Thread: Purgatory: Why can't the Vatican look at the bigger picture? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000629
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
I haven't posted on here for a while but have been lurking and so on ..

Anyway, to the point, this morning I read something that left me flabbergasted.

Here's the link BBC News - Vatican urges end to Amnesty aid

In short, because Amnesty International not approves of abortion for women who have been raped or are in poor health, the Vatican is now urging Catholics to no longer donate money to this organisation.

I find this breathtaking. Amnesty International has worked so hard for decades on issues of human rights and freedom of speech, and freedom of worship that all Christians should support, and yet because of the abortion issue, and only for women that have been raped or are in bad health mind you, it is now suggesting that Amnesty International is no longer worthy of Catholic's money.

I find it amazing that the Vatican places abortion above all other issues in its considerations. Aren't hunman rights equally important? Doesn't the fact that Amnesty has campaigned for Christians who have suffered discrimination in various countries.

Anyway, would appreciate your thoughts, particularly from anyone who agrees with the Vatican and come up with a reasonable explanation as to how the Vatican "balances" or "weighs-up" the different factors in coming to this decision, and as to why abortion seemingly takes precedence over all others?

[ 10. August 2007, 00:00: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
I find it amazing that the Vatican places abortion above all other issues in its considerations. Aren't hunman rights equally important? ...

Anyway, would appreciate your thoughts, particularly from anyone who agrees with the Vatican and come up with a reasonable explanation as to how the Vatican "balances" or "weighs-up" the different factors in coming to this decision, and as to why abortion seemingly takes precedence over all others?
The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to live. Without that right, all others human rights simply become meaningless. Freedom of speech, for example, is of no use to you if you are dead. The Vatican considers human life to start at fertilization - or at least so soon after fertilization that it makes no difference. Therefore the zygote / embryo / fetus (ZEF) is a human person with all human rights, in particular the right to live. Clearly, a ZEF is entirely innocent of any crime and no aggressive threat to society and the life of others. Its right to live cannot be limited by other considerations, as for example in capital punishment or just war.

Abortion is thus a clear violation of the most fundamental human right of a human person, namely the ZEF. Clearly, a pregnancy due to rape or incest is a most grave violation of the human rights of the mother, and an incredible personal tragedy. But one violation of human rights does in no way or form justify another violation of human rights. The mother deserves all our sympathy, support, etc., but she has no more right to kill an innocent person - the ZEF - than anybody else has. Abortion cannot be considered as "self-defense with deadly outcome" against the rape, since the killing is not directed against the attacker but against a third person, the ZEF, who is not responsible in any way for the attack.

Thus if you believe that the ZEF is a human person with all human rights, as the Vatican does and as I do, then AI is now actively supporting the violation of the most fundamental human right, the right to live. That it does so only in specific circumstances and for particular people does not change anything. Neither is it of any help that AI clearly does a lot of good work in protecting human rights otherwise. An attack on human rights is simply not acceptable, and an organization which lobbies for it cannot be supported.

It's a pity that AI has chosen to go down that path, but I completely agree with the Vatican's stance on this.
 
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :
 
This is the first time that i have hearded of this, and I have always admired the work that Amnesty International has done for prisoners who are imprisoned wrongfully and for the persecuted.
I am not a Roman Catholic but I can understand their point of view as they see the killing of unborn babies as murder,and I agree on that.
In the case of rape I think that the unborn child comes first, although I realise that some Christians would disagree.
If giving birth means the mother will lose her life then it is a different story.
I do admire the RC stand against abortion and I wish that evangelical churches worldwide would
protest more. Why is it the RC stand against abortion and the other churhes are so tolerant while millions of babies are killed year after year?
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I know the RCC campaigns and works in all sorts of ways, promoting education, development and so on, and I know the the media selects that to report, showing us the most controversial aspects of world events, but even making appropriate allowances this is a deeply depressing move.

The RCC reserves its most absolute language and trenchant teaching for abortion and homosexuality. These are, it seems, the most important issues facing the world, the ones worth confronting governments over, the ones worth withdrawing support from widely respected organisations over.

Is this really proportionate? I can see how the argument flows from the decision to regard a ZEF as a human person, and although it's not self-evident to the rest of the world, this belief may be regarded as revealed and non-negotiable. But there is a further decision being made here, which is to press the logic of that belief right the way home.

There are other moral wrongs going on. Poverty and poor sanitation kills thousands of children. Corrupt governments and greedy companies make it worse. Human rights are abused, people are killed. You could take any of these and say that because there is a great evil going on here then Christians should stop supporting such and such a government (which lets children die in its gold mines), or such and such a company (which peddles powered milk to women without clean water, and their children die) or any one of a thousand other causes. But the choice has been made to do this only with respect to abortion.

In the name of one human rights issue, the RCC has put itself at odds with the world's best known human rights organisation. It is saying that the rights of the ZEF matter overwhelmingly more than those of the unknown thousands executed in China, more than the rights of child labour, bonded labourers, forced sex workers, political prisoners, torture victims, and so on. These causes are not worth a boycott, but abortion is.

Amnesty may be wrong in its policies, any of us may be, but it is this issue, it is sexual morality yet again, that cannot be compromised.

Why? What is really going on in people's heads such that when and with whom we have sex and make babies is the most important thing in all the world?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Amnesty may be wrong in its policies, any of us may be, but it is this issue, it is sexual morality yet again, that cannot be compromised.
What has abortion got to do with sexual morality?
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Amnesty may be wrong in its policies, any of us may be, but it is this issue, it is sexual morality yet again, that cannot be compromised.
What has abortion got to do with sexual morality?
Perhaps reproductive would be a better word. Contraception, abortion, marriage laws, homosexuality, masturbation - there are a set of interconnecting issues that seem to be to do with control of sexual behaviour.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
On the question of balance I think the RCC may look at the number of terminations each year (45 million according to the WHO, per the BBC report in the OP) and the number of "real" deaths in this chart, which isn't an awful lot more than that.

I agree that simple numbers aren't everything and that rape, incest and the mother's health are difficult areas within the RCC, but the RCC's view on abortion is well-known and I don't think it can hold that view as strongly as it does without speaking about it at every opportunity.

The assertion that the RCC isn't concerned about other evils doesn't hold up. Pope Benedict raised the subject of Iraq with President Bush last week and while calls for peace may appear naive, the injunction on world leaders to refrain from war is just as serious as that on anyone to oppose abortion.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
In the name of one human rights issue, the RCC has put itself at odds with the world's best known human rights organisation. It is saying that the rights of the ZEF matter overwhelmingly more than those of the unknown thousands executed in China, more than the rights of child labour, bonded labourers, forced sex workers, political prisoners, torture victims, and so on. These causes are not worth a boycott, but abortion is.
Why the heck are you blaming the Vatican for this? Why not say that AI is endangering its work by forcing the abortion issue over and against all those other human right violations they should rather be fighting? Who is obsessed with sex and reproduction as human right violations here? The Vatican's condemnation is not coming out of the blue, even if the AI leadership had been unaware of the problem (hard to believe). This idea for a new AI target has been around for a while and due warning had been given when it first was floated. I think we even had a thread here on the topic a while back.

AI, not the Vatican, choose to make abortion a new "human rights" issue anyway. AI, not the Vatican, decided to risk losing the support of those who consider abortion gravely immoral. AI, not the Vatican, created the moral dilemma through changing its agenda (as if they had run out of other work to do). AI, not the Vatican, has put sex and reproduction in the headlines once more.

The Vatican is reacting, and it is reacting in an entirely predictable manner since the morals it holds true leave very little choice in this matter. If you don't like the reaction, blame the action that inevitably had to lead to it. In other words, blame the leaders of AI.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Vatican considers human life to start at fertilization - or at least so soon after fertilization that it makes no difference.
In short, there's your answer to the question in the thread title. The Vatican is tied.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
On the question of balance I think the RCC may look at the number of terminations each year (45 million according to the WHO, per the BBC report in the OP) and the number of "real" deaths in this chart, which isn't an awful lot more than that.
If you are going to compare numbers of abortions with deaths, then the deaths figure ought to included miscarriages, and perhaps the unknown number of very early miscarriages and failed implantations.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
On the question of balance I think the RCC may look at the number of terminations each year (45 million according to the WHO, per the BBC report in the OP) and the number of "real" deaths in this chart, which isn't an awful lot more than that.
If you are going to compare numbers of abortions with deaths, then the deaths figure ought to included miscarriages, and perhaps the unknown number of very early miscarriages and failed implantations.
Maybe my stat's should include those, but miscarriages aren't generally taken to have been induced medically or surgically (except by the well-off in Britain before the 1967 Act).
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Vatican considers human life to start at fertilization - or at least so soon after fertilization that it makes no difference.
In short, there's your answer to the question in the thread title. The Vatican is tied.
I think that's disingenuous, though. It's arguably a decision to take that view (arguably a response to divine instructions of some sort), but more importantly, it's a decision to follow the logic of that view through to it's end. The Vatican doesn't say the US is prosecuting a sinful war in Iraq, so all you Catholics leave the country now. The pope says 'George, we're not really very happy about this. We prefer peace, you know.'

But with Amnesty it doesn't do dialogue. It says 'Catholics out.'

And IngoB, if the Vatican has an implacable position, right or wrong, on abortion (or anything else), is it always someone else's fault every time the matter is raised, always someone else's obsession?

[ETA an important 'dis']

[ 14. June 2007, 12:12: Message edited by: hatless ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Vatican considers human life to start at fertilization - or at least so soon after fertilization that it makes no difference.
In short, there's your answer to the question in the thread title. The Vatican is tied.
I think that's disingenuous, though. It's arguably a decision to take that view (arguably a response to divine instructions of some sort), but more importantly, it's a decision to follow the logic of that view through to it's end. The Vatican doesn't say the US is prosecuting a sinful war in Iraq, so all you Catholics leave the country now. The pope says 'George, we're not really very happy about this. We prefer peace, you know.'

But with Amnesty it doesn't do dialogue. It says 'Catholics out.'

And IngoB, if the Vatican has an implacable position, right or wrong, on abortion (or anything else), is it always someone else's fault every time the matter is raised, always someone else's obsession?

[ETA an important 'dis']
I think the RCC is being practical here. It realises that it cannot instruct its members to disobey the laws and specifically military orders of another country but it can tell its members what the doctrinal line is on any matter. That is rarely if ever in conflict with another country's law.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Sioni Said
quote:
I think the RCC is being practical here. It realises that it cannot instruct its members to disobey the laws and specifically military orders of another country but it can tell its members what the doctrinal line is on any matter. That is rarely if ever in conflict with another country's law.
Yes, the Vatican can hardly give anti American instructions. But they could instruct their people not to invest in vulture funds or work for companies with a record of human rights abuse; I'm not aware that they do.

The bigger give away for me, though, is the uncompromising language and stance of the RCC. It really doesn't seem that this is just an easier, clearer cut issue. They are prepared to make enemies over this.

It's a rather village pump point, but think how many Churches Together in Blobtown groups there are going to be with an Amnesty link, with a special service once a year, with a bunch of campaigning Quakers, or whatever. The RCs are going to walk away from all that, are they?
 
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
This is what happens when you write out of faith the uncertainty inherent in belief. Faith that acknowledges it is acting on a balance of probability basis, in this case that the life that exists immediately after conception is in the same ontological category as human life after birth, can still include the possibility of error in real world moral choices.

Since this particular ontological categorisation has no means of verification, while the rightness of other causes that Amnesty International support can be and have been objectively verified, such faith if intelligently applied would conclude this kind of action was at best unjustified.

Faith that equates itself with objective knowledge cannot allow such rationality. But I doubt this has much to do with considered theology. More likely in my view it's (parts of) the RCC heirarchy playing politics with a breathtaking lack of regard for the potential human consequences.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
And IngoB, if the Vatican has an implacable position, right or wrong, on abortion (or anything else), is it always someone else's fault every time the matter is raised, always someone else's obsession?
No. But if someone smacks into such implacable positions, what is it with the whining? It's like running into a wall and then blaming the wall for not getting out of the way. Stupid.

You can disagree with the implacable position in question. Fine. You can defy it through your acts. OK. But then don't come complaining about the inevitable reaction.
 
Posted by Hel (# 5248) on :
 
As an RC and a member of AI, I have written to AI to make their position clear to me before I try and work out the wrongs and rights of this.

I'm not 100% against abortion, but I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with it being promoted as a 'right' either, and it's this area I would like to review.

I had already started leaning towards supporting other charities more (Christian Aid and Shelter being top of the list) so hopefully their response will help me to decide whether to do this.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
More likely in my view it's (parts of) the RCC heirarchy playing politics with a breathtaking lack of regard for the potential human consequences.
How about considering it as the amnesty international hierarchy playing politics with a breathtaking lack of regard for the potential human consequences?

Can we sort of remember that the Vatican did not change the status quo, AI did! AI's actions have no utilitarian justification, this is clearly not about "doing more good" in the world. Pragmatically speaking, AI will lose considerable support and hence the amount of good they can do will necessarily be reduced. What AI has done can only be justified through a principled moral stance on abortion, just one contrary to the principled moral stance on abortion that the Vatican has.

The organization that has acted on moral principle with no concern for overall effect is AI. The moral principle it employs is clearly "pro choice". You cannot support AI in this as utilitarian, because it is not that, and clearly you cannot support them if "pro life". So in fact, all this outrage at the Vatican boils down to holding a contrary moral "pro choice" principle. Which turns the outrage into a hypocritical farce...
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
And IngoB, if the Vatican has an implacable position, right or wrong, on abortion (or anything else), is it always someone else's fault every time the matter is raised, always someone else's obsession?
No. But if someone smacks into such implacable positions, what is it with the whining? It's like running into a wall and then blaming the wall for not getting out of the way. Stupid.

You can disagree with the implacable position in question. Fine. You can defy it through your acts. OK. But then don't come complaining about the inevitable reaction.
Fair enough. I suppose Amnesty should just get on with its good work, without RC support. They're entitled to disagree, though, and that isn't just whining.

But I'm a Christian. I hold to the view that there is one Church. I recognise brothers and sisters amongst other denominations. The best theological teacher I ever had is a Roman Catholic (Denys Turner, whom I know you admire). So I can't just shrug off the RC position on this or that, I feel compelled to try and understand, to try to perceive the strength and wisdom in the beliefs and practices of other denominations, but also to relate them to what I am discovering of God and God's ways.

It is frustrating beyond measure to see the RCC slip ever rightwards, politically. It is deeply depressing seeing them take increasingly entrenched views on so many issues, but above all issues of sexuality. These are my brothers and sisters in Christ, so I feel strained and torn. I lament for the way Christianity is being presented in the world as a reactionary obsession with gender and sexual purity. That isn't what I want to be heard.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
What has abortion got to do with sexual morality?
Do pro-life campaigners ever hand out condoms? OliviaG
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
There's a thread in Hell on this same topic.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It is frustrating beyond measure to see the RCC slip ever rightwards, politically. It is deeply depressing seeing them take increasingly entrenched views on so many issues, but above all issues of sexuality.
Oh, tosh. The RCC is slipping nowhere, she's simply maintaining what she always has maintained. Her views are not increasingly entrenched, they are what they are. That society is slipping to a place where the Church's position is "reactionary right" is the problem of society. If you run away from me to the left, then you cannot complain that I'm trying to escape from you to the right.

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Do pro-life campaigners ever hand out condoms?
A very poignant question. I would phrase it slightly differently though: Are those who hand out condoms ever pro-life campaigners?
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
I have supported AI for many years and was greatly troubled when it began the policy of seeing Abortion as a human right. As an Orthodox who strongly believes in human rights for all, I could not longer keep supporting an organization which does not see the most vulnerable as also part of the struggle for human rights.
I WANT to be able to support AI again and I truly pray that they make a change in direction as they have been the voice for the voiceless for many years!
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I lament for the way Christianity is being presented in the world as a reactionary obsession with gender and sexual purity. That isn't what I want to be heard.
Me neither. But is this new? Having seen the restored frieze on the West Front of Lincoln Cathedral and a few frescos on the torments of the damned in Italian churches, I doubt it.

What is arguably new and problematic is an unwitting alliance between uncompromising traditionalists within the Church wishing to broadcast a counter-cultural message as widely as possible, a large proportion of the public amenable to reconfirming their preconceptions of a harmfully reactionary institution, and media with ample capacity to put the two groups in contact. So a fairly run-of-the-mill statement from an unexciting Vatican subcommittee echoes around the world. And the polarisation sought by both the aggressive reactionaries and the secularists continues.

Not everything that contributes to this is intrinsically wicked, stupid, illogical or wrong. Ingo's given a pretty convincing defence of the inevitability and consistency of the Vatican's reaction. But I see it as, amongst other things, contributing to this wider context.

ETA and see this context as posing a difficult but vital challenge to a Church which wishes to communicate with clarity and consistency but also with love and in a manner that attracts rather than alienates.

[ 14. June 2007, 19:00: Message edited by: fisher ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Here's Amnesty's press release.

They're saying that in cases of rape, incest, or poor health of the woman, she should be able to choose, without coercion.

I think they're right.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I think I agree in those instances.

But given that Amnesty are going to alienate a large tranche of potential support I wonder if the decision was a prudent one. It's not like there are large numbers of people out there who are iffy on human rights but dead keen to sign up for legal access to abortion who might be won over by this. But there are large numbers of Catholics who have strong views on human rights but object strongly to abortion. This makes it difficult for them, in conscience, to support Amnesty.
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
Sharpening my view slightly:

I believe the RCC teaching on abortion to be far more defensible and worthy of serious consideration - even in a secular context - than its teaching on most of the other contentious subjects that come to mind. But 'pro-life' campaigning is often more poisonously negative and damaging than anything else that the Church does. Undoubtedly it's driven by heartfelt conviction - but it's often still dramatically counterproductive to the anti-abortion cause and the churches associated with it.

I remember reading something by Fr. Timothy Radcliffe with a similar implication, if slightly less dramatically phrased.
 
Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Here's Amnesty's press release.

They're saying that in cases of rape, incest, or poor health of the woman, she should be able to choose, without coercion.

I think they're right.
In which case, you can donate your money and devote your time to whichever causes put your opinion into action.

The RCC disagrees. Whatever your or my opinion about that might be, I cannot deny that the RCC has every right to use its resources, agencies and influence to put its opinions into action.

We are not talking about a tax imposed by a sovereign state here - we are talking about charitable activities, and it is absolutely acceptable for an individual or agency to say that they don't like a particular bit and are therefore withdrawing support for it.

And I completely agree that this result was inevitable and could have been predicted by anyone with the most basic comprehension of the dynamics of this situation. It looks to me like this 'divorce' between AI and the RCC was engineered.
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
It looks to me like this 'divorce' between AI and the RCC was engineered.
Cynic that I am, I believe AI has concluded there's more cash flow from sources outside the RCC than within.

They may be prescient.
 
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
There was a rather apropos article in The Economist a few weeks back...

Many rights, some wrong
 
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
Seraphimsarov said :
quote:
I have supported AI for many years and was greatly troubled when it began the policy of seeing Abortion as a human right. As an Orthodox who strongly believes in human rights for all, I could not longer keep supporting an organization which does not see the most vulnerable as also part of the struggle for human rights.
I WANT to be able to support AI again and I truly pray that they make a change in direction as they have been the voice for the voiceless for many years!
quote:
But in the BBC link, which I presume accurately reflects the views of AI, it states that AI only wish to support the right to abortion when a woman has been raped or if having the baby will result in a high chance of her dying.

In this instance of rape/life threatening health condition, the Vatican appears to place greater emphasis on the unborn fetus/baby, than it does on the woman(or girl's) life. I'd like to know more about the reasoning behind this.

And I'd also like to know more about why the Vatican seems to have a black/white with no in between grey attitude towards abortion. For example, according to broad Christian beliefs, AI are doing more good than harm, even if you believe that abortion is wrong.

I think it's fine for the Vatican to contest AI's decision, but to actually tell Catholics to no longer contribute financially to this organisation and to withdraw support, even given all the good (other, if you like) work they do, I find odd. It seems to me the Vatican has more in common these days with fundamentalist Islamist states like Iran who also ban abortion but deny human rights (or other human rights, if you like) In my opinion, it doesn't seem able to see the wood for the trees, and is more interested in Pharisee like rule obeying than the actual message of practical love that Jesus came to tell us about.

quote:
Ingo B said :

But if someone smacks into such implacable positions, what is it with the whining? It's like running into a wall and then blaming the wall for not getting out of the way. Stupid.
quote:
Well, other implaccable positions the Vatican used to hold, were such things as all masses being held in Latin, Pope's leading calls for Crusades, the Virgin Mary not rising into heaven, then suddenly in 18hundred and something by Papal order, she officially was...need I go on? Just because this is an implaccable position now, doesn't mean that it always will be. I think in the face of falling congregations even in such countries as Brazil, the Vatican at somepoint in the future (and of course under a different Pope) will change its doctrine on some issues, including use of contraception and perhaps even abortion in the case of rape or mother's ill health. We'll see. (could even lead to a revival of the Catcholic church in Western Europe..)

So to sum up, why does the Vatican not just complain officially to AI but without requesting Catholics to not support AI or continue contribute financially? And why is a baby born of rape, or whose birth may have resulted in its mother's death, deserve greater consideration of its rights by the Vatican than those of its mother?
 
Posted by Mater et Magistra (# 9966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

It is frustrating beyond measure to see the RCC slip ever rightwards, politically.
Slipping rightwards like this? Or maybe this or this or this?

Or could it be that there's more going on, when the Vatican takes a position on an issue, than politics? "Left" and "right" are pretty useless labels when it comes to the Church, IMO.
 
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
There was a rather apropos article in The Economist a few weeks back...

Many rights, some wrong
Interesting link, but it doesn't mention anything about the abortion issue, nevertheless the article is a genral complaint about AI getting too big for its boots and sticking its fingers into too many (unwelcome) pies.

But the Economist is hardly going to write a pro-Amnesty article if the organisation dares to criticize the US where most of the readership are based. Apparently according to the article, Amnesty criticised Guantanamo and said it was like a Soviet Gulag...so obviously according to the Econ., how absurd of Amnesty to state that (or in my opinion, state the obvious!) It also dared to criticise a US ally and Russian enemy, Estonia over it's restrictions on the rights of russian language speakers, who make up about a quarter of Estonia's population, (gasp? -NOT, why should human rights abuses only take place in Africa or Asia, and not the US and Europe? We in the West need to make sure we aren;t being hypocrites and allowing human rights abuses in our own backyard while we criticise the third world for allowing them)

Anyway, getting back to the point, it seems both the Economist and the Vatican are concerned about AI getting too big for its boots and trying to widen its remit from person X under house arrest to the general human rights of millions, to still campaigning for person X and for many millions of those whose names we will never know, and their health, sanitation, education, aswell as their right to free speech and worship. I think, good on AI for becoming more ambitious. And I pity both the Economist article writer and the Vatican for being in my opinion so dull and unimaginative.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC is slipping nowhere, she's simply maintaining what she always has maintained.
Is she?

My impression is that the idea that human life begins from conception, as opposed to either fetal formation or quickening, is relatively recent even among Catholics.

From the Fount of All Knowledge (Wikipedia):
At any rate, it does not seem to be as clear-cut as the Vatican believes, even on the RCC's own terms.

[ 14. June 2007, 20:19: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
Anyway, getting back to the point, it seems both the Economist and the Vatican are concerned about AI getting too big for its boots and trying to widen its remit from person X under house arrest to the general human rights of millions, to still campaigning for person X and for many millions of those whose names we will never know, and their health, sanitation, education, aswell as their right to free speech and worship. I think, good on AI for becoming more ambitious. And I pity both the Economist article writer and the Vatican for being in my opinion so dull and unimaginative.
I don't think that has any relevance at all to the point. I'd be surprised if the RCC objected to Amnesty championing a broad view of human economic and social rights, given that the Catholic Church has been at the forefront of that movement for some time. That shift within Amnesty has been underway for a while and the Vatican has waited until now to break links. It looks like it's abortion rather than social justice that has upset them.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
The RCC position is clear. Clearly stupid that is. This is like watching the radicals on the left that are fighting like hell to preserve the right to partial birth abortion. Also stupid.

The RCC position that a few cells is a “life” when those cells were manufactured in violence, or worse may kill an ACTUAL life (the mother) instead of a potential, theoretical life is the epitome of harebrained theology (is there any other kind?). That the Pro-lifers then dig in and try to declare some arbitrary and moral high ground when they are okay with killing mothers, but not zygotes is imbecilic. Only religion can be this stupid.

As I said in the Hell thread, I don’t like AI much and I just made a donation to them for their good decision.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The RCC position that a few cells is a “life” when those cells were manufactured in violence, or worse may kill an ACTUAL life (the mother) instead of a potential, theoretical life is the epitome of harebrained theology (is there any other kind?). That the Pro-lifers then dig in and try to declare some arbitrary and moral high ground when they are okay with killing mothers, but not zygotes is imbecilic.
I don't agree with the Vatican's position, but IIRC they do allow abortion if the life of the mother is in danger.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
That was one of AIs stipulations, supposedly. Afraid I don't see much of a distinction either way. If they can exempt that, they can exempt a rape or incest. Technically incest is risking the life of the baby should it come to term. Genetics and all that.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
In this instance of rape/life threatening health condition, the Vatican appears to place greater emphasis on the unborn fetus/baby, than it does on the woman(or girl's) life. I'd like to know more about the reasoning behind this.
Concerning life threatening conditions for the mother, what is not allowed is direct abortion - killing the unborn life with the intent of saving the mother. This is simply the old moral rule of not doing evil to gain good. However, an abortion which follows predictably from medical actions keeping the mother alive, as long as it is not intended or willed but only tolerated, is morally licit. Once more, this is an old moral rule, that of double effect. Any other consideration, like the serious hardship of carrying a rapist's child to term, cannot top the fundamental right of an innocent person to life. If you have done nothing to me, I may not murder you, even if doing so would tremendously improve the quality of my life. The same applies to unborn life.

quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
And I'd also like to know more about why the Vatican seems to have a black/white with no in between grey attitude towards abortion.
It's quite simple, really. The right to life is the most fundamental right of an innocent person, it is then entirely inviolable. The person whose life is under attack in abortion - the ZEF - cannot possibly be guilty of anything, hence in no way or form can the ZEF's right to life be compromised.

quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
It seems to me the Vatican has more in common these days with fundamentalist Islamist states like Iran who also ban abortion but deny human rights (or other human rights, if you like)
What human right is the Vatican denying?

quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
Well, other implaccable positions the Vatican used to hold, were such things as all masses being held in Latin, Pope's leading calls for Crusades, the Virgin Mary not rising into heaven, then suddenly in 18hundred and something by Papal order, she officially was...need I go on?
No, you've embarrassed yourself quite enough. None of these have doctrinal status, except for the Assumption of Mary, about which you appear confused. The doctrine against abortion is ancient and constantly repeated, and it will not go away:
quote:
Declaration on Procured Abortion:
6. The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development. Opposing the morals of the Greco-Roman world, the Church of the first centuries insisted on the difference that exists on this point between those morals and Christian morals. In the Didache it is clearly said: "You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born."[6] Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion; he condemns the killers of children, including those still living in their mother's womb, "where they are already the object of the care of divine Providence." Tertullian did not always perhaps use the same language; he nevertheless clearly affirms the essential principle: "To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one."[8]

7. In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous. Among the many documents it is sufficient to recall certain ones. The first Council of Mainz in 847 reconsidered the penalties against abortion which had been established by preceding Councils. It decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed "on women who procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb."[9] The Decree of Gratian reported the following words of Pope Stephen V: "That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived."[10] St. Thomas, the Common Doctor of the Church, teaches that abortion is a grave sin against the natural law." At the time of the Renaissance Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion with the greatest severity.[12] A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.[13] In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.[14] Pius XII clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.[15] John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life "which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator."[16] Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: "Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."[17] The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church "has not changed and is unchangeable."[18]
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My impression is that the idea that human life begins from conception, as opposed to either fetal formation or quickening, is relatively recent even among Catholics.
It's important to keep one's language clear. When the RCC talks of conception, she always talks about the infusion of the human soul by God. The biological fusion of sperm and egg into a zygote is however fertilization. That it is philosophically likely that conception occurs at fertilization is not at this point in time a definite teaching of the magisterium. And indeed, earlier times put conception much after fertilization. But as the document quoted already says in a footnote:
quote:
Declaration on Procured Abortion:
19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The right to life is the most fundamental right of an innocent person, it is then entirely inviolable.
I don't agree that a ZEF is a 'person' for all of gestation, and therefore don't accept that it can have 'rights'. But let's allow you that. It seems to me that 'innocent' is not quite the right word for the idea you are suggesting. 'Innocent' suggests some kind of ethical evaluation. But there are surely individuals who are not blameworthy whom we may legitimately kill. Extreme thought experiment: someone has been hypnotised and, under the hypnotist's orders, is now walking down a crowded shopping street firing indiscriminately from a handgun. I take it that an armed police officer doesn't act unjustly in shooting that person dead.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't agree with the Vatican's position, but IIRC they do allow abortion if the life of the mother is in danger.
Not according to our resident expert. Apparently a zygote is a living breathing thinking person, and to kill that innocent person is not okay in order to save the mother, unless it happens accidentally.

Wait, what was that first part again? A Zygote is a living breathing thinking person? That can't possibly be correct. They can't possibly think that, can they? Surely they realize that is bullshit, right? They can't be that absurd, really?

[Biased]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Surely they realize that is bullshit, right?
It baffles me as well.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you have done nothing to me, I may not murder you, even if doing so would tremendously improve the quality of my life. The same applies to unborn life.
And if a fertilized egg did nothing to a woman's body, we wouldn't be having this argument. But going back to the OP...

Besides Amnesty, are there other organizations promoting a more acceptable list of human rights that a Roman Catholic could support in good conscience? OliviaG
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I take it that an armed police officer doesn't act unjustly in shooting that person dead.
If he shoots to kill in full awareness of the innocence of the hypnotized person, then the police officer indeed acts unjustly. He should instead try to disable the person, and if there is no other possibility, he can try to do so by shooting to disable. If the hypnotized person dies from these disabling shots, but that was not intended and willed (although predictably a possible outcome), then the police offer is not unjust by double effect.

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
A Zygote is a living breathing thinking person?
A zygote is a living person who neither breathes (unless you count oxygen osmosis) nor thinks, but will do both given the chance to develop normally.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:

(1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed,
A view which would have baffled St Thomas. A rational soul is not some kind of bolt-on extra to a possibly stand-alone human life (a Cartesian type view). The soul, in the classical tradition, is what informs matter, making a living entity to be the very complexly-organised living entity that it is. It makes no sense, on this understanding, to say that a foetus, prior to having a rational soul, is a 'human life' in the same sense as it is subsequently. We should allow analogy between 'before' and 'after', and we should affirm some continuity (in nutritive and sensate capacities, for example): but the above quoted view just doesn't sit very comfortably with a (the?) mainstream philosophical anthropology utilised in the historic Western Catholic tradition.

Unrelatedly, but to push IngoB. OK, make the hypotised person a primed suicide bomber. And accept the view commonly held by experts that the only adequate way to prevent the person attacking is through a gunshot to the head (which will kill). Do you maintain your position?

[ 14. June 2007, 23:40: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
As I said, Bullshit.

For a guy that usually tries so hard to be logical, that you can't see that a Zygote which can't think, and a person, that can, are two different things speaks volumes about the hideous contortions that religious belief does to "logic".
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:

For a guy that usually tries so hard to be logical, that you can't see that a Zygote which can't think, and a person, that can, are two different things speaks volumes about the hideous contortions that religious belief does to "logic".
Although, the alternative view I was suggesting drew on St Thomas Aquinas, who developed the thought of the not unreligious Aristotle. So, perhaps those of us affected by religious delusion can be logical.
[Biased]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
As has already been demonstrated by various posts, and by the Amnesty decision, there are irreconcilable differences between those who see abortion as an issue of a woman's "reproductive rights" (to do with sexual morality) and those who see it as an issue of the right to life (to do with "human rights"). Pace hatless, but it is not the Catholic Church which has made this an issue of sexual morals and rights. It does not see the issue as belonging in that category.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
At which point, Mad Geo, does a "human life" become worthy of protection?
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
To pre-empt him: he might not need to be able to answer that question precisely. As long as he has a fairly good idea of what is not a person (and why), then he can draw a line arbitrarily, and erring on the side of caution. We draw arbitrary lines in legislation all the time. Would it be an utter disaster if the age of consent were 15? 17?
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
mmm.

So you define what is not human, and anything that is not not human must be is human.

mmm.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
At which point, Mad Geo, does a "human life" become worthy of protection?
At which point does it cease to be worthy of protection?

Myrrh
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Besides Amnesty, are there other organizations promoting a more acceptable list of human rights that a Roman Catholic could support in good conscience?
That's a very good question. I do not know that there's any other organization of AI's stature. But I consider it possible that we will see a split in the AI organization because of this issue. Which is a pity, but perhaps necessary.

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
For a guy that usually tries so hard to be logical, that you can't see that a Zygote which can't think, and a person, that can, are two different things speaks volumes about the hideous contortions that religious belief does to "logic".
To the best of our knowledge, a newborn can't "think". Is it OK to kill it, too? If you require elementary self-awareness to be in place, then perhaps we can kill infants till about two years of age? Or is it the age of reason we are looking for? So can we get rid of children under six? How about mentally handicapped people? At what stage do they not think enough, so that we can dispose of them and save the money for their care? If you do a Singer, at least do it consequently.


quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
A view which would have baffled St Thomas.
Indeed, but not for the reason you claimed. St Thomas Aquinas would have been baffled by the modern advances in embryology, and forced to revise his conclusions - based on the same metaphysical principles - accordingly. For details, read the entire excellent article linked to below, here's an excerpt
quote:
"Aquinas on Human Ensoulment, Abortion and the Value of Life" by John Haldane and Patrick Lee, Philosophy 78 (2003) 255-278:
So, can the reasons for Aquinas’s position that human ensoulment occurs after conception (fertilisation) still have force today once they are freed from erroneous embryological assumptions? The reasons which led Aquinas to hold late human ensoulment are basically four, three embryological points and one metaphysical. First, on his Aristotelian view, the male is the sole active cause; second, the material (the menstrual blood) upon which the semen (as instrument of the male) works has only a very low degree of perfection or organization, not even possessing vegetative life; third, as a consequence, the distance between the initial point (menstrual blood) and the end point (a body sufficiently organized to receive a human soul) is quite long. The general metaphysical point is expressed by Aquinas as follows:

Now it belongs to the natural order that a thing is gradually brought from potency to act. And therefore in those things which are generated we find that at first each is imperfect and afterwards is perfected.

We believe that the general metaphysical principle is demonstrably true, and that the application of it in the second sentence is plausibly so. All three of the embryological beliefs, however, are known to be false. Modern embryology shows that the female provides a gamete (the ovum) which is already a highly organized living cell, containing highly complex, specific information, in the genetic structure of the nuclear chromosomes. This information (together with that provided by the genetic structure in the chromosomes of the male sperm) helps guide the development of the new living organism formed by the fusion of the sperm and the ovum. Hence the ovum is actually very close to readiness for rapid embryological development; it only requires fusion with the sperm and the activation that occurs with that fusion. To a certain extent the gradual transition from the simple to the complex that Aquinas sought actually occurs during gametogenesis (of which, of course, he was unaware).Thus, applying Aquinas’s metaphysical principles to the embryological facts uncovered since his time leads to the conclusion that the human being is present from fertilisation on.
The authors make the further crucial point that we now know that the semen does not contain a "vital spirit" that would externally govern the development of the embryo out of menstrual blood as instrumental cause of the father (and his soul), till the child's soul is infused. We now know that the zygote is all there is, and that it cannot be viewed as an instrumental cause of either mother or father (due to its separate genetic makeup). The zygote internally governs its own development as its own entity (partly of course in response to the environment). However, on Aquinas account of causation a cause cannot be lesser than what is caused. What is eventually caused through the zygote's development is a human being, so on Aquinas' own metaphysical principle there is again no choice but to assume that the zygote is governed by a human soul from fertilization. So Aquinas came to a wrong conclusion based on bad biology, no bad metaphysics. And if one applies his metaphysics to good biology, the conclusion that conception happens around fertilization results.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Unrelatedly, but to push IngoB. OK, make the hypotised person a primed suicide bomber. And accept the view commonly held by experts that the only adequate way to prevent the person attacking is through a gunshot to the head (which will kill). Do you maintain your position?
Yes. Romans 3:8 "And why not do evil that good may come? -- as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just." Whether I would hold true to my moral principles under the actual pressure of such a situation is a different question.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
Is this actually official AI policy yet? I've been looking at their website but cannot see an announcement. I had thought that, although the UK national branch (and those of some other countries) have passed this resolution, it had not yet been approved or rejected by the International Conference which, AFAIK, is scheduled for August this year. I'm secretary of our local Justice & Peace group (mostly members of our church but not exclusively so) and we've always supported Amnesty. Some of the group wanted to sever links when the UK resolution was passed but I and others said wait till the ICM. However, I cannot see that it will be possible for us to continue this support if this does become official policy.

The right or wrong of abortion seems a bit of a DH so I'm not getting into that but by taking a promotional rather than a neutral position (which has been Amnesty's stance hitherto), obviously an organization with a opposite ethos is going to be unable to give assent and support. As others have said, this hasn't come out of the blue, Amnesty have been told this explicitly (as well as its being pretty obvious) and, like others, I do wonder why they would want to alienate the grassroots support of groups like ours who raise awareness of Amnesty issues to large numbers of people in the wider congregation and beyond.

The church's anti-abortion position is well known; other things it does not support include war, rape as a weapon thereof and incest.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
Attend to the wise words of Jahlove - discussions on the rights or wrongs of abortion belong in Dead Horses.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
Is this actually official AI policy yet? I've been looking at their website but cannot see an announcement.
Here's Amnesty International's side of the thing. A really quick Google search turns up a seemingly annual panic by various anti-abortion groups about AI possibly moving to advocate the general decriminalization of abortion, but they haven't yet done so.

A 2006 PeaceWomen report says that about 1 in 6 refugee camps do have emergency contraceptive services: interestingly, it also says that abortion is legal in both Chad and Sudan, within strict parameters about the duration of the pregnancy and the health of the mother. There's a difference between what's on the books and what's actually available, though (HRW stands for Human Rights Watch):

quote:

HRW notes that the question of access to safe abortion as an option for victims of rape is not openly discussed in any health facility receiving international humanitarian assistance in Darfur, Chad or elsewhere. There has been little or no discussion of how to operationalise WHO/UNHCR standards in a field setting and health providers are left to use their own initiative to find out about local ‘safe’ abortion services. Humanitarian agencies seem to assume it is not essential to provide abortion services or accurate information for victims of rape in camp or IDP settings. It is likely that US government anti-abortion policies have contributed to reluctance to provide safe abortion services...
I"m curious about what, exactly, AI is trying to accomplish. It's not as though they're running the clinics, or otherwise in a position to make real change. But if we all shut up about what we can't directly fix, a lot of injustices would slip past unchallenged.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Here's Amnesty's press release.

They're saying that in cases of rape, incest, or poor health of the woman, she should be able to choose, without coercion.

I think they're right.
In which case, you can donate your money and devote your time to whichever causes put your opinion into action.

The RCC disagrees. Whatever your or my opinion about that might be, I cannot deny that the RCC has every right to use its resources, agencies and influence to put its opinions into action.
Well, I didn't say anything one way or the other about the RCC decision.

But it does seem that Amnesty is acting on ITS conscience. It sees this as a human rights issue.

Both groups are free to act on their beliefs. It's a hard situation for people who are members of both groups...but there's no guarantee that a faith group and a secular group will always sing in unison. Heck, groups from the same faith can't even do that!
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
To the best of our knowledge, a newborn can't "think".
Oh ye of incorrect assumption.

quote:
Scientists from several fields have shown that from the first weeks of life, babies are active learners. They are busy gathering and organizing knowledge about their world.
quote:
Newborns begin right away to use and integrate their senses to explore their world. Most infants can:

Anticipating events? Why that is THINKING! Go figure.

quote:


Is it OK to kill it, too?
Why look it's a logical fallacy!

Is IngoB using the "Questionable Cause" fallacy? Why NO, I think it's a "False Dilemma" folks. Let me know if I am wrong, I am always willing to learn more about fallacies.

Isn't it intriguing that he had to resort to that tactic? Why I think he is sensing he is on the wrong side of this, but let's humor him anyway, shall we?

I have already stated that I am not okay with Partial Birth Abortion. Ergo, I am okay with real live living babies being left to their thinking.
quote:


If you require elementary self-awareness to be in place, then perhaps we can kill infants till about two years of age? Or is it the age of reason we are looking for? So can we get rid of children under six? How about mentally handicapped people? At what stage do they not think enough, so that we can dispose of them and save the money for their care? If you do a Singer, at least do it consequently.
Why I think I shall call this game, "The Stacked False Dillema".

Since the hosts have called this issue out, I will stop here regardless of what you say, but suffice it to say, your Fallacy(s) gave you away. You don't know what to do when "others" are more ethical than your church, do you? You see that your church doesn't actually have the right position and it really disturbs you, doesn't it? Your church is not on the right side of human rights or ethics here and nearly all your bretheren know it. Oooh that's got to burn.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Newborns begin right away to use and integrate their senses to explore their world. Most infants can: ...
  • Begin to anticipate events (for example, sucking at the sight of a nipple)
Anticipating events? Why that is THINKING! Go figure.
OK, I then figure that Pavlov's dogs are clearly THINKING. So are all mammals. Time to become vegetarian, killing a cow clearly is murder. Right?

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I have already stated that I am not okay with Partial Birth Abortion. Ergo, I am okay with real live living babies being left to their thinking.
So at what point in pregnancy should real live living unborn babies be left to their thinking?
 
Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on :
 
I have been a Catholic supporter of Amnesty since I was a student, Amnesty used to have a neutral stance on abortion and I don't see why they feel they have to change that.
Is there now a vast number of women dying for lack of abortion services? (as distinct from those who are dying from lack of any medical care anyway)
I thought Amnesty was about stopping people being imprisoned without trial, killed or tortured, it does a fine job at that so why change now?
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I can see how the argument flows from the decision to regard a ZEF as a human person, and although it's not self-evident to the rest of the world, this belief may be regarded as revealed and non-negotiable.
The US supreme court said that because we do not know when human life/personhood starts, we should not make abortion illegal. But this is just nonsense. If we are to be skeptical, abortion should be made illegal.

Either the embryo/zygote, etc. is a living person or it is not. And either we know this or we do not. This lead to four positions; (1) The embryo is a living person and we know it --- in which case abortion is murder one. (2) The embryo is a living person and we do not know it --- in which case abortion is manslaughter. (3) The embryo is a not a living person and we do not know it --- in which case abortion is just as bad as fumegating a bulding without checking for people (which is punishable by law). (4) The embryo is a not a living person and we know it --- in which case abortion is ok.

But you say that we do not know.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Gosh Mad Geo, the only thing I can tell from your posts on this thread is how much you dislike IngoB. Scorn and derision are acceptable substitutes for logical thinking in your little world?
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The US supreme court said that because we do not know when human life/personhood starts, we should not make abortion illegal. But this is just nonsense. If we are to be skeptical, abortion should be made illegal.
Well, if you don't mind me saying so, THAT is just nonsense. It falls on two points:

(1.) The fallacious notion that just because we don't know exactly where to draw a line dividing entities into two exclusive sets, we cannot draw a line such that one side of it contains no entities of one sort.
(2.) The prior assumption that abortion clearly ought to be illegal if (some) foetuses are persons. Some might argue: either for pragmatic reasons (backstreet abortion etc.) or out of consideration for the woman's right to self-defence. If another person impinges on me in the most intimate fashion possible, it might be argued, I am well within my rights to do whatever it takes to remove them. This is not obviously daft.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
mmm.

So you define what is not human, and anything that is not not human must be is human.

mmm.
Law of the Excluded Middle, that's right.

The problem being, that 'is human' is not what's at issue. No-one denies that a zygote is a human organism. Just as no-one denies that a brain-dead person on a heart-lung machine (which, according to the Vatican, we may justly disconnect) is a human organism. The question is - is this a human person? Or, if you prefer scholastic terminology, is this an animal with a rational soul?
 
Posted by Hermes66 (# 12156) on :
 
Why won't the Vatican look at the bigger picture?

Because they're all MEN. Not one of them will ever have to face pregnancy by rape or incest. As a female I have complete sympathy with any woman who cannot carry a foetus to full term - for whatever reason. How a woman could nurture and love a baby foisted on her by rape is beyond my comprehension - I don't think I could.

If the Vatican wants to stop abortion in cases of sexual violence, perhaps it should put its considerable wealth into orphanages and shelters for those born to mothers forced into pregnancy. Then they can salvage their principles and actually help people - specifically, women.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hermes66:

If the Vatican wants to stop abortion in cases of sexual violence, perhaps it should put its considerable wealth into orphanages and shelters for those born to mothers forced into pregnancy.
Stanley Hauerwas has suggested something very similar.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hermes66:
How a woman could nurture and love a baby foisted on her by rape is beyond my comprehension - I don't think I could.
What a very sad statement.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Cardinal Winning famously did just that.

And large numbers of the most prominent anti-abortion Catholic campaigners are in fact women.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

And large numbers of the most prominent anti-abortion Catholic campaigners are in fact women.
Women can, of course, adopt a position which is damaging to women as a whole. In any case, I think the point probably being made is that those responsible for the policy are men. I'm wary of reading too much into this. It's certainly not decisive in the debate. It does seem to me, though, that some talk from church leaders about pregnancy (not just in the RCC, actually) is overly romanticised.
 
Posted by Petrified (# 10667) on :
 
I would go further than TT and say that all the anti abortion campaigners I have met, both at uni and since were women.

One thing pro abortionists seem to have real trouble with is that there are women who don't agree with them.

[ 15. June 2007, 13:36: Message edited by: Petrified ]
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
I just checked Cardinal Winning's biography on Wikipedia, because it does read above as though Triple Tiara said that he was raped and brought up the resulting baby. Surely a woman can't be a cardinal I was thinking until I read what he did do.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Petrified:

One thing pro abortionists seem to have real trouble with is that there are women who don't agree with them.
I don't know any 'pro-abortionists'. I know plenty of people who think that it ought not to be up to the State to make decisions about abortion. And of these, I know no-one who doesn't accept there are women who disagree with them. Given that almost all opposition to legal abortion in the West is religious, and given that church attendance is higher amongst women than men, this is hardly suprising. Nothing follows from it about which position in the abortion debate is, in fact, best for women.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
The RCC has a very long history of supporting the death penalty which is clearly at odds with the view presented here on its behalf which says it holds all life sacred.

quote:
FACTS

The Vatican formally abolished the death penalty from its constitution in 2001.
The revised Vatican constitution that took effect on February 22, 2001 removed the death penalty from the text of the Fundamental Law, equivalent to a constitution, which dates back to the 1929 creation of the modern Vatican city-state. Pope John Paul II approved the new law for the abolition of the death penalty in November 2000.
Vatican use of the death penalty persisted into the 19th century, with hangings under Pope Pius IX, but no execution was carried out since the establishment of the modern state in 1929. Capital punishment was banned within the walls of the Vatican by Pope Paul VI in 1967. Under Pope John Paul II, the Vatican is strongly anti-death penalty. (Vatican City State, Abolitionist)
However, this does not mean that current thinking in the RCC considers the death penalty intrinsically evil, (not least because doing so would be an admission of its own traditional doctrinal support for murder as long as carried out by secular powers under its authority):


quote:
Vatican on the Death Penalty, Not Inherently Evil, but "difficult to justify today"

By John-Henry Westen
VATICAN CITY, February 7, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A declaration of the Holy See regarding the death penalty was released today. It was delivered at a world congress on the death penalty, held in Paris, France from February 1 to 3.

Rather than condemning the practice outright, the Vatican used nuanced language to indicate that while it found the practice "an affront to human dignity", it could in some circumstances be necessitated. The language is starkly different from that used to condemn abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage which can never be justified.

"The Catholic Church continues to maintain that the legitimate authorities of State have the duty to protect society from aggressors," says the document on the death penalty. "Some States traditionally include the death penalty among the means used to achieve this end," an option "that is difficult to justify today." (Vatican on the Death Penalty, Not Inherently Evil, but "difficult to justify today")
Surely if Roman Catholics can continue donating monies and time to the RCC then they can have no moral objection to continue supporting Amnesty International now?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Myrrh

I think the answer to that is that on the one hand the RCC is talking to its members and other individuals. On the other it is talking to State Authorities, ie, Governments which as we all know have no soul.

Sioni
 
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I just checked Cardinal Winning's biography on Wikipedia, because it does read above as though Triple Tiara said that he was raped and brought up the resulting baby. Surely a woman can't be a cardinal I was thinking until I read what he did do.
What he meant to say was that Cardinal Winning promised that he would assist any woman and child in a crisis pregnancy situation. Cardinal O'Connor famously made the same promise as did (I think) Cardinal Hickey of Washington and a few others. Cardinal O'Connor's promise resulted in the creation of the Sisters for Life religious order.

The Catholic Church also used to have large numbers of orphanages up until the State began foster parent programs and abortion became widely available. The Church, in theory, could do so again, although the potentially unlimited civil liability from abuse cases might unfortunately cause problems.

Of course, one could do what a prominent Episcopal bishop did when he was a rector of a prominent parish - use his discretionary account to pay pregnant women who were "statutorily raped" to receive abortions and not reporting the cases to the authorities for prosecution. That's, of course, the Planned Parenthood way of operating.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
[Hot and Hormonal] sorry - my post would have made more sense if it came where I thought I was posting it - just after DOD and Hermes. The post by New Yorker interrupted that flow. I should have edited to make things more clear.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hermes66:
Why won't the Vatican look at the bigger picture?

Because they're all MEN. Not one of them will ever have to face pregnancy by rape or incest. As a female I have complete sympathy with any woman who cannot carry a foetus to full term - for whatever reason. How a woman could nurture and love a baby foisted on her by rape is beyond my comprehension - I don't think I could.

If the Vatican wants to stop abortion in cases of sexual violence, perhaps it should put its considerable wealth into orphanages and shelters for those born to mothers forced into pregnancy. Then they can salvage their principles and actually help people - specifically, women.
[Roll Eyes] I wondered how long it would take before THAT tired argument would be trotted out!
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Petrified:

One thing pro abortionists seem to have real trouble with is that there are women who don't agree with them.
I don't know any 'pro-abortionists'.
You have not been to many "pro-choice" demonstrations in San Francisco
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Myrrh

I think the answer to that is that on the one hand the RCC is talking to its members and other individuals. On the other it is talking to State Authorities, ie, Governments which as we all know have no soul.

Sioni
Then this must also apply to all individually who are non-baptised RCC Christians who "have lost sanctifying grace which is death of the soul".

So RCC can have no moral objection to supporting those non-RCC who choose abortion or to organisations supporting the right to abortion as the Vatican supports those soulless States which have the death penalty?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Admittedly not.

My far-off perception of the US abortion debate is that the rhetoric has been ratcheted up to such an extent that it is relatively difficult to find anyone saying anything not loaded with hyperbole.

[responding to Seraphim Sarov: incidentally SS, why is the Hauerwasian argument 'tired'?]

[ 15. June 2007, 16:12: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

[responding to Seraphim Sarov: incidentally SS, why is the Hauerwasian argument 'tired'?]
It's hackneyed by overuse and disproved by the overwhelming amount of women involved in the Pro-Life movement as some have pointed out above.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Oh, I see, it was the first part of the quote you were talking about. I was responding to the second part.

Incidentally, I'm not sure the claim you take issue with is 'disproved' by women campaigning against legal abortion. The objection seems to be that the policies being campaigned for are determined by men. So whether or not women are involved in campaigning is neither here nor there. As I've said previously, I don't think it is particularly strong amongst objections to abortion being illegal: but I do think those responding to it on this thread have missed the point.

[ 15. June 2007, 17:12: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
 
Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :
 
OK, I have been doing a bit of my own reading around this subject - as a lot of other people obviously have, too - and there seems to be a precedent for allowing a Catholic to continue to support AI in spite of its pro-abortion stance.

It dates back to when Holy Joe was merely Prefect of the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,) before he became Pope.

In 2004, the question was raised in the USA as to whether a voter could, in conscience, support a candidate who supported abortion but was otherwise the ideal choice of the voter.

Holy Joe sent a memo to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick which was published in the summer of 2004, and included these comments:
quote:
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia...

...When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
OK, it's not a direct precedent, but it appears to be similar enough to give Catholics some wiggle room - even if it does so by relying on the vague and subjective concept of proportionality.

( CNS version of the story
Washington Post version )
 
Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on :
 
What annoys me most is that pro-abortionists are forcing people like me to choose between supporting Amnesty or loyalty to my beliefs.
I believe abortion is wrong, unless it is to save the mother's life.
I admit there are lots of people who hold different beliefs and they have the right to do so. But there are lots of organisations fighting for 'abortion rights' why does Amnesty have to become one of them?
 
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
I really don't want to get into the abortion issue. Here in the US it seems that everyone has made up thier minds either anti-abortion or pro-choice and no amount of argument, debate, persuasion, etc. is going to change anyone's mind one way or the other.....except Mitt Romney.....or maybe Rudy Guliani as he gets closer to the Rep. primaries.

However, I find it difficult to reconcile the anti-abortion argument that life is so precious, etc., with a position favoring capital punishment. There is always the chance that the jury rendered an incorrect verdict as we have come to learn with the number of rape cases being overturned on new DNA evidence. If memory serves, rape is still a capital crime in some places.

...and with all respect to my RC shipmates, I can't not believe that the official RC positions regarding issues of families and sexuality would be substantially different if the hierarchy were not celebate old men.
 
Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
...and with all respect to my RC shipmates, I can't not believe that the official RC positions regarding issues of families and sexuality would be substantially different if the hierarchy were not celebate old men.
Speaking as a discontented Catholic, I have to agree with this.

However, it could have been worse. It could have been a hierarchy of celibate old women. [Devil]
 
Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on :
 
I want to know why Amnesty can't look at the bigger picture and see that they are going to lose an awful lot of support by doing this. I'm afraid my membership may have to go along with that of my Bishop
web page Bishop of East Anglia
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by angelica37:
I want to know why Amnesty can't look at the bigger picture and see that they are going to lose an awful lot of support by doing this.
Is there a prize for ironic references to the thread title? OliviaG
ETA lighthearted joking intended

[ 15. June 2007, 19:41: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by angelica37:
I want to know why Amnesty can't look at the bigger picture and see that they are going to lose an awful lot of support by doing this. [/URL]
I seriously doubt that.

And to answer your question as to why Amnesty sees this as being within their remit - presumably (a.) it thinks that there are situations in which legal denial of abortion is relevantly similar to the kind of dehumanisation it spends the vast majority of its time campaigning against. Think raped women. (b.) it thinks that theocracy is intrinsically inimical to human rights; and given that absolute opponents of legal abortion (e.g. from the moment of fertilisation) don't seem to be able to produce non-religious arguments for their position, it is theocratic in nature.
 
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
OK, I have been doing a bit of my own reading around this subject - as a lot of other people obviously have, too - and there seems to be a precedent for allowing a Catholic to continue to support AI in spite of its pro-abortion stance.

It dates back to when Holy Joe was merely Prefect of the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,) before he became Pope.

In 2004, the question was raised in the USA as to whether a voter could, in conscience, support a candidate who supported abortion but was otherwise the ideal choice of the voter.

Holy Joe sent a memo to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick which was published in the summer of 2004, and included these comments:
quote:
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia...

...When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
OK, it's not a direct precedent, but it appears to be similar enough to give Catholics some wiggle room - even if it does so by relying on the vague and subjective concept of proportionality.

( CNS version of the story
Washington Post version )
Good reading around Gareth...it seems that if you're a US presidential candidate, you can get away with advocating abortion as a human right for mothers perhaps with life-threatening health problems, and that this can be a "grey area", but if you're Amnesty International, the parameters are black and white only, and AI falls firmly in the black as far as the Vatican is concerned...why the double standards? Naive of me to ask that question I know...

And Angelika37, you said that you support abortion with mother's health is threatened by giving birth...so you're 50% on your way to supporting AI's positon then...presumably you don't agree with the rape/incest provision for abortion though?

In light of Gareth's research on the congregation of the faith statement and AI's recent anouncement, I wonder what the Vatican's position would be in the situation of a Presidential candidate who while otherwise in-line with Catholic teaching, supported abortion and was also an AI member...?

[ 15. June 2007, 23:52: Message edited by: feast of stephen ]
 
Posted by Tembrina2 (# 12300) on :
 
Lets assume that we all agree that:

1. It is wrong to torture
2. It is wrong to execute people
3. It is wrong to perform or have an abortion

How will this debate between AI and the RC stop one more person from being tortured, one more Chinese or American person from being executed, or one more fetus from being aborted? Is there any way that this split will reduce any of these? Or won't it just undermine human rights and fetal protections, as applied in our world, by splitting a great collaboration.

My first reaction is to think that AI is incredibly unwise to announce this policy because a reaction like this was so very predictable. What leads AI to conclude that taking a position on the decriminalization of abortion in certain cases (arguendo that it is the ideologically correct position) is worth the practical loss of support from such a strategic ally?

It is frustrating and sad because the RC and AI have worked together to confront some of the worst human rights abuses throughout the world.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
feastofstephen:

interesting question. As I see it there are many who feel themselves to be *in-line* with Catholic (presumably you mean Roman Catholic) teaching and, indeed, practice, who, however, for whatever reason, choose not to undergo the formalities required for entry into the RCC. Should they choose to do so, I'm afraid they would be bound to support the teachings of the church on such matters, no matter what their status, President or Joe Blow in the back pew.

If you are asking whether a non-professed member of the RCC who is in sympathy with some teachings of the RCC, who also happens to be President of the US needs to bind him/herself to the totality of the RCC doctrine, clearly, since they are sympatico on some issues but not others, particularly those which the Magisterium has handed down as binding on the faithful, that same Magisterium, the *Vatican*, if you will, would have to say that such a person has put themselves outside the faith.
 
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tembrina2:
Lets assume that we all agree that:

1. It is wrong to torture
2. It is wrong to execute people
3. It is wrong to perform or have an abortion

How will this debate between AI and the RC stop one more person from being tortured, one more Chinese or American person from being executed, or one more fetus from being aborted? Is there any way that this split will reduce any of these? Or won't it just undermine human rights and fetal protections, as applied in our world, by splitting a great collaboration.

My first reaction is to think that AI is incredibly unwise to announce this policy because a reaction like this was so very predictable. What leads AI to conclude that taking a position on the decriminalization of abortion in certain cases (arguendo that it is the ideologically correct position) is worth the practical loss of support from such a strategic ally?

It is frustrating and sad because the RC and AI have worked together to confront some of the worst human rights abuses throughout the world.
Yes it's very frustrating and sad.

What led Martin Luther King to think that taking a position against second class treatment for black people in the 60's US south was worth the struggle? Because he believed the position of the ruling whites was wrong. And was it predictable that the ruling whites would resist this move on the part of King and others? Yes. Does that mean that he shouldn't have bothered?

AI believe (amongst many other things) that women who have been raped/could die giving birth ought to be able to have abortions and that there should be adequate medical access for them to have them. Is it worth the struggle, even if the Vatican have a predictable position and are unlikely to budge on this for decades, and now that the Vatican has decided to "persecute" AI? In my opinion, yes.

One could argue that the Vatican is committing other sins, that of knowingly endangering the mother's life or manslaughter, or of causing psychological damage to the mother who may reject a child born of rape, and/or the child, or in the worst case scenario neglect or abuse a child born of such a situation.

So I still don't understand how in my opinion the Vatican can choose to stop one sin by committing another. Do two wrongs make a right?

[ 16. June 2007, 01:53: Message edited by: feast of stephen ]
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
feastofstephen:

interesting question. As I see it there are many who feel themselves to be *in-line* with Catholic (presumably you mean Roman Catholic) teaching and, indeed, practice, who, however, for whatever reason, choose not to undergo the formalities required for entry into the RCC. Should they choose to do so, I'm afraid they would be bound to support the teachings of the church on such matters, no matter what their status, President or Joe Blow in the back pew.

If you are asking whether a non-professed member of the RCC who is in sympathy with some teachings of the RCC, who also happens to be President of the US needs to bind him/herself to the totality of the RCC doctrine, clearly, since they are sympatico on some issues but not others, particularly those which the Magisterium has handed down as binding on the faithful, that same Magisterium, the *Vatican*, if you will, but who cannot assent to the other fundamentals, would have to say that such a person either does not have, or has put themselves outside, the faith.

So, basically, no, as the teachning stands right now, you cannot support abortion and be a member in good standing, or *in-line*, with the RCC.
 
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
feastofstephen:

interesting question. As I see it there are many who feel themselves to be *in-line* with Catholic (presumably you mean Roman Catholic) teaching and, indeed, practice, who, however, for whatever reason, choose not to undergo the formalities required for entry into the RCC. Should they choose to do so, I'm afraid they would be bound to support the teachings of the church on such matters, no matter what their status, President or Joe Blow in the back pew.

If you are asking whether a non-professed member of the RCC who is in sympathy with some teachings of the RCC, who also happens to be President of the US needs to bind him/herself to the totality of the RCC doctrine, clearly, since they are sympatico on some issues but not others, particularly those which the Magisterium has handed down as binding on the faithful, that same Magisterium, the *Vatican*, if you will, would have to say that such a person has put themselves outside the faith.
Thanks for the reply, Jahlove. So if I understood correctly, looking at both your's and Gareth's posts, a Catholic voter can vote for a candidate who has put themselves outside the faith by supporting abortion and being an AI member, if he/she is otherwise "sound", but the Catholic voter cannot him/herself have an abortion under AI stated circumstances, or now be an AI member?
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
And it's always interesting to me that people pick the *hardest of the hardest* cases to illustrate their points: things are often a bit different on the ground v. the ideals to which we are asked to aspire.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
..clearly, since they are sympatico on some issues but not others, particularly those which the Magisterium has handed down as binding on the faithful, that same Magisterium, the *Vatican*, if you will, would have to say that such a person has put themselves outside the faith.
This is an example where the Magisterium as infallible teaching authority orders the members to submit their intellect and will to untenable and contradictory doctrine.

RCC must hold that abortion is immoral, because it is murder, while itself holding doctrine that murder is acceptable in some cases, as above Vatican statement, but also where members are laity and have secular power in which case as long they exercise these powers under the 'spiritual sword's authority' then, for example, heretics can be tortured or put to death, exterminated.

Since the RCC teaches that murder is acceptable in some circumstances it can't argue that abortion even as murder isn't acceptable.


Myrrh
 
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
And it's always interesting to me that people pick the *hardest of the hardest* cases to illustrate their points: things are often a bit different on the ground v. the ideals to which we are asked to aspire.
I chose a widely known event as an allegory to illustrate my point. And, talking of taking note of things on the ground, thousands, if not tens of thousands of women have been raped and made pregnant in Africa during various civil wars in the last 15 years. Many of those are Catholics. In my opinion, in this instance, Amnesty's ideals are closer to events on the ground than the Vatican's are.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
Er, no, feastofstephen, AIUI, one certainly could NOT vote for someone who supported policies that were in direct contradiction of the church's teaching. AFAIK, atm, the teaching of the church is that those who procure abortion are as *guilty* of *mortal sin* as those who undergo them.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
..clearly, since they are sympatico on some issues but not others, particularly those which the Magisterium has handed down as binding on the faithful, that same Magisterium, the *Vatican*, if you will, would have to say that such a person has put themselves outside the faith.
This is an example where the Magisterium as infallible teaching authority orders the members to submit their intellect and will to untenable and contradictory doctrine.

RCC must hold that abortion is immoral, because it is murder, while itself holding doctrine that murder is acceptable in some cases, as above Vatican statement, but also where members are laity and have secular power in which case as long they exercise these powers under the 'spiritual sword's authority' then, for example, heretics can be tortured or put to death, exterminated.

Since the RCC teaches that murder is acceptable in some circumstances it can't argue that abortion even as murder isn't acceptable.


Myrrh
I daresay things are different in your (so far undefined) branch of Orthodoxy, Myrhh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
[QBI daresay things are different in your (so far undefined) branch of Orthodoxy, Myrhh [/QB]
Yes.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
No need to reproduce the entire quote, Myrrh
 
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
Er, no, feastofstephen, AIUI, one certainly could NOT vote for someone who supported policies that were in direct contradiction of the church's teaching. AFAIK, atm, the teaching of the church is that those who procure abortion are as *guilty* of *mortal sin* as those who undergo them.
So you disagree with Pope Benedict XVI then? Can a Catholic voter vote for someone in favour or abortion if he/she is otherwise "sound", or not?
(See Gareth's earlier post with quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger)
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tembrina2:
What leads AI to conclude that taking a position on the decriminalization of abortion in certain cases (arguendo that it is the ideologically correct position) is worth the practical loss of support from such a strategic ally?
What gets sticky is that in the case most often cited (Darfur), AI is not actually agitating for a change in the law. Abortion is legal in Sudan for rape and incest--but many women on the pointy end of the Janjaweed stick don't have access to a great number of legal things. Sometimes including food and water, but in this case including reproductive care and abortion. From that standpoint, AI's decision is entirely consistent with their basic mission of defending people's access to things that they've been unjustly denied.

If you believe the law is immoral, and tyrants are keeping people from accessing the law, do you side with the tyrants? It puts the RC in an interesting position.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
Er, no, feastofstephen, AIUI, one certainly could NOT vote for someone who supported policies that were in direct contradiction of the church's teaching. AFAIK, atm, the teaching of the church is that those who procure abortion are as *guilty* of *mortal sin* as those who undergo them.
So you disagree with Pope Benedict XVI then? Can a Catholic voter vote for someone in favour or abortion if he/she is otherwise "sound", or not?
(See Gareth's earlier post with quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger)
Not too sure what argument you are picking here, feastofstephen, however, Gareth describes him/herself as as a discontented Catholic*RC ("Heretical Romanistic Bastion of Brainless Mariolatry") so I should pay heed to his/her opinions exactly, why?
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
While I think that the RCC is as wrong as wrong can be regarding abortion, they are being logically consistent in withdrawing funds from AI. Continuing support would arguably make the church complicit in something it views as murder.

However, I think that the RCC has no right to attempt to impose its theological views in this matter upon those who are not Roman Catholic. I cannot see any reason why it sould concern itself with the moral choices of those outside its spiritual authority.

Could the Vatican not have struck a deal with AI to donate funds earmarked only for AI efforts that do not involve abortion?

Greta
 
Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
Er, no, feastofstephen, AIUI, one certainly could NOT vote for someone who supported policies that were in direct contradiction of the church's teaching. AFAIK, atm, the teaching of the church is that those who procure abortion are as *guilty* of *mortal sin* as those who undergo them.
So you disagree with Pope Benedict XVI then? Can a Catholic voter vote for someone in favour or abortion if he/she is otherwise "sound", or not?
(See Gareth's earlier post with quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger)
Not too sure what argument you are picking here, feastofstephen, however, Gareth describes him/herself as as a discontented Catholic*RC ("Heretical Romanistic Bastion of Brainless Mariolatry") so I should pay heed to his/her opinions exactly, why?
I may be discontented, but I refer directly to an opinion expressed by Joe Ratzinger himself, albeit before his elevation to the status of BXVI.

If the Pope's opinion coincides with that of a discontented Catholic, does that invalidate the opinion?

I think not. I think, rather, that you may be desperately seeking an excuse to reject it.

Holy Joe made it clear that a Catholic can vote for a candidate who supports abortion, because proportionally that "sin" may be outweighed by their other virtues (although, presumably, a Catholic candidate would have no moral flaws and therefore not place the burden of a judgement of proportionality upon the voter.)

If you are going to start rejecting a contribution to an argument because of the credentials of the person who made it, then you might just expose yourself to the accusation of "hasty judgement."

[ 16. June 2007, 20:46: Message edited by: Gareth ]
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:


If you are going to start rejecting a contribution to an argument because of the credentials of the person who made it, then you might just expose yourself to the accusation of "hasty judgement."
You are right, Gareth and I apologize. However, on the issue of voting, it's just as well that no-one is bound to agree with even the Pope's opinions isn't it?
 
Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:


If you are going to start rejecting a contribution to an argument because of the credentials of the person who made it, then you might just expose yourself to the accusation of "hasty judgement."
You are right, Gareth and I apologize. However, on the issue of voting, it's just as well that no-one is bound to agree with even the Pope's opinions isn't it?
Probably not. But either way, I am charging you for the new keyboard to replace the one I just spat my wine all over.

[Overused]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by angelica37:
What annoys me most is that pro-abortionists are forcing people like me to choose between supporting Amnesty or loyalty to my beliefs.
I believe abortion is wrong, unless it is to save the mother's life.
Which is your right to believe. I agree, as it happens. And we perhaps might want to take stock of the fact that we are very lucky to live in parts of the world that we can believe what we like before withdrawing support from Amnesty.

What doesn't follow, without considerable further argument, is that we have the right to impose this religiously-derived belief on other people.

And that is what slightly annoys me about the official Roman position on all of this. The issue here is not the right of Christians to hold that abortion is wrong. The issue is whether or not we ought, on the basis of religious beliefs* which cannot command anything like a consensus in a pluralist society and from which reasonable people might withhold assent, seek to ban and/or deny access to abortion. The Vatican seems singularly unable to disentangle this issue from the, distinct, issue of the ethics of abortion. I suspect this is because, politically, it still inhabits Christendom.

*Whether that belief is the pro-lifers 'zygotes have souls like you and me' or my 'abortion is not part of the practice of the Church; we, collectively, try to receive pregnancy as a gift' - the advantage, in my view, of rejecting the crap (and modern) metaphysics underlying pro-life thought is that we can adopt an explicitly and interesting Christian position on abortion.

[ 16. June 2007, 22:05: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
It's not just a Roman stance. It is held by local Catholic churches and ordinary Catholic folk across the globe. The idea that the Vatican is issuing dictats and causing all of us to jump is wide of the mark.

Neither can an issue of human dignity and the right to life simply be one of churchy interest and religious belief. There are some issues which are not simply a case of "this is wrong for Catholics", but "this is wrong". Murder, rape, incest, child abuse - these are not just wrong for Catholics, they are wrong. We consider abortion to be of the same order because it involves the killing of a human life, even if only a potential human life.

I personally do not picket about abortion, but neither do I support organisations that promote abortion. I do support organisations that seek to help women facing unwanted pregnancies.
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
"Child abuse"? Not the best example perhaps.

Greta
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
That's actually why I used it. It's evil and wrong, and not just for Catholics. The scandal is some treated it as a "church matter" when it was far more than that. But let's not make this a child abuse tangent.

[ 17. June 2007, 00:21: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
However, on the issue of voting, it's just as well that no-one is bound to agree with even the Pope's opinions isn't it?
Is the position of Vicar of Christ confined to certain statements/views only? Certain times of day only or what?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Yes. Move on.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
This is relevant here. The claims the your popes make of themselves are grandiose and dogmatic and don't allow for dissent - is CCC 882 only an opinion then?


Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others…

etc. etc. etc. The RCC legislated murder in the Vatican State then changed its mind - how are we to know what is doctrine if anything said in the past by popes is called infallible by some and opinion by others? What does this mean here?

The RCC says RC shouldn't support any organisation in any way pro-abortion at the same time has no problem supporting those, including itself, who are pro-murder in other ways. For the ordinary RC who is trying to find a way through this the logic is inescapably missing.

What is at stake here is that the RCC is demonising Amnesty International while condoning murder in circumstances it approves all the while giving the impression that it speaks from the high moral ground of Christ himself, visible to us in the person of the pope.

Both these statements, re AI and capital punishment, come from the same source, the infallible teaching authority of the Magisterium. They are contradictory and untenable.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
This is relevant here.
I think not. As I said in another place somewhere in there was a point worth exploring, but once again it got lost in the noise of your crusade.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
It's relevant. The RCC is demonising AI while condoning murder in other circumstances.

I can see that you've invested a great deal of time and thought on abortion..


Myrrh
 
Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's relevant. The RCC is demonising AI while condoning murder in other circumstances.

I can see that you've invested a great deal of time and thought on abortion..


Myrrh
This interesting sideshow deserves more attention to detail than you are allowing. If the ethics of abortion and capital punishment are to be grossly oversimplified to the extent that you are doing, with the clear purpose of emphasising the contradiction between the two stances, then it becomes impossible to speak meaningfully about the issues of either.

In circumstances where both abortion and capital punishment are 'condoned' (a bad choice of words, but I will go along with it because you have used it) for reasons of proportionality, then there is no theoretical contradiction.

What you are doing is creating a contradiction by recognising the proportional reasons given for allowing captial punishment, but refusing to recognise the same for abortion.

There are very good reasons for criticising and condemning the RCC's teaching on both capital punishment and abortion - so there is absolutely no need to construct a new one by manipulating the argument.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's important to keep one's language clear. When the RCC talks of conception, she always talks about the infusion of the human soul by God.
This I had not realised. Thank you.

I should like to reply more fully in Dead Elephants In The Room - sorry, I mean Dead Horses.
 
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
This is relevant here.
I think not. As I said in another place somewhere in there was a point worth exploring, but once again it got lost in the noise of your crusade.
First you mention child-abuse and now crusades...! Thanks for inadvertantly supporting those of us who think the Vatican is already too morally compromised to give any further direction to the faithful..

But I rather think the noise of the crusade is eminating from the Vatican, against NGO's who would like to help only those women facing pregnancy as a result of rape/possible health implications etc. Objecting to this Vatican "crusade" does not mean that those against The Holy See's decision are instigating a counter-crusade, or reformation or any such thing.

I respect the Catholic Church's stance on war and I find many aspects of Catholic worship and ceremony beautiful, but on this issue of issuing a directive to withdraw funds from an organisation that has helped so many forgotten people in the world, including persecuted Christians, and now would like to help pregant women in the aforementioned circumstances, I think the Vatican is not only embarassing itself but also shaming itself. To prevent any further i.m.o justified mockery being heaped on the Vatican and above all in the interests of Christian decency, the Vatican surely must change its stance on abortion with respect to rape and impaired health, and if it cannot bring itself to do this, it should refrain from issuing commands to the Catholic faithful who have no need be told like children what to do by men who it can be argued have questionable moral authority in the first place.

In my opinion it's impossible for a thinking individual to understand, let alone support the Vatican stance given this with regard to such extreme circumstances as rape/impaired health, nor to support Vatican-knows-best (im?)moral directions such as that issued last Thursday.

[ 17. June 2007, 22:54: Message edited by: feast of stephen ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:


If the ethics of abortion and capital punishment are to be grossly oversimplified to the extent that you are doing, with the clear purpose of emphasising the contradiction between the two stances, then it becomes impossible to speak meaningfully about the issues of either.
I am trying to keep it simple so meaningful discussion about either as subjects in their own right is a distraction.

My argument is not the ethics of abortion or captital punishment, but the ethics, or rather the non existence of an ethical standard, of the RCC in the concept of murder.

To kill another deliberately is murder and the RCC condones, overlooks its use, has nothing to say to those 'States' using captital punishment, as it has itself used and as its doctrine still allows. In other words it has no moral objection to not objecting as it has in its own history to sanctioning murder in some situations.

Moreover, it has nothing to say about the use of capital punishment in these 'States' regardless of guilt or innocence of the accused and regardless of the quality of these laws and lawgivers, so the hard fought defence here of the anti-abortionists that the fertilised egg is innocent is irrelevant.

Clearly the RCC only resorts to this defence for convenience to support its position on abortion, not from any real ethical standard.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Kate Gilmore of AI responding to Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace:

quote:
Our policy reflects our obligation of solidarity as a human rights movement with, for example, the rape survivor in Darfur who - because she is left pregnant as a result of the enemy - is further ostracised by her community. If the cardinal had been in Darfur and stood between rape victims and the stones being thrown at them, let him then talk again about whether or not Amnesty has the integrity to stand firm for human rights.

 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
get

your

facts

straight

before

posting

utter

crap
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
The Vatican had capital punishment. The RCC has a long history of sanctioning the secular membership of the Church's use of capital punishment.

That it is now on the bandwagon against capital punishment while, as I explained above re the Vatican statement, still having no moral objection to its use (it can't have as that would be tantamount to saying that its own doctrines were immoral when it used it).


What has since 1929 changed, but only obviously missing since 2001, to no capital punishment in the Vatican can just as easily be re-introduced at a later date if circumstances warranted it - precisely because in wielding the two swords the RCC retains the right to change it without self-condemnation.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Ah. I see. You're still not wrong. It's just the Vatican which has jumped on the bandwagon while you weren't looking. Ho hum. I should have realised

[ 18. June 2007, 02:35: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
I'd be more impressed if it wasn't also making a saint out of Pavelic as it did Josephat. Mussolini brought back capital punishment in Italy in 1926. But back to my point:


quote:
Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church. Even in the case of heresy, of which so much is made by non-Catholic controversialists, the functions of ecclesiastics were restricted invariably to ascertaining the fact of heresy. The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government. The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.(New Advent on Capital Punishment)
As I said, the RCC sanctions murder, the guilt or innocence and its use determined according to circumstances and campaigning for the abolition of capital punishment or not the RCC does not object to it in principle.


Myrrh
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
I want to see your proof that the Catholic CHurch is considering Ante Pavelic of the Ustase for Canonization???

[ 18. June 2007, 03:32: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'd be more impressed if it wasn't also making a saint out of Pavelic as it did Josephat. Mussolini brought back capital punishment in Italy in 1926. But back to my point:


quote:
Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church. Even in the case of heresy, of which so much is made by non-Catholic controversialists, the functions of ecclesiastics were restricted invariably to ascertaining the fact of heresy. The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government. The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.(New Advent on Capital Punishment)
As I said, the RCC sanctions murder, the guilt or innocence and its use determined according to circumstances and campaigning for the abolition of capital punishment or not the RCC does not object to it in principle.


Myrrh
See you in Hell, Myrrh.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
...To kill another deliberately is murder ...
That's not a given.
 
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
The issue here is not the right of Christians to hold that abortion is wrong. The issue is whether or not we ought, on the basis of religious beliefs* which cannot command anything like a consensus in a pluralist society and from which reasonable people might withhold assent, seek to ban and/or deny access to abortion. The Vatican seems singularly unable to disentangle this issue from the, distinct, issue of the ethics of abortion.
Are these two issues really disentanglable?

That is, doesn't the fact that there is no consensus bear directly on how vigorously abortion should be opposed by those that oppose it?

And if I choose not to oppose something with all my vigour, can I really claim that it is absolutely immoral?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if I were absolutely, 100% certain that some practice were immoral, I would feel bound to oppose it, whether there were any consensus for it, or against it, or no consensus at all. Surely consensus, or its absense, is only at issue where the moralit is unclear?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Briefly, both care for the terminally ill and the death penalty differ from the case of abortion. In the case of the terminally ill, the point is not that one is allowed to kill that person. The point is that one does not always have to use all technological means theoretically available to prolong life as much as possible beyond its natural extent. To provide no medical help to the sick is clearly immoral, but to squeeze every possible second of life out of a failing human body is not the moral opposite of that. How much life-prolonging treatment someone should get depends both on the individual (how much treatment they want) and on society (how much treatment the society can afford). There is no general moral answer, but only a movable compromise seeking to maximize the good. From a religious point of view, clinging to life beyond measure also shows a lack of hope and faith. The analogy of "switching off the machines" would not be abortion, but rather the care for premature babies. With ever better technology making it possible to save ever earlier premature births, the same kind of situation is arising. And like with the terminally ill, one can argue that it is not morally required to save every premature baby just because that is technologically feasible.

As for the death penalty for criminals, it's a different situation altogether. The unborn child is without any doubt innocent, the criminal is not - or at least in a reasonably well functioning legal system the likelihood that someone is sentenced in spite of being innocent should be low. Further, the unborn child does not represent an immediate and dangerous threat to society, a criminal can be just that. The RC position is that if a criminal is sentenced in a court in a functioning legal system, and hence likely not innocent, and if he is an immediate and dangerous threat to society, and if there is no other reasonable way of containing that threat, then capital punishment is morally licit. Which quite simply means that in modern Western societies capital punishment is not morally licit, since the threat can be contained by life-long imprisonment. And so the RCC has been opposing the death penalty for example in the US. It has not done so with quite the same intensity as opposing abortion, which IMHO is fair enough - the death penalty is in her eyes a judgment error on social conditions and constraints leading to unnecessary loss of life, whereas abortion is outright murder of an innocent. The argument that one can never be perfectly sure when imposing a death penalty is a good reason to abandon it. But it does not quite invalidate the above-mentioned licit use. It is impossible for us to deliver perfect justice on earth, some possibility of error always remains. If a criminal is an uncontainable threat to society, and one is very sure of that, then one cannot allow the small risk of killing an innocent outweigh the large risk of a criminal on a rampage.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
...To kill another deliberately is murder ...
That's not a given.
Intentional killing is murder except for those who invent ways to justify this act.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I want to see your proof that the Catholic CHurch is considering Ante Pavelic of the Ustase for Canonization???
Aggh - sorry, late night, meant Stepinac, so the analogy with Josephat doesn't make sense. An example, and post the Vatican abolition of capital punishment, of it continuing to sanction murder.

quote:
1998
Oct. 2 Pastoral Visit to Croatia (2-4 Oct) and Beatification of Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, martyr. (84th International Pastoral Visit)
(EVENTS IN THE PONTIFICATE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II)
Myrrh
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf: (footnote removed)
What doesn't follow, without considerable further argument, is that we have the right to impose this religiously-derived belief on other people.

And that is what slightly annoys me about the official Roman position on all of this. The issue here is not the right of Christians to hold that abortion is wrong. The issue is whether or not we ought, on the basis of religious beliefs* which cannot command anything like a consensus in a pluralist society and from which reasonable people might withhold assent, seek to ban and/or deny access to abortion. The Vatican seems singularly unable to disentangle this issue from the, distinct, issue of the ethics of abortion. I suspect this is because, politically, it still inhabits Christendom.
DOD, in another post you referred to "theocracy"; are you implying that this is what the Vatican is trying to establish? That makes no sense to me. As far as I know Roman Catholic clerics are either forbidden or strongly discouraged from seeking political office. The independence of the state, the separate role of the magistrate, and the role of conscience all figure heavily in Roman Catholic teaching.

It is true that the Church does make pronouncements on moral issues; in some very rare and specific cases these can be infallible, binding on anyone who wants to call him or herself Roman Catholic. The Church cannot command or compel her faithful in the way that HMG can compel you or me to pay taxes or obey the traffic laws. All she can do is to say: this is what you must do (or, as in this case, not do) if you want to be part of this body. And yes, these moral teachings of the magisterium are -- for Roman Catholics -- beyond debate, beyond pluralism, beyond democracy. That sits uncomfortably for most of us, I am guessing.

Given this, is it any more wrong for the Church to require that her faithful advocate (as part of the ordinary democratic process) certain laws than it is for, say, an environmental action group or a trade union to call for its members to vote in certain ways? And to exert some form of internal discipline on those who publicly advocate something else?

If the internal penalties were worse than loss of membership -- e.g. "shunning", as some sects practice, leading to economic ruin of the condemned party -- then I could see cause for concern.

There are countries where conversion from one religion to another brings the death penalty. There are countries that are ruled by clerics. Those are theocracies. Both abuses would be opposed by Amnesty International. Both would be opposed by the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I want to see your proof that the Catholic CHurch is considering Ante Pavelic of the Ustase for Canonization???
Aggh - sorry, late night, meant Stepinac, so the analogy with Josephat doesn't make sense. An example, and post the Vatican abolition of capital punishment, of it continuing to sanction murder.

quote:
1998
Oct. 2 Pastoral Visit to Croatia (2-4 Oct) and Beatification of Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, martyr. (84th International Pastoral Visit)
(EVENTS IN THE PONTIFICATE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II)
Myrrh
An explanation of the above, but not from the RCC perspective:

quote:
What will be Pope John Paul II’s legacy? In the week between his death and funeral, the media have lionized him with candy-coated encomiums as a peace-loving pope who brought down Communism and ushered in the New World Order. His place in history is assured as a determined anti-Communist who revitalized the Roman Catholic Church. He will also be remembered as an energetic evangelist for his faith, traveling to over 120 countries during his reign.

Yet what kind of a role did the “peacemaker” Pope play in the recent Balkan conflicts? And, despite his many journeys and outreach to leaders of other faiths, why did John Paul II not seek to reconcile Orthodox Slavs and Roman Catholic Slavs in the Balkans? In the end, did the Pope only exacerbate religious tensions and animosity in the Balkans? John Paul II: First to Recognize Croatia

In 1991, Pope John Paul II became the first to recognize Croatia as an independent state. Committed at a time when tensions were high and dialogue was called for, this act was needlessly reckless. It gave great prestige and legitimacy to the cause of Catholic Croatia, which the Pope championed for his own narrow religious goals. His recognition helped spark a tragic civil war that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Serbs and Croats. The premature and irresponsible recognition foreshadowed the carnage, killing, displacement and suffering in the former Yugoslavia.

“I am not a pacifist,” said John Paul II In 1991, in the context of the first Gulf War. A few years later, bolstered by his ‘just war’ rhetoric, he demanded of Bill Clinton and NATO to intervene in the Bosnian conflict, when Roman Catholic Croatian troops were being militarily defeated by Bosnian Muslim troops. Using the rationale that “‘the aggressor must be disarmed,” the Pope also incited the US to intervene militarily against the Bosnian Serbs to prevent the military defeat of Roman Catholic Croats in Bosnia. Of course, he has always veiled this intent behind the theology of the “duty” of the international community to intervene in cases of perceived genocide.

However, at the same time that he sought to protect the rights of Catholic Croats, Pope John Paul II was indifferent to the plight of the Serbian Orthodox population of Krajina. All he wanted was to recognize Croatia, a Roman Catholic state that worshipped the Vatican. He abjured negotiation, compromise, reconciliation. He was silent when Roman Catholic Croat troops, with NATO and US help, ethnically cleansed over 350,000 Krajina Serbs in 1995. This was the largest single act of ethnic cleansing during the Balkan conflict. The peace-loving Pope showed that he was a hypocrite. Continued on:

(Another Side of the Pope: John Paul II’s Balkan Legacy by Carl Savich )
Myrrh
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Would you like to come back to the topic, dear? I am finding it very, very, very difficult to see the link here: Cardinal Stepinac is beatified by Pope John Paul proves the Vatican sanctions murder proves Amnesty International should support abortion. [Confused] [Confused] [Confused]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Would you like to come back to the topic, dear? I am finding it very, very, very difficult to see the link here: Cardinal Stepinac is beatified by Pope John Paul proves the Vatican sanctions murder proves Amnesty International should support abortion. [Confused] [Confused] [Confused]
Poor thing, I can only suggest you re-read my argument.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
I know what your argument is: "I am on a crusade".

There is, however, no logical coherence to your crusade. It's just random assertions which consistently disrupt decent discussion. Another thread is now dying because of this.
 
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on :
 
The Orthodox Church also unequivocably condemns abortion. Except for the Orthodox Pelagian Church of Myrrh which doesn't count. Before Myrrh gets all upset over the RCC's condemnation of abortion, he or she ought to write his or her own bishop.
 
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
The Orthodox Church also unequivocably condemns abortion. Except for the Orthodox Pelagian Church of Myrrh which doesn't count. Before Myrrh gets all upset over the RCC's condemnation of abortion, he or she ought to write his or her own bishop.
I suppose rubbishing someone who is highlighting how inconsistent the Vatican is in applying human rights, and sticking its oar in where its not wanted on advice to which charities Catholic may wish to support, is easier than actually answering these askward questions.

The Vatican appears not to be as interested in women made pregnant via rape and/or with health impairement. It appears to be more interested in the unborn baby, even if the mother has to die giving birth to it. Has the Vatican thought about whether the mother will survive? Has the Vatican thought about what kind of life the baby will lead,in a poor third world country with no father around and with a mother who may not love the child if it reminds her of that rape constantly? Is the stance on abortion so absolute and unwavering that the suffering of women in these specific conditions cannot be acknowledged with Christian decency? And does this not make a mockery of the Vaticans supposedly coherent system of Christian ethics?

And in addition to this, the Vatican advises its faithful to withdraw support from AI! One hopes this lack of coherence on the part of the Church will not go unnoticed by believers.

[ 18. June 2007, 22:14: Message edited by: feast of stephen ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
No, Feast of Stephen, you need to catch up. When the history of "awkward questions" posted by particular individuals all end up not being awkward questions at all, but ill-founded, illogical crap assertions made in an attempt to further the crusade, patience wears thin. I refer you to this thread should you wish to pursue this matter further.

Your post, however, (despite its ranting tone), raises difficult, but different, issues. There is no lack of coherence in Roman Catholic moral theology, and that is precisely why it evokes these strong emotions in you. If it was not coherent it would arrive at the place at which you have obviously arrived: if the quality of life the unborn can expect is very poor indeed, then that unborn child's life can be terminated. You may not like the fact that the Catholic Church does not support your view, but you can hardly pluck the word "incoherence" out of the air to justify your disapproval.

I said earlier there were interesting questions that had potential for discussion in some of Myrrh's points. However, past experience has taught me that doing so would be pointless because within nanoseconds it would all return to the usual misinformation masquerading as exposure of ... well, God knows what really.

Would you like to raise some of those issues instead? (Please try not to rant though).
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
The Orthodox Church also unequivocably condemns abortion. Except for the Orthodox Pelagian Church of Myrrh which doesn't count. Before Myrrh gets all upset over the RCC's condemnation of abortion, he or she ought to write his or her own bishop.
Whoever that might be.
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
I am going to restate a couple of questions that seem to have been lost beneath a torrent of myrrh.

The original questions were posed in response to Divine Outlaw Dwarf's concerns about "theocracy".

What is wrong with the Roman Catholic Church (or any church, for that matter) asking her faithful to advocate certain laws, as part of the ordinary and public democratic process? What is wrong with the Church exerting some form of internal discipline on those who publicly advocate something else?

Related queries: Suppose that a prominent Roman Catholic layperson declared himself "simultaneously Catholic and Muslim" and publicly stated that he could no longer assent to several items of the Nicene Creed. Would the Church would be out of order in denying him access to the sacraments? If this can be done for a matter of faith, why not on a matter of morals?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I know what your argument is: "I am on a crusade".

There is, however, no logical coherence to your crusade. It's just random assertions which consistently disrupt decent discussion. Another thread is now dying because of this.
As I said, the RCC sanctions murder, the guilt or innocence and its use determined according to circumstances, so, campaigning for the abolition of capital punishment or not the RCC does not object to it in principle.

To pretend to a moral high ground while demeaning and demonising women and Amnesty International is hypocritical.

Myrrh
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
However, I find it difficult to reconcile the anti-abortion argument that life is so precious, etc., with a position favoring capital punishment.
I agree, but there is a difference. In the case of an abortion, the person kiled is innocent, while in the case of capital punishment, the person killed is not. But I agree that capital punishment is wrong (for instance, if the person killed turned out to be innocent of the crime.)

But I find the "pro choice" stand worse; against capital punishment, and for abortion.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
What doesn't follow, without considerable further argument, is that we have the right to impose this religiously-derived belief on other people.
This "religiously-derived belief" is in fact part of the Law. The main function of the Law is to protect the right of people, most notably the right to life. You do not have to be "religious" to be anti-abortion.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's relevant. The RCC is demonising AI while condoning murder in other circumstances.
"Murder" is, according to this dictionary "[t]he unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." This presupposes that the person murdered is innocent.

This does not mean that I am -- or the RCC is --- pro capital punishment, which I assume is what you talk about, but it is not inconsistent. What is inconsistent, is to be anti capital punishment and pro-abortion.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
"Murder" is, according to this dictionary "[t]he unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." This presupposes that the person murdered is innocent.
#1. You're going to have to walk me through that presupposition.
#2. If murder is defined as "unlawful killing", then the whether a particular act is murder depends on what the laws are, doesn't it? OliviaG
 
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
No, Feast of Stephen, you need to catch up. When the history of "awkward questions" posted by particular individuals all end up not being awkward questions at all, but ill-founded, illogical crap assertions made in an attempt to further the crusade, patience wears thin. I refer you to this thread should you wish to pursue this matter further.

Your post, however, (despite its ranting tone), raises difficult, but different, issues. There is no lack of coherence in Roman Catholic moral theology, and that is precisely why it evokes these strong emotions in you. If it was not coherent it would arrive at the place at which you have obviously arrived: if the quality of life the unborn can expect is very poor indeed, then that unborn child's life can be terminated. You may not like the fact that the Catholic Church does not support your view, but you can hardly pluck the word "incoherence" out of the air to justify your disapproval.

I said earlier there were interesting questions that had potential for discussion in some of Myrrh's points. However, past experience has taught me that doing so would be pointless because within nanoseconds it would all return to the usual misinformation masquerading as exposure of ... well, God knows what really.

Would you like to raise some of those issues instead? (Please try not to rant though).
Haven't had time to post for a few days.

Sorry for ranting, I suppose I should follow your example and label your postings as "illogical crap assertions"? Perhaps I could also use your own charming label and call this "a crusade" against those who dare to disent with legitimate questions.

Seeing as you refuse to answer the points made by the original posting, under the subterfuge that "it would be pointless to do so" (convenient), and for in my opinion no-one supporting the Vatican line even attemtping to answer the original questions, I don't see much point in continuing this thread.

Your inability to not understand the conflicting rights of the mother and the child in this issue relating to the Amnesty decision, but yet to agree with the Vatinan's firm and unwavering condemnation of Amnesty, is perhaps not entirely surprising. But the fact that you think that I "plucked the word incoheherent out of the air" to describe it, is. I rather think it perfectly describes the situation. Anyway, we'll have to agree wot disagree on that one, as I can see further argument from our perspectives, with me poiting out what I see as an inconsitency, and you regurgitaing the Vatican line without explanations as to how they fit this particular situation, isn't going to get this thread anywhere.

I guess we can agree with this, God bless women and unborn children everywhere. May the best decisions be taken with God's blessings.

[ 22. June 2007, 23:12: Message edited by: feast of stephen ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
You know, I was not actually engaging in any discussion with you about any substantive points. I was being sidetracked by a myrrmeneutical exposition, which really is like "shovelling mist", as one shipmate has described it. So I have not said anything about your arguments being crap. In fact, I invited you to continue the discussion and make the substantive points. When Myrrh does that one only ends up in very peculiar side-alleys, which is why I directed you to the hell thread.

I am sorry you just want to rant. As you say, there is no point in further discussion when that occurs.
 
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You know, I was not actually engaging in any discussion with you about any substantive points. I was being sidetracked by a myrrmeneutical exposition, which really is like "shovelling mist", as one shipmate has described it. So I have not said anything about your arguments being crap. In fact, I invited you to continue the discussion and make the substantive points. When Myrrh does that one only ends up in very peculiar side-alleys, which is why I directed you to the hell thread.

I am sorry you just want to rant. As you say, there is no point in further discussion when that occurs.
Firstly, let's forget about the Myrhr issue, which as you said is being dealt with in the other place anyway.

I was trying to bring the discussion back onto the main point raised in the OP. I don't believe the original questions have been dealt with, other than with a cursory "but the Vatican's position is X and so why didn't Amnesty realise this and think before risking support". The response to the point that the Vatican position may appear to be illogical or indecent in prioritising unborn child's rights over raped/ill health suffering mother, hasn't been dealt with properly at all imo by people who agree with the Vatican's move. I invite you and others to reply to this point, and not to evade the issue by saying that you don't want to encourage any so-called crusades etc. So as a substantive point has been made, a proper reply would be welcome.

[ 22. June 2007, 23:57: Message edited by: feast of stephen ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Thank you FoS - that's brought us back on topic very well.

The difficulty in addressing those substantive points is that we unavoidably end up with a dead horse topic. I am not a campaigner on abortion, and I have not gone near the DH thread.

I tried to say in an earlier post that the arguments become parallel arguments: the two basic positions of "right to life" and "reproductive health" have different starting points and run along different tracks. Which is why neither side is ever satisfied with the arguments of the other.

There is coherence and consistency on both sides of the divide. But because they do not accept the basic premises of the other they find it difficult to see that consistency.

There are HUGE questions and challenges to be faced, whatever position one adopts - unless one is utterly heartless. I, for example, do not accept the premise that to oppose abortion means a lack of care for the mother. The challenge you can level at me is - well what care DO you provide? It is for this very reason that I do not financially or practically support anti-abortion campaigning groups. I channel my support rather to those organisations that seek to help women with unwanted preganancies to cope in ways which are not just the expedient solution of abortion. And I think if the Catholic Church is going to be truly authentic in its stance that is what it needs to do with much greater vigour.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0