This may be the most disturbing thing you read all day.
A Catholic nun said that the defeat in the Senate of the pro-life Nelson amendment on the feast of the Immaculate Conception was “providential” and that Mary was the first woman in the bible to express “choice.”
As you have probably heard by now the Nelson amendment to the health-care bill, which would have restricted federal funds from being used to fund abortions, has been defeated 54-45. This should be a sad day for all Catholics, but it is not.
In fact, one Catholic nun is downright giddy over the defeat. Sister Donna Quinn is pro-choice. In fact she was rebuked by her order for escorting women into abortion clinics. That is horrible enough. But what she had to say about the defeat of the Nelson amendment on the feast of the Immaculate Conception is monstrous.
On the day the church honors the Immaculate Conception, or conception of the Virgin Mary, Quinn sent a thank you note to those who lobbied their senators to vote against the Nelson-Hatch Amendment, which lost in a 54-45 Senate vote earlier today.
…
“The Amendment lost today but now the work will be to take this Bill and come out with the same good news when the Senate and House work together,” Quinn said.
Citing a poem about the Virgin Mary, Quinn noted the providential date of the amendment’s defeat.
“I was reminded of being with men and women from the Unitarian faith tradition last year as they celebrated Mary who by her [ascent], they believed, was one of the first women in the New Testament to express Choice,” Quinn said.
These outrageous comments should draw the attention of her superiors in the Dominicans and of her Bishop. These comments are not only a direct affront to life but an affront to all that Christians hold dear. To suggest in any way that the defeat of this amendment on the feast of the Immaculate Conception is “providential” is simply depraved. To compare Mary’s fiat, her acceptance of God’s will, to the “choice” to kill one’s own child is even more horrible.
Donna Quinn should not be allowed to represent herself as Catholic in any way.
To express your outrage you can contact:
Cardinal Francis George
Office of the Archbishop
Archdiocese of Chicago
PO Box 1979
Chicago, IL. 60690-1979
Phone: 312-534-8230
E-Mail: archbishop@archchicago.org
Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP
Prioress – Sinsinawa Dominicans
E-mail: Spatmul@aol.com
December 10, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Craig wrote, in reply to my comment:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm [re: penalty of excommunication for those who accuse each other of heresy over the matter of the Immaculate Conception]
All right, fair enough; my mistake. I'd not heard that one, before.
Re: abortion:
The church's teachings have not been proclaimed ex cathedra on this matter.
Why on earth would you expect it to be? The vast majority of Catholic dogma hasn't.
If it is so cut and dry, why has it not been done at some point over the last 1900 years?
Precisely because it's so cut-and-dry! For 1900+ years, the Church assumed that no one in his right mind would deny the horrifically evil nature of murdering children in the womb. (This assumption was quite true, by the way.) It's only when people start to deviate from an established truth that Rome needs to "define" it beyond all possibility of (even muddle-headed) debate. You'll note that the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth of Christ, and thousands of other teachings (and attendant details) have not been proclaimed ex cathedra. Why are you under the impression that ex cathedra pronouncement is necessary for anything to be taken as undeniably true, and that everything else is up for grabs?
And, in case you missed it, this post is about a pro-choice Catholic named Sister Quinn.
I'm quite aware of that (though the word "Catholic" may not describe her, anymore); I'm also aware of the fact that your ideas of Catholic doctrine are quite muddled. You're under the impression that "the moral evil of abortion isn't undeniable Catholic teaching", and I reply that you're speaking nonsense. You might as well suggest that the doctrine of God's existence is "not an undeniable truth of the Faith", since God's existence hasn't been pronounced ex cathedra! Please try to understand: ex cathedra definitions are sufficient to establish an undeniable fact of the Faith, but they're not necessary; they're only one possible way by which dogma is settled and clarified. Literally thousands of undeniable articles of the Faith are contained in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and in dogmatic pronouncements of the various Councils of the Church… none of which involved formal ex cathedra statements.
Beyond that, read Gutterball Master's quote from Evangelium Vitae (I'd not had time to dig it up, when I found the Catechism reference–but his is the real money quote.)
December 10, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Liberalism is a mental decease and any nun making a statement like this has to be mental.
December 10, 2009 at 3:24 pm
It is clear that this nun does not believe in consequences. Had The Blessed Mother chose "No" to "Life" the gates of Heaven would have remained "Closed" and this nun would go straight to "Hell". When a woman gets pregnant, it is God's Will, no matter the circumstances. The problem with this nun is that she has more compassion for the adult human (teen or not) than Jesus dying on the Cross for all the horrible sins. Or, for the helpless innocent baby. God comes first and misplaced commpassion is not going to get you into Heaven.
December 10, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Paladin,
RE: For 1900+ years, the Church assumed that no one in his right mind would deny the horrifically evil nature of murdering children in the womb.
Really?
Contrary to popular opinion, abortions are not a recent secular liberal construct created by the fictional "culture of death". Abortion procedures pre-date Christianity by some 5000 years.
In fact, the church's stance on when abortion became murder has fluctuated throughout it's history. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas believed abortion was fine until the fetus became "animated" (was in the shape of a human). The church didn't require excommunication for abortions at any stage until 1886 under Pope Leo XIII.
December 10, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Craig:
Aquinas and Augustine were working with the science they had at the time. To the best of their knowledge, that was when life began, as they could not tell before the time of quickening (when it could be felt moving in the womb). With our scientific knowledge today, we know that the embryo at the moment of its conception is an individual organism with its own DNA, and as a human organism it must be an individual human person.
The Church has always taught, in accordance with Commandment #5, that killing an innocent human being is murder, and punishable by eternal damnation. The teaching has remained the same, as the science has improved. If Augustine and Aquinas had today's scientific knowledge on hand to write their theological masterpieces, they would agree.
Indeed, the Didache (the earliest Catholic writing after the New Testament to be found) holds that abortion is wrong, viz.:
The Lord's Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles:
1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.
2 Now, this is the way of life:…
The second commandment of the Teaching: "Do not murder; do not commit adultery"; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; "do not steal"; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; DO NOT MURDER A CHILD BY ABORTION or kill a newborn infant. "Do not covet your neighbor's property; do not commit perjury; do not bear false witness"; do not slander; do not bear grudges. Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is "a deadly snare." Your words shall not be dishonest or hollow, but substantiated by action. Do not be greedy or extortionate or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant. Do not plot against your neighbor. Do not hate anybody; but reprove some, pray for others, and still others love more than your own life.
[emphasis mine]
***
These passages are at the very beginning of this writing. This is evidence from Tradition that the Church has always taken the 5th Commandment to include the killing of a baby before birth.
December 10, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Craig wrote:
Contrary to popular opinion, abortions are not a recent secular liberal construct created by the fictional "culture of death". Abortion procedures pre-date Christianity by some 5000 years.
Er… yes. So do murder, rape, torture, etc. Are you seriously trying to suggest that, since abortion (and other grave crimes) are old, they must have been "okay" in the eyes of the Church at one point (somewhere during that "1900+ years)? If so, all I can say is that you're spectacularly wrong.
In fact, the church's stance on when abortion became murder has fluctuated throughout it's history. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas believed abortion was fine until the fetus became "animated" (was in the shape of a human).
(*sigh*) Where do I begin…?
First: you should already know that "animation" means "movement" (called "quickening", in older English), and it has nothing whatever to do with "shape of a human", or shape of any sort. Error #1.
Second: When you say that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas "believed abortion was fine" until quickening, you obviously haven't read what they actually wrote on the subject. St. Thomas, for example, was uncertain about the "age of ensoulment" of the fetus (which they associated with "quickening"–something which we now know to be inaccurate); but he condemned abortion as a terrible crime, anyway… which even the New York Times consented to admit on its op-ed page (complete with references).
Ditto for St. Augustine, I'm afraid.
The church didn't require excommunication for abortions at any stage until 1886 under Pope Leo XIII.
Murder isn't an excommunicable offense, even in 2009… but it's still mortally sinful (which is ultimately the point). The mere fact that this-or-that is an excommunicable offense doesn't mean that other acts are "okay" or "morally allowable", or any other such nonsense.
December 10, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Craig,
You missed the ex cathedra ("Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church …" and "Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops …") from the statement by JPII at "December 9, 2009 10:28 PM" above.
gbm3
December 10, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Paladin;
May you continue to defend the Church with your weapons of reason and Truth.
December 10, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Please, please all pray for this woman. What she says is absolute heresy.. I fear for her immortal soul.
Please pray for the whole Church… perhaps this is symptomatic of the Great Apostacy that was prophesied. There are many people, lay, religious clergy (including bisops)who either tolerate this sort of thing or who indeed preach,teach, and indeed live out their heretical beliefs. And worse, spread this poison to others.
I pray she may be given the grace to see the error of her views and come to true repentance before it too late. She may have the (notional) freedom in this life to speak/believe as she does, but woe betide her when she is in front of the Lord on the day of Judgement…He is not going to have a debate with her….
December 10, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Paladin,
Because of the belief in delayed ensoulment, the church did not consider abortion = murder at any time during the pregnancy until relatively recently.
While abortion was considered a sin, as you say, it was not treated very harshly.
The Penitential of Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury (668-690), for example, said that the sin of oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance, whereas an abortion, if conducted early enough, required only 120 days.
In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially removed the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus from the penal legislation of the Church and in 1917, the Code of Canon Law states:
"One who procures abortion and all those who cooperated in procuring an effective abortion incur latae sententiae excommunication".
December 10, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Craig,
What you are not seeming to understand (on purpose, I believe) is that once ensoulment has taken place, the Church universally rejected abortion as murder.
The lack of clarity as to when human life begins has historically been a consequence of the limits of science at the time. (Hence the Penitential of Theodore probably viewed such "abortion" at an early enough time as a form of contraception, I guess) But as others here have clearly pointed out, modern science leaves no room for doubt that human life begins at conception, so abortion at any time after conception is rejected outright.
December 10, 2009 at 8:41 pm
From Craig:
"Because of the belief in delayed ensoulment, the church did not consider abortion = murder at any time during the pregnancy until relatively recently."
Huh? From the 1st-2nd Didache which is cited in CCC 2271, "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish [ie, murder]."
Soul talk was mostly regarding the seriousness of the sin (where on venial-mortal spectrum of sin) by St. Aquinas et al. based on (partially flawed) Aristotelian science(in the modern bio sense)/ethics. Abortion (and infanticide) was (were) still considered a sin(s) from the beginning.
gbm3
December 10, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Sorry,
That's "1st-2nd *century* Didache" (see above at 3:41 PM).
gbm3
December 10, 2009 at 9:55 pm
"Anonymous said…
[…]
December 9, 2009 9:32 PM"
This fellow is right.
I'm a convert, too, but I noticed real quickly how ridiculous the whole "modernized Church" thing is.
I joined the Church because I was convinced by Scripture and personal study of history that the Roman Catholic Church truly is the "true Church".
It wasn't until after I got baptised that I really experienced the utter faithlessness of many lifelong Catholics.
I've actually come to the conclusion that there isn't a single theory or conjecture that doesn't have a cult following in the Church.
As a former Protestant I know that there is much counter-evidence against Evolution that needs to be seriously accounted for on the Evolutionist side, but a religious education teacher I know routinely and casually uses Evolutionary theory to interpret Scripture as though Evolution were a solid unshakeably proven fact.
The old Church would never have pretended that all religions can please Christ.
Christ was the most self-centered man who ever lived for God's sake!
And almost worse than that, the Roman Catholic Church who has for almost 2000 years believed that she was especially blessed to be called the sole Bride of Christ, and knew how much God loves her (more than the entire world) pretty much thinks of herself as a single member of a sort of "harem of Christ".
I actually pity cradle Catholics who deny Christ's particular love for them, when throughout history, from the day God covenanted with Abraham to this day, God has always shown that the spiritual Israel (the Church) is beloved by him more than the entire world (though it too he loves).
No wonder our Church is in a drought of priests throughout the World.
No one would give their lives for a man or woman who belongs to all their suitors.
But I have faith in this Church.
I've lost too many friends in the Protestant churches and the respect of my entire family for my decision, and I'm not about to sell out the value of my Baptism now.
Brother and sister Catholics, please remember yourselves.
Christ loves you more on a bad day than the World ever can…
Anyway, my point is that it's a bigger problem than just this one sister.
(Also, I should mention that I don't mind being accused of "sanctimony" when it comes to serious problems like this.)
December 10, 2009 at 10:56 pm
As Dr. Savage says, liberalism is a mental disorder. Sr. Quinn and at least one commentator above have serious mental problems. That being said, even if the health care bill becomes law and has all the pro-life protections demanded by the USCCB and most pro-life groups it would still be a grossly immoral Law and it should have been opposed on that basis from the beginning. We had one chance to kill this beast in the House but the USCCB intervened at the last hour with the Stupak Amendment. See my comment at DWFCatholic.org under " SBA List Statement on Senate Vote to table the Pro-Life Nelson Amendment. "
December 11, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I worked for a Sinsinawa Dominican school for 2 years. Good luck getting them to do any real reprimanding of Donna.
Unfortunately, the Masses held at the school looked very similar to those at parishes around the country.
Not that people who read this don't already know, but we have a lot of work ahead of us to right this ship.
December 11, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Amen brother (4:45pm). I too am a convert and there are so many catholics who have not been through correct and thorough catechesis who simply dod not know their faith and the love that Jesus bears them. I agree this is way bigger than one sister, but dealing with her would be a start. We need to pray for her and others like her, and for the whole Curch.
December 12, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Craig wrote:
Because of the belief in delayed ensoulment, the church did not consider abortion = murder at any time during the pregnancy until relatively recently.
I could quibble with your claim of "relatively recently", but: let's assume you're completely right on that point. So what? The Faith is about uniting to God and avoiding sin–especially mortal sin, which (if not rejected through true repentance) condemns the sinner to eternal hell! Would you really feel better if, while in Hell, you can say, "well, at least I wasn't technically guilty of murder, and I wasn't technically excommunicated (though Sr. Quinn probably is, all things considered)"? You rightly note that this story is about Sr. Quinn; and I'll remind you that her soul is in grave danger, right now… your mistaken protestations of "pluralism" and "lack of infallibility" notwithstanding.
While abortion was considered a sin, as you say,
(*ahem*) Doesn't this rather contradict your earlier position of, "St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas believed abortion was fine" (December 10, 2009 12:03 PM)?
it was not treated very harshly. The Penitential of Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury (668-690), for example, said that the sin of oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance, whereas an abortion, if conducted early enough, required only 120 days.
Oh, good grief…
You've cited an example (if correct) of a particular Archbishop–even a notable one–treating the sin of abortion less than "harshly". Well and good. St. Ambrose (bishop of Milan, and Father of the Church) mitigated the public penance of the Emperor Theodosius who slaughtered 7000 men, women and children in Thessalonica; would you argue, on the basis of that leniency, that the slaughter was any less grave? Surely you can see that the policies of one Archbishop (and attendand circumstances which formed his position, about which we know little or nothing) say nothing about the objective wrong of abortion?
My point is this: if abortion is a mortal sin, then abortion is a mortal sin. The Church (through scientific advances, and through continued reflection) now understands the gravity of that abominable crime more thoroughly than in the past. You seem to be using that as a way to undercut and question the authority of Church teaching (on the ground that "it could be wrong, since it seems to have changed before!"). In that, you are not being faithful to the Catholic Church, and you're being appallingly illogical. Are you in possession of a document which says that, as neonatology advanced, the Church's position on abortion grew more *lax*? Otherwise, your insinuations about "church teaching being unsettled/arbitrary" are self-serving smoke, blown in the wind.
In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially removed the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus from the penal legislation of the Church
…and rightly so. The science had advanced to the point where the Holy Father could make a decision based on more accurate information. I fail to see how this advances your mistaken idea that "those who tolerate abortion aren't necessarily defying the Church (and Christ, Who speaks through Her)".
P.S. To JFK: as long as I can still hold a sword, I will! 🙂
P.P.S. To Charlie: that was the best comment I've read in a long time! Never fear the "sanctimony epithet hurlers"! 🙂
December 14, 2009 at 1:05 pm
paladin,
This post is about Sr. Quinn, indeed.
You are the one who decided to challenge my assertion that the Church's stance on abortion has been far from "infallible" throughout it's history.
RE: Ambrose, you will get no argument from me about the Church's magnanimous stance on mindless slaughter.
December 14, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Mm-hmm. The "infallible" kick, again.
Craig, for once and for all: your idea that "unless it's ex cathedra, it's up for grabs" is blithering nonsense. Your very gripes about "infallibility" are pure red herrings, since they have nothing specifically to do with the fact that abortion is now, and always has been, a grave evil–and has always been considered so by the Church, regardless of the laxity of this-or-that prelate.
Beyond that, your own muddled understanding of Catholic teaching (whether made by "infallible" definition or otherwise) is really running you in mental circles. Didn't your own example of "Pope Sixtus IV forbidding pronouncements of 'heresy' between opposing factions of the Immaculate Conception debate" clue you in on the fact that people (including Sr. Quinn, whom you admire) *can't* simply dismiss what the Church (through the Pope, or otherwise) commands and teaches–and that they're being unfaithful when they do? You showed this (aforementioned Pope Sixtus IV) example triumphantly, as if it proved your insinuation that "no one should call Sr. Quinn a heretic"; but do you seriously not see that your defense of "dissent" would undercut that very Papal pronouncement? What of those who might have dissented from Pope Sixtus IV's command, and called each other "heretics" anyway (in a way that would allegedly have been "a gift to the Church, and vital for its life", according to Sr. Quinn)? Why have you no sympathy for dissenters who run *against* your personal tastes? In fact, why start snarking against those who decry Sr. Quinn's rebellion, if you truly believe (with Sr. Quinn) that dissent in either direction is such a good thing?
(Yes, I know: your original praise of Sr. Quinn, especially on this forum, was made mainly to be inflammatory; but consistency is consistency, even while trolling.)
I do note, in addition, that you've studiously ignored all the (many) references to "abortion being infallibly declared to be gravely evil". (E.g. Craig says that the Church has not always considered abortion to be a grave evil; the Catechism of the Catholic Church directly and flatly contradicts Craig, and Pope John Paul II directly and flatly contradicts Craig. Guess who wins? Hint: it's not Craig.)
In short, your entire point (to the extent that you had one)–and the sum-total of everything you've written on this thread–is balderdash.