UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

When bringing up the name of Jesus , make sure it's not in the name of the murder of the Holy Innocents.

(no message)

They are going with the "if you are religious, you have to be a Democrst" argument, which is obviously preposterous.

According to them, religious people support abortion, and support anarchy (no borders, no enforcement of democratically passed laws, defunding of police) and oppose science.

They are trying to use religion as a club to beat people into submission / to try to shame people to support their political party. Surely they have to see how insane that is ... how it is opposite reality and common sense ... and yet they do not.

You waste a lot of time.

Do you agree that Pope Francis believed, and Church Doctrine states, that human life must be protected from the moment of conception, and every procured abortion is a grave moral evil?

I don't intend to start another discussion on abortion, but if you can give the correct yes
/no answer, we might be able to talk about it. I just want to see if you can tell the truth.

If you require a link for everyone to read, or feel you have to qualify your statement, or require me to answer a question first, then we will know you cannot respond "point blank."

...well, you are who you are, can't change that, but I'll share my thoughts...

>The fact that RCC Doctrine allows for the killing of un-debated persons in Just War scenarios (Note: it is Doctrine...not simply a "Theory" as you tried to mislead)...after a rigid process of "Prudential Judgement" by the victimized nation has been completed...tells me that certain circumstances (physical harm, loss of freedom) are enough to justify the taking of other persons' lives...even very large numbers of them.. Furthermore, that determination is the sole responsibility of that nation...no one else. BTW, the RCC still states forcefully that 'Killing' is always a moral evil.
> Since the RCC allows mass killings of real persons, it is inconceivable that the Church would force an innocent woman who was impregnated by force or coercion to carry a totally unwanted pregnancy to term, knowing that it could severely affect her physical/mental health and freedom for the rest of her life.
> The RCC's/Francis' response to the Brazilian bishop's Excommunication of all those involved in a procured abortion procedure for a 9 yr old girl by her Step-Father (Reversing his Excommunication order...and allowing All RCC Priests to Absolve the sin of Abortion in the Confessional, with a return to full Communion with the Church, tells me that there are circumstances where women do have recourse to abortion, IF they exercise the same Prudential Judgement as Nations do when confronted with War.
> The fact that Francis acknowledged the debate over fetal Personhood tells me that an abortion, if chosen early, provides an opportunity to choose whether or not to allow the pregnancy to proceed to term...
> On a Secular level, government banning of abortion only creates more unjust harm to women by forcing 'Self' and 'Back Alley' abortions, like before Roe v Wade. Something you express no concern over.
> On a Political level, the vast majority of Americans believe in legalized abortions, and those who refuse to accept this fact will pay for it at the ballot box, starting this November.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

impregnated...the RCC doesn't turn its back on them when they are victimized. It strongly urges, but does not demand, that even unwanted pregnancies to carried to term... yet leaves the final decision to the victim's "Prudential Judgement"....just like with victimized nations and unwanted attacks.

(no message)

...she might as well be a biological machine to you producing babies...that is so wrong...how do you justify that?

and the burden put upon her by the assault. That is what makes this such a tough issue. The question is, does the nature of the assault justify murder to transfer the harm from the woman to her child.

In general, the law does not support moving harm from one innocent person to another innocent person, because the second innocent person has been classified as less than a person. The Germans did that. Other societies have done that. We don't do that. Victimizing additional people is not a morally licit solution. Instead, criminal law traditionally leaves the victim at one person, where the harm initially fell. Our options under the law are traditionally (1) to help the victim to the best of your ability, and (2) to punish the perpetrator to the full extent of the law (something you don't support if the perpetrator is an illegal alien, for example). Those who support abortion have been arguing for an exception to the customary approach, and because of that, the burden of persuasion is on you, and it should be higher, since you argue for an exception not traditionally granted. You are arguing to move a legal harm from one innocent person to a second innocent person, because we can't hear the cries of the second innocent person. I don't think that is a moral option.

But again, I give you credit: You are now arguing the merits of abortion without misleading anyone regarding the teaching of the Church. See?...it can be done. I personally happen to find your argument lacking, but at least we are arguing the merits of the issue, and not your twisting of the teaching of the Church.

(no message)

Why?

(no message)

(no message)

Love Fr. Miscamble. But he is blowing this out of proportion.

But that happens to the abortion monomaniacs.

I don’t think it’s her body of work that will get her so much as her rhetoric around abortion.

position in recognition for her outstanding work. The paper she co-authored dealt with misinformation regarding abortion, especially in the early phases of pregnancy. Given that Pope Francis noted 'Fetal Personhood' was "Debated" within the RCC...and that the Magisterium has never taught that Personhood begins at conception, it is only right for a Catholic "University" to participate in that debate, with all sides being heard...and not just that of the extreme conservative side.

Let's join that "Debate" here on the UHND Open Forum...in a scholarly way.

Who will protect the little collections of cells from the opinions of the director of an Asian Studies Center???

(no message)

(no message)

Human life of the unborn, regardless of legal personhood, must be protected from the moment of conception. I'm not making a personal argument here. I am simply stating the position of the Church and of Pope Francis, which you seek to deny the truth of.

If you want to argue for abortion, then do so. But, stop lying about the position of the Catholic Church to support your argument.

I understand that ND wants to be a respected institution regardless of religion, but this will be the ongoing tension. She’ll lose this one.

(no message)

(no message)

said Personhood begins at conception...and if the killing of actual Persons is allowed in 'Just War' situations...why is it not allowed for 'Debated Persons' to be aborted, under certain circumstances?

He was saying people like you exist, and even if we accept your arguments, it changes nothing. If you truly heard that the Church is open to the debate to decide an otherwise undecided issue, you are either ignorant or deceitful. I think it is obvious to everyone in the Open that you are now being deceitful.

It would be laughable that you believe Francis thought abortion was morally allowed, if it weren't so evil, in the theological sense, for you to say that.

In the secular sense, you are just lying. You are making a political argument and dressing it up as a theological argument to lead people like 521 away from the Church.

Abortion under the same process of "Prudential Judgement"?...the very words used in the Catechism...after all, "Killing" other Persons is always just as morally wrong.

Where is the justice for women who are victimized by forced or coerced pregnancies they never wanted?...pregnancies that can physically and mentally cause them great harm for the rest of their lives...even take their lives...not unlike the victims of aggression by another nation...who do have recourse through Just Wars.

Sadly, 'Pro-Lifers' never address that issue....thus denying all women the right to their own reproductive decisions. This is wrong, and I sense the 'PLs' know this, which explains their silence...not sure why...perhaps you can explain.

There is a moral solution here...let's keep that in mind.

Read the section on abortion. You keep running away from that to other sections of the catechism (e.g., just war theory), so that you can fabricate internal inconsistencies in Catholic doctrine. When you do this, you are effectively admitting you are wrong.

Go to the section on abortion when talking about abortion. The teaching on that is clear.

Go to the section on war when discussing the moral culpability of soldiers fighting for their country. That teaching is also clear. It just doesn't apply to abortion.

person, since the majority of conceptions never result in natural birth. Here again is the article from 'Where Peter Is' that addresses this Personhood issue. If "Just Wars" allow the killing of real persons, how is it that an innocent woman cannot choose to end a pregnancy that was unjustly forced or coerced when the fetus isn't defined by the RCC as even a person?

Has the woman no right to her own body and life in your calculus?

----------------
Personhood and Catholic Teaching

From the beginning of the Church, the Magisterium has always been clear in its condemnation of abortion at any stage as a moral evil. That said, prior to our modern understanding of fetal development, the Church has not always been firm on this question of personhood.

Thomas Aquinas, for example held a theory of “delayed animation,” which to him meant that ensoulment occurred at quickening – when the fetus began to move. This was believed to be at 40 days gestation for males and 80 days of gestation for females. This theory was based on Aristotle and erroneous medieval notions of embryology. Aquinas’s position on delayed animation was even cited in the majority decision in the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, which established abortion as a constitutional right in the US (ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973): IV.3).

Aquinas’s idea was reflected in the imposition of different canonical and civil penalties for early- and late-term abortions. But even still, the Catholic Church has never sanctioned abortion. That has never stopped supporters of legal abortion from using it in their arguments, however.

This was reenforced by a 1974 document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Declaration on procured abortion. The declaration acknowledged that there was a personhood debate, but, like Pope Francis, stressed that these were not grounds upon which to justify abortion. The congregation stressed that modern science has made it clear when life begins, and that uncertainty about personhood does not justify ending a life (emphasis added):

From the first instant, there is established the program of what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its capacities requires time – a rather lengthy time – to find its place and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. “The one who will be a man is already one” (13).

During the papacy of Saint John Paul II, the Magisterium began to insist that we consider personhood as if it begins at the moment of conception, however. In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul taught this forcefully: “The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life” (60). A few years earlier, the CDF produced a document, Donum Vitae (“Instruction on respect for human life”), which made a similar point: “The human being must be respected – as a person – from the very first instant of his existence” (5.I.1).

Note however, that both the encyclical and the instruction call for the child in the womb “to be respected” as a person from the moment of conception, without definitively teaching that the embryo is a person. Donum Vitae mentions the personhood debate later in the section, stating, “This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person.” Donum Vitae then quotes from the 1974 CDF document and adds the conclusion, “The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.”

In 2008, this point was again reiterated by the CDF, then led by Cardinal William Levada under Pope Benedict XVI. In the document Dignitas Personae, the Congregation stated, “If Donum vitae, in order to avoid a statement of an explicitly philosophical nature, did not define the embryo as a person, it nonetheless did indicate that there is an intrinsic connection between the ontological dimension and the specific value of every human life” (5).

What does all of this mean? Well, for one thing, it is clear that the Magisterium has acknowledged on multiple occasions that there is a debate about personhood. It is also clear that the Church has not always considered the life of a human person to begin at conception, nor has the Church definitively taught this. That said, the Church has always regarded abortion to be evil from the moment of conception. More recently, the Church has pushed back against the idea that “delayed personhood” is relevant to its position on the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. It has taught instead that life, from the moment of conception should be treated and respected as a human person. And in this, Pope Francis has always been in line with Catholic Tradition.
------------------

I imagine that the reason they say the human must be treated "as a parson" rather than saying it "is a person" is to obviate arguments made by people like you. Even if you win, and the unborn is deemed not a legal person because your political party says so, the unborn still must be treated as if they were a person under Catholic Doctrine. So, again, you lose either way. That's what Francis was saying. He wasn't giving credence to the debate; he was saying the debate is irrelevant to the moral equation.

From the Catholic Catechism:

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

- Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.... As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."80

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual.... It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."

“And on this you cannot argue. You are killing a human life".

Pope Francis expressed this on more than one occasion.

Ignoring this context while contorting the phrase “it is debated” represents deliberate and calculated misrepresentation.

It is deliberate to an end…and is despicable.

One is certainly entitled to their own views on abortion. Attempting to twist the views of another is the hallmark of a cowardly propagandist.

certain conditions that are justified after "Prudential Judgement" is applied. How do Innocent Women find Justice after being Forced or Coerced into pregnancies they never wanted which will impact their physical/mental health and freedom for the rest of their lives? Just because a woman CAN reproduce...MUST she do so under any and all circumstances?

That would be a cause for genuine concern.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Link: https://www.ndsmcobserver.com/article/2026/01/fr-miscamble-ostermann-s-appointment-is-untenable

(no message)

(no message)

renowned University...and the people who made it so.

You have no connection.

btw, are you an alum?…if so what college?

I actually don’t mind her having done research on and having an opinion on abortion, but the comments indirect opposition to and criticizing Catholicism should get her bounced.

My daughter is a freshman at ND who attended Catholic school coming up and she said that the humanities teachers and particularly anthropology and psych are pretty crazy woke.

(no message)