Jo Ann Nardelli (from the Altoona, PA
area) has been a pro-life Catholic Democrat her entire life. Her father was one
before her. And she couldn't imagine a day where that wouldn't be true. But that
day was Wednesday of last week.
See http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/democrat-commiteewoman-resigns-from-party-cites-her-catholic-faith
From
the article:
* Nardelli was the president and founder of the Blair County
Federation of Democratic Women,
Vice President of the PA State Women’s Caucus, and 1st Vice President of the PA
State Federation of Democratic Women (she had been in line for the presidency of
that organization in 2014).
* She's met with Hillary Clinton and gave a
rosary to Joe Biden.
* She's never shied away from speaking about her
Catholic faith or her pro-life views as a Democrat.
* Nardelli says she
simply had no other choice than to leave the Democrat party for its
pro-abortion, pro-gay stances. When it came to choosing between her faith and
her party, she chose her faith. "God is the reason for all being," she said. "We
have to follow our faith."
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Monday, May 28, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
For Greater Glory
In this post I described a film coming out about the Cristeros war (1926-1929) in Mexico.
The date for the release is June 1. The film's name is to be For Greater Glory. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1566501/
The date for the release is June 1. The film's name is to be For Greater Glory. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1566501/
Monday, May 7, 2012
Medical Breakthrough
Recently
I was discussing the evidence for a medical link between the pill and abortion.
I offered that drug companies have progressively reduced the amount of estrogen in the pill; this has resulted in a drop in the number of blood clots. With the reduced estrogen, however, there has been an increase in “breakthrough ovulation” in which the estrogen level is so low that it doesn’t sufficiently suppress ovulation (i.e. it is simply a plain old ovulation). When fertilization occurs in this circumstance, implantation within the nutrient lining of the womb is prevented by the pill through a hardening of the lining of the womb. And this is an induced micro-abortion at one week of life -- source: http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/pill.html
This netted the following response: “Are you aware that the cell mass can split until day 14 because the cells are totipotential ...which is after implantation and thus divide into twins and souls cannot divide? Individuation and the primitive streak occur thereafter…and it’s every case because in the lab, the cell mass can be teased into twinning. Calling the first 14 days as equivalent to a real abortion is not accurate. Persons don’t divide into twins or quints etc…totipotential cell masses do.” I was also provided a link to the “Theological Studies” by the liberal Lisa Cahill.
I responded that such a formulation baked the conclusion into the premise: “Persons don’t divide into twins or quints etc…totipotential cell masses do” assumes that early-stage fertilized cells are not humans. Unsupported assertion does not an argument make.
The Cahill study, meanwhile, simply misstates the Catholic Church’s teaching – e.g. that the modern Church has “tended to view human life as personal from ‘conception’” based on “improved scientific data.” That modern Catholic scientists rely on the latest science is not a fact that could ever have produced the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Giving weight to a heretic like Richard McCormick does no good to Cahill’s position either.
Also, while Aquinas quibbled over the simultaneity of conception and the presence of the soul (he ended up being incorrect on that point), he also recognized that even absent a soul, ending the life of the unborn is still murder – something that is not possible for an undifferentiated cell mass. Even when the philosophical opinion of the succession of souls was accepted, abortion was still forbidden, and was still considered an abortion even though it was not certain if a human soul was present. Thus we find amongst the list of moral errors condemned by Bl. Pope Innocent XI in 1679, proposition 34, which states that "it is permitted to bring about an abortion before the animation of the fetus". This is what liberals commentators propose by their 14 day distinction. Proposition 35 states that no homicide is committed in an abortion, since it seems probable that the fetus lacks a rational soul. This is also what these people are saying. They are condemned by the Catholic Church. Even the post-conciliar Magisterium is very clear on this issue, such as Donum vitae, and indicates that the fetus must be regarded as a human being from conception – i.e. as having a soul.
Finally, one might ask if an unlimited number of angels can dance on the head of a needle, why can’t the fertilized matter that will soon divide into twins serve as host to multiple souls? A soul, after all, takes up no space. The better answer, though, is that it is true that two souls cannot be contained in the one matter, later separating to make two individuals when the matter separates. One living being can have only one soul, which is the form of the one living being. The second soul has to be created and infused into the matter when it separates from the first blastocyst. It might, of course, be difficult for us to determine which is first and which is second, but the second soul is only created when the matter is separated. Likewise with other multiple births.
Thus, the point remains: when fertilization occurs after an instance of breakthrough ovulation, implantation within the nutrient lining of the womb is prevented by the pill through a hardening of the lining of the womb. And this is an induced micro-abortion at one week of life.
I offered that drug companies have progressively reduced the amount of estrogen in the pill; this has resulted in a drop in the number of blood clots. With the reduced estrogen, however, there has been an increase in “breakthrough ovulation” in which the estrogen level is so low that it doesn’t sufficiently suppress ovulation (i.e. it is simply a plain old ovulation). When fertilization occurs in this circumstance, implantation within the nutrient lining of the womb is prevented by the pill through a hardening of the lining of the womb. And this is an induced micro-abortion at one week of life -- source: http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/pill.html
This netted the following response: “Are you aware that the cell mass can split until day 14 because the cells are totipotential ...which is after implantation and thus divide into twins and souls cannot divide? Individuation and the primitive streak occur thereafter…and it’s every case because in the lab, the cell mass can be teased into twinning. Calling the first 14 days as equivalent to a real abortion is not accurate. Persons don’t divide into twins or quints etc…totipotential cell masses do.” I was also provided a link to the “Theological Studies” by the liberal Lisa Cahill.
I responded that such a formulation baked the conclusion into the premise: “Persons don’t divide into twins or quints etc…totipotential cell masses do” assumes that early-stage fertilized cells are not humans. Unsupported assertion does not an argument make.
The Cahill study, meanwhile, simply misstates the Catholic Church’s teaching – e.g. that the modern Church has “tended to view human life as personal from ‘conception’” based on “improved scientific data.” That modern Catholic scientists rely on the latest science is not a fact that could ever have produced the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Giving weight to a heretic like Richard McCormick does no good to Cahill’s position either.
Also, while Aquinas quibbled over the simultaneity of conception and the presence of the soul (he ended up being incorrect on that point), he also recognized that even absent a soul, ending the life of the unborn is still murder – something that is not possible for an undifferentiated cell mass. Even when the philosophical opinion of the succession of souls was accepted, abortion was still forbidden, and was still considered an abortion even though it was not certain if a human soul was present. Thus we find amongst the list of moral errors condemned by Bl. Pope Innocent XI in 1679, proposition 34, which states that "it is permitted to bring about an abortion before the animation of the fetus". This is what liberals commentators propose by their 14 day distinction. Proposition 35 states that no homicide is committed in an abortion, since it seems probable that the fetus lacks a rational soul. This is also what these people are saying. They are condemned by the Catholic Church. Even the post-conciliar Magisterium is very clear on this issue, such as Donum vitae, and indicates that the fetus must be regarded as a human being from conception – i.e. as having a soul.
Finally, one might ask if an unlimited number of angels can dance on the head of a needle, why can’t the fertilized matter that will soon divide into twins serve as host to multiple souls? A soul, after all, takes up no space. The better answer, though, is that it is true that two souls cannot be contained in the one matter, later separating to make two individuals when the matter separates. One living being can have only one soul, which is the form of the one living being. The second soul has to be created and infused into the matter when it separates from the first blastocyst. It might, of course, be difficult for us to determine which is first and which is second, but the second soul is only created when the matter is separated. Likewise with other multiple births.
Thus, the point remains: when fertilization occurs after an instance of breakthrough ovulation, implantation within the nutrient lining of the womb is prevented by the pill through a hardening of the lining of the womb. And this is an induced micro-abortion at one week of life.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Rocky Heart
Today a friend wrote, ""
My reply: That inanimate snow can imaginatively become an animate man is what gives snowmen their charm. Now it seems an inanimate object it to be simply another inanimate object; how pointless. After all, there is a personality behind the universe – Three Persons in fact; someone with a statue's rocky heart and head is attempting to obscure that point.
My reply: That inanimate snow can imaginatively become an animate man is what gives snowmen their charm. Now it seems an inanimate object it to be simply another inanimate object; how pointless. After all, there is a personality behind the universe – Three Persons in fact; someone with a statue's rocky heart and head is attempting to obscure that point.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Change the Clocks
"Do we even still need daylight savings time?" my sister asked.
"Only in the Fall," I replied.
"Only in the Fall," I replied.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Catholic Voting Principles
Source: sspx.org
From this PDF guide published by the SSPX, the following:
I. "In the rare case that there is a clearly, publicly Catholic candidate who supports the teaching of the Church, there is a strict moral obligation to vote, under the pain of mortal sin. Where there is a clear gain possible from the correct use of a vote for some other candidate, it can be recommended or counseled. However, when there is no clear advantage, it would be better to abstain so as not to contribute even to a material participation.
II. "However, it can be permissible to tolerate the lesser of two evils for a proportionate reason, and such toleration can be for the common good, precisely because it is the lesser of two evils. Thus, it is possible to vote or even campaign for a candidate whose platform contains evils with which we do not agree. Everything depends upon a hierarchy of the most important values and issues taking priority over lesser ones.
"For a Catholic, there can be no doubt that the issues that take the highest priority must be the moral issues, and not personal or economic issues. The whole continuation of society as we know it depends upon this, and those who deny the most basic principles of the natural order are bringing about an unheard of perversion. Consequently, it is permissible and prudent to vote on the one single issue of proscribing abortion, or forbidding same-sex marriages, or putting an end to euthanasia, or freedom of the Catholic Church to run educational institutions. All of these issues are of the utmost importance. Consequently, it is likewise permissible to vote for a candidate who is known to be a Freemason, although Freemasonry is an evil society condemned by the Church and opposed to the Catholic Church, if he maintains an important principle of the natural law such as the evil of abortion.
"Lesser issues are also of moral importance such as the justice or injustice of a particular war, or the paying of a just wage to employees, maintaining the right to private property by limiting government intervention, and so on. All other things being equal, one could vote on the basis of such issues. However, it would be wrong to vote for a candidate who has a correct position of one of these issues, but a perverse and wrong position on more important issues."
From this PDF guide published by the SSPX, the following:
I. "In the rare case that there is a clearly, publicly Catholic candidate who supports the teaching of the Church, there is a strict moral obligation to vote, under the pain of mortal sin. Where there is a clear gain possible from the correct use of a vote for some other candidate, it can be recommended or counseled. However, when there is no clear advantage, it would be better to abstain so as not to contribute even to a material participation.
II. "However, it can be permissible to tolerate the lesser of two evils for a proportionate reason, and such toleration can be for the common good, precisely because it is the lesser of two evils. Thus, it is possible to vote or even campaign for a candidate whose platform contains evils with which we do not agree. Everything depends upon a hierarchy of the most important values and issues taking priority over lesser ones.
"For a Catholic, there can be no doubt that the issues that take the highest priority must be the moral issues, and not personal or economic issues. The whole continuation of society as we know it depends upon this, and those who deny the most basic principles of the natural order are bringing about an unheard of perversion. Consequently, it is permissible and prudent to vote on the one single issue of proscribing abortion, or forbidding same-sex marriages, or putting an end to euthanasia, or freedom of the Catholic Church to run educational institutions. All of these issues are of the utmost importance. Consequently, it is likewise permissible to vote for a candidate who is known to be a Freemason, although Freemasonry is an evil society condemned by the Church and opposed to the Catholic Church, if he maintains an important principle of the natural law such as the evil of abortion.
"Lesser issues are also of moral importance such as the justice or injustice of a particular war, or the paying of a just wage to employees, maintaining the right to private property by limiting government intervention, and so on. All other things being equal, one could vote on the basis of such issues. However, it would be wrong to vote for a candidate who has a correct position of one of these issues, but a perverse and wrong position on more important issues."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
