This will no doubt inflame the passions of the intended audience:
God sees embryos as “full and complete” humans, Pope Benedict said on Wednesday in an address that firmly underlined the Roman Catholic Church’s stance against abortion and scientific research on embryos.
“The loving eyes of God look on the human being, considered full and complete at its beginning,” Benedict said in his weekly address to the faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square.
Quoting Psalm 139, Benedict said the Bible teaches that God already recognises the embryo as a complete human. That view is the basis for the Church teaching that aborting or manipulating these embryos amounts to murder.
In Psalm 139, the psalmist says to God: “Thou didst see my limbs unformed in the womb, and in thy book they are all recorded.”
“It is extremely powerful, the idea in this psalm, that in this ‘unformed’ embryo God already sees the whole future,” Benedict said.
“In the Lord’s book of life, the days that this creature will live and will fill with works during his time on earth are already written.”
Benedict has already weighed into an Italian debate on abortion ahead of a general election in April, publicly supporting a pro-life group that right-wing Health Minister Francesco Storace wants to have access to counselling centres advising women seeking to terminate pregnancy.
No doubt it will have the desired effect. More here.
Doctor Gonzo
If the Pope has a direct line to what God is seeing, could he maybe pass on to me the Powerball numbers for tonight?
Paul L.
OMG, Pope Benedict is Catholic.
No comment on this story?
Via Washington Post Mourns “Rare” Abortions in South Dakota
Paul L.
Link to Washington Post Mourns “Rare” Abortions in South Dakota at
http://newsbusters.org/node/3369
Sojourner
The reality is that most American Catholics don’t fully follow Catholic doctrine. Why do you think this latest statement is going to matter? Those who agree will continue to agree. Those who don’t won’t. Same thing with contraception.
RA
According to Catholic doctrine committing or conspiring to murder is a far worse sin than preventing a child from being formed (contaception). If you are a Catholic and you have an abortion or conspire with direct or indirect political action (vote for an abortionist like Kerry, Kennedy or Clinton)to murder innocent human beings you are in mortal sin. If you do not confess and repent of this sin you will go to hell when you die.
For all you back sliden Catholics, your father is waiting for you in hell. So you have a nice day.
kenB
Yeesh, is that typical of his bible scholarship? Psalm 139:16 doesn’t seem to be a very good basis for his assertion — for one thing, AFAICT the word “limbs” doesn’t even appear in the original but is an insertion to make the passage sensible; for another, the verse clearly has nothing to do with the status of the fetus but is just describing God’s knowledge of the future. The author could just as well have said that God knew him even before his father met his mother.
Anyway, does this mean that Benedict is cool with abortion up until limb development?
Sojourner
Is this your version of “Love thy neighbor?” Or “He who is without sin…”
I really enjoy “Christians” like this.
Steve S
CandyQueen
Sojourner:
I believe RA had tongue a bit in cheek there; after all, the intent is to ensure that Catholics are not being hypocritical, when, in fact, they are. I live in a heavily Catholic community, and I see the hypocrisy every day; most vote Democrat (pro-choice), while screaming loudly at every opportunity about the ‘sanctity of unborn life’. I don’t lose a minute of sleep knowing they may be in ‘mortal sin’ in the eyes of the Pope.
CQ
Jorge
I’m not sure how the Catholic church could have any other viewpoint on abortion. I might question the ammount of time and energy that many of my fellow Christians give to this issue but I certainly have never doubted their sincere belief that abortion is murder or that a fetus is a human life with a soul.
Heck, I’m pro-choice and I believe that abortion is murder. My disagreement is with whether the government can force a woman to have a child in her womb if she does not want it to in there. But I do not disagree on the spiritual implications of that action.
norbizness
Yep, nothing like bad, 3000-year-old poetry from a depraved murderer to justify social policy. Maybe he can quote some Song of Solomon next.
Sojourner
I’d like to know his position on child abuse and why he thinks discriminating against gays is going to help prevent this abuse in the future.
BlogReeder
I totally agree. Further, I don’t think there should be slaves but I’m all for leaving that decision up to the plantation owner. I mean, after all, it’s their choice. Who am I to have a backbone to my convictions? :)
Sojourner
I agree. After all women are too stupid and immoral to make these decisions for themselves.
BlogReeder
Sojourner, who said anything about woman? Jorge said he thought it was murder. Maybe he should have used a weaker verb. Manslaughter?
Sojourner
Jorge expressed his own position, which was that he was personally against abortion but did not want to impose his views on others. You came back and suggested he had a moral obligation to do so. I just took your comment to its logical conclusion.
CandyQueen
What I’d like to know is if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and South Dakota bans all abortions, wouldn’t it be feasible to charge a woman with child abuse if she drinks coffee, alcohol or consumes any substance that ‘might’ cause a miscarriage?
What if a miscarriage happens spontaneously but a woman goes to the doctor to find out what’s wrong, and she didn’t even know she was pregnant? Would the doctor be obligated to report the woman to the police as a possible murder suspect?
Inquiring minds want to know….
CQ
BlogReeder
And the logical conclusion is that woman are stupid? Can you show the logical steps you took to get that?
Sojourner
You want to impose your morality on women – which certainly suggests that you consider them less moral than you are.
Shygetz
The moment a fetus complains, you might have a point. Until then, terrible false analogy. Stating that an undifferentiated ball of cells is of equal worth as a grown black person is a complete statement of faith, with no evidence to back it up. On the other hand, there is numerous lines of evidence that indicates that skin color is not a significant difference, and that people are people.
BlogReeder
See, right there you’re wrong. I was pointing out that if someone considers it murder but it willing to let that slip by they don’t have a backbone. Notice how you twisted it? Personally, I don’t have a solution. I was hoping to goad Jorge into giving a good reason. A better reason than doesn’t want to impose one’s views on others which is a weak position, IMO.
BlogReeder
No, I think it’s a good analogy. In order to have a slave, doesn’t the owner have to regard a slave as less than human?
Paul L.
“The economy is based off of tourism to Mount Rushmore.”
You just make this up as you go?
http://www.50states.com/sdakota.htm
# Economy:
* Agriculture: Cattle, hogs, wheat, soybeans, milk, corn.
* Industry: Food processing, machinery, lumber and wood products, tourism.
Just look at the exploding number of children:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/46000.html
demimondian
You should go listen to the dicta on Roe V. Wade. They contain quite extensive discussions of why, in fact, an embryo or a first- or second-trimester fetus is, in objective and measurable ways, much less than human.
BlogReeder
Excellent. I thought it was just rationalization for not wanting a baby. I’ll have to read it.
Steve S
Nope:
South Dakota is a dead end state which either better get with the 21st century or find itself depopulated. Perhaps that is why they are working to force women to carry pregnancies to term… because otherwise they’d lose population even faster.
Steve S
Oh yeah. And popery Benedict and the Catholic church lost all of my respect when we found out they’d been molesting children for years and been fucking hiding it rather than living up to their sin.
The Catholic Church ought to consider Christ’s teaching that he who is without sin may cast the first stone.
Jorge
BlogReeder,
I struggle with this issue all of the time. I’m not sure I can explain my position in a way that you would be satisfactory for you. Heck, it isn’t all that satisfactory to me.
It boils down to whether I believe government has the right to dictate what you do or don’t do with or inside your body. Even if it is violating one of the ten commandments. From what I know, the first and worst sin is to not love God or to worship false Gods. And of course, Government doesn’t dictate whether we do that or not.
But we seem to consider murder to be a greater sin than say adultery. I believe that this is not because of what the Bible tell us but because of our overwhelming biological imperative to live. After all, in many places in the Bible the punishment for adultery is the same as for murder. Relly, I can’t find any more Biblical justification for making murder illegal than for making blasphemy or umarried sex illegal. After, it was God that punished David, not the law. And when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, killing everyone in those cities, he did so because of their sexual perversity. God forgave and allowed Paul to become an apostel even though he killed many, many Christians.
So, the way I see it, gravity that we give to murder as oppossed to the other ten commandments is a human, not Godly distinction. And please don’t think I am demeaning how God views murder. I am elevating the way God looks at other sin.
So, when I look at abortion from a human POV, I don’t believe that government can force a woman to carry a baby to term even if the result is murder.
Now, please don’t think that I feel my logic is perfect or that my argument is meant to convince. I am just trying to explain my ever evolving POV on a issue that confuses me. As with many things spiritual, I find that words fail me.
Jorge
“No, I think it’s a good analogy. In order to have a slave, doesn’t the owner have to regard a slave as less than human?”
Not all. That was a concept that was adopted by many southern slave owners but the history of slavery shows many places in which slaves were considered human. Heck, in Rome they could buy their way out of slavery and become citizens.
Paul L.
You claimed that “The economy is based off of tourism to Mount Rushmore.” It appears that tourism is one part of the economy. could I say the economy South Dakota of is based of farming? Or Lumber? Or Indian casinos?
“force women to carry pregnancies to term”
So no public funding and some inconvenience equals forcing?
So I am being forced to not have firearms/guns because I can’t buy them from amazon/ebay with no background check and the government paying for it?
Also, Check out this comment from the link I posted http://newsbusters.org/node/3369
“Drudge linked to the San Francisco Chronicle’s reprint of this same story, but with the following headline: “South Dakota reins in abortion rights”. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/28/MNG2SGDUJ11.DTL&type=printable) (Sorry for not making it a normal link. I seem to lack the skill to make HTML hotlinks work in here.) South Dakota has done no such thing. It only requires that a woman be fully informed of what she’s doing.
I have relatives in South Dakota, and I can tell you that access to lots of types of health care sometimes requires a trip to Sioux Falls from towns and cities all over the state. And I don’t just mean exotic conditions. I have an uncle who had to be taken 200 miles from Aberdeen to Sioux Falls after a stroke. A quick check of the map reveals the Sioux Falls is in the southeast corner, so it’s not even centrally located in South Dakota.
That abortion is only available in Sioux Falls is probably because of geographic and economic realities more than because of a restrictive atmosphere. And if there really was a large unmet “need” for abortions, there would probably be more providers, or at least more days abortions would be performed at Planned Parenthood. This article is a spin job trying to make a small rural state look backwards and repressive.”
capelza
Candy Queen…this nearly did happen in VA. Some yahoo introduced a bill that would have required police (not health authorities, but police) notification of any miscarriage within 24 hours. The guy, whose name I can not remember got so much flack that he withdrew the law I believe (says he was misunderstood, at least in the form letter I got when I wrote his office).
Pan Pan (anon)
Even if a Catholic acknowledges that abortion is murderous and wicked, he is fully justified in voting Democratic if he so chooses. The Republicans are not some angelic alternative to the ‘demonic’ status quo. Abortion is only one of many pressing moral concerns that the voter might consider in voting. What about poverty, illness and war, where Democrats generally have a more Christian outlook?
gswift
Awesome. Next week no doubt God will clear the way to lower the age of consent to six. Pope Benedict can then finally reveal the real meaning of spare “the rod” and spoil the child.
Zifnab
While we’re reciting Benedict’s views on abortion, perhaps it would be helpful to note his views on social welfare (universal medical coverage, minimum wage, etc) and the Catholic view on the death penalty.
Full Story
Perhaps the GOP would do good to follow the entire Catholic doctrine rather than cherry-picking talking points. But it’s not likely.
CaseyL
I’ll cut some slack for people who do follow the “entire doctrine” (anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-poverty, anti-death penalty), though not to the point of letting their doctrine set public policy.
But the vast, vast majority of the anti-choicers don’t follow anywhere near the entire doctrine. They’re gung-ho on fetuses, but when it comes to the ‘post-born,’ their attitude ranges from indifference to outright hostility.
I’ve never understood how the anti-choice lobby convinced most everyone to call them ‘pro-life.’ They’re not.
Jason
“What about poverty, illness, and war, where Democrats have a more Christian outlook?”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
If you haven’t figured out that what is “Christian” transcends what is Democrat and Republican, I suggest you aren’t in a position to comment.
Pb
In other news, God sees eggs as full and complete chickens. He saw what you had for breakfast, and he is not amused.
demimondian
“God counts each full and complete chicken that becomes an omelet.”
ape
“Sojourner Says:
I’d like to know his position on child abuse and why he thinks discriminating against gays is going to help prevent this abuse in the future.”
His position? Simple: He thinks child abuse is the fault of gays, and that discriminating against gays will will help prevent child abuse because there will be fewer gays.
No shame at all. No shame at all.
You’ll find other christians ‘proving’ that gayness is a choice by demonstrating that all-male institutions (like those favoured by Ratznazi) produce more gays.
So that’s alright then. The Catholic church’s paedophile conspiracy is fully vindicated. Move ’em on; move ’em on; Rawhide!
When an individual or an organisation has cognisance of possible paedophile activities all actions (including doing nothing) other than informing parents and police are criminal actions. This was the case in all countries when the offences and the cover-ups were perpetrated and they will remain eternally so. Ratznazi was in charge of the process.
Ratznazi’s views are clear: the so-called ‘paedophile’ scandal (he calls it a ‘homosexual’ problem) is exaggerated by critics.
Imagine you are a moral person. Who would be in your thoughts first? The victims? Or your organisation? Ratz knows the answer.
michael
The Pope comes out against abortion? Is this news? It’s been one of the central positions of Catholicism for years and is the primary reason that devout Catholics vote Republican.
ape
“the primary reason that devout Catholics vote Republican.”
no – surely the Pope’s opposition to killing would be the primary reason why devout catholics vote against the Death Penalty, and campaign for the excommunication of candidates who support it.
The talk of excommunication of Kerry (by Ratz himself) was a purely political act; intervening on behalf of the right against the left. This is what the catholic church has always done; hand in hand with fascists on all continents.
The Catholic Church is an international political organisation of the far right. It intervenes in PARTY politics, not even merely politics, and Ratz has been a prime instigator.