Pope Francis will not say Fetus is a Person

[KnightofChrist]

Similar troubling news is the strange things that have been coming out of the Pontifical Academy of Life earlier this year and before. 

The Academy has appointed various pro-abortionists as members. After Archbishop Paglia, made President of the Academy by Pope Francis, removed a requirement that members make a pledge to protect life in union Church teaching. 

Also strange was an interview with Archbishop Paglia on Rai 3, Italian TV. 

During the interview the Archbishop Paglia stated

"I think that Law 194 (that legalized abortion in Italy) is now a pillar of our social life.”

When he was asked

“Is it not up for debate?”

The Archbishop replied

“But no, absolutely not, absolutely not.”

After a massive outcry from many Prolife groups the Academy claimed the Archbishop was taken out of context. 

The Pontifical Academy of Life's Twitter account earlier this year also caused great confusion when it repeatedly casted doubt on the binding nature of Humanae Vitae. Tweets they have since deleted. 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by KnightofChrist

[mommas_boy]

On 11/29/2022 at 3:03 PM, KnightofChrist said:

It's the same script. Pope Francis says something odd or strange in a interview, "it's a translation error." "The true meaning was lost in translation.", "You're making yourself more Catholic than the Pope."

I don't care for American magazine but I highly doubt they're so unprofessional that they are unable to accurately translate the original Spanish. Which is linked in the article. 

Rather, I believe you make these points to avoid facing things about Pope Francis you don't wish to face. 

Pope Francis believes a fetus is a human being but doesn't want to say a fetus a person because it's debated.

This is confusing and a strange thing for a Pope to say.  

Lastly, as always I believe you are a good Catholic. If you do not return the same honor to me is not a matter I can control. 

 

 

This was an intentional choice, and it was the right choice. This was a choice of teaching. As a former teacher, I know that this "choice of teaching" is a question of a domain called "pedagogy" -- the philosophy and study of teaching and learning.

What the Pope did here was that he chose to laser focus the learning of his chosen audience.

• The Pope's chosen audience: The Pope here is not seeking to speak with Catholics who already accept the Church teaching, such as yourself. He is seeking to engage those who don't currently accept Church teaching on abortion. Consequently, he is less concerned if you misunderstand his message, and more concerned if his chosen audience misunderstands his message.
• "Laser Focus": The Pope wanted to make sure that his chosen audience would focus on what he wanted them focus on: the message, and not a controversy of personhood. He knew that the question of personhood was too advanced of a concept for his audience -- that was like trying to teach calculus to a kindergartner; best to start with counting and addition, first. No, Pope Francis was going to start with the easy stuff, the stuff that there couldn't be disagreement on, the science: this was a human being, biologically speaking. We'll talk about the harder and more-controversial stuff later. Moreover, this stylistic choice highlighted the argument that he was trying to make, "No, let's not talk about the philosophical right now. Let's just talk about the scientific: is this, physiologically speaking, human?".

Teachers teach this way. We call it scaffolding: one step at a time. Hell, if you accept that the Old Testament was an extended lesson where God the Father slowly preparing the Israelites for Christ over time, then God scaffolded the Israelites. The very "grades" of K-12 in school are modelled after scaffolding, where each year in school students zoom in closer and closer on topics that they had learned about the previous year, or are introduced to new topics.

In short, the Pope's educational choice here was pedagogically brilliant -- the mark of a master teacher. It got the devout Catholics talking about it. It got everyone else to pay attention. It educated, and it did so at the lowest-common denominator with the most-compelling argument.

[KnightofChrist]

11 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

This was an intentional choice, and it was the right choice. This was a choice of teaching. As a former teacher, I know that this "choice of teaching" is a question of a domain called "pedagogy" -- the philosophy and study of teaching and learning.

What the Pope did here was that he chose to laser focus the learning of his chosen audience.

• The Pope's chosen audience: The Pope here is not seeking to speak with Catholics who already accept the Church teaching, such as yourself. He is seeking to engage those who don't currently accept Church teaching on abortion. Consequently, he is less concerned if you misunderstand his message, and more concerned if his chosen audience misunderstands his message.
• "Laser Focus": The Pope wanted to make sure that his chosen audience would focus on what he wanted them focus on: the message, and not a controversy of personhood. He knew that the question of personhood was too advanced of a concept for his audience -- that was like trying to teach calculus to a kindergartner; best to start with counting and addition, first. No, Pope Francis was going to start with the easy stuff, the stuff that there couldn't be disagreement on, the science: this was a human being, biologically speaking. We'll talk about the harder and more-controversial stuff later. Moreover, this stylistic choice highlighted the argument that he was trying to make, "No, let's not talk about the philosophical right now. Let's just talk about the scientific: is this, physiologically speaking, human?".

Teachers teach this way. We call it scaffolding: one step at a time. Hell, if you accept that the Old Testament was an extended lesson where God the Father slowly preparing the Israelites for Christ over time, then God scaffolded the Israelites. The very "grades" of K-12 in school are modelled after scaffolding, where each year in school students zoom in closer and closer on topics that they had learned about the previous year, or are introduced to new topics.

In short, the Pope's educational choice here was pedagogically brilliant -- the mark of a master teacher. It got the devout Catholics talking about it. It got everyone else to pay attention. It educated, and it did so at the lowest-common denominator with the most-compelling argument.

What do base your position on that Catholics who accept church teaching aren't his target audience in his interview with America? 

The question asked which prompted his answer was focused on how we (Catholics) know who abortion is wrong, how abortion plagues and separates the church, and how bishops should treat abortion in relation to other social justice issues.

Lastly, a fetus or any developing preborn child being recognized as a human being is just as hotly debated and denied by those that don't accept Church teaching as a fetus being recognized as a person. Calling a child a human being but not willing to say person will just confuse most any audience. As most people use the terms interchangeably. 

ETA the question as asked from the original source

"Gloria Purvis: Holy Father, abortion is a heavily politicized issue in the United States. We know it is wrong. And the United States Supreme Court recently ruled that there is no constitutional right to abortion. However, it still seems to plague the church in the sense that it separates us. Should the bishops prioritize abortion in relation to other social justice issues?"

[mommas_boy]

1 minute ago, KnightofChrist said:

What do base your position on that Catholics who accept church teaching aren't his target audience in his interview with America?

Presumably, a Catholic who accepts Church teaching already wouldn't need education in this lesson; the Pope would otherwise be preaching to the Choir.

2 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The question asked which prompted his answer was focused on how we (Catholics) know who abortion is wrong, how abortion plagues and separates the church, and how bishops should treat abortion in relation to other social justice issues.

The Pope's answer chose one specific "proof" for the immorality of abortion. Instead of using a fact from the bible as the starting axiom for his argument, the Pope chose instead an axiom from science, as Pope knew that this would be an axiom that would be acceptable to both those who are Faithful and those who are not. This is rhetorically advantageous.

5 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Lastly, a fetus or any developing preborn child being recognized as a human being is just as hotly debated and denied by those that don't accept Church teaching as a fetus being recognized as a person. Calling a child a human being but not willing to say person will just confuse most any audience. As most people use the terms interchangeably. 

Perhaps using "human being" was not good on my part. The Pope wanted to focus on what species a fetus belongs to; physiologically, is this fetus homo sapiens sapiens? The principle remains the same: let's focus on first principles.

[KnightofChrist]

2 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

Presumably, a Catholic who accepts Church teaching already wouldn't need education in this lesson; the Pope would otherwise be preaching to the Choir.

The Pope 'preaches to the choir' all the time. It's often needed actually.

2 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

The Pope's answer chose one specific "proof" for the immorality of abortion. Instead of using a fact from the bible as the starting axiom for his argument, the Pope chose instead an axiom from science, as Pope knew that this would be an axiom that would be acceptable to both those who are Faithful and those who are not. This is rhetorically advantageous.

Yes however by making the point, going out of his way to say he will not say a fetus is a person will confuse most any audience. It wasn't even a comment that needed to be said, even accepting for sake of argument your position that his target audience was not pro life Catholics. 

2 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

Perhaps using "human being" was not good on my part. The Pope wanted to focus on what species a fetus belongs to; physiologically, is this fetus homo sapiens sapiens? The principle remains the same: let's focus on first principles.

Stating that a fetus or any preborn child is a homo sapien is just as hotly debated and denied as stating a fetus is a human being or a person. Those that reject the Church's teaching don't accept the humanity of the child in anyway. It's just a 'blob of cells', parasitical, non living matter, a part of the woman's body, belongs to the woman's body, etc. 

[mommas_boy]

1 minute ago, KnightofChrist said:

The Pope 'preaches to the choir' all the time. It's often needed actually.

That does not mean that it is what the Pope did here. Indeed, for reasons specified above, it appears that the Pope did not "preach to the choir" in this particular instance.

2 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Yes however by making the point, going out of his way to say he will not say a fetus is a person will confuse most any audience. It wasn't even a comment that needed to be said, even accepting for sake of argument your position that his target audience was not pro life Catholics.

I am sorry that you are confused. In teaching, it is very often necessary to say the wrong thing so that the students may learn the right thing. I know, this sounds like complete hogwash, but it is correct. People simply don't learn precisely what teachers say. Instead, they take what the teacher says, attenuated by their attention span and comprehension level, mix it up with what they already know, and then construct their own understanding in their own minds. This is called constructivism. Scaffolding is an essential tenet of this view of learning.

I will tell you this: when I am practicing apologetics on the subject of abortion, I do so from the same perspective adopted by the Pope here. It is the only method that I have found has any hope of working with a non-emotional audience. His choice here is, in my experience, the correct one.

9 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Stating that a fetus or any preborn child is a homo sapien is just as hotly debated and denied as stating a fetus is a human being or a person. Those that reject the Church's teaching don't accept the humanity of the child in anyway. It's just a 'blob of cells', parasitical, non living matter, a part of the woman's body, belongs to the woman's body, etc. 

It may be hotly debated, but it is prerequisite knowledge before further progress can be made. Human personhood cannot be established if biological humanness has not first been established. Once biological humanness has been established, the next step that I have found necessary is to make an ontological argument (which first requires a philosophical education in the nature of ontology) that establishes that the "substance" of an unborn child and a born child is the same. This two-step process is needed in order to explain in a rigorous manner the personhood of a child without recourse to theology. Without this process, you cannot articulate a secular moral argument against abortion. If you cannot make that secular argument, you will be unable to outlaw it (I will note that I do not favor the outlaw of abortion; it will result only in failure. Instead, best to attack this problem from the demand side of the equation, rather than the supply side. After all, if one reduces supply of a product or service, demand will only increase. But if one reduces demand, supply will decrease).

[KnightofChrist]

42 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

That does not mean that it is what the Pope did here. Indeed, for reasons specified above, it appears that the Pope did not "preach to the choir" in this particular instance.

I'm basing my position that he was speaking to the Church and Catholics who know abortion is wrong based on the question asked of him. As well as the catholic news group that is read by Catholics that held and published the interview. 

42 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

I am sorry that you are confused. In teaching, it is very often necessary to say the wrong thing so that the students may learn the right thing. I know, this sounds like complete hogwash, but it is correct. People simply don't learn precisely what teachers say. Instead, they take what the teacher says, attenuated by their attention span and comprehension level, mix it up with what they already know, and then construct their own understanding in their own minds. This is called constructivism. Scaffolding is an essential tenet of this view of learning.

I just don't accept your position. I don't believe he took a question targeted towards Catholics who know abortion is wrong, the Church, and the bishops and then gave an answer targeted towards those that do not know abortion is wrong. 

42 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

I will tell you this: when I am practicing apologetics on the subject of abortion, I do so from the same perspective adopted by the Pope here. It is the only method that I have found has any hope of working with a non-emotional audience. His choice here is, in my experience, the correct one.

You're viewing the Pope's interview as how you would answer the questions, how you would teach, on your experiences. But is that truly how he meant it? I don't see that. 

42 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

It may be hotly debated, but it is prerequisite knowledge before further progress can be made. Human personhood cannot be established if biological humanness has not first been established. Once biological humanness has been established, the next step that I have found necessary is to make an ontological argument (which first requires a philosophical education in the nature of ontology) that establishes that the "substance" of an unborn child and a born child is the same. This two-step process is needed in order to explain in a rigorous manner the personhood of a child without recourse to theology. Without this process, you cannot articulate a secular moral argument against abortion. If you cannot make that secular argument, you will be unable to outlaw it

I can see your point, not convinced that was the Pope's point, but either way none of explains why he needed to state "I will not say person", even if his audience wasn't Catholics, he as the shepherd of the flock must remember his sheep, even when he speaks to those outside it. His same points could have been made without the comment at all. 

 

42 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

(I will note that I do not favor the outlaw of abortion; it will result only in failure. Instead, best to attack this problem from the demand side of the equation, rather than the supply side. After all, if one reduces supply of a product or service, demand will only increase. But if one reduces demand, supply will decrease).

I don't accept that at all. Willful murder whomever the victim may be should be outlawed even if the State will never be able to completely prevent it. What defines failure? That abortion will still happen? Various forms of slavery still exists in the United States but we would reject any position that it shouldn't be outlawed.  

Edited December 1, 2022 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

@mommas_boy

I believe the Pope's target audience are people like you and I. We both know abortion is wrong but there is a void between you and I on if this act of murder should outlawed. That is what I believe the Pope meant about person being debated. A person is protected under law. It is unlawful, outlawed to murder a person. If a fetus is legally/politically seen as a person then abortion an act of murder would be outlawed. 

I also believe the part of the rest of his answer is directed to Catholics who take a for or against the bishops preventing pro-abortion members of the State from receiving communion. 

These types of divisions in the Church between Catholics who know abortion is wrong is what the question by America and the answer given by Pope Francis was based on. 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by KnightofChrist

[mommas_boy]

5 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I'm basing my position that he was speaking to the Church and Catholics who know abortion is wrong based on the question asked of him. As well as the catholic news group that is read Catholics that held and published the interview. 

I just don't accept your position. I don't believe he took a question targeted towards Catholics who know abortion is wrong, the Church, and the bishops and then gave an answer targeted towards those that do not know abortion is wrong. 

You're viewing the Pope's interview as how you would answer the questions, how you would teach, on your experiences. But is that truly how he meant it? I don't see that. 

I can see your point, not convinced that was the Pope's point, but either way none of explains why he needed to state "I will not say person", even if the his audience wasn't Catholics, he as the shepherd of the flock must remember his sheep, even when he speaks to those outside it. His same points could have been made without the comment at all. 

Your choices are:

1. That the Pope was using a common trick of teaching in order to teach those most in need of teaching on the subject.
2. The Pope was reiterating a lesson to those who could use some refresher sure, but already accept Church teaching, and did so unartfully and in a way to cause them confusion.
3. The Pope was engaged in heresy.

Number 3 is flat out wrong, no matter how much a conservative Catholic may want to believe that Francis is engaged in heresy. Number 2 is a low priority, and is inconsistent with the skill level of a man of Francis's station. Number 1 is simply the most-likely and most-practical use of this man's very limited time whose principle job is the shepherding of souls, ie. doing exactly this!

At this point, if you do not accept this position, that is fine, as this is not a topic of critical import. However, I cannot think of another way to approach the topic in order to express why the Pope might have, and indeed should have, taken the educational approach that he did.

14 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I don't accept that at all. Willful murder whomever the victim may be should be outlawed even if the State will never be able to completely prevent it. What defines failure? That abortion will still happen? Various forms of slavery still exists in the United States but we would reject any position that it shouldn't be outlawed.  

The definition of failure is political backlash and imposition of laws to override previous laws. Further division in America. The continued potential for civil war between conservatives and liberals. It is my continued position that the "Devil" whose name means "Divider" and Satan whose name means "Accuser" has weaponized the issue of abortion amongst conservatives in order to serve as a seed of division to further his own ends. He is, after all, able to use something that is morally correct or good in order to achieve a moral evil. Sex is a wonderful example of this. This is one ideological issue among a great many, but it is one resulting in political division. I am seeing political division, rather than the issue of abortion itself, as the Devil's greater goal.

With the topic of abortion, while I agree that the practice is morally and gravely wrong, the fact remains that outlawing it is extremely unpopular. Approximately 70% of the American public favors keeping abortion legal. It's going to be hard to make a law that unpopular. Therefore, strategically, you must first convince people to adopt your position before you can implement it into law.

You should talk to people who are pro-choice, and listen for their self-concept, as well as for their views of people who are pro-life. Like people who are pro-life, they see themselves as not just morally neutral, but instead as morally good. In their minds, it would be morally bad if they were to change their position, or even adopt a more neutral position. They believe that they should be activist in the practice of their beliefs. They view those that oppose them as barbaric for their believes. In short, their self-concept is just like ours as pro-lifers.

You're going to have a hard time changing that core belief. You're going to have an easier time convincing them that their core belief is of less critical importance if there is actual healthcare and health insurance infrastructure in place, if livable wages are being paid to the middle class, if they have access to child care. You know, Catholic Social Teaching stuff. Moreover, while you're waiting for public opinion to change as a result of these priorities, fewer abortions will happen. There are data to support this thesis; indeed, it turns out that the Democrat strategy of keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare" has been more effective at reducing the number of abortions than the Republican strategy of limiting access to them. This is consistent with the principal of economics that I mentioned earlier, that reduction of supply increases demand, while reduction of demand decreases supply.

In short, my position is not morally different than Church teaching; it instead states simply that the political strategy used to this point has been ineffective. That SCOTUS has overturned Roe is simply a step outside of the Overton window that has not yet been "corrected" (in the sense that a stockmarket undergoes a "correction" to the proper value of a particular security), but will be corrected in a large backlash that is easy enough to see from the present period of history.

[KnightofChrist]

22 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

Your choices are:

1. That the Pope was using a common trick of teaching in order to teach those most in need of teaching on the subject.
2. The Pope was reiterating a lesson to those who could use some refresher sure, but already accept Church teaching, and did so unartfully and in a way to cause them confusion.
3. The Pope was engaged in heresy.

4. The Pope was using person in the legal definition. Based on the context the question asked, which contained the striking down of Roe, as well as points made in my previous post. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by KnightofChrist

[mommas_boy]

10 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

4. The Pope using person in the legal definition. Based on the context the question asked, which contained the striking down of Roe, as well as points made in my previous posts. 

As I've stated, before one can establish personhood in an argument without recourse to theology, one must first establish whether or not a fetus is a member of the human species. The Pope wisely chose to focus on first principles in order to have the broadest effect. I don't know of any other way to state this. As I've mentioned, I would have chosen the same point of emphasis for the same reason. Because I do not know any other way to state this, I will decline from engaging you further on the specific topic of the Pope's choice of words. As I see it, this was a non-news news story told by someone with an axe to grind. Strangely, this source was America magazine, which is a liberal Catholic magazine published by the Jesuits, if my memory is correct.

ETA: Perhaps "America" was attempting to make the inappropriate and incorrect point that Francis may be softening Church teaching in the future? Clearly, that would be the wrong conclusion for them to draw, but that seems reasonable for a liberal Catholic magazine.

9 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

As I see it, this was a non-news news story told by someone with an axe to grind. Strangely, this source was America magazine, which is a liberal Catholic magazine published by the Jesuits, if my memory is correct.

ETA: Perhaps "America" was attempting to make the inappropriate and incorrect point that Francis may be softening Church teaching in the future? Clearly, that would be the wrong conclusion for them to draw, but that seems reasonable for a liberal Catholic magazine.

Just read the article. This was far from the most-important point raised in the article. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, @KnightofChrist, and missing the point of the article.

Edited December 1, 2022 by mommas_boy

[KnightofChrist]

52 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

With the topic of abortion, while I agree that the practice is morally and gravely wrong, the fact remains that outlawing it is extremely unpopular. Approximately 70% of the American public favors keeping abortion legal. It's going to be hard to make a law that unpopular. Therefore, strategically, you must first convince people to adopt your position before you can implement it into law.

Would you support outlawing abortion an act of murder on condition a vast majority was in favor?

52 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

Democrat strategy of keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare"

The Democrat Party has dropped that phrase. Some time ago, I don't believe they ever truly believed it. I can't agree with you that it's effective at reducing abortion. 

25 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

I will decline from engaging you further on the specific topic of the Pope's choice of words.

No problem, we don't now nor ever will we agree on what he meant by being unwilling to say person. I don't believe your position is based on the context of the actual interview, the questions and answers. The target audience was Catholics who believe abortion is wrong and the divisions amongst us. 

 

25 minutes ago, mommas_boy said:

Strangely, this source was America magazine, which is a liberal Catholic magazine published by the Jesuits, if my memory is correct

 Yes, which you would know with certainly if you had actually read the interview. I'm not sure you even read anything from it save for what I quoted in the original post. Which is why I believe you missed the overall context and intended target audience.

Anyway, sorry for not responding to all your points. I must sleep now. Honestly I should have done so hours ago. God be with you brother.

Edited December 1, 2022 by KnightofChrist

[mommas_boy]

6 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Would you support outlawing abortion an act of murder on condition a vast majority was in favor?

Possibly. In that case, the mission of convincing the public would already have been accomplished. However, there still should be an exception for the life of the mother. As someone who currently adjudicates disability cases for a living, I don't believe that an effective and more importantly a timely process can be created to make those medical decisions in what is likely an emergency time frame. There are also Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment implications with due process to consider, which adds a right to an appeal and thus more timeliness concerns. Then there are fraud and similar fault, which massively slow down the process. So my only problem here is how to write a good law that takes life of the mother into account in a realistic manner that actually specifies the process and standard burden of proof, and doesn't just say, "abortion is outlawed save for cases where the life of the mother is at risk within a reasonable degree of medical certainty". A doctor's note is, believe me, not sufficient evidence; if I actually accepted a doctor's note as sufficient evidence of disability, the social security trust fund would have run out long ago, and we would never be able to kick people off of the program.

On a separate note, I don't agree with calling abortion "murder" for both rhetorical and moral reasons. The rhetorical reasons are self-evident: there is no reason to turn someone off from your attempt to persuade them. The moral reasons are less obvious: I would say that abortion is clearly a "homicide", a killing of a human; that much is objectively true. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murder. "Murder" requires a specific intent to commit murder that may or may not be present. In fact, the more likely someone is to have an abortion, the less likely they are to be educated enough to know that abortion is wrong and that they are killing a human person in order to form the requisite intent needed to commit the actual sin or crime of "murder", since both the sin and crime are defined in similar terms. Therefore, it may or may not technically be murder, depending on the specifics of the moral situation and the person involved. That's even more reason to not use the term when attempting to persuade someone.

26 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The Democrat Party has dropped that phrase. Some time ago, I don't believe they ever truly believed it. I can't agree with you that it's effective at reducing abortion.

You don't believe that providing livable wages, affordable housing, affordable education, financial opportunity, childcare, etc will reduce the demand for abortion? This is what I'm getting at.

[little2add]

5 hours ago, mommas_boy said:

You don't believe that providing livable wages, affordable housing, affordable education, financial opportunity, childcare, etc will reduce the demand for abortion?

It might encourage reluctance to work or make an effort; laziness and discourage personal responsibility, but would it reduce the demand for abortions?, it would more than likely have the opposite effect.   

Edited December 1, 2022 by little2add

[Hna.Caridad]

 

Oh, Pope Francis is just SOOOOOOOOO confusing, isn't he @KnightofChrist?

 

Enjoy your new church that you're creating.