|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why can't the Vatican look at the bigger picture?
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
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
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
[QBI daresay things are different in your (so far undefined) branch of Orthodoxy, Myrhh [/QB]
Yes.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
No need to reproduce the entire quote, Myrrh
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
"A man who does not think for himself, does not think at all" Oscar Wilde
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
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
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Yes. Move on.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"A man who does not think for himself, does not think at all" Oscar Wilde
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
...To kill another deliberately is murder ...
That's not a given.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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.
Poor thing, I can only suggest you re-read my argument.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
