4 ms·

I thought that this was such an obvious point that I would not have to make it, but it just goes to show that whatever HN’s comment policies may be about civili

I thought that this was such an obvious point that I would not have to make it, but it just goes to show that whatever HN’s comment policies may be about civility and substance, they don’t seem to require a quite basic application of the Principle of Charity. So let me spell it out. Yes, I am aware that Saint Thomas Aquinas was a medieval theologian and that embryonic stem cell research did not exist at the time. Maybe you want to argue that there is some necessary connection between ESC research and the period of Church history where the development of Church moral doctrine treats life as beginning with conception. If so, great, argue that. Otherwise, “ESC research has always been problematic” is just a boring claim about the screamingly obvious. Because there are other potential moral or ethical frameworks within which you could evaluate ESC. Or perhaps you would say that those frameworks are not official Church doctrine, thus they’re not Catholic, even if they were taught by saints and Doctors of the Church. If so, you’re also probably the kind of person who says that someone who disagrees with the Church about the morality of contraception isn’t really Catholic, no matter what they say or do on Sundays. But then I congratulate you on erasing the vast majority of Catholics worldwide.

smeej 3y ago
Why on earth would you cite the ethical standards of a 13th century author whose views were based on 13th century scientific understanding when commenting on a living institution's assessment of a 20th century technology? Thomas' views on embryology had long since been superseded in Catholic moral theology once the field of embryology advanced. Thomas represented the best of Catholic theology for his time, but it would be monumentally ignorant to act like the Catholic Church is somehow still beholden to the the moral conclusions he drew from incomplete scientific understanding. > Maybe you want to argue that there is some necessary connection between ESC research and the period of Church history where the development of Church moral doctrine treats life as beginning with conception. Of course I do. The necessary connection is that that's when ESC was created. It couldn't have been created without the very developments in embryology that rendered Thomas' conclusions moot. Talk about something so obvious it shouldn't need to be said.
- dmvdoug 3y ago
  > it would be monumentally ignorant to act like the Catholic Church is somehow still beholden I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t do that, then.

smeej 3y ago

Why on earth would you cite the ethical standards of a 13th century author whose views were based on 13th century scientific understanding when commenting on a living institution's assessment of a 20th century technology? Thomas' views on embryology had long since been superseded in Catholic moral theology once the field of embryology advanced. Thomas represented the best of Catholic theology for his time, but it would be monumentally ignorant to act like the Catholic Church is somehow still beholden to the the moral conclusions he drew from incomplete scientific understanding. > Maybe you want to argue that there is some necessary connection between ESC research and the period of Church history where the development of Church moral doctrine treats life as beginning with conception. Of course I do. The necessary connection is that that's when ESC was created. It couldn't have been created without the very developments in embryology that rendered Thomas' conclusions moot. Talk about something so obvious it shouldn't need to be said.

dmvdoug 3y ago
> it would be monumentally ignorant to act like the Catholic Church is somehow still beholden I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t do that, then.