I have been on some other blogs and have not written here in some time. But taking time off from football and the election, let me respond to some common comments I've been see.
The Church Pillars keep talking about destroying "innocent" life. The anti-abortion crowd are falling right in line. Thus my question: How can we say one cell is "innocent." Does not 'innocence imply by necessity 'not innocent' or 'guilty?' After all does "up" have meaning without "down?" My finger is human life. Is it "innocent" or "guilty.?" Silly question, to be sure. But the Church pillars talk like a single cell is "innocent." Could this single cell be "guilty?"
I constantly find myself amazed by the verbal "tricks" of the self serving hierarchy. But do the lay Catholics, the true catholics in my opinion, not see this trick? Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Calling one cell "innocent" is perfectly consistent with the Church's dominant position that that one cell is a not just living tissue like your finger, but an actual human being. That one cell is as innocent as a newborn baby is.
ReplyDeleteSome emphasize the innocence of babies because it contrasts with the lack of innocence of some other lives taken - those by the death penalty, some of those in war.
God bless,
Anna
Now, Anna, I love you,BUT. How can a cell be "innocent"? The church says that to deceive. Anna, I just don't know how to answer. So tell me how that one cell can be "guilty?" at least as humans use that term. If it can't be guilty, then "innocent" would have no meaning whatsoever. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack, I don't really know anything about the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me Victor but will you please get on topic cause we're talking about one cell being innocent and/or it being a bad cell.
Is that all you're concerned about Jack? It's as simple as serving two masters at the same time. A cell of God could place all of Eternity in IT Self and still have room for you and me. A cell of Satan could probably do the same if you have enough faith but how long should we serve two masters without a lot of trickery being needed to hang on? God keeps telling me that He doesn't need me to defend Himself so what am I doing here?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, we want to Love You very much but we just don't know how to do "IT." Heavenly Father, we beg You to spare the lives of the unborn baby cells that Your Angels have spiritually adopted and who are still in danger of abortion. Let US never forget that Your Son Jesus The Christ said in so many WORDS that even if mothers forget Them, You will never forget even one of Their Cells.
Jesus may Your Peace and Your Love Embrace the hearts, minds and souls of the family, friends and loved ones who encourage these abortions and lead them all to Your Sacred and Eucharistic Heart cause You alone Father know that we simple human don't stand a chance against Your so called Evil Brother?
I'll close by saying that God is The Only One who could safely look into our hearts and know our through purpose in life and hopefully straighten US UP if need be.
I could go on and on but what good would it do?
God Bless us all Jack,
Peace
Jack,
ReplyDeleteLots of people in the Church really honestly believe that that one cell is a person. The fact that lots of people don't believe that doesn't mean that the first types are just trying to deceive people.
So, the cell is innocent in the same way that a newborn baby is innocent. Can a newborn baby be "guilty"? It's not like newborns can steal or commit adultery or even harbor a hateful thought towards someone. They can't be guilty of personal sin; we call them innocent. Does this have no meaning?
God bless,
Anna
Anna, you are a smart person. You know what a tautology is. Under your use of terms the predicate is contained in the subject. Is one cell or a newborn baby kind? Is one cell or a new born baby generous? Is a cell or newborn baby beautiful? All you are saying is any trait that is good AUTOMATICALLY BY DEFINITION belongs to the cell or a newborn baby.A complete fallacy, or nonsense statement. I worry when a person as insightful as you does not recognize this. There are arguments against abortion, yes, but to use this dishonest play on words shows the dishonesty of the hierarchy, but is not worthy of you. Jack
ReplyDeleteI would not call a newborn "kind" or "generous", no. I would (and do) call newborns "beautiful". Innocence is the lack of guilt; innocence means not having sinned. (Or, sometimes people mean by it lack of even knowing of sin). You really don't think newborns are innocent?
ReplyDeleteIt's not that babies have all good qualities; it's that babies have some good qualities, and innocence is one of them.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, PLEASE!!! Of course one cell cannot "know" sin. Without a brain it cannot know anything. Name some moral "bad" qualities of a single cell or a newborn. Jack
ReplyDeletejust testing
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteNewborns don't have moral bad qualities; that's what makes them innocent. They haven't acquired any of the moral virtues yet, either, like faith or patience or self-control.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, are you saying a single cell or newborns do not have bad moral qualities or CAN'T have bad moral qualities. If the former what is your empirical evidence; if the latter your statement is meaningless. I'm afraid you are using "emotive" language" not "descriptive" language. What you say shows something about YOU but not about actuality. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteOk, I think you're losing me. Are you seriously saying you don't think newborns are sinless? What sins might a newborn commit?
God bless,
Anna
That's just the point, Anna. A newborn can't commit a sin, by definition, as we use the term. Nor can one cell commit a sin. So such statements are meaningless. A sin requires a willful effort to do so. Is a leaf capable of commiting a sin. Can my finger commit a sin? So you agree with me. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack, Jack and Jack! Why must you complicate everything?
ReplyDeleteThere is no longer an original sin in a child if we truly believe in Jesus Christ. I use to make a "Face" a French word for spiritual joke to a priest that a child was born a sin. Of course I was talking of the old days before our new Adam was born which you certainly won't argue that He was replaced by Jesus The Christ and not Jesus Murphy!
Let's try and keep it simple Jack and please stop chuckling while I'm trying to talk to you seriously! Of course your fingers have more than one cell but they still make one body and we Christians are suppose to make one body in Christ are we not?
We could discuss this till hell freezes over but I'll try closing by saying that just because we see a few fingers walking around with a tube of Preparation "H", which probably stands for Help, doesn't mean that your fingers are in need of "IT" but then again if you're planning on using that stuff to Bait The Master well now that's a totally different story.
Don’t take my word for any of this Jack just ask any true blue aliens from Britain’s Secret Service and they will tell you that as far as they know everybody I mean every body is always separated into cells then teleported quickly one cell at a time. Nowadays Biotic Science says that a normal body can have as much as one hundred trillion cells and between you and me, some spiritual aliens literally believe this and have increased some human bodies in reality to 900 pounds before teleporting. There’s been problems with some of their teleporting machines and this really makes it rough in the real world. One body had to have the roof of his house removed so they could get it out safely. Don’t take my word for it check with (The National Enquirer)
I hear ya Jack! Jack The Rip Her is sure going to have fun come Hallowe’en with those bodies!
That’s not what I was thinking sinner vic!
What were you thinking then?
I was thinking that there’s really nothing wrong with Victor, it’s the rest of the world!
Well what do you know some good did come out of this little chat after all. :)
God Bless,
Peace
Jack,
ReplyDeleteSo you really think it is deceitful to call a newborn "innocent"? What about "innocent as a lamb"? We don't call leaves or fingers innocent because they are only parts. It may be anthropomorphism, but people do talk about innocent lambs, innocent dolphins, innocent dogs, even innocent flies. (As in, don't kill that innocent fly on the wall). And people do talk about innocent trees, too. If we don't talk about innocent leaves or fingers, it is because those are only parts, instead of the whole.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, put away that bottle AT ONCE.:). I know you're pulling the old man's string for laughs. Hey, KEN. Get her a coke. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteIn case you don't believe me that people do talk that way sometimes, let me provide you with a few links.
innocent flies and spiders, third comment down.
innocent flies
innocent trees
more innocent trees
Heck, even the online definition of "innocent" from Miriam-Webster uses children as a reference:
Main Entry: in·no·cent
1 a: free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : blameless [an innocent child]
Now, are you seriously going to tell me you object to calling a newborn innocent? Do you think it is meaninglss, deceitful, or anything else other than the simple truth to call a baby innocent?
God bless,
Anna
Come on Jack! Are you going to let Saint Anna get away with that!@?
ReplyDeleteAre you drunk Victor?
Who said That! :)
Not funny Victor!
Really?
Anna, ya people talk that way. But what could NOT by definition be called guilty can not be called innocent. Just a play on words, used by the church as an empirical fact. Nonsense language is fine but not used to prove something. A leaf by definition cannot be guilty. So when I burn leaves, could I be burning the innocent. How do I know I'm not burning the guilty? Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteThe idea that it would be nonsense to call a newborn "innocent", instead of a simple fact, is almost incomprehensible to me. Newborns aren't leaves. They're people. The ability to choose, to sin, is inherent in people, even if newborns haven't developed enough to turn that ability into reality yet. They aren't rocks, for whom innocent and guilt is irrelevant. They are little people who are innocent because they haven't sinned yet. Their innocence is precious, because it doesn't last.
God bless,
Anna
Anna,"inherent" is the key word. I ask again: How could a newborn be guilty. If that is impossible then saying he is "innocent' has no meaning. Another example: A body occupies space, BY DEFINITION. Nothing empirical about that. Such a statement is analytical apriori. It tells us nothing about reality. Because we can not posit a body NOT in space. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteTry this out. A leaf is prevented by its very nature, by what it is, from knowing, understanding, or committing evil. A newborn is not. A newborn is limited only by circumstances, not by nature, from doing evil. Therefore its innocence is meaningful.
God bless,
Anna
A newborn is limited by definition from doing evil, unless you admit it could do evil. But let's get more basic: Can one cell formulate an evil intent? After all an acorn, you would say, is limited only by circumsnance for not being an oak tree. But we do not call an acorn an oak tree. Anna, you are back to potentiality and actuality. The church should use this, but they are afraid it will start the slide down the 'slippery' slope. They got along for centuries with potentiality and actuality, but because they don't trust the lower lay falk to understand potentiality and actuality they go with the absurd doctrine that one cell is a full person. Frankly, it all goes back to sex. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteThe heirarchy didn't drop the potentiality vs actuality argument because of sex; they started emphasizing that one cell is a person because that is what they came to believe.
YOU don't think one cell is a person, but THEY do. And given that, it is as reasonable for them to say that that one cell is innocent as it is reasonable for me or Alice to call a newborn "innocent". There is no deceit or trickery; only a disagreement between you and them about what it means to be a person.
God bless,
Anna
Anna,some of the hierarchy may believe that from hearing it so much. I am totally convinced this is just a 'belief' in an incredibly long line of anti-sex tricks. Why are all the hierarchy celibate and 'forbidden' sexual thoughts.Because the Church thinks sex is inferior to total, thought and action, celibacy. And their power is based on not allowing any non-clibate to have any say in the Church. It seems so obvious to me and to many catholics I know.
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteAnd how in the world do you figure that calling the unborn "innocent" helps keep non-celibates from gaining power in the Church?
God bless,
Anna
Because having sex (a bad thing) may lead to an "innocent person" cell. And only those who do not have sex can be leaders.And that's us the hierarchy. So remember if you have sex you can never be as good as us. We are good because we don't have sex and repress all sex thoughts. Our reward: we live in the greatest spendor and confort. Your reward: you get to change diapers. So remember, if you have sex you are not as good as we are. AND if you create a new cell, you had better keep it or you are a murderer. So you will never be able to dress in gorgeous costumes like we do, and have people wait on you, and be able to tell others exactly what to do. BTW, if you have to have sex be sure it is with a boy. Then you won't be tempted to be a murderer, and you'll just be reassigned if you're a priest. After all our Benedict said this abuse stuff was just the media looking for a story. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack, did you know that we’re not the only ones taking up space? Just cause we can’t see them does not mean that they don’t exist. Hey! We can’t see the wind can we but we know it’s there when it really wants to reveal itself to us. Let’s call the wind reality within reality and if we were to ask some biologist, they could probably also give us many examples that the human eye can’t see of reality within reality. The human eye can’t see a micro trinity cell and or alien gods but they still are reality within spiritual reality. Some of these alien gods still exist and speak in folk tongues within human bodies ever since our Heavenly Father cast them out of paradise to crawl on their bellies and we normal human can’t look into their body heart cause Jesus said in so many words that we should not judge them. Quote me not but I think that He meant to add, less we fear their poisonous venom.
ReplyDeleteI hear ya Jack! Victor! Victor and Victor! what does all this have to do with a cell being “innocent” without also it being possibly guilty and/or Hierarchy Tricks?
Probably nothing Jack but it’s my way to tell you that I believe and I’m willing to bet that the majority of our readers feel the same way which is that Catholic Anna won this debate and the following paragraph below proves it.
YOU don't think one cell is a person, but THEY do. And given that, it is as reasonable for them to say that that one cell is innocent as it is reasonable for me or Alice to call a newborn "innocent". There is no deceit or trickery; only a disagreement between you and them about what it means to be a person.
Jack I’ll close by saying that your discussion should continue with His Holiness and not with Anna.
I honestly don’t know in which way Anna is related to you but I must say that she really must love you but then again maybe she really is Saint Anna!
God Bless,
Peace
Victor, she is Saint Anna. I have two 'boys' to prove it. But saints are not always right in discussion. The pope would not to better than Anna. In fact, not as well. Jack
ReplyDeleteGreat last Comment Jack!
ReplyDeleteGod Bless,
Peace
Jack,
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly, your theory about the relationship between abortion and celibacy sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, about as believable as the folks who say the moon landing didn't happen, or that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.
And I don't think you are quite fair to Pope Benedict on the sex abuse crisis. Try reading this.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, yes B16 finally 'got it'. BTW, where is carlinal Law. No conspiracy theory. As plain as the nose on W.C. Fields face. Again, why are all decision makers in the Church celibate? I think you not seeing what is so obvious to me and others is a tribute to your loyalty. Do you really believe that B16 thinks sex is wonderful? God gave us the sex drive, then said we could only fully serve him by acting like we don't have sex organs? Very strange to me. No wonder figures show catholics don't pay attention to the church on sex any more than non-catholics do. Jack Frank just walked by. Said to tell you in only got kicked once last night. Are you teaching him judo? If you are don't tell me. What goes to Anna, stays with Anna.
ReplyDeleteAnna, change that "in" to "he" in Frank's judo comment. I think that's what he said. Out the door to see Emily. So can't be sure.
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteOn Cardinal Law: Well, I know I read that the folks in Rome generally viewed Cardinal Law's move there as a demotion for his bad handling of things. But I am inclined to agree that that's just not enough; that he should have been turned over to the police.
Again, why are all decision makers in the Church celibate?
Well, I wouldn't exactly say that only the heirarchy are decision makers, but they do have the final say on doctrine and such. As for why they are celibate... I would say there are a couple factors.
(a) Force of habit. Changing a thousand year old tradition isn't easy. Celibacy switched from being a respected option to a mandatory rule when priest's families became a practical problem (especially issues of property inheritance, I believe). Now the original reasons are just about irrelevant, because sheer inertia keeps the practice going. (Inertia keeps any habit going unless strong force is applied to change it.)
(b) Practical barriers. Allowing priests to marry would cause all sorts of practical issues. For example: How would we pay them enough to raise a family? Will we keep giving them raises for every extra child they have? Will we dictate for them how many children they are allowed to have? How will they balance their responsibilities to the church with their responsibilities to their family? If a parishoner needs the priest, but the priest's child is sick, what takes priority? What about the wife? She will be subject to much gossip and higher standards than other women - what kind of outlet, if any, will she have to vent? Will the priest be expected to buy his own house (and are we going to pay him enough for that) or will his kids get no house to inherit, and possibly be kicked out if the priest can't keep serving the parish for some reason (e.g. injury)? Will the Church have to stop its practice of moving priests from parish to parish as needed, so that the families can grow up in a more stable environment?
None of these are insurmountable barriers, as evidenced by the fact that Protestant ministers and Eastern married clergy obviously manage it somehow. But they are all still things which make it just that much harder to change. Not only is it not completely obvious to everyone how to handle these potential problems, but many people believe they can't be solved without detriment to the sacramental life of the Church, so that a lot of people don't even want to try to change the rule.
(c) Theological issues. This varies from person to person, but there are still a lot of Catholics, even lay Catholics, who believe that there is something special about being celibate; that being celibate is a way of dedicating yourself to God. Many of these prefer that all priests be held to that standard, since they are supposed to lead us. Whether or not you (or most Catholics in America) agree, the fact that there are people who believe this is another factor in the Church keeping its mandate of celibacy.
I think you not seeing what is so obvious to me and others is a tribute to your loyalty.
To be sure, I don't think I've actually met anyone in person who thought that the Church's teaching on abortion was just because of celibate clerics trying to keep their power instead of because they really believe it. So these "others" you speak of are only vague ideas to me.
Do you really believe that B16 thinks sex is wonderful?
I'm not really sure B16 thinks about sex much at all, quite frankly, especially given his age. I don't recall him making it a subject of his sermons much. I do really believe that JPII thought sex was wonderful, and that that was a part of what inspired his Theology of the Body writings.
God gave us the sex drive, then said we could only fully serve him by acting like we don't have sex organs?
See, this is where I don't think you quite have it right. There's a distinction here that I don't think you're seeing, and I'm not sure I can explain it so well that you do. We can serve God fully without being celibate, but celibacy is a higher way of serving him. Serving God fully is about giving everything we have over to him and then enjoying whatever he gives back. For some, being celibate would mean not serving God fully, because he intends for them to be married. In that case, living a celibate life would be a selfish attempt to bring themselves more glory at the expense of God's plan and those affected by it.
I think, in general, that the more hardship we endure, the more glory we will have in heaven. Celibacy is one form of hardship among many others, and this is how I understand the view within the Church that celibacy is an objectively higher path than marriage. (Although I think that, as things work out, some married couples will have more hardship and thus more glory than some priests). But seeking harship for the sake of glory is seeking glory; and doing that is dangerous. We must always be open to sacrificing our own glory for the sake of others, when God asks it of us, for love of them and Him.
Tell Frank that his "only one kick" comment made me laugh. :) And no, I'm not going to be teaching them judo anytime soon. :)
God bless,
Anna
Dear pope Anna, I said you did better than B16 could do, and I do not question your sincerity. So just one question. Do you believe the main decision makers in the Church being celibate may, and I say may, cause them to think more highly of celibacy than the married state? As you know I believe that the fact that the leaders are to have NO 'connection' to sex is primary. Celibacy follows from that. A point of emphasis, maybe. But the church's very restrictive attitude on all things sexua indicates to many that it is sex they fear not marriage.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Anna, I think the celibacy thing brings a good deal of disrepute to the priests from the laity. As you do, I know hundreds of catholics and they all kind of 'wink' about the celibacy requirement; most for the same reason I do. For example, just one example, none of Meg and Jim's catholic friends, conservatives included, would let their child, especially boys, alone with a priest. I think it is tragic. Jack BTW I'll just have to wonder on the "kick" joke. Just so I'm not the Kickee.
Jack,
ReplyDeleteNow that my family has all gone home after Gabe's baptism, I think I have time again to reply. :)
Do you believe the main decision makers in the Church being celibate may, and I say may, cause them to think more highly of celibacy than the married state?
Hmm. I don't know. Do you think that taking vows of poverty may cause people to think more highly of the state of poverty? I guess I think some would think more highly of it because they do it, and some would think less highly of it because they hate having to do it. And the profession probably draws people who are prone to think that celibacy is superior. So I think all of that is kind of in the mix. So, probably there are at least some who think higher of being celibate because they are themselves celibate. But I don't think this explains the Church's teaching on all sexual matters (much less abortion).
But the church's very restrictive attitude on all things sexua indicates to many that it is sex they fear not marriage.
Why does the Church teach that Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity? Why does the Church teach that greed is a sin? Are all the Church's teachings based on the "fears" of the heirarchy? If it is only sexual teachings that are based on "fears", then why aren't other teachings based on fears too?
You think that people don't trust priests with their kids because the priests are celibate? I disagree. People don't trust priests with their kids because of the sex abuse scandals, pure and simple. And the sex abuse scandals did not happen because priests are required to be celibate.
God bless,
Anna
Anna,disagree with the hierarchy on one matter does not mean I disagree on everything.To conclude thus would be a logical fallacy.
ReplyDeleteUnfair as it is, many people believe the clerical 'role' is a cover for homosexuality. And, of course, it is at times.
I do believe that men who think to be close to God requires having no sexual thoughts at all as a goal is a bit peculiar.
Anna, you have drifted away from the one cell is innocent to a newborn is innocent. To most people there is quite a difference.Just as a matter of speaking, most people would go along with a "newborn" is innocent, but the term does not apply to one cell. I know your argument is there is no difference between a baby and one cell. A rather lonely position I think. Oh, I know an acorn is just one stage in the life of an oaktree, but somehow people don't buy an acorn is a tree or the same thing as a tree. The church's logic would require we call an acorn the "conception" of a tree. Thus laws forbidding the cutting of trees in an area, would require us to 'save' all acorns. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteAnna,disagree with the hierarchy on one matter does not mean I disagree on everything.To conclude thus would be a logical fallacy.
Of course not, but that's not what I said. I think it is a bit cunning to attribute the hierarchy's motives to self-interest, fear, or deceit when you disagree with them, but not when you agree with them.
I do believe that men who think to be close to God requires having no sexual thoughts at all as a goal is a bit peculiar.
If you think the Church's teaching means that priests are the only ones who can be close to God, or that you have to have the goal of never having sexual thoughts in order to be close to God, then I think you are radically misunderstanding Church teaching.
On the newborn vs one cell... again, it doesn't matter if YOU think a newborn is innocent (because it is a person) and one cell isn't (because it is not a person). I'm not at the moment arguing about that. This thread started when you accused the Church pillars of playing tricks on people, of being deceitful, when they call one cell "innocent". My point was that there are no tricks involved; just a straight-forward belief that one cell IS a person.
Oh, and scientifically an acorn is the same organism as an oak tree. That doesn't mean the law has to treat acorns as oak trees, because the law gets to draw distinctions based on what is more useful, not necessarily on what the scientific nature of something is.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, I don't agree with your first paragraph.There's a motive for everything. To me, it is quite clear what the hierarchy motive is in this case.
ReplyDeleteThe church unequivacolly (sp?)says that is easier to be close to God if you have no sexual thoughts.
Is the tree from which the acorn fell the same organism as the acorn? Jack
As usual, the Church plays word games since they have clearly lost the personhood argument. New from a Florida bishop:Protect the pre-born.
Anna, Can't resist. Father M had dinner with Alice and me last night. Our discussion:
ReplyDeleteAssume a woman has intercourse with her husband and the next day is in a car wreck. At the hopital the doctors say she must have radical surgery, not to save her life but to keep her from permanent total paralysis. But the surgery will involve a technique which will 'kill' any zygotes in her body. The couple has 5 children.
So the choice is: Have the surgery which will allow her complete recovery, BUT may kill a 'person.' Of course, killing a person is worse than total paralysis.
Does not the Church say the woman must 'go with' total paralysis rather than possibly kill another person?
What do you think? Father M is going to get back with me. He's a great guy and a longtime friend. Another question we discussed: If I cannot prove "A" is true, but I cannot prove "A" is not true, does reason require me to say "A" is true? The church says you must accept "A" as in I cannot prove a zygote is a person. I cannot prove a zygote is not a person. Therefore I must act as if it is a person.
Is this reasonable? I cannot prove space aliens are watching me. I cannot prove they are NOT watching me. Ergo, I must assume they are watching me.
Okay, a couple of drinks.Maybe neither of us was thinking clearly.:). Jack
Jack, are you sure that those aliens don’t have you trying the space walk? You're no Michael Jackson, are you?:)
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteIf there are motives for everything, what is Benedict's motive for writing his book on Jesus? What is his motive for teaching that murder is wrong? For claiming that Christ is divine?
The church unequivacolly (sp?)says that is easier to be close to God if you have no sexual thoughts.
Unequivocally... no, I don't think so. There is a stream within Catholic thinking that says that celibacy is an objectively higher state than married life, but (1) this has never been declared official Church teaching, and (2) it only means that celibacy offers the possibility of a greater union with God, not that celibacy make it easier to be close to God, and (3) celibacy is NOT the same thing as never having sexual thoughts.
Is the tree from which the acorn fell the same organism as the acorn?
No. The oak tree produces male gametes and female gametes. I believe, for oak trees, these come on tiny little male flowers which make pollen, and tiny little female flowers. The wind blows the pollen around and some of it lands on the female flowers. As soon as the male gamete combines with the female gamete, a new organism exists. The flower will change around the new organism to develop into an acorn.
As usual, the Church plays word games since they have clearly lost the personhood argument.
I don't think the Church thinks it has lost the personhood argument, quite frankly. Most if not all of the bishops *believe* the personhood argument. And I think most church-going Catholics agree with them. (Most Catholics aren't church-going, mind you.) The Catholic Church is a lot more... steady ... than our culture is. It doesn't seem to mind much if it takes a few centuries to convince people of something. The fact that a lot of people disagree with one teaching at the moment... well, that's just a whim that will change in another 100 years or so.
So the choice is: Have the surgery which will allow her complete recovery, BUT may kill a 'person.' Of course, killing a person is worse than total paralysis.
Off the top of my head, I would say this would still fall under double effect. Clearly the intention of the medical procedure is a good one. Given that the couple don't know that there are any people involved - and, in fact, the chances seem pretty small - I would say avoiding paralysis is proportionate. Of course, in this example, killing any possible conceived babies is not the means by which the paralysis is avoided, only a possible unintended side-effect. That's important.
Does not the Church say the woman must 'go with' total paralysis rather than possibly kill another person?
Technically, the Church doesn't say the woman must do anything. The Church just gives general principles and doesn't try to say what must be done in every possible case that someone can think up, because that would be a waste of time. Instead she lets individuals, sometimes with the help of their priest, to apply the general principles to their own situation as best they can.
If I cannot prove "A" is true, but I cannot prove "A" is not true, does reason require me to say "A" is true? The church says you must accept "A" as in I cannot prove a zygote is a person. I cannot prove a zygote is not a person. Therefore I must act as if it is a person.
No, not really. You don't always have to act as if it is a person - you don't have to name it, you don't have to count it in a census, you don't have to list it on your family tree if you don't want to. You just aren't allowed to intentionally kill it, because killing a person is too serious of a thing to risk.
God bless,
Anna
Anna
ReplyDeleteYou're confusing me. If celibacy offers the GREATER possibility it is clear that non-celibacy offers the LESS possibility. Anna this just HAS to be true or language means nothing!
The cathecism clearly says sexual thought from the non-married must be repressed. Why, if they are not bad?
Anna, your double effect argument doesn't play. The church clearly says that we must consider the zygote as a person. That's their whole point. But assume we could know there was a ztgote, then would not the woman have to accept paralysis over 'murder', that is killing an 'innocent person?' Jack
Oh, BTW was the old tree life and the acorn life? Life must come from life it would seem, so the church who says "life begins at conception" is not using correct terminology. They seem to say life comes from non-life, because they insist that life begins with the fusion of sperm(life) and egg (life). Wasn't life always there? Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteIf celibacy offers the GREATER possibility it is clear that non-celibacy offers the LESS possibility.
It is not unequivocally Church teaching that celibacy is superior, although it is a theme within Catholic thinking. Some theologians might believe, as you said, that celibacy makes it easier to be close to God. Some might think that celibacy doesn't make it *easier* to be close to God, but it does make it possible for someone to draw closer than they would if they were married (a higher upper limit, if you will). Some might think all of this is baloney.
The cathecism clearly says sexual thought from the non-married must be repressed. Why, if they are not bad?
No, actually, that's not what the catechism says. The real, official Catechism (as opposed to the unofficial Catechism that some lay person happened to write) only says that LUSTFUL desires must be repressed, and not every sexual thought is lustful. The Catechism, if I recall correctly, defines lust as a "disordered" sexual desire. Disordered sexual desires are those which are not ordered to the good of people. It's a bit of a circular definition, I admit: lust is a sin because lust is any sexual desire that is wrong. But it would be ludicrous for them to try to outline every nuance of thought that outlines what is ok and what is not. The general principle involved is whether your thoughts are directed at the good of the whole person; applying that principle is up to the people involved.
But assume we could know there was a ztgote, then would not the woman have to accept paralysis over 'murder', that is killing an 'innocent person?'
Hmm. If we KNEW there was a little zygote baby? The death of the baby is still an unintended side-effect of the treatment for paralysis, which is important. But I think it might depend on other things - what is the baby's chance of survival if the mother is paralyzed? I think if I knew there was a baby there, I'd probably choose paralysis. Again, though, I don't think the Church's teaching is so explicit as to cover every "what if" case; these are up to people to try to apply the principles as best they can.
Oh, BTW was the old tree life and the acorn life? Life must come from life it would seem, so the church who says "life begins at conception" is not using correct terminology. They seem to say life comes from non-life, because they insist that life begins with the fusion of sperm(life) and egg (life). Wasn't life always there?
It may not be the most specific or scientific terminology to say "life begins", but it isn't incorrect terminology either. When someone says "When does life begin?" or "Life begins at ..." they aren't talking about the presence of life in abstract. They are talking about the life of an individual. When did YOUR life begin, Jack? When did my life begin? That is what they are getting at. My mother was alive, and her egg was alive, but it wasn't my life. Each individual's life begins at their own conception. That is what people mean when they say that life begins at conception.
As for the scientific input into this question, I suggest you check out this paper.
God bless,
Anna
Why can’t a mature haploid male or female cell not purify itself so that it can unite with one another of opposite sex without sexually reproducing to form a zygote baby? By leaving out the germ cell wouldn’t US Catholic’s cells be better off?
ReplyDeleteI hear ya Jack! We true Catholics have really been begotten, not made because we’re truly ONE with Our Heavenly Father but the real problem is that we all have free will.
Come on Jack! Are your weakest and strongest cells teaming UP again and playing god one more time in order to try and hijack me?
Your drinking again! Right Victor?
How did you know that Jack!
Anna, I use "The Essential Catholic Catechism" endorsed by Cardinal Schonborn, editor of the Catchecism of the Catholic Church. Page 313: Those not married practice chastity through "continence"...abstaining from all that would arouse sexual passion. Now Anna what is a sexual thought that does not arouse sexual passion? Are priests encouraged to have sexual thoughts that do not arouse sexual passion? Why not, if such thoughts are harmless?
ReplyDeleteCome on ,Anna, your "scientific" reference is an institute that has NOT ONE single scientist as a senior fellow. It is a catholic apologist group and of course supports the catholiic position. They obviously have the "answer" before they do any analysis. It's like using the Pope to prove papal infallibility:)
I think you're still stuck with
Acorn is oak tree
Zygote is human being, person, child, baby, the pre-born or whatever the current ploy is. The church officially sells it, but very few buy it. Is a zygote a baby? If not, when does it become a baby? Jack
Jack, I hope you’ll forgive me again for adding another of my Canadian two cents forth but I can't blaim anyone or anything for this one.
ReplyDeleteI’m doing this one cause I’m not at my school crossing where I usually am at this time in the day. I now refer to that crossing as Saint Anna’s crossing cause it’s not very far from Saint Anne’s School. :)
Anyway Jack, if I may be permitted to say before I leave to bring our grand son to (C.H.I.O. Hospital) cause he suffers from C. F. Christ First.
I hear ya Jack! sinner vic C. F. stands for Cystic Fibrosis.
Ok! Anyway Jack! Keep UP the good work and remember that we’re not the only christians who have had problems in the pass. Below is the Christian of this day who also had his fun.
Hey Jack! If you believe that 7 animal years is equal to one human year then you might believe that 50 years is equal to one spiritual human year. I like to keep “IT” simple and believe that one human lifetime is but a Christian Kindergarten Course then we go into Grade One with God’s Angels but what do I really know?
As you know Jack, I could go on and on in a circle but what good would it really do cause we all have free will.
Keep UP all Good Words Jack!
God Bless you Jack and don’t be too hard on Saint Anna! :)
Saint of The Day
November 12, 2008
St. Josaphat
(1580?-1623)
In 1967, newspaper photos of Pope Paul VI embracing Athenagoras I, the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, marked a significant step toward the healing of a division in Christendom that has spanned nine centuries.
In 1595, when today's saint was a boy, the Orthodox bishop of Brest-Litovsk (famous in World War I) in Belarus and five other bishops representing millions of Ruthenians, sought reunion with Rome. John Kunsevich (Josaphat became his name in religious life) was to dedicate his life and suffer his death in the same cause. Born in what was then Poland, he went to work in Wilno and was influenced by clergy adhering to the Union of Brest (1596). He became a Basilian monk, then a priest, and soon was well known as a preacher and as an ascetic.
He became bishop of Vitebsk (now in Russia) at a relatively young age, and faced a difficult situation. Most monks, fearing interference in liturgy and customs, did not want union with Rome. By synods, catechetical instruction, reform of the clergy and personal example, however, Josaphat was successful in winning the greater part of the Orthodox in that area to the union.
But the next year a dissident hierarchy was set up, and his opposite number spread the accusation that Josaphat had "gone Latin" and that all his people would have to do the same. He was not enthusiastically supported by the Latin bishops of Poland.
Despite warnings, he went to Vitebsk, still a hotbed of trouble. Attempts were made to foment trouble and drive him from the diocese: A priest was sent to shout insults to him from his own courtyard. When Josaphat had him removed and shut up in his house, the opposition rang the town hall bell, and a mob assembled. The priest was released, but members of the mob broke into the bishop's home. He was struck with a halberd, then shot and his body thrown into the river. It was later recovered and is now buried at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
He was the first saint of the Eastern Church to be canonized by Rome.
His death brought a movement toward Catholicism and unity, but the controversy continued, and the dissidents, too, had their martyr. After the partition of Poland, the Russians forced most Ruthenians to join the Russian Orthodox Church.
Comment:
The seeds of separation were sown in the fourth century when the Roman Empire was divided into East and West. The actual split came over relatively unimportant customs (unleavened bread, Saturday fasting, celibacy). No doubt the political involvement of religious leaders on both sides was a large factor, and doctrinal disagreement was present. But no reason was enough to justify the present tragic division in Christendom, which is 64 percent Roman Catholic, 13 percent Eastern Churches (mostly Orthodox) and 23 percent Protestant, and this when the 71 percent of the world that is not Christian should be getting the witness of unity and Christlike charity from Christians!
God Bless,
Peace