A theological argument FOR abortion

[crazzeto]

Since there is no simple, enumerated list of the “official” teachings, it is easy to use the verbal trickery of “this was never an ‘official’ teaching”.

Incorrect, it’s not difficult at all to discover doctrinal teachings of the Church. You can start by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church which not only coverse doctrinal teaching, but a little bit of everything including some canon law etc. Limbo was never a doctrinal teaching of the Church, every bit like it was never considered scientific law that “Vulcan” actually existed.

You can’t have it both ways. Either murder is the “intentional taking of a human life”, or murder is the “intentional and unlawful taking of a human life”. In the first case killing in self-defense would be murder - while in the second case it would not be. In the first case abortion would be murder, in the second case it would not be. As I said, you can’t have your cake, and eat it, too.

No, you seriously need a dictionary… It might also help you to read through the Pentituch, which also demonstrates very clearly as dictionary.com the difference between a just killing (solider in war, self defence, legitimate police work) as opposed to murder (stabbing your wife to death because you found her with another man). One is a sin and can never be anything but a sin, the other is a tragic consequence of particular circomstance.

Only according to the myth, which you think is reality.

 

[Betterave]

How do you know that? Have you been there and verified it? Maybe you could show the video on YouTube…

lol! - are you really unable to see what’s wrong with your little argument here? All I’m going to say at this point is that you seem to either not know the first thing about the rules governing rational argumentation, or to be too full of vitriol and spite to be able to apply those rules to theological arguments (or you’re able but you just don’t care ).

 

[Eklecktika]

Actually, I did not say that the “teaching” is contradictory, I say that the Church’s teaching and its actions contradict each other.

For example, on one hand there is the “teaching” that pain and suffering has a “redemptive” value (which is already nonsense). On the other hand the Church sets up hospitals (which is commendable!) to alleviate suffering. The actions contradict the words! Also the Church “teaches” that God only allows pain and suffering to achieve some unspecified “grater good”, and then it turns around and tries to “mess up” God’s greater plan by healing the sick in those hospitals. Either God has a plan to use the pain and suffering to achieve some greater good, or some of the pain is not necessary. In the first case the Catholic hospitals intend to interfere with God’s “perfect” plan; while in the second case God allows gratitious suffering, which contradicts God’s benevolence. No matter how you twist it, there is a huge contradiction here.

Oh, and by the way, don’t assume that you know anything about my “misery”, or “anger”, and my reasons to be here. It is only egg on your face.

Actually, suffering becomes redemptive only when you intend it to be so-the key is ‘when accepted and offered in accordance with His plan’. Providing palliative care is not interfering with God’s plan-It’s perfectly legal to not expect someone to undergo surgery conscious, for example. Just because you can offer it up, as they say, doesn’t mean you are *bound *to do so. It is quite possible for a person to suffer mightily, and gain nothing from it.

Any allusion to the contrary is just silly and, dare I say, egg on your face.

As it’s considered good form in debate to be familiar with the subject…a catechism for you here. You might consider reading through this. A copy of This Is The Faith by Francis Canon Ripley might be useful as well.

 

[R_Daneel]

Incorrect, it’s not difficult at all to discover doctrinal teachings of the Church. You can start by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church which not only coverse doctrinal teaching, but a little bit of everything including some canon law etc. Limbo was never a doctrinal teaching of the Church, every bit like it was never considered scientific law that “Vulcan” actually existed.

Guess, what? The Cathecism is much too vague in specifics and much too wordy otherwise.

For example, the Catholic Church asserts that one can know the existence of God with reason alone, without resorting to faith. Well, I looked it up in the Cathecism, the alpha and omega of the Church’s teachings. There is nothing there, beside the bald assertion. No details, nothing. I was hoping to see this alleged reason-only proof and found nothing. So much for the list I am asking about.

There is no list, which would spell out which are the officially accepted doctrines and dogmas, and which are not. Of course there is no such list. The Church is probably aware that such a list would be disastruous.

No, you seriously need a dictionary… It might also help you to read through the Pentituch, which also demonstrates very clearly as dictionary.com the difference between a just killing (solider in war, self defence, legitimate police work) as opposed to murder (stabbing your wife to death because you found her with another man). One is a sin and can never be anything but a sin, the other is a tragic consequence of particular circomstance.

A “just” killing is another convenient human concoction. But that is fine. Based upon the legal aspect of “murder”, and abortion is NOT a murder, since it is nor declared as such.

 

[R_Daneel]

Actually, suffering becomes redemptive only when you intend it to be so-the key is ‘when accepted and offered in accordance with His plan’. Providing palliative care is not interfering with God’s plan-It’s perfectly legal to not expect someone to undergo surgery conscious, for example. Just because you can offer it up, as they say, doesn’t mean you are *bound *to do so. It is quite possible for a person to suffer mightily, and gain nothing from it.

Excellent. I like to see well-reasoned arguments like this. Too bad you were not around when many posters, in many threads asserted precisely that. There was no one, who would have rubbed their nonses into their nonsensical assertions.

Now, based upon you correct observations, most sufferings are not redemptive. Children, or animals are incapable to “offering” their pain. What about the other type of defense? It is asserted that all pain and suffering is part of God’s plan - even if we are unable to detect or understand it. It is asserted that there is no gratitous pain and suffering - since that would be incompatible with benevolence.

And this is where the “meddling” comes in. Any interference with the pain runs the risk of stopping the pain prematurely, before the alleged “greater good” can materialize. Remember, if the pain is “too small”, the greater good does not come into effect. If the pain is too large, (more than necessary), the extra pain is gratitous. The amount of pain and suffering must be precisely, mathematically determined to extend as far as necessary, but not an iota further. Therefore attempting to interfere is risky, since it runs the chance of stopping the pain too soon.

The only logical way (Christian logic, of course) is to resort to God, who will know exactly when the necessary pain is administered, and will stop it precisely at that moment. This is sometimes expressed in the form of “God never puts too much pain and suffering onto one person, more than they can endure”. Therefore the Catholic hospitals are attempting to interfere with God’s plan. Period.

 

[Leela]

1. Giving up your mortal life to help your neighbor is love (T)
2. So giving up your immortal soul to help your neighbor is love (F)

I haven’t argued (2) as a consequence of (1). I argue (2) because if someone gives up their immortal soul for the salvation of the immortal souls of others, that could only be done out of love–even the greatest love possible under the premises of immortal souls and heaven and hell. In other words, I can’t imagine what the motivation could possibly be for giving up one’s immortal soul for another if not out of love. If (2) is wrong, you’ll have to tell me what the motivation could be for giving up one’s immortal soul to save the soul of another if not love.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Actually I’d rather read the source this poster cites, though given the kind of people we’re talking out (heck, they weren’t particularly good Catholics) I wouldnt’ be totally shocked if one could find incidents as described. Still, I’m not prepard to take such alligations completely at the world of someone who obviously has such a jaded view of the faith.

Hi Crazzeto,

I wouldn’t know where to look for a scholarly source of the matter (Note that I am not making an allegation against Catholicism when I say that conquistadores baptized babies before murderring them. Humans of all stripes are capable of terrible barbarism.), it is just the sort of historical fact that gets referred to fairly often. For example. It came up in a debate with Craig:

“evils such as those in which the conquistadors first baptized Indian infants, thus saving their souls, then dashed out their brains so as to ensure that they couldn’t become heretics”

leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-bradley2.html

Like most barabaric acts (e.g. family members killing a rape victim), I imagine it was done because they thought they were doing the right thing. These conquistadores probably didn’t think that they were putting their own souls at risk in any way and were doing God’s work.

Best,
Leela

 

[Eklecktika]

OK, first of all, it’s gratUitous. Spell check. Try it. If you are going use big words, spell them properly.

There was no one, who would have rubbed their nonses into their nonsensical assertions.

What? This isn’t coherent. Try again.

Now, based upon you correct observations, most sufferings are not redemptive. Children, or animals are incapable to “offering” their pain.

Children most certainly ARE able to offer their suffering. Most sufferings? By who? People who believe such as you? Nope, they aren’t redemptive. People who have been properly taught? You better believe they are.

Animals have no need to, as animals do not have eternal souls subject to judgment as people do. Straw man. Why bring animals into it? Don’t derail the conversation, it’s impolite.

What about the other type of defense? It is asserted that all pain and suffering is part of God’s plan - even if we are unable to detect or understand it. It is asserted that there is no gratitous pain and suffering - since that would be incompatible with benevolence.

Go back and study what God is, and the definitions of redemptive suffering and humility. You might try really, really hard not to become so attached to your theory, just because it’s yours, that you can’t see any others.

And this is where the “meddling” comes in. Any interference with the pain runs the risk of stopping the pain prematurely, before the alleged “greater good” can materialize.

Really, you need to understand this before you argue against it. You continue to embarrass yourself. Greater good has nothing to do with it.

Remember, if the pain is “too small”, the greater good does not come into effect. If the pain is too large, (more than necessary), the extra pain is gratitous. The amount of pain and suffering must be precisely, mathematically determined to extend as far as necessary, but not an iota further.

Mathematically determined? Do you really believe it is reasonable to submit that a subjective quality can be objectively measured? Go back and read what I posted. Thoroughly. Understand it. Here, I’ll save you the time.

Actually, suffering becomes redemptive only when you intend it to be so-the key is ‘when accepted and offered in accordance with His plan’. Providing palliative care is not interfering with God’s plan-It’s perfectly legal to not expect someone to undergo surgery conscious, for example. Just because you can offer it up, as they say, doesn’t mean you are bound to do so. It is quite possible for a person to suffer mightily, and gain nothing from it.

Any allusion to the contrary is just silly and, dare I say, egg on your face.

Here is the important part-since apparently you missed it-

Just because you can offer it up, as they say, doesn’t mean you are bound to do so.

OK, read it again, and comprehend it, then read your statement below. Logical? Sensible? Intelligent? No. Silly and obtuse? Yes.

Therefore attempting to interfere is risky, since it runs the chance of stopping the pain too soon. The only logical way (Christian logic, of course) is to resort to God, who will know exactly when the necessary pain is administered, and will stop it precisely at that moment.

Come on. Straw man? Maybe not quite, but it’s close. Is this really the best you can come up with, in light of all the sharp, convergent arguments provided you? This is an absurdity-barely qualifying as rebuttal. You continue to labor, despite correction, under the assumption that X quantity of suffering is required and no more, no less and because of that, no person should ever attempt to heal someone suffering any form of pain even though that in itself is contrary to the whole message.

Therefore the Catholic hospitals are attempting to interfere with God’s plan. Period.

Wow, smug much? And a non sequitur to boot. An irrational conclusion to a fallacious argument. Shocking. I detect a recurring theme of malignant ignorance and arrogance here, rather than a sincere desire to learn. Perhaps the ministering to others by those caring for the sick is part of God’s plan.

Either way, you’ve proven your reluctance to consider your beliefs in concert with the facts already provided. You don’t wish to be confused with the facts. You’ve already made up your mind, and appear to only be interested in, to quote my son, poking a bear with a stick. Betterave was correct in the assessment made earlier.

Are you certain that being right is worth the potential penalty of being wrong? Perhaps one day you’ll put your ego aside and realize that a finite wager with infinite gain is much better than a finite wager with infinite loss. Wouldn’t it be horrific to find out that we were right all along?

 

[Leela]

Are you certain that being right is worth the potential penalty of being wrong? Perhaps one day you’ll put your ego aside and realize that a finite wager with infinite gain is much better than a finite wager with infinite loss. Wouldn’t it be horrific to find out that we were right all along?

What is the penalty for not believing in God? Are you sure you know who gets into heaven and who doesn’t?

 

[Betterave]

What is the penalty for not believing in God?

Possibly eternal damnation. But as you should know, there is such a thing as invincible ignorance and God is just and loving.

Are you sure you know who gets into heaven and who doesn’t?

Leela, can you really not answer this question for yourself? I’m surprised that you’ve learned so little in your time here at CAF.

 

[Betterave]

I haven’t argued (2) as a consequence of (1). I argue (2) because if someone gives up their immortal soul for the salvation of the immortal souls of others, that could only be done out of love–even the greatest love possible under the premises of immortal souls and heaven and hell. In other words, I can’t imagine what the motivation could possibly be for giving up one’s immortal soul for another if not out of love. If (2) is wrong, you’ll have to tell me what the motivation could be for giving up one’s immortal soul to save the soul of another if not love.

Best,
Leela

Had you also read points 3 and 4 (and were familiar with the law of non-contradiction) you might have gotten your answer. You’re asking about motivation. You need to ask the prior question about intrinsic possibility. It is not possible to lose one’s soul by performing an act of love (a meritorious act). Can you really not see the contradiction in that? It’s like saying, “I want to lose weight, while eating more and exercising less; so I think I’ll eat more calories and get less exercise and then I’ll lose weight!”

As for your comment that you were not attacking the Catholic faith, just noting an instance of barbarism, blah blah blah, I think you should reread your original post:
“You don’t have to tell me that the idea is disgusting. It’s not my idea. It is a consequence of Catholic ideas.”

Also, please don’t refer to what seems like intrinsically unlikely hearsay as ‘historical fact.’

 

[Leela]

Possibly eternal damnation. But as you should know, there is such a thing as invincible ignorance and God is just and loving.

Leela, can you really not answer this question for yourself? I’m surprised that you’ve learned so little in your time here at CAF.

I can. It is my understanding that being a Catholic is no guarantee of salvation and that not being a Catholic is no guarantee of damnation, so Eklecktika’s comments about belittling Catholic faith in terms of wagering seem way off point.

Do I have that right? Is there anything one can do to guarantee a ticket to Heaven? It is my understanding that we simply don’t know who will be saved and who will be damned because we don’t understand the criteria that will be used to judge us. So it seems wrong to be for Ekleckika to use hell as a cudgel against the non belief of others when for all she knows her belief may also not save her.

The Bible itself seems to be of two minds on the matter of whether or not belief is enough or works are enough and I don’t think Catholics claim to know what combination of belief and works is sufficient. Is that correct?

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

I can. It is my understanding that being a Catholic is no guarantee of salvation and that not being a Catholic is no guarantee of damnation, so Eklecktika’s comments about belittling Catholic faith in terms of wagering seem way off point.

Do I have that right? Is there anything one can do to guarantee a ticket to Heaven? It is my understanding that we simply don’t know who will be saved and who will be damned because we don’t understand the criteria that will be used to judge us. So it seems wrong to be for Ekleckika to use hell as a cudgel against the non belief of others when for all she knows her belief may also not save her.

The Bible itself seems to be of two minds on the matter of whether or not belief is enough or works are enough and I don’t think Catholics claim to know what combination of belief and works is sufficient. Is that correct?

Best,
Leela

Incorrect (bolded statement). What you’ve said is like saying “I understand that not all smokers get lung cancer and that not all non-smokers escape getting lung cancer. So we simply don’t understand the connection between smoking and lung cancer.”

Other than that, I’d like to let Eklecktica answer.

 

[davidv]

I can. It is my understanding that being a Catholic is no guarantee of salvation and that not being a Catholic is no guarantee of damnation, so Eklecktika’s comments about belittling Catholic faith in terms of wagering seem way off point.

Do I have that right? Is there anything one can do to guarantee a ticket to Heaven?

Repent, be baptised, love God and neighbor and die in the state of grace.

It is my understanding that we simply don’t know who will be saved and who will be damned because we don’t understand the criteria that will be used to judge us. So it seems wrong to be for Ekleckika to use hell as a cudgel against the non belief of others when for all she knows her belief may also not save her.

The Bible itself seems to be of two minds on the matter of whether or not belief is enough or works are enough and I don’t think Catholics claim to know what combination of belief and works is sufficient. Is that correct?

Best,
Leela

 

[Eklecktika]

What is the penalty for not believing in God? Are you sure you know who gets into heaven and who doesn’t?

Yup Seems like someone said something once about Reject me and I’ll reject you, hmm, let’s see…ah, here it is.

Mt 10:32-33

32 Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. 33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.

I’d say that pretty well clears it up. But, I guess if you’re willing to take that bet, go for it.

Invincible ignorance works as a claim for some, but only if it is truly genuine, and not born of pride.

Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. The perverse temper of soul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had. Vincible ignorance, being in some way voluntary, does not permit a man to escape responsibility for the moral deformity of his deeds; he is held to be guilty and in general the more guilty in proportion as his ignorance is more voluntary.

Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act./QUOTE] In other words, you are responsible for putting into practice as much as you can understand, and if you miss the finer points of something because you are either incapable of understanding it, you’re home-free. However, if you decide that you just ‘won’t learn’ so that you can retain ‘ignorance’, well, you’re still guilty of it.

**Originally Posted by Leela **
I can. It is my understanding that being a Catholic is no guarantee of salvation and that not being a Catholic is no guarantee of damnation, so Eklecktika’s comments about belittling Catholic faith in terms of wagering seem way off point.

Do I have that right? Is there anything one can do to guarantee a ticket to Heaven?

I wasn’t belittling the catholic faith. I’m not sure how, exactly, you inferred that, but as that’s not germane to the subject, we’ll leave sleeping dogs alone. That was a wager-now considered the classic argument for belief in the light of uncertainty- set by Blaise Paschal, regarding the argument against the existence of God. He makes the argument that a wager requiring finite effort for a potentially infinite gain, is obviously the correct choice, when the alternative is to NOT extend finite effort, and risk infinite loss. His point was that when one has no way of determining the veracity of either side of the argument, it’s best to reduce it to the simplest logical argument possible, and look at risk vs reward. Do your best to live the way He asks, maybe gain everything, maybe gain nothing. Live like a hedonist, definitely lose everything either way. Looks pretty obvious to me. That isn’t using Hell as a cudgel, that’s using Heaven as a reason!

The Bible itself seems to be of two minds on the matter of whether or not belief is enough or works are enough and I don’t think Catholics claim to know what combination of belief and works is sufficient. Is that correct?

The bible isn’t the sole source of revelation. Christ says “Do all these things that I have told you” yet the same bible states that not everything Christ did was written down. How could the bible possibly be the “final word” when it wasn’t even compiled until 300 years after Christ’s death, and not readily available to the public for another 1200 years?

I’m pretty sure that if a person were to say “God, I don’t know exactly what you want, but I’m trying my very hardest to do it right”, He might cut you some slack, whereas I doubt saying “Gee, God, I don’t know what you want, so I’m not going to even try to figure it out, because I’m pretty sure it doesn’t matter anyway, but I can’t know for sure” will impress him very much.

I have no delusion about my religion-my church-saving me, Leela. Christ is the one who will do the saving; My belief simply colors my actions and determines what I do, and don’t do. If I do my best, repent when I fail, and trust in Him, what more can I do? He has said that He is Absolute Justice.

If you really want a guaranteed ticket to Heaven, go to confession on a regular basis, receive communion as often as possible, and love your neighbor, as Betterave stated. No one is guaranteed anything but doing that will be the best chance you can hope to get.

 

[Hubriss]

This thread reminds me of how Hamlet decided not to kill his uncle when he had the chance because he had just sat in a confession booth and confessed murdering his brother to gain the throne. Hamlet didn’t kill him because he wanted his uncle to go to hell, but he would have to wait until he sinned again because he just confessed.

Superstition makes for good fiction.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

This thread reminds me of how Hamlet decided not to kill his uncle when he had the chance because he had just sat in a confession booth and confessed murdering his brother to gain the throne. Hamlet didn’t kill him because he wanted his uncle to go to hell, but he would have to wait until he sinned again because he just confessed.

Superstition makes for good fiction.

Funny you say that since Shakespeare (who was probably Catholic, interestingly) meant that scene quite seriously. In fact, Hamlet is presented as wrong not for not opting to attack, but because he didn’t realize that a man as evil as his Uncle couldn’t truly repent.

Not that Hamlet was a bastion of morality there either.

 

[Adeodatus]

Funny you say that since Shakespeare (who was probably Catholic, interestingly) meant that scene quite seriously. In fact, Hamlet is presented as wrong not for not opting to attack, but because he didn’t realize that a man as evil as his Uncle couldn’t truly repent.

Not that Hamlet was a bastion of morality there either.

I don’t see how that tracks. It’s a sin to wish someone to go to Hell, and imperfect contrition is adequate for the sacrament of reconciliation as far as I know.

 

[Leela]

Yup Seems like someone said something once about Reject me and I’ll reject you, hmm, let’s see…ah, here it is.

Mt 10:32-33 I’d say that pretty well clears it up. But, I guess if you’re willing to take that bet, go for it.

I’m not taking any bet. I’m just trying to do understand what is true and to do what is right.

And what does it mean to reject Jesus? Jesus said “Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” so clearly the issue is not belief. The goats and sheep will instead be separated based on a compassion test (I was hungry and you gave me to eat.) How do you know that you are more compassionate than those you are conversing with on the internet? What makes you think that you have a better shot at heaven than I do or any other nonbeliever?

If you really want a guaranteed ticket to Heaven, go to confession on a regular basis, receive communion as often as possible, and love your neighbor, as Betterave stated. No one is guaranteed anything but doing that will be the best chance you can hope to get.

Right. No one is guaranteed anything. So what makes you think that you are better off with regard to God’s judgment than R Daneel is? Doesn’t you Catholic teaching tell you that you, no matter what you do, are not worthy of salvation just as R Daneel is not worthy?

And I know all about Pascal’s Wager. (Have you heard of Homer’s Wager? “What if I pick the wrong God? Then I’m just making him madder and madder every time I go to Church.”) Doesn’t it apply just as well to Islam or the Mormon’s or Flying Spagetti Monster-ism any other religion that promises eternal damnation for non-adherents? And Catholicism does NOT promise eternal damnation for all non adherents, so the Wager doesn’t work. In addition, there is always the fact that one cannot will onesself to believe what one does not already believe.

 

[Leela]

Repent, be baptised, love God and neighbor and die in the state of grace.

The above is as helpful as saying “be perfect” without saying what that means in everyday practice. What should I do right now? This afternoon?

Are you loving God with your whole heart? Really??? How do you know?

It is not that no one has any idea about what things are better than others, but it is not always clear what one should do to be perfect.