An Editorial Slip?
On the cover of The New York Times Book Review for October 3rd, we find Annie Murphy Paul’s new book on fetal development. The title is: Origins. How the Nine Months Before Birth Shape the Rest of Our Lives.
The Times editors had better be more careful in the future, lest they review more titles with messages which undermine the paper’s typically pro-abortion editorial policy. What’s all this about “the rest of our lives”?
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Deacon George -
Oct. 01, 2017 9:48 PM ET USA
Regarding AL as Thomistic see the October 2016 essay in "The Thomist" quarterly review by Serge-Thomas Bonino, O.P.
Posted by: Randal Mandock -
Sep. 30, 2017 1:37 PM ET USA
"...morality underlying [AL] is Thomistic." In his answer to the Jesuits' question about theological reflection, the Pope again fails in charity towards those he criticizes. To assert that critics of AL have not read the entire document and appreciated the vast majority of it is disingenuous. It is not the whole document that many of us object to, but rather the paragraphs that call into question certain dogmatic and moral truths. Does Francis cover his ears and eyes to avoid sting of criticism?
Posted by: feedback -
Sep. 29, 2017 11:01 PM ET USA
This, very sadly, reminds me again about the resignation statement of Pope Benedict XVI: "However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me."
Posted by: jalsardl5053 -
Sep. 29, 2017 5:39 PM ET USA
St. Thomas was never, never, never ever "doctrinally obscure". His theological and philosophical points were indeed subject to discussion and even disagreement but it was always on the merits not on well, he might've meant, gee, he could've meant,...If by Thomist, the pope thinks that his ambiguous statements amount to the Thomistic format of Objections...I answer, he is as sadly mistaken in that as in the validity of the most important part of the tear-the-church apart encyclical.