Thank you, Pastor Kruse.
I found an old clipping from the New York Times, June 27, 2004 "The Bishops and the Bible."
The distinguished Mr. Wills wrote: "The command not to kill is directed at the killing of persons, and the issue in abortion is this: When does the fetus become a person? The answer to that is not given by church teaching. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, who thought that a soul was infused into the body, could only guess when that infusion took place (and he did not guess at 'fertilization'). St. Augustine confessed an agnosticism about the human status of the fetus.
"Natural reason must use natural tools to deal with this question - philosophy, neurobiology, psychology, medicine. When is the fetus 'viable,' and viable as what? Does personality come only with responsibility, with personal communication? On none of these do the bishops have special expertise. John Henry Newman said, 'The pope, who comes of Revelation, has no jurisdiction over Nature.'
"The evidence from natural sources of knowledge has been interpreted in various ways by people of good intentions and good information. If natural law teachings were clear on the matter, a consensus would have been formed by those with natural reason. The fact that the problem is unsettled by them does not mean that a theological authority can be resorted to. An invalid authority (theology) does not become valid faute mieux."
Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod
On the first paragraph, the distinguished Mr. Wills should have read Humanae Vitae and remind himself that the issue is that the "life" is human, so regardless how and when "personhood arrives, human life is spoken of and as human life it is to be protected and cherished even if it is so helpless that questions of personhood arise. So the answer of "personhood" is really not relevant.
It is also not a matter of "thou shall not murder." By using that line he is embarking on a quest to discover the limits of the commandment and asks: "But if it is not a "person" then it is OK, right?" He might have done better, again reading Humanae Vitae or stopping in at a good conservative Lutheran Church where he would have read that to ask the question: "When can I kill my neighbor?" is already a complete transgression of the commandments and a complete denial of hospitality or charity or concern for the "least of these."
Should the gentleman be RC he certainly must have sat through a mass on the day of Annunciation and have heard that the specific "personhood" of one Jesus of Nazareth was quite well known to the angle Gabriel and therefor also to God who sent said angel. The question of personhood might rest in the will of God. That should have occurred to Mr. Wills.
Does the distinguished gent understand how theology is done and how patristic sources are used in theology? Does he understand that saying: Augustine didn't say, or St Thomas does not speculate, is not normative? Does he accept the idea of a soul? When does it get there? He makes no argument himself but seems to suggest that St Thomas believed something he himself does not, namely that the soul was infused. If he does not believe in "the soul" or its infusion then what does he believe? If we are joined, soul and body, then the logical conclusion is that we are soul and body once we have an existence that is uniquely ourselves. That is at conception, even if St Thomas did not "guess" that, when a biological entity that is genetically similar but distinct from the host, the mother, is created. Had he though that through he would have not written that unless he is actually atheist or at minimum does not believe in the idea of a soul.
On the second paragraph: Yes, Newman said that. A quaint saying indeed. But is it relevant? No one is controlling anything in the debate on abortion. The debate is descriptive of what already is, not prescriptive on powers over which we have no control. It might, in this paragraph also have occurred to the writer, whose "distinguished - ness I am questioning, that, if we now want to talk about "natural reason" and physical science, that in the world of natural science the purpose of life is life. In other words, the reason there is human life is to reproduce and create more human life just like other mammals reptiles, fish and invertebrates do in their kind. If then the purpose of the individual in life is to replicate, then the idea to intentionally interfere with that process by the individual is to contradict its biological reason for being. The day that anyone claims that: "Its only natural . . . " is the day they have to accept that they are to reproduce and not stand in the way of the same. The idea that one should ask for "viability" is irrelevant. There is a developing fetus - the reproductive process is in motion and if natural reason must be obeyed then it must be left to take its course.
I further note that "these bishops" probably DO have expertise: If they are products of RC seminary and pre - seminary education, then they most definitely are expert enough on philosophy which Mr. Wills thinks should be applied.
The third paragraph is really a sly little attempt to marginalize theology, and therefore the church and her voices, and exclude the church from the debate. "An invalid authority (theology) does not become valid for lack of anything better?" Theology is invalid in the debate on human meaning, value, existence or issues of life and death? Surely you, Norman, see that that is absolutely ludicrous.
And theology is somehow the last resort? Does this man understand how human intellectual disciplines, philosophy, natural science, art, theology interact? Apparently not, since that paragraph is not indicative of such understanding or, alternately, suggests that he rejects theology as a discipline comparable to astrology.
It would appear to me that the distinguished- ness of the gentleman rests solely in the fact that he was published by the NYT. I would not read him again if I was you. Maybe old clippings should finally go to waste, especially if they do not add to the debate.
To join with the deaconess from just South of me: When is human life human life and worthy of your respect?
