Jesuit Father Matt Malone, outgoing editor-in-chief of America Magazine, listens during an interview with Pope Francis at the Vatican Nov. 22, 2022. (CNS photo/Antonello Nusca, America Media)
When Samuel Johnson sought to reject George Berkeley’s argument that our worldly experience consisted of mental abstractions, Johnson walked to a rock and kicked it, proclaiming, “I refute it thus” as a means of proving the point.
Such ad lapidem arguments often remain the Achilles heel of many pro-life arguments. What seems so patently clear to many of us remains terribly obscure to others. The danger of not making our arguments clear is to have them obscured in such a way where priests, bishops, and even popes make mistakes.
One of these mistakes was in Pope Francis’ recent interview with America Magazine, where the direct question was put to the Holy Father by Gloria Purvis. Should the right to life take priority over the question of social justice?
Francis demurred on the specific question, remarking that the pastoral question of abortion relating to persons should carry far more importance that the political question. Yet, in Francis’ answer, there was a troubling remark that could not be explained away as either a miscommunication or misunderstanding.
While defending the basic human right to exist in clear terms, Francis went out of his way to separate the idea of human being and human person, indicating that this question – long considered settled — was open as a matter for debate:
In any book of embryology it is said that shortly before one month after conception the organs and the DNA are already delineated in the tiny fetus, before the mother even becomes aware. Therefore, there is a living human being. I do not say a person, because this is debated, but a living human being.
This cannot be the case.
Human personhood is roughly defined by two qualities: existence and a rational soul. Pope Saint John Paul II offered his own definition of human personhood in Evangelium Vitae, specifically citing that human being and human person were synonymous terms from the very moment of creation. Quoting from documents on abortion and procreation from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, John Paul II wrote:
It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and … modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person… (EV, 60)
Critics who argued that a reduced potentiality means a reduced personhood find themselves firmly rebuked by John Paul II, who confirms that an “individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined” is indeed that human being. St. Thomas Aquinas argues that this ensoulment continues until the human person has exhaled his last breath, not when their potential for living is exhausted or diminished.
Francis’ answer is at odds with Evangelium Vitae in a most direct way. By putting distance between human being and human personhood, Francis intentionally or otherwise opens the door to a litany of horribles that have both moral and theological consequences too terrible to ignore.
The long history of human experience illustrates what happens when humanity is permitted to deny the personhood in others: slavery, the Jewish Holocaust, the Holodomor, the 70 million dead babies and mothers victimized by the abortion industry, Canada’s experiment in euthanizing the poor. All give testimony to the cruelty of treating one another as mere beings rather than full persons.
Of course, it is far more likely that Francis has not considered the question deeply enough. Too many Catholics forget how utterly spoiled we were to have such tremendous intellects in the Chair of St. Peter. Francis’ remark rightly emphasizes the pastoral over the political, yet the lack of theological precision in matters of life and death has dire and direct consequences in a world full of wolves.
Which brings us to a word of caution. One should have little interest in the cottage industry of “Francis-bashing” which passes for adult conversation in too many quarters of the English-speaking Catholic world. The great enemy of love, reminds John Paul II, continues to be utility and use.
When human persons are reduced to things, this is where Soren Kierkegaard’s admonishment in The Present Age rings most true: we can do the most terrible things to one another human person on principle. The bloody history of the modern age pays credence to this sentiment; rather than kicking a rock to prove the point, one need only ask St. Peter’s successor to be more mindful, even if we indulge in a little kick now and then.
(Editor’s note: This essay has been edited for sake of clarity since being posted.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Credit: Stephen Velsaso via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0), filter added
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Nov 21, 2023 / 15:30 pm (CNA).
With nearly a dozen abortion-related referendums possible on state ballots in 2024, the pro-life movement is looking to ad… […]
Pope Francis at the general audience in St. Peter’s Square, Oct. 5, 2016. / Credit: Daniel Ibanez/CNA
CNA Staff, Mar 13, 2024 / 12:00 pm (CNA).
March 13 marks the anniversary of the election of Pope Francis as the 266th successor of St. Peter. Here is a timeline of key events during his papacy:
2013
March 13 — About two weeks after Pope Benedict XVI steps down from the papacy, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio is elected pope. He takes the papal name Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi and proclaims from the central balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica: “Let us begin this journey, the bishop and people, this journey of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity over all the Churches, a journey of brotherhood in love, of mutual trust. Let us always pray for one another.”
March 14 — The day after he begins his pontificate, Pope Francis returns to his hotel to personally pay his hotel bill and collect his luggage.
July 8 — Pope Francis visits Italy’s island of Lampedusa and meets with a group of 50 migrants, most of whom are young men from Somalia and Eritrea. The island, which is about 200 miles off the coast of Tunisia, is a common entry point for migrants who flee parts of Africa and the Middle East to enter Europe. This is the pope’s first pastoral visit outside of Rome and sets the stage for making reaching out to the peripheries a significant focus.
Pope Francis gives the Wednesday general audience in St. Peter’s Square on Oct. 2, 2013. Elise Harris/CNA.
July 23-28 — Pope Francis visits Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to participate in World Youth Day 2013. More than 3 million people from around the world attend the event.
July 29 — On the return flight from Brazil, Pope Francis gives his first papal news conference and sparks controversy by saying “if a person is gay and seeks God and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” The phrase is prompted by a reporter asking the pope a question about priests who have homosexual attraction.
Nov. 24 — Pope Francis publishes his first apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel). The document illustrates the pope’s vision for how to approach evangelization in the modern world.
2014
Feb. 22 — Pope Francis holds his first papal consistory to appoint 19 new cardinals, including ones from countries in the developing world that have never previously been represented in the College of Cardinals, such as Haiti.
March 22 — Pope Francis creates the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. The commission works to protect the dignity of minors and vulnerable adults, such as the victims of sexual abuse.
Pope Francis greets pilgrims during his general audience on Nov. 29, 2014. Bohumil Petrik/CNA.
Oct. 5 — The Synod on the Family begins. The bishops discuss a variety of concerns, including single-parent homes, cohabitation, homosexual adoption of children, and interreligious marriages.
Dec. 6 — After facing some pushback for his efforts to reform the Roman Curia, Pope Francis discusses his opinion in an interview with La Nacion, an Argentine news outlet: “Resistance is now evident. And that is a good sign for me, getting the resistance out into the open, no stealthy mumbling when there is disagreement. It’s healthy to get things out into the open, it’s very healthy.”
2015
Jan. 18 — To conclude a trip to Asia, Pope Francis celebrates Mass in Manila, Philippines. Approximately 6 million to 7 million people attend the record-setting Mass, despite heavy rain.
March 23 — Pope Francis visits Naples, Italy, to show the Church’s commitment to helping the fight against corruption and organized crime in the city.
May 24 — To emphasize the Church’s mission to combat global warming and care for the environment, Pope Francis publishes the encyclical Laudato Si’, which urges people to take care of the environment and encourages political action to address climate problems.
Pope Francis at a Wednesday general audience in St. Peter’s Square on June 17, 2015. Bohumil Petrik.
Sept. 19-22 — Pope Francis visits Cuba and meets with Fidel Castro in the first papal visit to the country since Pope John Paul II in 1998. During his homily, Francis discusses the dignity of the human person: “Being a Christian entails promoting the dignity of our brothers and sisters, fighting for it, living for it.”
Sept. 22-27 — After departing from Cuba, Pope Francis makes his first papal visit to the United States. In Washington, D.C., he speaks to a joint session of Congress, in which he urges lawmakers to work toward promoting the common good, and canonizes the Franciscan missionary St. Junípero Serra. He also attends the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia, which focuses on celebrating the gift of the family.
Pope Francis speaks to the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 24, 2015. . L’Osservatore Romano.
Oct. 4 — Pope Francis begins the second Synod on the Family to address issues within the modern family, such as single-parent homes, cohabitation, poverty, and abuse.
Oct. 18 — The pope canonizes St. Louis Martin and St. Marie-Azélie “Zelie” Guérin. The married couple were parents to five nuns, including St. Therese of Lisieux. They are the first married couple to be canonized together.
Dec. 8 — Pope Francis’ Jubilee Year of Mercy begins. The year focuses on God’s mercy and forgiveness and people’s redemption from sin. The pope delegates certain priests in each diocese to be Missionaries of Mercy who have the authority to forgive sins that are usually reserved for the Holy See.
2016
March 19 — Pope Francis publishes the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which discusses a wide variety of issues facing the modern family based on discussions from the two synods on the family. The pope garners significant controversy from within the Church for comments he makes in Chapter 8 about Communion for the divorced and remarried.
April 16 — After visiting refugees on the Greek island of Lesbos, Pope Francis allows three Muslim refugee families to join him on his flight back to Rome. He says the move was not a political statement.
Pope Francis at the General Audience in St. Peter’s Square, Feb. 24, 2016. Daniel Ibanez/CNA.
July 26-31 — Pope Francis visits Krakow, Poland, as part of the World Youth Day festivities. About 3 million young Catholic pilgrims from around the world attend.
Sept. 4 — The pope canonizes St. Teresa of Calcutta, who is also known as Mother Teresa. The saint, a nun from Albania, dedicated her life to missionary and charity work, primarily in India.
Sept. 30-Oct. 2 — Pope Francis visits Georgia and Azerbaijan on his 16th trip outside of Rome since the start of his papacy. His trip focuses on Catholic relations with Orthodox Christians and Muslims.
Oct. 4 — Pope Francis makes a surprise visit to Amatrice, Italy, to pray for the victims of an earthquake in central Italy that killed nearly 300 people.
2017
May 12-13 — In another papal trip, Francis travels to Fatima, Portugal, to visit the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima. May 13 marks the 100th anniversary of the first Marian apparition to three children in the city.
July 11 — Pope Francis adds another category of Christian life suitable for the consideration of sainthood: “offering of life.” The category is distinct from martyrdom, which only applies to someone who is killed for his or her faith. The new category applies to those who died prematurely through an offering of their life to God and neighbor.
Pope Francis greets a participant in the World Day of the Poor in Rome, Nov. 16, 2017. L’Osservatore Romano.
Nov. 19 — On the first-ever World Day of the Poor, Pope Francis eats lunch with 4,000 poor and people in need in Rome.
Nov. 27-Dec. 2 — In another trip to Asia, Pope Francis travels to Myanmar and Bangladesh. He visits landmarks and meets with government officials, Catholic clergy, and Buddhist monks. He also preaches the Gospel and promotes peace in the region.
2018
Jan. 15-21 — The pope takes another trip to Latin America, this time visiting Chile and Peru. The pontiff meets with government officials and members of the clergy while urging the faithful to remain close to the clergy and reject secularism. The Chilean visit leads to controversy over Chilean clergy sex abuse scandals.
Aug. 2 — The Vatican formally revises No. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which concerns the death penalty. The previous text suggested the death penalty could be permissible in certain circumstances, but the revision states that the death penalty is “inadmissible.”
Aug. 25 — Archbishop Carlo Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States, publishes an 11-page letter calling for the resignation of Pope Francis and accusing him and other Vatican officials of covering up sexual abuse including allegations against former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The pope initially does not directly respond to the letter, but nine months after its publication he denies having prior knowledge about McCarrick’s conduct.
Aug. 25-26 — Pope Francis visits Dublin, Ireland, to attend the World Meeting of Families. The theme is “the Gospel of family, joy for the world.”
Pope Francis at the 2018 World Meeting of Families in Ireland. Daniel Ibanez/CNA.
Oct. 3-28 — The Synod on Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment takes place. The synod focuses on best practices to teach the faith to young people and to help them discern God’s will.
2019
Jan. 22-27 — The third World Youth Day during Pope Francis’ pontificate takes place during these six days in Panama City, Panama. Young Catholics from around the world gather for the event, with approximately 3 million people in attendance.
Feb. 4 — Pope Francis signs a joint document in with Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, titled the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.” The document focuses on people of different faiths uniting together to live peacefully and advance a culture of mutual respect.
Pope Francis and Ahmed el-Tayeb, grand imam of al-Azhar, signed a joint declaration on human fraternity during an interreligious meeting in Abu Dhabi, UAE, Feb. 4, 2019. Vatican Media.
Feb. 21-24 — The Meeting on the Protection of Minors in the Church, which is labeled the Vatican Sexual Abuse Summit, takes place. The meeting focuses on sexual abuse scandals in the Church and emphasizes responsibility, accountability, and transparency.
Oct. 6-27 — The Church holds the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region, which is also known as the Amazon Synod. The synod is meant to present ways in which the Church can better evangelize the Amazon region but leads to controversy when carved images of a pregnant Amazonian woman, referred to by the pope as Pachamama, are used in several events and displayed in a basilica near the Vatican.
Oct. 13 — St. John Henry Newman, an Anglican convert to Catholicism and a cardinal, is canonized by Pope Francis. Newman’s writings inspired Catholic student associations at nonreligious colleges and universities in the United States and other countries.
2020
March 15 — Pope Francis takes a walking pilgrimage in Rome to the chapel of the crucifix and prays for an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. The crucifix was carried through Rome during the plague of 1522.
March 27 — Pope Francis gives an extraordinary “urbi et orbi” blessing in an empty and rain-covered St. Peter’s Square, praying for the world during the coronavirus pandemic.
Pope Francis venerates the miraculous crucifix of San Marcello al Corso in St. Peter’s Square during his Urbi et Orbi blessing, March 27, 2020. Vatican Media.
2021
March 5-8 — In his first papal trip since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Pope Francis becomes the first pope to visit Iraq. On his trip, he signs a joint statement with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani condemning extremism and promoting peace.
July 3 — Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, who was elevated to the College of Cardinals by Pope Francis, is indicted in a Vatican court for embezzlement, money laundering, and other crimes. The pope gives approval for the indictment.
July 4 — Pope Francis undergoes colon surgery for diverticulitis, a common condition in older people. The Vatican releases a statement that assures the pope “reacted well” to the surgery. Francis is released from the hospital after 10 days.
July 16 — Pope Francis issues a motu proprio titled Traditionis Custodes. The document imposes heavy restrictions on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Dec. 2-6 — The pope travels to Cyprus and Greece. The trip includes another visit to the Greek island of Lesbos to meet with migrants.
Pope Francis greets His Beatitude Ieronymos II in Athens, Greece on Dec. 5, 2021. Vatican Media
2022
Jan. 11 — Pope Francis makes a surprise visit to a record store in Rome called StereoSound. The pope, who has an affinity for classical music, blesses the newly renovated store.
March 19 — The pope promulgates Praedicate Evangelium, which reforms the Roman Curia. The reforms emphasize evangelization and establish more opportunities for the laity to be in leadership positions.
May 5 — Pope Francis is seen in a wheelchair for the first time in public and begins to use one more frequently. The pope has been suffering from knee problems for months.
Pope Francis greeted the crowd in a wheelchair at the end of his general audience on Aug. 3, 2022. Daniel Ibanez/CNA
July 24-30 — In his first papal visit to Canada, Pope Francis apologizes for the harsh treatment of the indigenous Canadians, saying many Christians and members of the Catholic Church were complicit.
2023
Jan. 31-Feb. 5 — Pope Francis travels to the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan. During his visit, the pope condemns political violence in the countries and promotes peace. He also participates in an ecumenical prayer service with Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and Moderator of the Church of Scotland Iain Greenshields.
Pope Francis greets a young boy a Mass in Juba, South Sudan on Feb. 5, 2023. Vatican Media
March 29-April 1 — Pope Francis is hospitalized for a respiratory infection. During his stay at Rome’s Gemelli Hospital, he visits the pediatric cancer ward and baptizes a newborn baby.
April 5 — The pope appears in the Disney documentary “The Pope: Answers,” which is in Spanish, answering six “hot-button” issues from members of Gen Z from various backgrounds. The group discusses immigration, depression, abortion, clergy sexual and psychological abuse, transgenderism, pornography, and loss of faith.
April 28-30 — Pope Francis visits Hungary to meet with government officials, civil society members, bishops, priests, seminarians, Jesuits, consecrated men and women, and pastoral workers. He celebrates Mass on the final day of the trip in Kossuth Lajos Square.
Pope Francis stands on an altar erected outside the Parliament Building in Budapest’s Kossuth Lajos’ Square during a public outdoor Mass on April 30, 2023. Vatican Media
June 7 — The Vatican announces that Pope Francis will undergo abdominal surgery that afternoon under general anesthesia due to a hernia that is causing painful, recurring, and worsening symptoms. In his general audience that morning before the surgery, Francis says he intends to publish an apostolic letter on St. Thérèse of Lisieux, “patroness of the missions,” to mark the 150th anniversary of her birth.
June 15 — After successful surgery and a week of recovery, Pope Francis is released from Gemelli Hospital.
Aug. 2-6 — Pope Francis travels to Lisbon, Portugal, for World Youth Day 2023, taking place from Aug. 1-6. He meets with Church and civil leaders ahead of presiding at the welcoming Mass and Stations of the Cross. He also hears the confessions of several pilgrims. On Aug. 5, he visits the Shrine of Our Lady of Fátima, where he prays the rosary with young people with disabilities. That evening he presides over the vigil and on Sunday, Aug. 6, he celebrates the closing Mass, where he urges the 1.5 million young people present to “be not afraid,” echoing the words of the founder of World Youth Days, St. John Paul II.
Pope Francis waves at the crowd of 1.5 million people who attended the closing Mass of World Youth Day 2023 in Lisbon, Portugal on Aug. 6, 2023. Vatican Media.
Aug. 31-Sept. 4 — Pope Francis travels to Mongolia, the world’s most sparsely populated sovereign country. The trip makes Francis the first pope to visit the Asian country that shares a 2,880-mile border with China, its most significant economic partner. Mongolia has a population of about 1,300 Catholics in a country of more than 3 million people.
Pope Francis meets with local priests and religious of Mongolia, which includes only 25 priests (19 religious and six diocesan), 33 women religious, and one bishop — Cardinal Giorgio Marengo — in Ulaanbaatar’s Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul on Sept. 2, 2023. Credit: Vatican Media
Sept. 22-23 — On a two-day trip to Marseille, France, Pope Francis meets with local civil and religious leaders and participates in the Mediterranean Encounter, a gathering of some 120 young people of various creeds with bishops from 30 countries.
Pope Francis asks for a moment of silence at a memorial dedicated to sailors and migrants lost at sea on the first of a two-day visit to Marseille, France, Sept. 22, 2023. A Camargue cross, which comes from the Camargue area of France, represents the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. The three tridents represent faith, the anchor represents hope, and the heart represents charity. Credit: Daniel Ibañez/CNA
Oct. 4-29 — The Vatican hosts the first of two monthlong global assemblies of the Synod on Synodality, initiated by Pope Francis in 2021 to enhance the communion, participation, and mission of the Church. Pope Francis celebrates the closing Mass of the synod at St. Peter’s Basilica on Oct. 29. The second and final global assembly will take place at the Vatican in October 2024.
Pope Francis at the Synod on Synodality’s closing Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on Oct. 29, 2023. Vatican Media
Nov. 25 — Pope Francis visits the hospital briefly for precautionary testing after coming down with the flu earlier in the day. Although he still participates in scheduled activities, other officials read his prepared remarks. The Vatican on Nov. 28 cancels the pope’s planned Dec. 1–3 trip to Dubai for the COP28 climate conference, where he was scheduled to deliver a speech, due to his illness.
Dec. 18 — The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issues the declaration Fiducia Supplicans, which authorizes nonliturgical blessings for same-sex couples and couples in “irregular situations.” Various bishops from around the world voice both support for and criticism of the document.
2024
Jan. 4 — Amid widespread backlash to Fiducia Supplicans, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, publishes a five-page press release that refers to Fiducia Supplicans as “perennial doctrine” and underlines that pastoral blessings of couples in irregular situations should not be “an endorsement of the life led by those who request them.”
Jan. 14 — Pope Francis for the first time responds publicly to questions about Fiducia Supplicans in an interview on an Italian television show. The pope underlines that “the Lord blesses everyone” and that a blessing is an invitation to enter into a conversation “to see what the road is that the Lord proposes to them.”
Feb. 11 — In a ceremony attended by Argentine president Javier Milei, Pope Francis canonizes María Antonia of St. Joseph — known affectionately in the pope’s home country as “Mama Antula” — in a Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica. The president and the former archbishop of Buenos Aires embrace after the ceremony. Pope Francis, who has not returned to his homeland since becoming pope in 2013, has said he wants to visit Argentina in the second half of this year.
Pope Francis meets with Argentina President Javier Milei in a private audience on Feb. 12, 2024, at the Vatican. Credit: Vatican Media
Feb. 28 — After canceling audiences the previous Saturday and having an aide read his prepared remarks at his Wednesday audience due to a “mild flu,” Pope Francis visits the hospital for diagnostic tests but returns to the Vatican afterward.
March 2 — Despite having an aide read his speech “because of bronchitis,” the pope presides over the inauguration of the 95th Judicial Year of the Vatican City State and maintains a full schedule.
March 13 — Pope Francis celebrates 11 years as Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.
Pope Francis delivers his Angelus address at the Vatican, June 6, 2021. / Screenshot from Vatican News YouTube channel.
Vatican City, Jun 6, 2021 / 06:20 am (CNA).
Pope Francis expressed sorrow on Sunday at the discovery of Indigenous children’s… […]
43 Comments
No, Francis, you are wrong. An unborn baby is a human person. A philosopher like St. John Paul II you are not. A theologian, you also are not. You confuse the faithful beyond belief. I’ve commented numerous times that your major problem is that you’re over-exposed. You give too many off-the-cuff interviews that result in your saying some pretty dumb things. I’d suggest that you reserve comments to matters of faith and morals when you specially intend to speak ex cathedra as Christ’s Vicar on earth.
I remain severely troubled by these words by Pope Francis. Whilst it is clear he means to clear a path for those who have been a victim of the abortion industry, a road back to the Church, he inadvertently has created a slip-n-slide away from God. There is no doubt in my mind this isn’t the pope’s intention, but it is the logical outcome all the same.
With respect, Deacon, the Pope in that quotation is describing what “any book of embryology” can tell us. And he’s hardly the first Catholic I’ve seen argue for the pro-life position starting from that point. Personhood is a philosophical concept, the soul a religious one, but you can establish purely from embryology (which is presumably easier for everyone to agree on than those other disciplines) that even a zygote is a) biologically alive, b) genetically human, and c) a distinct human from either parent, not like their own cells.
For Catholics, it then follows that every distinct human has their own rational soul, and may not rightly be killed except in very specific circumstances.
Pope Francis is not dissenting from or altering Catholic teaching on abortion. He is following other Catholic writers in trying to start the argument from the common ground of pure biology. Focusing on the “living human being — I do not say person” part when he is describing what you can get from a biology book is disingenuous. A biology book isn’t going to talk about personhood any more than it’s going to talk about the soul.
Pope Francis states: “On abortion, I can tell you these things, which I’ve said before. In any book of embryology it is said that shortly before one month after conception the organs and the DNA are already delineated in the tiny fetus, before the mother even becomes aware. Therefore, there is a living human being. I do not say a person, because this is debated, but a living human being. And I raise two questions: Is it right to get rid of a human being to resolve a problem? Second question: Is it right to hire a ‘hit man’ to resolve a problem?”
With all due respect, I think Sean Kenney misconstrues the significance of Pope Francis’ remarks on human life and human personhood.
As I read Francis’ remarks, he moves from what is a scientific fact–that an unborn child is a living human being–to helping people consider the ethical implications of that scientific fact when it comes to abortion–the killing of what is scientifically indisputably a human being. Francis chooses to avoid getting into the question of whether to describe an unborn child as a “person” because, as he notes, the application of the term in this case is “debated”. Instead, he focuses on what is not *scientifically* debatable.
Is this a good rhetorical move? To sidestep the use of the term “person” and to focus instead on the scientifically factual element that the unborn child is a living human being? To leave it to his listeners to draw out the moral implication of killing a human being?
Maybe, maybe not. But that’s a different issue from what Mr Kenney suggests:
“Francis’ answer is at odds with Evangelium Vitae in a most direct way. By putting distance between human being and human personhood, Francis intentionally or otherwise opens the door to a litany of horribles that have both moral and theological consequences too terrible to ignore.”
I don’t think Francis’ comment is at odds with Evangelium Vitae because I don’t see any reason to think he is doing anything more than choosing, at that particular moment, not to enter into the debate about applying the term “person” to an unborn human being, but instead, as I say, to let people realize the moral implication of the scientific fact unborn children are living human beings. He does not *deny* that unborn children are “persons” simply by choosing not to get into the debate about the use of the term. And he clearly maintains that killing unborn children is wrong.
By making a concession to a “debate” that has no basis in reality, he validates the presuppositions of such a debate, that it can be legitimate to doubt the personhood of the unborn. His implicit validation is evil and typical of his personal moral cowardice and willingness to constantly appease the expectations of secularists, whose values he’s always held in higher regard than those of Catholics whom he regards as “backward” for holding to moral absolutes.
Well-stated, Edward. Your insights dovetail in quite nicely with what I set forth in a comment in CWR on 11/29/2022:
“The bogus debate on personhood wherein some people deny that the child in the womb is a person is based on purely subjective criteria of what constitutes personhood that purposely excludes the child in the womb. Moreover, many who favor abortion make the insidious claim that ‘even if the fetus is human, it’s not a person, and so it is morally acceptable to murder a fetus because it’s not a person.’ And now, based on the harmful ignorance of the Pope who proclaims that the personhood debate is an ongoing legitimate debate, he opens another door to those who will seize upon his words to proclaim that even the Pope does not claim the fetus is a person, and as such it does not deserve to be protected from abortion even though the Pope does not favor abortion.
Why did the Pope feel the need to emphasize his unintelligent neutral position on the so-called personhood debate? How can this do anything but harm the pro-life anti-abortion cause for the reasons already stated as well as others? He could have stopped with his sloppy statement about fetal development, which was bad enough as previously discussed, but then he makes it a point to emphasize that he’s not sure of the personhood of the child.”
Mr. Kenney’s reflections are spot on, and so it is actually Mr. Brumley who seriously misconstrues the significance of the Pope’s remarks in his (Brumley’s) wrongheaded effort to defend the Pope’s ignorant remarks on abortion and personhood in the America interview.
To further illustrate the absurdity of the Pope’s remarks on the bogus personhood debate, imagine the following addition by Francis to a beautiful statement made by God Himself found in Jeremiah:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” I don’t say you are
person, because that is debated.
There is no legitimate excuse for what Pope Francis did by failing to stand up for life beginning at the moment of conception, and for also making it a point that he is does not know if the human being in the womb is in fact a human person.
It is not 70,000,000+ babies murdered in the womb- that’s only the US. Perhaps 1,000,000,000+ worldwide?
It has been reported that there is an inexplicable flash of light at the union of sperm and egg. If true, it calls to mind the scientific speculation that an intense flash of UV light May have formed the image on the Shroud when then Body of the Beloved One was resurrected.
Absolutely no one had the right to murder a Life that Almighty God has willed- for without His Will nothing is – we are not even the ashes from which He made us without His benevolent Love.
The use of the term ‘abortion’ is a gross tactical error and a submission to ‘progressive’ mind control. The implication of the term implies the termination of something gone awry- such as an errant rocket that must be destroyed.
So an ‘unwanted child’, an errant consequence of the abuse of gift of procreative pleasure, is terminated as an undesirable outcome.
Lost to the general sensibility of social mankind is the wonder that Almighty God made the most exquisite physical pleasure His creatures may experience is the key to holding hands with God in the Creation of Life. How insulting it is to desecrate His holy gift.
The only ones debating personhood are those who wish to obscure matters so as to justify the killing of the innocent. There was nothing vague about the clear words of Evangelium Vitae on the matter of personhood. The Pope would have done well to simply quote his sainted predecessor on the matter.
Agreed. The only people who care if a human being is a “person” are those arguing to stop the life of said being. From conception to death, beyond all doubt all the DNA needed for that human being exists and grows, then dies. The idea of “personhood” comes into play as a way to define who is worth “keeping” on earth and who is not, whose “right to live” conflicts with another “person’s” right to live etc. It is an endless slide leading to dropping off the cliff of arguing that those with cognitive impairments of various types are not truly persons, and thus… In fact, we are already there and have been for many many years, that some beings SHOULD be aborted on the basis of their perceived lack of future cognition. What is to stop this discussion from continuing throughout life?
The Pope is saying that some human beings may not be persons…..
Slave owners said blacks were not persons like whites…..
The Nazis said Jews we not not persons……
As we know Francis called an unrepentant abortionist who murdered over 2000 humans (according to Francis they weren’t persons) babies in the womb a “great” person……
As we know Francis is filling the Pontifical Academy for Life with people who believe in murdering “humans” so his excuse must be at least they don’t kill persons.
In the end an abortion supporter can say “even Pope Francis will not say if abortion ends a persons life” so abortion must simply be a heath care choice.
Sure Francis may say abortion is wrong but that is like a person saying, “well the people the Nazis killed may have been human but I don’t know if they were actually persons… but i still think they were wrong.”
Unfortunately, Mark,the quiet war against Pope Francis waged by the EWTN empire has its consequences: good luck trying to convince anyone who has drank deeply of their Kool aid that the Pope is the Pope, not a communist heretic.
Personally, I’ve come to love him as much as his two predecessors! He is trying to speak the Gospel to the world, and to the church(the latter is the harder to evangelize, sometimes).
Thank you Mark Brumley! I think this is a great example, of which there are many, where the Pope can be given the benefit of the doubt (like M. Brumley does) or not (like so many who seem set on critical). I say, Let’s always be set on giving the Successor of Peter the benefit of the doubt! One reason: Jesus said of St. Peter and the other apostles, “he who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises me”.
I don’t think Pope Francis can expect the benefit of the doubt from Catholics who seek to be faithful to the Church. His task, his vocation is to confirm the brethren in the faith; where he introduces ambiguity, he is not only not doing that, but actively doing the opposite. Individual theologians can expect to receive some latitude when they try to address theological conundrums; bishops? Not so much. Their job is to teach with authority, to hand on that which they received. The chief bishop? The same, only more so.
This leaves to one side the question raised by Fr John Hunwicke, relying on St John Henry Newman’s theory, that Pope Francis has suspended the teaching ministry of the Roman Church, and that we can set aside anything that he attempts to teach until he re-engages it. https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-temporary-suspense-of-function-of.html
The author appeals to greater “precision.” What St. John Paul II precisely says about the point at issue is this (from Evangelium Vitae, n. 60):
“…from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person [not being] is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely [!] for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself [!], the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence [!], must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: “THE HUMAN BEING IS TO BE RESPECTED AND TREATED AS A PERSON FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION [italics]; and therefore from that 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” (citing the CDF Donum Vitae, 22 February 1987, 1, No. 1: AAS 80, 1988, 78-79).
Pope Francis appears to stretch the precise “moment” of personhood up to nearly a month…
Is this simply extemporaneous mis-wording, again, or worse (enabling pastoral tolerance of first-month chemical abortions)? In the synodal process, regarding the separate and likewise obscured immorality of the homosexual lifestyle, we hear Cardinal Grech wanting to “stretch the grey area” (Grech’s words). In these two and all such cases, the signaling, whether intended or not, is to sideline, truncate or at last minimize the clarity and application of the Magisterium in Veritatis Splendor:
“Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this encyclical and which today is being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the REAFFIRMATION OF THE UNIVERSALITY AND IMMUTABILITY OF THE MORAL COMMANDMENTS [italics], particularly those which prohibit always and without exception INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS [italics]” (n. 115).
My sense is that Mr. Kenney and other critics of the Pontiff Francis (et al) are right on point: the issue at the root of the matter is being “a person.”
While Mr. Brumley’s case is that PF may be making an appeal from another angle, the ultimate question is whether the angle taken has a flexibility that retains the strength of the truth, or bends so far that it cannot vindicate the truth.
My conclusion is that it cannot vindicate the truth.
I believe that in the 19th century in the United States the arguments defending slavery centered on the assertion that slaves were not persons under the US constitution.
The contemporary legal arguments defending abortion persist in the same rationale: that unborn human brings aren’t persons.
Well: we are persons to God.
Anything that doesn’t admit that doesn’t ultimately admit the truth.
Perhaps you can square the Holy Father’s recent appointments to the Pontifical Academy of Life with you say is his commitment to the protection of the lives of the unborn.
the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae (I., 1), makes very clear, at the moment of conception, or the moment of a human being’s existence at conception, he possesses and is a body/soul composite and should, therefore, be treated as a human person. This is true because without a soul you don’t have a human being. And, according to the infallibleteaching of the Council of Vienne of 1312 (Decrees, 1), it is the soul that is the “form of the body,” or that which makes the body a living human body and along with the body makes the person a living human person. From the moment of conception, then, there exists a human person with all of the essential rights—especially the right to life, that are afforded to all human persons. In fact, Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter, Evangelium Vitae (para. 60), says very clearly:
Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, “from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and … modern genetic science offers clear confirmation…”
What about Jesus? He is a Divine Person. He was also a human being, but was not a human person, according to Church teaching. Perhaps this teaching needs to be revisited. As Son of God, He is a Divine Person. As Son of Man, wasn’t he a human person?
No, Jesus Christ is NOT a human person. He has a human nature (assumed at the Incarnation) but His Personhood is Divine. Man is a human person (at least some of us are.)
Jesus is true man and true God (cf the hypostatic union). But he is a Divine Person with two natures: Divine and human. It would be suggested that you revisit the early Church Councils that settled this theology. Anselm also is a good souce. Suffice it to say that “personhood” has specific meaning in philosophical thinking. That is why I am so critical of Francis’ using such terminology in an interview setting. The terms used have great significance in our understanding of who Christ is. These terms require a finesse that an interview doesn’t lend itself well to. Consequently, Francis runs a grave risk of creating confusion in the minds of the faithful. The faithful are already frightfully confused about what it means to be a human person, what it means to be a man or a woman, and who man in in relation to God. There is no room for Catholics to be confused about who Christ is.
Well said, Deacon Peitler.
And your point is a crucial one doctrinally. Here’s a meditation on the fact that Christ’s personhood remains totally divine, even as He totally elevates human nature into Himself. Jesus Christ is not a sort of hybrid, as if a “quaternary” (a term rejected by Sts. Augustine and Newman) muddles the Trinity.
“The union between the two natures in Christ is a personal union. It takes place in the Person of the Son of God….They are not mixed or fused with one another to form a third thing distinct from both. Rather they are united to one another indirectly in the Second Person of the Trinity….But in the Incarnation, the person pre-exists the union of the two natures, because it is the Person of the Eternal Son of God.
“In the Incarnation the Son of God, Who is eternal, assumes to Himself a complete human nature, a body and soul. By this union the human nature becomes the human nature of the Son of God. He is the Person existing in this human nature, the Person responsible for all its actions, the responsible Agent acting in and through the human nature in the world of men. It should be clear at once that the human nature of Christ has no personality. If we were to look at the human nature of Christ and ask, ‘What is it?’ the answer would have to be, ‘It is a human nature’. But if we were to inquire, ‘Who is he?’ then we could not give in reply the name of any human or created person, because there is no created personality present in Christ. We should have to say, ‘He is Christ, the Son of God.’”
(Walter Farrell OP,STM and Martin Healy, STD, in “My Way of Life,” Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 1952, pp. 450-451)
Frank, I agree with you that it seems confusing to say that Jesus—a Person with a human nature, a Person who is fully human as well as fully divine—is “not a human person.” There’s a sound rationale for this language, though.
Aquinas actually thought ‘ensoulment’ occurred several weeks post conception, an argument espoused by Biden years past seeking to justify limited abortion.
Ensoulment itself is an ambiguous word, originally the soul in Gk thought meant any being that was self motivated. A plant had a soul.
John Paul II was correct in removing the ‘ensoulment’ ambiguity by declaring person and being were synonymous from the moment of conception. Although, to be fair to Pope Francis, his remark distinguishing personhood from being may refer to legal descriptions of person. For example one Justice argued an infant is a person when he’s detached from his umbilical cord.
At the moment of conception there is human life [the term Chief Justice Rehnquist preferred in his Opinion contra the rational for abortion in Casey]. That human life, distinguished from all other life, as a person, this understood as specificity. A human life at conception is inherently a person.
At any rate perhaps the best argument for personhood circa conception was that of John the Baptist when 3 mo in Elizabeth’s womb recognized Jesus in Mary’s womb.
And as I always remmind my fellow good Catholics, not that I don’t have healthy reservations over whether I qualify, the most compelling additional confirmation of God’s intended understanding is reflected in Our Lady’s identification to Bernadette at Lourdes. She did not say I am the result of, she said, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”
You may have forgotten (innocently, I am sure, but you mentioned an intention to use the provided insights in some upcoming sermons 🙂 ), but several years ago, I wrote in a CWR comment directed to you that the Church celebrates the Immaculate Conception; not the Immaculate Implantation or Immaculate Birth or anything else. With the addition of modern science that includes the fine work of Dr. Maureen Condic, it has been conclusively demonstrated that all human life begins at conception. Please note the following that I wrote as part of an article that appeared in another Catholic publication:
“Promulgated on December 8, 1854, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception declares:
‘We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.’ (Cf. Denz., n. 1641.)
Well before science definitively established that all human life begins at conception, Holy Mother Church, in defining the Immaculate Conception, specifically states that the grace which preserved her from the stain of original sin was granted to Mary by Almighty God at the ‘instance of her conception.’ This grace was not granted at the moment of transplantation or at the moment of birth. Instead, it was granted at the very first moment of Mary’s life, at the moment of her conception.
But if Mary was not alive and not a separate being from the first instance of her conception, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception would ultimately make no sense as the grace would have been granted to a non-existent being. However, since it was granted to Mary at the first instance of her conception, the only reasonable conclusion is that she was alive and a human being separate from her mother. And there would have also been no point in emphasizing Mary’s conception if such was not the beginning of life for her as it is for all human beings.
So objective science has established when all human life begins at the first moment of conception, and the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception presciently reinforces this reality in its infallible teaching on the grace given to Mary when her life began at the first moment of conception. Taken together, an infallible teaching and objective science are indeed powerful allies in the ongoing fight against the monstrous crime of abortion.”
Quoting a penitent abortionist thoughts with regard to the gestation of human life: “There was a time in your life when you were this big and a time in your life when you were even bigger, but it was always you. There is only one you.”
Also Dr. Seuss, whom I understand–and unlike drag queens–is banned from kindergarten and library gatherings: “A person is a person, no matter how small.”
I defend Pope Francis’ statement that “personhood” does not have a definition agreed upon by everyone. It is certainly not well defined in the case of a fertilized egg or zygote. Consider, for example, what happens when the developing cell mass divides to form identical twins? Has one person become two persons?
To be clear human life is a continuous process of development that must be respected from its beginning. Any stages of development such as zygote or fetus are terms that have been developed for our descriptive convenience. Respect for human life is not just a tenant of my Faith and my religion but also required for human justice.
Human person & human being from the point of view of philosophy can or not refer to the same reality. Human person more accurately designates the (biologically & spiritually)being each human being is. Personhood begins with the first nanosecond of ones existence & the person does not cease to exist at physical death. Human being can be an equivocal term. It can be used to indicate the person with her/ his human nature- body,soul & personal act of being. Or, and here lies the problem, to as equivalent to human nature- body soul combo- which I believe is why the defense of life argument encounters problems in its defense. Hopefully, when the anthropology of 20th century philosopher Leonardo Polo is more widely known & studied the defense of life will have a surer grounding.
No, Francis, you are wrong. An unborn baby is a human person. A philosopher like St. John Paul II you are not. A theologian, you also are not. You confuse the faithful beyond belief. I’ve commented numerous times that your major problem is that you’re over-exposed. You give too many off-the-cuff interviews that result in your saying some pretty dumb things. I’d suggest that you reserve comments to matters of faith and morals when you specially intend to speak ex cathedra as Christ’s Vicar on earth.
Dear Deacon Peitler:
Your comment about Francis being”over-exposed” is spot-on.
The strength of the Church is men and women who rejoice in the Lord and serve Him in the spirit of love.
Thank you for saying what needs to be said for the wellbeing of Christ bride, the Church.
Yours in Christ,
Brian
Thank you, Brian.
I remain severely troubled by these words by Pope Francis. Whilst it is clear he means to clear a path for those who have been a victim of the abortion industry, a road back to the Church, he inadvertently has created a slip-n-slide away from God. There is no doubt in my mind this isn’t the pope’s intention, but it is the logical outcome all the same.
Francis must be removed from the Papacy. Soon. He’s incompetent and (purposely) destructive.
Thank you, Brian.
With respect, Deacon, the Pope in that quotation is describing what “any book of embryology” can tell us. And he’s hardly the first Catholic I’ve seen argue for the pro-life position starting from that point. Personhood is a philosophical concept, the soul a religious one, but you can establish purely from embryology (which is presumably easier for everyone to agree on than those other disciplines) that even a zygote is a) biologically alive, b) genetically human, and c) a distinct human from either parent, not like their own cells.
For Catholics, it then follows that every distinct human has their own rational soul, and may not rightly be killed except in very specific circumstances.
Pope Francis is not dissenting from or altering Catholic teaching on abortion. He is following other Catholic writers in trying to start the argument from the common ground of pure biology. Focusing on the “living human being — I do not say person” part when he is describing what you can get from a biology book is disingenuous. A biology book isn’t going to talk about personhood any more than it’s going to talk about the soul.
Pope Francis states: “On abortion, I can tell you these things, which I’ve said before. In any book of embryology it is said that shortly before one month after conception the organs and the DNA are already delineated in the tiny fetus, before the mother even becomes aware. Therefore, there is a living human being. I do not say a person, because this is debated, but a living human being. And I raise two questions: Is it right to get rid of a human being to resolve a problem? Second question: Is it right to hire a ‘hit man’ to resolve a problem?”
With all due respect, I think Sean Kenney misconstrues the significance of Pope Francis’ remarks on human life and human personhood.
As I read Francis’ remarks, he moves from what is a scientific fact–that an unborn child is a living human being–to helping people consider the ethical implications of that scientific fact when it comes to abortion–the killing of what is scientifically indisputably a human being. Francis chooses to avoid getting into the question of whether to describe an unborn child as a “person” because, as he notes, the application of the term in this case is “debated”. Instead, he focuses on what is not *scientifically* debatable.
Is this a good rhetorical move? To sidestep the use of the term “person” and to focus instead on the scientifically factual element that the unborn child is a living human being? To leave it to his listeners to draw out the moral implication of killing a human being?
Maybe, maybe not. But that’s a different issue from what Mr Kenney suggests:
“Francis’ answer is at odds with Evangelium Vitae in a most direct way. By putting distance between human being and human personhood, Francis intentionally or otherwise opens the door to a litany of horribles that have both moral and theological consequences too terrible to ignore.”
I don’t think Francis’ comment is at odds with Evangelium Vitae because I don’t see any reason to think he is doing anything more than choosing, at that particular moment, not to enter into the debate about applying the term “person” to an unborn human being, but instead, as I say, to let people realize the moral implication of the scientific fact unborn children are living human beings. He does not *deny* that unborn children are “persons” simply by choosing not to get into the debate about the use of the term. And he clearly maintains that killing unborn children is wrong.
By making a concession to a “debate” that has no basis in reality, he validates the presuppositions of such a debate, that it can be legitimate to doubt the personhood of the unborn. His implicit validation is evil and typical of his personal moral cowardice and willingness to constantly appease the expectations of secularists, whose values he’s always held in higher regard than those of Catholics whom he regards as “backward” for holding to moral absolutes.
Well-stated, Edward. Your insights dovetail in quite nicely with what I set forth in a comment in CWR on 11/29/2022:
“The bogus debate on personhood wherein some people deny that the child in the womb is a person is based on purely subjective criteria of what constitutes personhood that purposely excludes the child in the womb. Moreover, many who favor abortion make the insidious claim that ‘even if the fetus is human, it’s not a person, and so it is morally acceptable to murder a fetus because it’s not a person.’ And now, based on the harmful ignorance of the Pope who proclaims that the personhood debate is an ongoing legitimate debate, he opens another door to those who will seize upon his words to proclaim that even the Pope does not claim the fetus is a person, and as such it does not deserve to be protected from abortion even though the Pope does not favor abortion.
Why did the Pope feel the need to emphasize his unintelligent neutral position on the so-called personhood debate? How can this do anything but harm the pro-life anti-abortion cause for the reasons already stated as well as others? He could have stopped with his sloppy statement about fetal development, which was bad enough as previously discussed, but then he makes it a point to emphasize that he’s not sure of the personhood of the child.”
Mr. Kenney’s reflections are spot on, and so it is actually Mr. Brumley who seriously misconstrues the significance of the Pope’s remarks in his (Brumley’s) wrongheaded effort to defend the Pope’s ignorant remarks on abortion and personhood in the America interview.
To further illustrate the absurdity of the Pope’s remarks on the bogus personhood debate, imagine the following addition by Francis to a beautiful statement made by God Himself found in Jeremiah:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” I don’t say you are
person, because that is debated.
There is no legitimate excuse for what Pope Francis did by failing to stand up for life beginning at the moment of conception, and for also making it a point that he is does not know if the human being in the womb is in fact a human person.
Precisely,DocVer.
Yes. Thank you.
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your endeavours in bringing the readers closer to the Lord.
God’s richest blessings,
Brian Young
It is not 70,000,000+ babies murdered in the womb- that’s only the US. Perhaps 1,000,000,000+ worldwide?
It has been reported that there is an inexplicable flash of light at the union of sperm and egg. If true, it calls to mind the scientific speculation that an intense flash of UV light May have formed the image on the Shroud when then Body of the Beloved One was resurrected.
Absolutely no one had the right to murder a Life that Almighty God has willed- for without His Will nothing is – we are not even the ashes from which He made us without His benevolent Love.
The use of the term ‘abortion’ is a gross tactical error and a submission to ‘progressive’ mind control. The implication of the term implies the termination of something gone awry- such as an errant rocket that must be destroyed.
So an ‘unwanted child’, an errant consequence of the abuse of gift of procreative pleasure, is terminated as an undesirable outcome.
Lost to the general sensibility of social mankind is the wonder that Almighty God made the most exquisite physical pleasure His creatures may experience is the key to holding hands with God in the Creation of Life. How insulting it is to desecrate His holy gift.
The only ones debating personhood are those who wish to obscure matters so as to justify the killing of the innocent. There was nothing vague about the clear words of Evangelium Vitae on the matter of personhood. The Pope would have done well to simply quote his sainted predecessor on the matter.
Agreed. The only people who care if a human being is a “person” are those arguing to stop the life of said being. From conception to death, beyond all doubt all the DNA needed for that human being exists and grows, then dies. The idea of “personhood” comes into play as a way to define who is worth “keeping” on earth and who is not, whose “right to live” conflicts with another “person’s” right to live etc. It is an endless slide leading to dropping off the cliff of arguing that those with cognitive impairments of various types are not truly persons, and thus… In fact, we are already there and have been for many many years, that some beings SHOULD be aborted on the basis of their perceived lack of future cognition. What is to stop this discussion from continuing throughout life?
The Pope is saying that some human beings may not be persons…..
Slave owners said blacks were not persons like whites…..
The Nazis said Jews we not not persons……
As we know Francis called an unrepentant abortionist who murdered over 2000 humans (according to Francis they weren’t persons) babies in the womb a “great” person……
As we know Francis is filling the Pontifical Academy for Life with people who believe in murdering “humans” so his excuse must be at least they don’t kill persons.
In the end an abortion supporter can say “even Pope Francis will not say if abortion ends a persons life” so abortion must simply be a heath care choice.
Sure Francis may say abortion is wrong but that is like a person saying, “well the people the Nazis killed may have been human but I don’t know if they were actually persons… but i still think they were wrong.”
Unfortunately, Mark,the quiet war against Pope Francis waged by the EWTN empire has its consequences: good luck trying to convince anyone who has drank deeply of their Kool aid that the Pope is the Pope, not a communist heretic.
Personally, I’ve come to love him as much as his two predecessors! He is trying to speak the Gospel to the world, and to the church(the latter is the harder to evangelize, sometimes).
Thank you Mark Brumley! I think this is a great example, of which there are many, where the Pope can be given the benefit of the doubt (like M. Brumley does) or not (like so many who seem set on critical). I say, Let’s always be set on giving the Successor of Peter the benefit of the doubt! One reason: Jesus said of St. Peter and the other apostles, “he who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises me”.
I don’t think Pope Francis can expect the benefit of the doubt from Catholics who seek to be faithful to the Church. His task, his vocation is to confirm the brethren in the faith; where he introduces ambiguity, he is not only not doing that, but actively doing the opposite. Individual theologians can expect to receive some latitude when they try to address theological conundrums; bishops? Not so much. Their job is to teach with authority, to hand on that which they received. The chief bishop? The same, only more so.
This leaves to one side the question raised by Fr John Hunwicke, relying on St John Henry Newman’s theory, that Pope Francis has suspended the teaching ministry of the Roman Church, and that we can set aside anything that he attempts to teach until he re-engages it.
https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-temporary-suspense-of-function-of.html
The author appeals to greater “precision.” What St. John Paul II precisely says about the point at issue is this (from Evangelium Vitae, n. 60):
“…from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person [not being] is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely [!] for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself [!], the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence [!], must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: “THE HUMAN BEING IS TO BE RESPECTED AND TREATED AS A PERSON FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION [italics]; and therefore from that 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” (citing the CDF Donum Vitae, 22 February 1987, 1, No. 1: AAS 80, 1988, 78-79).
Pope Francis appears to stretch the precise “moment” of personhood up to nearly a month…
Is this simply extemporaneous mis-wording, again, or worse (enabling pastoral tolerance of first-month chemical abortions)? In the synodal process, regarding the separate and likewise obscured immorality of the homosexual lifestyle, we hear Cardinal Grech wanting to “stretch the grey area” (Grech’s words). In these two and all such cases, the signaling, whether intended or not, is to sideline, truncate or at last minimize the clarity and application of the Magisterium in Veritatis Splendor:
“Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this encyclical and which today is being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the REAFFIRMATION OF THE UNIVERSALITY AND IMMUTABILITY OF THE MORAL COMMANDMENTS [italics], particularly those which prohibit always and without exception INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS [italics]” (n. 115).
My sense is that Mr. Kenney and other critics of the Pontiff Francis (et al) are right on point: the issue at the root of the matter is being “a person.”
While Mr. Brumley’s case is that PF may be making an appeal from another angle, the ultimate question is whether the angle taken has a flexibility that retains the strength of the truth, or bends so far that it cannot vindicate the truth.
My conclusion is that it cannot vindicate the truth.
I believe that in the 19th century in the United States the arguments defending slavery centered on the assertion that slaves were not persons under the US constitution.
The contemporary legal arguments defending abortion persist in the same rationale: that unborn human brings aren’t persons.
Well: we are persons to God.
Anything that doesn’t admit that doesn’t ultimately admit the truth.
Perhaps you can square the Holy Father’s recent appointments to the Pontifical Academy of Life with you say is his commitment to the protection of the lives of the unborn.
Touché
the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae (I., 1), makes very clear, at the moment of conception, or the moment of a human being’s existence at conception, he possesses and is a body/soul composite and should, therefore, be treated as a human person. This is true because without a soul you don’t have a human being. And, according to the infallibleteaching of the Council of Vienne of 1312 (Decrees, 1), it is the soul that is the “form of the body,” or that which makes the body a living human body and along with the body makes the person a living human person. From the moment of conception, then, there exists a human person with all of the essential rights—especially the right to life, that are afforded to all human persons. In fact, Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter, Evangelium Vitae (para. 60), says very clearly:
Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, “from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and … modern genetic science offers clear confirmation…”
I forgot to metion that my posting is a quote from an article I finished reading by Tim Staples.
What about Jesus? He is a Divine Person. He was also a human being, but was not a human person, according to Church teaching. Perhaps this teaching needs to be revisited. As Son of God, He is a Divine Person. As Son of Man, wasn’t he a human person?
No, Jesus Christ is NOT a human person. He has a human nature (assumed at the Incarnation) but His Personhood is Divine. Man is a human person (at least some of us are.)
Well, if Jesus was a true Man he must have been a human person, since you write that Man is a human person.
Jesus is true man and true God (cf the hypostatic union). But he is a Divine Person with two natures: Divine and human. It would be suggested that you revisit the early Church Councils that settled this theology. Anselm also is a good souce. Suffice it to say that “personhood” has specific meaning in philosophical thinking. That is why I am so critical of Francis’ using such terminology in an interview setting. The terms used have great significance in our understanding of who Christ is. These terms require a finesse that an interview doesn’t lend itself well to. Consequently, Francis runs a grave risk of creating confusion in the minds of the faithful. The faithful are already frightfully confused about what it means to be a human person, what it means to be a man or a woman, and who man in in relation to God. There is no room for Catholics to be confused about who Christ is.
Well said, Deacon Peitler.
And your point is a crucial one doctrinally. Here’s a meditation on the fact that Christ’s personhood remains totally divine, even as He totally elevates human nature into Himself. Jesus Christ is not a sort of hybrid, as if a “quaternary” (a term rejected by Sts. Augustine and Newman) muddles the Trinity.
“The union between the two natures in Christ is a personal union. It takes place in the Person of the Son of God….They are not mixed or fused with one another to form a third thing distinct from both. Rather they are united to one another indirectly in the Second Person of the Trinity….But in the Incarnation, the person pre-exists the union of the two natures, because it is the Person of the Eternal Son of God.
“In the Incarnation the Son of God, Who is eternal, assumes to Himself a complete human nature, a body and soul. By this union the human nature becomes the human nature of the Son of God. He is the Person existing in this human nature, the Person responsible for all its actions, the responsible Agent acting in and through the human nature in the world of men. It should be clear at once that the human nature of Christ has no personality. If we were to look at the human nature of Christ and ask, ‘What is it?’ the answer would have to be, ‘It is a human nature’. But if we were to inquire, ‘Who is he?’ then we could not give in reply the name of any human or created person, because there is no created personality present in Christ. We should have to say, ‘He is Christ, the Son of God.’”
(Walter Farrell OP,STM and Martin Healy, STD, in “My Way of Life,” Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 1952, pp. 450-451)
Thank you, Peter.
Frank, I agree with you that it seems confusing to say that Jesus—a Person with a human nature, a Person who is fully human as well as fully divine—is “not a human person.” There’s a sound rationale for this language, though.
Aquinas actually thought ‘ensoulment’ occurred several weeks post conception, an argument espoused by Biden years past seeking to justify limited abortion.
Ensoulment itself is an ambiguous word, originally the soul in Gk thought meant any being that was self motivated. A plant had a soul.
John Paul II was correct in removing the ‘ensoulment’ ambiguity by declaring person and being were synonymous from the moment of conception. Although, to be fair to Pope Francis, his remark distinguishing personhood from being may refer to legal descriptions of person. For example one Justice argued an infant is a person when he’s detached from his umbilical cord.
At the moment of conception there is human life [the term Chief Justice Rehnquist preferred in his Opinion contra the rational for abortion in Casey]. That human life, distinguished from all other life, as a person, this understood as specificity. A human life at conception is inherently a person.
At any rate perhaps the best argument for personhood circa conception was that of John the Baptist when 3 mo in Elizabeth’s womb recognized Jesus in Mary’s womb.
And as I always remmind my fellow good Catholics, not that I don’t have healthy reservations over whether I qualify, the most compelling additional confirmation of God’s intended understanding is reflected in Our Lady’s identification to Bernadette at Lourdes. She did not say I am the result of, she said, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”
Thanks for that insight on conception.
Greetings, Father:
You may have forgotten (innocently, I am sure, but you mentioned an intention to use the provided insights in some upcoming sermons 🙂 ), but several years ago, I wrote in a CWR comment directed to you that the Church celebrates the Immaculate Conception; not the Immaculate Implantation or Immaculate Birth or anything else. With the addition of modern science that includes the fine work of Dr. Maureen Condic, it has been conclusively demonstrated that all human life begins at conception. Please note the following that I wrote as part of an article that appeared in another Catholic publication:
“Promulgated on December 8, 1854, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception declares:
‘We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.’ (Cf. Denz., n. 1641.)
Well before science definitively established that all human life begins at conception, Holy Mother Church, in defining the Immaculate Conception, specifically states that the grace which preserved her from the stain of original sin was granted to Mary by Almighty God at the ‘instance of her conception.’ This grace was not granted at the moment of transplantation or at the moment of birth. Instead, it was granted at the very first moment of Mary’s life, at the moment of her conception.
But if Mary was not alive and not a separate being from the first instance of her conception, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception would ultimately make no sense as the grace would have been granted to a non-existent being. However, since it was granted to Mary at the first instance of her conception, the only reasonable conclusion is that she was alive and a human being separate from her mother. And there would have also been no point in emphasizing Mary’s conception if such was not the beginning of life for her as it is for all human beings.
So objective science has established when all human life begins at the first moment of conception, and the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception presciently reinforces this reality in its infallible teaching on the grace given to Mary when her life began at the first moment of conception. Taken together, an infallible teaching and objective science are indeed powerful allies in the ongoing fight against the monstrous crime of abortion.”
God Bless.
Quoting a penitent abortionist thoughts with regard to the gestation of human life: “There was a time in your life when you were this big and a time in your life when you were even bigger, but it was always you. There is only one you.”
Also Dr. Seuss, whom I understand–and unlike drag queens–is banned from kindergarten and library gatherings: “A person is a person, no matter how small.”
I defend Pope Francis’ statement that “personhood” does not have a definition agreed upon by everyone. It is certainly not well defined in the case of a fertilized egg or zygote. Consider, for example, what happens when the developing cell mass divides to form identical twins? Has one person become two persons?
To be clear human life is a continuous process of development that must be respected from its beginning. Any stages of development such as zygote or fetus are terms that have been developed for our descriptive convenience. Respect for human life is not just a tenant of my Faith and my religion but also required for human justice.
Human person & human being from the point of view of philosophy can or not refer to the same reality. Human person more accurately designates the (biologically & spiritually)being each human being is. Personhood begins with the first nanosecond of ones existence & the person does not cease to exist at physical death. Human being can be an equivocal term. It can be used to indicate the person with her/ his human nature- body,soul & personal act of being. Or, and here lies the problem, to as equivalent to human nature- body soul combo- which I believe is why the defense of life argument encounters problems in its defense. Hopefully, when the anthropology of 20th century philosopher Leonardo Polo is more widely known & studied the defense of life will have a surer grounding.
The statement – “a reduced potentiality means a reduced personhood.”
What does that mean? It makes absolutely no sense at all.
Life begins at conception – at the INSTANT of conception. It has been that way since the beginning of time, is so now and will be so – forever.