legislation as he originally supported and stumped for it by a pro-life Republican. The fact that he didn’t veto the legislation is hardly the same thing as supporting it.
The term “non-negotiable” issues, about abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, euthanasia, and cloning, was introduced in Catholic Answers’ pamphlets in 2004 voting guides it issued in competition with official voting guides.
It is not a technical term of Catholic moral theology. That it has been picked up and used in a number of talks by speechwriters for various Vatican figures is not surprising, but it still doesn’t make it a term of Catholic moral theology.
What needs to be done is an article for a good theological journal pointing out the roots of this term, its great tensions with the Thomistic tradition of law and (imho) of the way practical reason itself operates, so that that type of mistake won’t happen again.
It’s precisely the same type of mistake that happens with the use of the term “intrinsic evil”–also a technical term of moral theology thoroughly misused and misunderstood by Catholic Answers’s pamphlets.
I do not find it understandable –or acceptable –that people would misuse the terms of theology in order to coerce their fellow Catholics to achieve political ends, any more than I would find it understandable or acceptable that people would misuse legal terms to coerce their fellow citizens.
1. Was Sacramentum Caritatis a speech? It isn’t presented that way. If not, it is another mistake to chalk up the term “not negotiable” to “speechwriters.”
2. I found a third and fourth papal speech that use the term.
3. Your claim that the term “not negotiable” is “not a term found in Catholic moral theology” is yet another mistake, unless you’re defining “moral theology” so as to exclude the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. From 2002:
I’m not saying the term can never be found–I’m saying that it’s found here and there in very recent documents and was introduced into wide circulation by Catholic Answers–it is not a term of technical Catholic moral theology, and it’s been used to disastrous effect in the American context, in ways that are in tension with the great weight of the Thomistic tradition on practical reasoning and law. It is a recent intrusion into a two-thousand year old tradition, and it is disastrous, in my view, precisely because many of its connotations work against important concepts in that tradition.
The core point from the CDF document is that there are exceptionless moral wrongs. It is always wrong to kill an innocent human being. But the actual history of moral theology (not googlable, and in Latin) is replete with attempts to discern precisely what counts as falling under those wrongs. To take a more recent (taught in 20th c.) authority–Zalba’s manual for example, on what counts as suicide–and what doesn’t count as suicide. The term non-’negotiable suggests that there is no need to discern, no need to argue, no need to consider circumstances. That is precisely not the case in the great moralists of the Church. And I think that if the full implications of this term “non-negotiable,” and its roots in the American protest context were pointed out, we’d soon stop seeing the term appear in Vatican documents.
If you’re going to start citing Vatican documents, by the way, be aware that they come in different levels of authority. Francis Sullivan’s Magisterium gives a good outline of the different levels of authority.
Can’t we advance this particular question by asking what nouns the adjective “non-negotiable” modifies? In two of the quotes given above, it modifies “principles” and “values.” If this is the usual case, the usage might correspond in the moral tradition to first or universal moral principles. Discussions of what these are, how they are to be stated, and what more particular consequences may be drawn from them have made the textbooks in moral theology as fat and multi-volumed as they are. I do not, however, myself like the use of “negotiate” to describe this process of moral discernment and argument; and I’d be surprised to find it in the textbooks.
Cathy: May I ask why you attribute the adjective “non-negotiable” to “Catholic Answers”?
I think that non-negotiable should refer to principles and values in the sense that you say. But in the US, in fact, it refers to a specific political program that defines its members as part of a tribe called “conservatives”.
The debate could be advanced if it were put in the following way: GIVEN that it is a non-negotiable principle that abortion is a great evil, I THINK it follows that we need to engage in political practice X.
What we have instead is: GIVEN that it is a non-negotiable principle that abortion is a great evil, it NECESSARILY follows that we need to engage in political practice X. If one says that in fact the proposed political practice is wrong or misguided, one is attacked as though one is saying that the principle itself is negotiable. This is why these discussions always spin to nowhere and the distinction between these two forms of the discussion is all that I think the Cardinal is making.
It seems to me obvious that you don’t negotiate ethical principles. However, nobody is proposing that ethical principles be negotiated. By what authority, and on whose behalf, would President Obama negotiate ethical principles? I don’t think it counts as an “ethical principle” that, in a pluralistic society, all abortions must be illegal. And even if that did count as an ethical principle, what should the laws be? Who should be punished? What should the penalties be? How vigorously should the laws be enforced?
According to the Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics (Catholic Answers Action, San Diego, 2006), the five non-negotiable issues are abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, and homosexual marriage.
Here is the introduction to the section on those issues:
Here is the section on how to vote:
If you’re going to start citing Vatican documents,
I cite Vatican documents only in answer to your false claim that the term “was inserted into the discourse by Catholic Answers,” and that it “was used in one papal talk once–and in quotes, and has not been used again.” It’s been used in at least 4 papal talks, one papal Apostolic Exhortation, and one CDF document issued before Catholic Answers.
it’s been used to disastrous effect in the American context, in ways that are in tension with the great weight of the Thomistic tradition on practical reasoning and law. It is a recent intrusion into a two-thousand year old tradition,
But this “intrusion” into the Tradition has occurred in response to a previous intrusion — the phenomenon of modern politicians and their theological teammates who claim that abortion is a “fundamental right,” or at least that opposition to abortion isn’t really that important in the grand scheme of things, and gee whiz it’s a pluralistic society anyway so how can you expect me to do anything about abortion or even argue against it, and can’t we change the subject and talk about health care instead?
The “non negotiable” language is a firm reminder that even if it’s politically impossible to pass a ban on abortion (as it likely will be within our lifetimes), you should still be working to restrict it as much as you can. Paragraph 73 of Evangelium Vitae makes all of this quite clear.
Back to Cottier: It seems a semantic sleight of hand for Cottier to claim that Obama’s reference to “common ground” bears any resemblance to the Catholic concept of the “common good.” “Common ground” in Obama’s usage means nothing more than “let’s do something that all sides agree on,” which is a concept that would apply equally to agricultural subsidies to rich corporations or restrictions on trade with Cuba or any number of things that are not in the “common good.”
Father, I’m afraid that I simply can not believe that the article you have referenced was written by Cardinal Georges Cottier.
Unless, Cardinal Georges Cottier is not a firm believer of eternal Truth. This article is full of contradictions and gives no evidence of politics that can usefully be compared with the fundamental elements of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church begins with the Divine Truth that every Human Being has their origin in the Creative Love of God and that we are to Respect the Human Dignity of every Person. The “Common Good” of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church refers to “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and easily.”-CCC.,no.1924
Social Justice requires that every Human Life be Respected and be allowed to reach their fulfillment. The destruction of innocent Human Life is an affront to Social Justice from the beginning.
Nancy,
Do you think Cardinal Cottier is in favor of the destruction of innocent human life, or opposed to the dignity of the human person?
What did you think of this passage?
Don’t you think you have an obligation to seriously consider that a cardinal of the Catholic Church, an eminent theologian — in fact, the theologian of the papal household under John Paul II — might know more than you do about the position of the Church on civil law?
Are you so sure you are right that you accuse Cardinal Cottier of not being a firm believer in eternal Truth?
If Prof. Kaveny bristles over the Pope’s repeated use of the term “non negotiable,” I can hardly imagine what she thinks of his phrase “culture of death” in today’s encyclical.
Speaking of gratuitousness, Stuart…
Nancy: Perhaps you should write to the editor of “30 Days” and ask him whether the article was written by Cardinal Cottier. If it’s a hoax, the sooner the world learns this, the better.
If I had run for president on a platform of enacting into law all Catholic teaching would not every Catholic in the country be obligated to vote for me? Of course not! And the reason is that my chance of being elected is vanishingly small and even if I was elected the chances of my being able to deliver would be smaller still. My point is that how a person casts his or her vote has much more to do with the voter’s estimate of what the candidate will or can deliver than what might be the candidate’s stated position on the issues.
If Prof. Kaveny bristles over the Pope’s repeated use of the term “non negotiable,” I can hardly imagine what she thinks of his phrase “culture of death” in today’s encyclical.
While this seems to be just a personal swipe at Cathleen Kaveny, I would point out that what the encyclical says is
The scare quotes change the meaning. If he were quoting John Paul II, there would be a reference. I would read this as “the so-called culture of death.”
Father, which sentences in this article would be consistent with an author who believes that Respect for the Dignity of every Human Being is a Divine, Universal Truth and not just a “Catholic” belief?
David — I don’t think Benedict was using ironic scare quotes there, as would be implied by the term “so-called.” Nor was that a “personal swipe” — I said nothing about Prof. Kaveny’s person. It was an observation strictly confined to her arguments, which are fair game.
Nancy: I just re-read the article and I don’t find any sentences that are inconsistent with the belief that respect for the dignity of every human being is a divine, universal truth. Are you at all considering the possibility that a good Catholic and a very good theologian, official adviser to popes, could disagree with you about the practical and legal consequences of that divine and universal truth? Perhaps things are not as simple as you have been assuming? Consider at least the possibility.
David — I don’t think Benedict was using ironic scare quotes there, as would be implied by the term “so-called.” Nor was that a “personal swipe” — I said nothing about Prof. Kaveny’s person. It was an observation strictly confined to her arguments, which are fair game.
Scare quotes don’t have to be ironic. “So-called” doesn’t have to imply irony. There would be nothing ironic if I said, “The media gave too much coverage to the so-called Octomom.” Or if a man writing about his wife called her “the old ball and chain” and put it in quotation marks. My point is that putting a phrase like that in quotation marks implies the writer is putting some kind of distance between himself and the use of the term, such as implying “this is what it is popularly called,” or “this is not normally part of my vocabulary,” or else the writer is not using the term literally, with a number of implications.
To say someone “bristles” is not addressing their argument. It is describing what you believe his or her personal, emotional reaction to be. That is, of course, not necessarily out of bounds in a discussion. I just didn’t see much point in this instance.
David: I don’t think that quotation-marks are always “scare quotes,” and wonder why the latter seems to have become the generic term for them. Nor do I think they always mean that a writer “is putting some kind of distance between himself and the use of the term.” Some times they simply refer to something that has been the object of earlier reflection, and their use for such purposes doesn’t to my mind imply distance or its contrary. What applies here I have no idea. I am just trying to make a general point.
Fr. Komonchak,
I would agree with you if you are saying all scare quotes are quotation marks, but not all quotation marks are scare quotes. The implication of straightforward quotation marks is usually fairly clear. You’re using someone else’s words, or quoting yourself exactly. When scare quotes are used, the meaning may not always be so clear. It seems to me that if Benedict XVI had adopted John Paul II’s concept of the culture of death entirely as his own — as many writers have — he wouldn’t use quotes around the phrase. At minimum, I think he is saying, “These are not my words.” If that is the significance of the quotes, then I would agree that they aren’t scare quotes. They are quotation marks around a quotation.
I think Prof. Kaveny’s point is that she finds it objectionable for “culture warriors” to call their opponents part of the “culture of death.” I don’t think she objects to the concept. She objects to calling people saying they are pro-life and anyone who disagrees with them is “pro-death.”
Sean said, “I can hardly imagine what she thinks of his phrase ‘culture of death’ in today’s encyclical.” Well, it’s not his phrase. That’s why it’s in quotes. He only used it once. And he didn’t use it to say, “Anyone who disagrees with me is part of the culture of death.”
I used to be an editor, and I still work for a publishing company. It used to be one of the great pleasures of the job to gather a group of people together and try to come up with a consensus on points of grammar, style, punctuation, even when we were quite convinced that nobody else cared. But it was almost always over very specific cases, and this is the first time I have attempted a discourse on quotation marks! Usually, the answers to our questions were somewhere in The Chicago Manual of Style, although I had a boss many years ago who said if you knew where in the index to look up what you wanted to know, you already knew the answer. That was many editions ago, though.
My most recent dilemma was an author who insisted (in an e-mail) his affiliation be listed as follows (I have changed the school)
The University of California-Sunnydale
That left me wondering whether it should be a hyphen (I didn’t think so), an en dash (that would have been my guess), or an em dash. I don’t have the current (15th) edition of the Chicago Manual, but someone who did found the answer. It should be an en dash.
Father, For example: “But morality always takes account of the reality to which it applies. In this case, it is a matter of the quest for the common good in a pluralistic society.”
How is this sentence consistent with Divine Truth which does not change and does not have to take account of the reality to which it applies because Divine Truth is the reality to which everything we do should be oriented? The common good is thus the same for every Human Being and does not change because we live in a pluralistic society even though everyone does not recognize The Truth. ( apparently even if The Word Made Flesh was standing right there in front of them.)
Cardinal Cottier’s piece is disappointing and really quite vexing. His conflation of “common ground” with “common good,” is simply sloppy. His misunderstanding of the American situation and Obama’s actual positions is lamentable. (I see that Stuart Buck has made many of these points already and better than I can.)
Professor Kaveny makes what I take to be some valid points about the term non-negotiable though I find entirely unpersuasive her dismissal of the Pope’s use of the terms several times. I guess he is a mere “Vatican figure” whose speechwriter must have read Catholics Answers and picked it up. And wouldn’t the Pope’s use of term suggest it is being injected into Catholic moral theology? (BTW, for the record, I find Catholic Answers’ approach to be reflexive and reductive.) Furthermore, what about the term “intrinsic evil?” This is clearly part of the tradition, right?
Moreover, we can agree with Thomas Aquinas’ approach to the law as JPII did in Evangelium Vitae, without using it as an excuse or an apology for our current abortion regime or the current position of the Democratic party. Frankly, this academic handwringing on abortion has become tiresome and begins to call into question whether those who claim to be pro-life yet never tire from making arguments that seem to ratify the status quo really in the end care about ending and prohibiting abortion. Wedded of course to Aquinas’ view of good law — what Professor Kaveny describes as law that is “not be too onerous, and . . . accepted by the majority of people, lest they break out in worse wrongdoing,” must always be those non-negotiable or shall we say absolute first principles. We must proclaim with clarity that abortion is wrong and that our ultimate goal is to see it prohibited in law as justice requires. I don’t see how we get around that clear teaching of Catholic moral theology especially as recently expressed in EV. Now it may be that we cannot prohibit abortion now, but we must make it clear that we aim to do so and we should try to convince others of this. My question is this: Are we do this? Are we trying to persuade “the majority of people” that abortion is a) wrong and b) should be prohibited in law? Or are we seeing, over and over again, a nuancing to death of the issue, excuse making, and criticism of the bishops and Catholics who have made this one of their primary aims? Perhaps we should spend less time debating here on blogs — this is good advice for me — and more time trying to change the culture and the world on this issue. We could begin by calling Cottier’s piece for what it is: sloppy and mistaken-ridden.
David N.: Wojtyła himself used the phrase “culture of death” in quotations actually in “Evangelium vitae” which I think is generally considered the first appearance of the phrase. Could the quote just be signaling the reader to a neologism?
Yes. The culture of life v. culture of death is a neologism. The Catholic moral tradition , Cheeky Lawyer, is every bit as long, complicated and nuanced as the Anglo-American common law tradition. As for non-negotiable, a few appearances in subsidiary documents since 2002 or 1995 do not a tradition make. Some encyclicals last, others don’t. Some innovations in approach last, some don’t. Just like some supreme court opinions last, others don’t. Some frameworks for analysis last, others don’t. If you don’t think that’s objectively true about the Church, go back and read the condemnations of usury–defined as any lending money at interest.
Not every document has the same authority. A document issued by the CDF is not a document issued by the Pope; a speech on an occasion is not an encyclical, the phrasing of one encyclical is not necessarily normative. Pope Benedict is using the dichotomy far less than Pope John Paul II did, in my view, precisely because it has been so thoroughly misunderstood in Manichean terms especially in the American context, which is far more Pprotestant than Catholic . Read Sullivan on Magisterium, read Gaillardetz on authority in the church. There is an entire tradition about the weight to be given to different documents that you need to know about before you start telling other people what to do in the name of the Catholic Church. There is an old tradition of “approved authors” in moral theology that helps define what the center of the tradition is.
To put it bluntly: google and the catechism don’t make you a moral theologian any more than google and the us code make you a lawyer. I am continually astonished at the degree to which people–especially lawyers–presume that while law is hard to understand, and full of technical phrases that only those trained to think like a lawyer, moral theology is easy.
Pick up the Thomist sometime. See the long, convuluted debates about what counts as the “object” of a moral act–the determination that must be made prior to deciding an act is intrinsically evil. You will see that what counts as the object of a moral act is every bit as nuanced and complicated a discussion as discerning what counts as due process. Pick up John Mahoney’s The Making of Moral Theology, Pick up Ford and Kelley on moral theology. Give credit to the Catholic moral tradition as a complicated, 2000 year old tradition–not as something that began with JPII. Give at least the credit to the Catholic moral tradition that you would give to the anglo-american legal tradition.
And frankly, Cheekly Lawyer, the sheer disrespect you show Cottier–when, as far as I know, you have not one-tenth the knowledge of or training in the Catholic theological tradition or the moral theological tradition that he has, is dismaying. Do you really think Cottier hasn’t read Evangelium Vitae as carefully as you have? Come on! Why do you think it is good to be “cheeky?”
And Nancy, your arrogance –your pride–at suggesting that this man–who knows far more than you do–doesn’t love the eternal truth because he sees things more in a more complex way than you do takes my breath away. Assume, as is not implausible, that the Pope himself signed off on this statement. I guess, then, you would say that the Pope doesn’t love the eternal truth either.
Regarding my post at 6:20, I would like to edit it so that it reads:
Divine Truth, God’s Law of Love, is the reality to which all morality is oriented. The common Good, found in the the fundamental principles of Natural Law, is unchangeable and thus “non-negotiable”.The common Good does not change even though one may live in a pluralistic society where everyone does not recognize The Truth.
Cathleen, with all due Respect to Theologians and Lawyers, one does not have to be a Theologian or a Lawyer to understand the Divine Law of Love.
Nancy –
You seem to think that there is only one “Truth* (Jesus) Who/that has existed since the beginning of creation and all we have to do is to refer to that simple Truth and we’ll know what we ought to do.
But there are many, many truths. There are purey descriptive truths (e.g., the cat is black and white) there are emotive truths (e.g., I want anti-abortion legislation to be passed), and there are moral truths (e.g/. one ought to do good and avoid evil). Some truths are more fundamenal than others morally speaking, and that last mentioned one is the most fundamental moral truth of all. Some truths can rationally be disputed (e.g. the government ought not to bail out the ato industry), and others can;t (e.g., 2 plus 2 is equal to 4). Some truth are true — but ONLY as far as they go (e.g., some cats like dogs). (The latter might be true of some but it is far from true of all).
I bring all this up because your approach to the abortion problem does not take into account all of these truths about the various truths and the various kinds of truths that we possess — most especially you do not seem to see one very important truth about truths — that “the truth” is often *complex*, and if we are to be truthful (and I think we ought to be) we MUSt take this complexity into account when reaching moral decisions. It is morally imperative that we recognize the complexity of what we have to deal with.
For you to simply keep repeating and repeating that “Truth” is from the beginning and God’s Truth does not change gets us nowhere. It does not consider the fact that even moral truth can be more or less important.
Please also notice that “there should now be civil laws prohibiting abortion” is NOT on a par with “You should rarely kill other people”. The latter is one of the fundamental principles of morality or “natural law” while the other is not as fundamental. You are confusing primary principles and principles derived from tose principles in concert with truths about specific human historical situations (such as the fact/truth that there is no majority i the U. S. Congress to pass such legislation at the moment).
Furthermore, natural law does NOT tell us “You ought to try to accomplish what is impossible in your own circumstanes”. Such a so-called truth would actually be nonsense. We are not obliged to try to legislate abortion out of existence when we do NOT have the votes to get the job done. This is a particularly important moral truth when we are considering what is possible and what is not possible in any given pluralistic society at any given moment in history.
Yes, wprk to get votes for your side — but do not alienate those who disagree with you by implying — or worse saying — that they are uncaring or dishonest people. You cannot judge the intentions of others — only God can do that safely. And that’s another truth. It’s embodied in Jesus’ injunction, “Judge not that you be not judged”
Wojtyła himself used the phrase “culture of death” in quotations
MAT,
Thanks. I wish I had discovered that before I engaged in my own pontifications!
I found a couple of comments about John Paul II’s use of quotation markes, and this one was the more interesting:
Ann, When Jesus said, “IAM TRUTH”, He was refering to The Divine Law of Love, the reality to which all morality is oriented. “The cat is black and white truth’ is not grounded in morality but rather in the conditions that exist that give that cat it’s black and white color. Justice requires Natural Law from the beginning. The Truth will not alienate anyone although there are those who alienate themselves from The Truth.
To put it bluntly: google and the catechism don’t make you a moral theologian any more than google and the us code make you a lawyer.
Touche. It’s plain, though, that Google is useful for informing people might otherwise be fooled into believing “experts” who misrepresent the facts.
Nancy –
When you relate justice to truth you are getting more specific, and tat is a plus. Now you need to persuade the country that the following statement is true:
We ought to persude our legislators now to propose and pass an anti-abortion law this session 2009-1010 session of Congress..:
There are not enough votes to pass such a law. If you disagree with this, tell us why — what evidence do you have that it is false? How will you proceed to get it passed? Please give your specific reasons that such can be accomplished. Who will vote with you?
Sorry, that was a bit hasty, but I find myself midly amused at having the “I’m an authority and you’re just using Google” card thrust into my face by someone whose expertise was just shown to have been misinformed.
Stuart Buck: Dial it down.
When Jesus said, “IAM TRUTH”,
Nancy,
You are making up your own quotes from the Bible.
If you go to http://www.biblegateway.com and search for “I am truth,” you get nothing. If you search for “I am the truth,” you get one translation, the Worldwide English New Testament (Jesus said to him, `I am the way. I am the truth. I give life. No one can come to my Father unless I take him there.’). The passage is usually translated, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” or “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”
If I took the quote, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” and changed it to, “I am the Alpha and the Beginning,” that would distor the meaning. It is the kind of thing you are doing.
You quote the Bible in English. It was written in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Nobody can just pick up a copy of the Bible and say, “This is what Jesus said, and this is what he meant.” Those of us who don’t speak the original languages are dealing with translations of translations, and we are heavily indebted to and dependent on scholars over the past 1900 years who have preserved and interpreted the Bible.
Also, Catholics are obliged to read the Bible in the light of what the Church teaches, not misquote it and strike out on their own.
Finally, there is a very legitimate question as to whether Jesus actually said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (or just about anything attributed to him in the Gospel of John). It may very well be John’s understanding of Jesus, which John conveyed by having Jesus say it of himself. For Catholics (and many other Christians), to believe that would not be a denial of the validity of the Gospel of John. It would merely be a recognition that John was divinely inspired but was conveying authentic truths about Jesus as more of a theologian or Christologist than a journalst or historian.
I would urge you to stop making up quotes from the Bible and to be more respectful of Biblical scholarship, theologians . . . and lawyers, too.
Ann, the Due Process Clause that states, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, is binding on State as well as Federal Government. Induced abortion that involves the termination of Human Life and all of that Person’s potential is in direct conflict with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The truth about Conception is that at Conception, the Life of a unique Individual exists with all the conditions necessary to make that Life Human.
Nancy,
Your interpretation of the word “person” in the Fourteenth Amendment — a minority view — will become meaningful only if it somehow happens that five justice on the court come to agree with that view and hear a case where they can make a ruling to that effect.
Scalia has already explicitly stated that “person” in the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the unborn, and as far as I know, no one on the current court would disagree with him.
Consequently, overturning Roe by using the Fourteenth Amendment would seem to be less likely than overturning it by getting five justices on the court who agree it was wrongly decided and should be repealed. There are far more judges and constitutional scholars who believe that than who believe the Fourteenth Amendment protects the unborn.
“I found a couple of comments about John Paul II’s use of quotation markes…”
David N.: That comment was pretty interesting. That brings up the question of what style manual is used for these documents, if any. I wonder – while I wish it was Fowler, my favorite, I reckon they prefer Oxford.
David, we all know Embryology has come a long way since 1973. It is a Scientific truth that Human Life begins at Conception. Protecting the Right to Life for every Human Individual begins simultaneously with the beginning of each Human Life.
P.S., I wonder why no one has commented on your statements regarding the Gospel of John?
“And frankly, Cheekly Lawyer, the sheer disrespect you show Cottier–when, as far as I know, you have not one-tenth the knowledge of or training in the Catholic theological tradition or the moral theological tradition that he has, is dismaying. Do you really think Cottier hasn’t read Evangelium Vitae as carefully as you have? Come on! Why do you think it is good to be ‘cheeky?’”
First, let’s stipulate that Cottier has probably 1000 times more training in theology than I do. I believe he is faithful and holy and was a very good and lucid theologian for the Pope. I imagine he knows EV well because he probably helped write it or at least vet (if he was then serving in that position). I don’t see how anything I said denied that nor showed disrespect. If anything, given his background his piece is all the more surprising.
Is it disrespectful to point out that “common ground” has a very different meaning from “common good?” Is it disrespectful to point out that he makes a mistake of fact that could have been easily avoided when he says that President Obama doesn’t support a right to abortion? Just go to the whitehouse website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/women/ I don’t think I need a Ph.D. in theology or a chaired professorship to be able to point this out, to suggest that they demonstrate a fundamental sloppiness in this piece, and to say that Cottier fails to grasp the American context which is different from the Roman or Swiss context he is familiar with.
Nor do I see anything I said suggesting the moral traditions can be reduced down to JPII. I do think he is very important and that EV was an important document given its synthesis of the tradition and application to what we face today, but the tradition is bigger than that. At the same time, given our previous discussion about what episcopal authority is, I would not be surprised if I give EV more normative weight than Professor Kaveny because of how I read Gaudium et Spes and the Second Vatican Council. Clearly, an encylical, by our Holy Father, should be read and accepted with a deep ecclesial sense and filial love. (This is precisely why Weigel’s comments about the new encyclical are so saddening and disheartening.)
“Pick up the Thomist sometime. See the long, convuluted debates about what counts as the “object” of a moral act–the determination that must be made prior to deciding an act is intrinsically evil. You will see that what counts as the object of a moral act is every bit as nuanced and complicated a discussion as discerning what counts as due process. Pick up John Mahoney’s The Making of Moral Theology, Pick up Ford and Kelley on moral theology. Give credit to the Catholic moral tradition as a complicated, 2000 year old tradition–not as something that began with JPII. Give at least the credit to the Catholic moral tradition that you would give to the anglo-american legal tradition.”
I admit that I haven’t done graduate work in theology. While I was accepted to do a MTS along with my JD, I turned down the offer. Perhaps I should have so I could flash my badge and offer more credibility. I do think I am a fairly well educated layman in these matters. I have picked up the Thomist before and hope to again, I have read Curran, Aquinas, McCormick, Finnis, Grisez, Fuchs, Augustine, Pinckaers, Cardinal Kasper, Gerard Hughes, and numerous others. I read Communio for fun. I count among my friends two of the editors of Communio. I have a sense that theology and moral theology are not easily reduced down to categories and that much debate and discussion goes on. Moral theology is complex in many ways. But theology as Balthasar said, must be done on one’s knees, and must see itself at the service of Christ and the Church. Moral theology is a dead science if its complexity and nuance become a barrier to this service. And, frankly, sometimes there are answers and they are quite simple — but by no means easy to accept or apply.
“There is an entire tradition about the weight to be given to different documents that you need to know about before you start telling other people what to do in the name of the Catholic Church. There is an old tradition of “approved authors” in moral theology that helps define what the center of the tradition is.”
I am certainly aware of the different levels of authority of documents and teaching in the Church. So I do know this and haven’t thought I can play moral theologian just because of Google and the Catechism. Frankly, I don’t see how anything I said was as disrespectful or cheeky as your response. Over the months that I have occasionally posted here I have frequently given credit to your arguments Professor Kaveny, I have changed my mind and admitted error when an example or analogy was flawed, I have actually addressed what you have said. You have rarely, if ever, given me or other legitimate interlocutors (I distinguish them from those who are simply trolls) the same respect. It is not an argument to wave around one’s theological knowledge and degrees and to put down others for their lack of graduate study. I wish I could go study theology and get a degree. I don’t have the means to drop my work and come to ND or go to the John Paul II Institute (which in my mind has the best theological program for depth and breadth anywhere in the US). But that doesn’t mean that I am unaware that theology is more than reading TAN books or the Catechism. It doesn’t mean that I am unaware of the depths and complexity of the theological tradition. Your unkind suggestions to the contrary are disrespectful.
Finally, I don’t think being cheeky is a virtue. I think this was a random nom d’ internet I picked out a long time ago. I’d prefer to post under my own name but for work reasons do not.
Boy the discussion has really gotten off topic. I have no idea what all the talk about quotation marks was about. :)
Prof Kaveny, if you get frustrated here sometimes, I want you to know that I have learned a lot from your comments about what I don’t know about moral theology (and other things.) And, I hope I am becoming more circumspect as a result.
As I mentioned above, I’m wondering how far, in today’s American context, a Catholic can argue that abortion should remain legal. I know that serious pro lifers promote gradualism, and that even before Roe there were therapeutic abortions, so we are not really talking about total prohibition. But, is there some reference you could point me to for a Catholic argument that abortion should remain legal? I have access to a research library, so it needn’t be googlable! (should that be in quotes?)
Cheeky Lawyer: Thank you for your last note. It greatly elevates the level of discussion.
David, we all know Embryology has come a long way since 1973. It is a Scientific truth that Human Life begins at Conception. Protecting the Right to Life for every Human Individual begins simultaneously with the beginning of each Human Life.
Nancy,
No amount of embryological evidence will change the meaning of “person” in the Fourteenth Amendment. And actually developments in genetics have moved us farther away from the idea that the DNA of a fertilized egg is the sole determinant of what the organism will become.
P.S., I wonder why no one has commented on your statements regarding the Gospel of John?
Probably because they were not at all controversial. I will go further and say that I would assume a large majority of Catholic New Testament Scholars today do not believe Jesus made the speeches that are attributed to him in the Gospel of John. The introduction to the Gospel of John says the following:
I would venture to say that most scholars would believe that the “long discourses of quasi-poetic form” are mostly not the words or Jesus, but rather the theological reflections of John, or rather of the author of what we call the Gospel of John, whose identity we do not know.
I thought you said you read Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman.
David, any Faithful Catholic can see there is much error in the book, Jesus Interrupted. Regarding the Universal Divine Truth that a Child in their Mother’s Womb is a Person:
“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a Virgin will be with Child and bear a Son, and she shall call His Name, Immanuel.”- Isaiah 7:14
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the Child leapt in her Womb.” Luke 1:41
Regarding the Universal Divine Truth that Human Life begins at Conception:
“And behold, you will conceive in your Womb and bear a Son, and you shall name Him, Jesus.”- The Angel Gabriel (Luke 1:31)
Perhaps someone can answer this question which is related to Cardinal Cottier’s article.:
Since it is true that we, as Christians, are all called to bear witness to The Truth, how do we find common ground between that which is True and that which is error, without compromising The Truth to begin with?
“There are not enough votes to pass such a[n anti-abortion] law. If you disagree with this, tell us why — what evidence do you have that it is false? How will you proceed to get it passed? Please give your specific reasons that such can be accomplished. Who will vote with you?”
Ann–
But we should all help Nancy, right? Sometimes I think the problem with negotiating or not negotiating has to do with short term goals (getting the best legislation that can be negotiated now) versus long term goals (supporting politicians who will get the “right” legislation passed). Doing the former doesn’t relieve us of our obligation to do the latter.
As an aside, I know this is off point and don’t want to make a mountain out of a mole hill, but I don’t know where else to mention this: Don’t even know for sure if this is happening, but I think it’s inappropriatel to address someone in here by anything other than the name they have chosen, whether you think you know their real name or not. (For example, I would prefer not to be addressed by my real name, Elvis.)
Don’t even know for sure if this is happening, but I think it’s inappropriatel to address someone in here by anything other than the name they have chosen, whether you think you know their real name or not.
Mark,
I don’t think it’s a problem. Those of us who have been here for any length of time all know Stuart Buck. He seems to have changed his e-mail address from stuartbuck@msn.com to stuartbuck@gmail.com, so presumably he couldn’t log in under his original name of Stuart Buck with the new e-mail address. So he became Studebaker. If he was trying to fool anyone, he wouldn’t be using an e-mail address with the name Stuart Buck.
David–
I see your point. Still, I think it’s better to err on the side of caution.
Anyway, thanks for not calling me Elvis.
Anyway, thanks for not calling me Elvis.
Mark,
I was very pleased with myself, since the temptation was overwhelming.
What I find most disturbing about President Obama’s view on abortion is that he appears to recognize the Personhood of the Child in their Mother’s Womb and yet, as a Constitutional Lawyer, believes that the right of a woman to choose an abortion, (which does not exist in the Constitution) is not in conflict with the fundamental Right to Life of that Human Individual.
Since it is true that we, as Christians, are all called to bear witness to The Truth, how do we find common ground between that which is True and that which is error, without compromising The Truth to begin with?
Nancy,
I think what we do with the bad or maybe just sadly mistaken people — like Cardinal Cottier — who would have us compromise The Truth is to say to them what the Bible says, “Judas departed and went off and hanged himself. Go and do likewise.” (Matthew 27:5, Luke 10:37)
The common Good, that which is Good, is Good because God declares it so. Common ground can only correspond to the fundamental concept of the social doctrine of the Church if it is for the common Good.
Nancy –
I think David is right that your argument about the Fourteenth Amendment is a matter of interpreting the Constitution and so would be a matter for the supreme Court to decide.
To change the statutes (non-Constitutional laws) you would need another argument or arguments tou the Congress to pass a law outlawing abortion entirely, and not only would you need a strong argument, you would need to actually pursuade a majority of both chambers to pass the law, plus getting the President to sign it..
So what is your argument(s) and who will you persuade to change their opinions? In other words, how will you get the votes, given that more than half of the legislators and the President disagree with you?
But your offering an argument, the one about the14th Amendment, is an imprvement over your sweeping generalities. We do not live in a world of generalities, we live in a world of particular, the world that prudence deals with..
Ann, Do you consider Respect for the Sacredness and Dignity of every Human Being to be a mere generality? Do you consider the Right to Life a Universal Truth? Do you believe we should protect innocent Human Life?
According to Roe v.Wade, if Personhood could be established for the Fetus, the whole case is overturned. Personhood has been established, and yet, Roe v.Wade still has not been overturned. The Supreme Court has the duty to protect the Right to Life of every innocent Human Being once that Human Individual’s Life begins.
The common Good, that which is Good, is Good because God declares it so.
Nancy,
This is exactly backwards. If something is good because God says it is good, then good an evil are arbitrary. By this theory of what is good, God could have made helping the poor evil and making fun of the disabled good. I think it is generally agreed that things are not good because God says they are good. God says things are good because they are good. If things were good only because God says they are good, then divine revelation would be necessary to know good from evil, which (as I understand it) the Church says is untrue.
David, evil is the absence of Good, which is why it is clear, that from the beginning, God is not in the details of F.O.C.A.. Interesting how there is no mention of President Obama’s support for the evil details of F.O.C.A. in this article, or the fact that he desires to silence those “old and tired” arguments of the Catholic Church like the Sacrament of Marriage. Charity certainly requires that we help President Obama discern that which is consistent with Catholic Social Teaching.
Nancy,
Okay, I agree with you. Cardinal Cottier must be a very bad man to argue against Eternal Truth the way he does.
David, that old and tired argument you and others are trying to use as an attempt to silence or shame anyone who recognizes poor ethics and morals for what they are, doesn’t work with me. This is a very muddled article because President Obama’s position on abortion is not consistent with Catholic Social Teaching from the beginning. If President Obama has changed his position on abortion then why has he not stated that he has changed his position on abortion?
David Nickol: I think your last post falls under the rubric “snarky.” Let’s either end this discussion, or raise its level.
Fr. Komonchak,
Apologies to Nancy and to you.
I think the problem with the Cardinal’s analysis (confession: I have not read it too closely), is that he evaluates the president’s speech in a vacuum. That’s fine as far as it goes, but it’s a bit naïve and ivory-towerish to ignore how the president’s actions have not quite lived up to his words. In fact, sometimes the distance between what he says and what he’s done is so great that it calls into question his sincerity. In not addressing this disconnect, I think the Cardinal’s analysis is limited, and can be misleading.
Thank you, David.
I think the problem with the Cardinal’s analysis is that it reflects a modernist view of Catholic Social Teaching. It does not emphasis that Catholic Social Teaching requires that all dialogue must be grounded in Truth from the beginning.
I have refrained and will refrain from debating Nancy who will continue to plow ahead with simplistic, repetitive and to my mind wrong headed approaches to discussion. While David may have ben “snarky,” I can understand his frustration.
The easy attribution of a”modernist view” shows how far we are from having a serious discussion on a serious article.
I’m going back to discussin g fear of snakes!
Bob, a modernist view, according to Pope Pius X, is one that affirms Catholic Truth at one moment, only to cast doubt upon it the next. For example: “Morality is always the same, it does not change…in this case, it is the QUEST for the common good in a pluralistic society.”
God’s Law to Respect the Sanctity and Dignity of every Human Life is a Divine Universal Truth that does not change. Why does the author, who should recognize The Truth to begin with, suggest that we can not recognize this Divine Truth and must look for it?
P.S., Regarding snakes, while it is true that dialogue between opposing views is to be respected, the belief that all differences should be respected even if they do not coincide with The Word of God, is part of the devil’s delusion to begin with.