the birds & the bees
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jun 04, 2005
The New York Times, with the energetic, if uncertain, help of a prominent Catholic moralist, takes a valiant stab at answering the old question.
Avoiding the term embryo merely "avoids a moral question that is very much in the public consciousness," said Lisa Cahill, a theology professor at Boston College. After all, she said, those balls of cells, however created, can develop and if implanted in a woman's womb, could in theory become babies.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Spring Challenge Grant
Progress toward our Spring Challenge Grant goal ($16,004 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: frjimc -
Jun. 04, 2005 5:22 PM ET USA
This woman Cahill is so heterodox I have trouble believing that she's employed by a Catholic college. Oh, wait, it's Jesuitical Boston College. Never mind. Actually, the former St. John's Seminary moral theology professor (Walter Woods -- now a pastor in toney Acton) authored a book with her and used her material as a counterpoint to the Church's authentic moral theology. Which is worse -- a heretic at BC or a heretic teaching future priests? Yet nobody made a move to reprove him . .
Posted by: Fr. William -
Jun. 04, 2005 2:19 PM ET USA
Indeed, use of the term "in theory" indicates that Miss Cahill is in desperate need of a basic course in human biology and reproduction.
Posted by: -
Jun. 04, 2005 12:15 PM ET USA
As both St. Thomas and Aristotle have pointed out, the path to sanity (and ultimately sanctity) requires that you deal with the real world and as it really is. This went out of vogue with Ocham and all of his successors because it required too much thinking. So what good is a mind if you are not really going to use it?