Apologising to a "catholic" need help

[Loboto-Me]

On a non-religious board, we are having a discussion and a self proclaimed catholic is misrepresenting the Church.

In one discussion she said that the soul doesn’t enter the body until later in pregnancy “according to catholic dogma”. I told her she was mistaken and directed her to the CCC where it says that the soul is there from the beginning of the pregnancy.

You’re mistaken on the “no-soul” per dogma

Taken from the Catechism :

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P5H.HTM#15
1711 Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude. He pursues his perfection in “seeking and loving what is true and good” (GS 15 # 2).

This lady replied to this with this comment:

Actually Loboto…the Catholic Church theory of soul states that male fetuses do not attain a soul for 40 days, female fetuses 80 days. St. Augustine and Pope Pius pondered that a great deal. Truth is, within the Catholic Church, there exists various thought as to when a human gains a soul.

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF
POPE PIUS XII

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION

November 1, 1950

Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

---

How do I reply to this… She’s telling people that we all have to follow our own beliefs whether it be Satanism, Buddism, Paganism. I just wish she wouldn’t have proclaimed her catholic religion then I wouldn’t have to go and “clean up” after her so much. I’m getting exhausted!

Please help me out folks.

 

[martino]

Tell her you dont care who pondered what, she is still wrong!!

 

[Loboto-Me]

LOL I don’t think that will go over too well… I need something a little more substantial than that… although dang I wish that reply was good enough

 

[martino]

Loboto-Me:

LOL I don’t think that will go over too well… I need something a little more substantial than that… although dang I wish that reply was good enough

That reply is good enough. There is a big difference between defining dogma and pondering some mystery.

Just agree with her that at certain times in the Church, we did ponder upon this question. You may also want to tell her that the Pope ponders what he is going to eat for breakfast most days, but that does not make it dogmatic.

Has the Church always known the exact moment the soul is infused? NO

How can the Church define something that she is not certain of?

The question is not when the infusion of the soul take place but when does life begin.

Has the Church defined the exact moment that life begins? YES…at conception.

Whatever her agenda, she is out of luck. Im sure she wants to justify killing human beings for some reason or other, but the loophole she is looking for just isnt there.

Tell her to go back and ponder this some more so that maybe someday she will see it as clearly as everybody else does.

 

[Stevereeno]

She is correct in one respect. The Church has not defined a “time of ensoulment”. However, the traditional teaching regarding personhood has been clearly defined, for example, in the Instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae:

“the human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized”

 

[Stevereeno]

Also:

“From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has wished for himself and the spiritual soul of each man is “immediately created” by God; his whole being bears the image of the Creator. Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves “the creative action of God” and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

 

[Loboto-Me]

Let me explain in which context she’s saying what she’s saying. It’s not about a right to life thing, it was about a hypothetical question that if aliens exist, would they be saved.

Her answer to that was :

I will say this. I don’t view God as harsh or cruel. I don’t believe He simply allows group A into heaven and says to hell with the rest. I also don’t believe that God would deny entry to those without a soul. In Catholicism, you aren’t home free if you haven’t been baptized but…when I posed the question after suffering a miscarriage…my priest said that yes, God would grant the baby into heaven. The baby hadn’t been baptized before it died so it had “no soul” per dogma…His reply? God accepts one and all, his love knows no boundaries.

That is when I told her that she was mistaken in her “no soul per dogma” statement.

Maybe that will help you a bit?

 

[martino]

Loboto-Me:

Let me explain in which context she’s saying what she’s saying. It’s not about a right to life thing, it was about a hypothetical question that if aliens exist, would they be saved.

Her answer to that was :

I will say this. I don’t view God as harsh or cruel. I don’t believe He simply allows group A into heaven and says to hell with the rest. I also don’t believe that God would deny entry to those without a soul. In Catholicism, you aren’t home free if you haven’t been baptized but…when I posed the question after suffering a miscarriage…my priest said that yes, God would grant the baby into heaven. The baby hadn’t been baptized before it died so it had “no soul” per dogma…His reply? God accepts one and all, his love knows no boundaries.

That is when I told her that she was mistaken in her “no soul per dogma” statement.

Maybe that will help you a bit?

I wonder how in the world she thought that all non baptized humans are souless? That is bizarre!

She also doesn’t believe in hell, which means she has a seriously warped view of sin, I would assume she doesn’t believe in mortal sin.

That did shed some light on what the topic of discussion was but she is still trying to define dogma based on the ponderings of some Church leaders. And in fact now that I see exactly what she said it is worse than I thought. She is telling you that the Church teaches dogmatically that those that are not baptized have no soul and I can promise you that no sane Catholic has ever even pondered a thought like that.

She is also telling you that all living creatures have a rights to heaven.

Im afraid I am not helping you but confusing you even more!!

 

[Loboto-Me]

Now you see why I feel a need to “clean up” after her comments. This is a NASTY board against any type of christian… I’m trying to at least make sure that she tells it like it truly is in the catholic corner.

She exhausts me! And to boot, I’m not very good at apologetics because I’m very much a lamb with blind faith… or I should say I was, but now I’m really working on learning the why’s of my faith.

 

[martino]

The sad truth is that with some people there is nothing you can say that will have any effect on them. I am glad that you are learning your faith, we all need to do that. Although it may seem fruitless on that message board you will see how important it really is to be able to defend your faith as you begin to have conversations like this on a regular basis.

 

[Loboto-Me]

I’m losing it here…

I know that there are some you just can’t talk to… but she’s supposedly CATHOLIC. The latest reply :

Now Loboto…

I said the requirement of baptism was from Dogma. I did not say the theory of soul was Dogma. If fact, I had thought the word “THEORY” would’ve be self-explanatory…guess not

The official stance? Perhaps…if you are speaking of the Vatican letters and those letters have changed as society has changed. The current stance…but not always so and the Vatican Letters and not recognized by all Catholics.

As far as certain times? It’s a constant question!

PER DOGMA…AS QUOTED ABOVE…to gain Assumption, a human being must be baptized.

The current stance operates on the theory that any fetus upon conception will realize full maturity and be delivered, thus being able to be baptized.

You reallllllllllly want to get into this one Loboto, we can and I can spell out all the hypocrisies in the Vatican Letters.

like “Double effect”…the Vatican states a mother CAN undergo an abortion but ONLY if the fetus is unable to survive the mother’s medical condition BUT…aha and here’s the fun part…she has to prove it and in ectopic pregnancy she must “FORFEIT” the fallopean tube that holds the fetus!

beter yet…let’s talk about an 11 year old child and her family that the Vatican excommunicated because after she was kidnapped, raped, tortured and left for dead but managed to survive…she wound up pregnant and doctors aborted the baby to save her life…based on current stance, the potential risk of her life wasn’t good enough. But they decided not to excommunicate them after a hellstorm of attacks from people within the Church itself.

Don’t forget the fact that the Vatican does not recognize children born from infertility treatments or children born out of wedlock. They don’t count and there is no allowance in the VL’s to grant them entry into heaven.

The current “stance” as you call it changes like the weather. Vatican doesn’t speak for me because it never stays in one place.

Dogma…taken from scripture and writings of the Apostles is where I look as does my church.

 

[martino]

Loboto-Me:

I’m losing it here…

I know that there are some you just can’t talk to… but she’s supposedly CATHOLIC. The latest reply :

Now Loboto…

I said the requirement of baptism was from Dogma. I did not say the theory of soul was Dogma. If fact, I had thought the word “THEORY” would’ve be self-explanatory…guess not

I did not see the word “theory” in the quote that you gave me. In any case the Church does not teach that babies that die before baptism go straight to heaven. We do believe in the mercy of God and with great hope we leave the matter in His hands.

You reallllllllllly want to get into this one Loboto, we can and I can spell out all the hypocrisies in the Vatican Letters.

All she can give you are her misunderstandings… she obviously does not understand many things that the Church teaches.

like “Double effect”…the Vatican states a mother CAN undergo an abortion but ONLY if the fetus is unable to survive the mother’s medical condition BUT…aha and here’s the fun part…she has to prove it and in ectopic pregnancy she must “FORFEIT” the fallopean tube that holds the fetus!

Actually the Church teaches that you are NEVER permitted to undergo a direct abortion, does not matter what the case is! The Church is very consistent on this point.

beter yet…let’s talk about an 11 year old child and her family that the Vatican excommunicated because after she was kidnapped, raped, tortured and left for dead but managed to survive…she wound up pregnant and doctors aborted the baby to save her life…based on current stance, the potential risk of her life wasn’t good enough. But they decided not to excommunicate them after a hellstorm of attacks from people within the Church itself.

I seriously doubt that she is giving us the whole story here, but I will give her the benefit of the doubt. Just like I said above, we are never permitted to undergo a direct abortion and it does not matter what the circumstances are… its all very consistent. Everyone (not just this girl and her family) that undergoes and abortion or assists in any way is automatically excommunicated, so they were not treated any differently than anyone else would be.

I wonder if this woman believes that this poor girl is better off now that she has taken part the murder of her own child. The child had nothing to do with the terrible things that happened to this girl, why does the child deserve to die as a result of it?

Don’t forget the fact that the Vatican does not recognize children born from infertility treatments or children born out of wedlock. They don’t count and there is no allowance in the VL’s to grant them entry into heaven.

This part is just a bold face lie! The Church is the one protecting all human life, even those conceived in a petri dish. If the Church didnt think these humans counted why would we be so adamantly against human embryonic research? Espceially considering that most of the embryos used in this research came about by artificial means. Ask her if she is in favor of using these embryo’s for experiments and when she tells you Yes, as I already know that she will, point out to her that she is the one not counting them as humans. The Church seems to be the only place where they are counted as humans!

Dogma…taken from scripture and writings of the Apostles is where I look as does my church.

Here is where she shows her true colors. She is not Catholic and she as much as admits it right here. She does not believe in the authority of the Church, she does not believe in the official teachings of the Church. She publically denounces official Church teaching in favor of some secularist or Protestant views.

SHE IS NOT CATHOLIC NO MATTER WHAT SHE CALLS HERSELF!!!1

 

[Loboto-Me]

Martino, Thank you!!

I feel so much better now. I felt like telling her that she was catholic in name only, and denouncing to everyone that what she is saying is only her own opinion and not the church teaching, but then my catholic side got the better of me, and made me realize that the only thing we can do is to pray for her, and try to gently show her where she’s mistaken.

But I’ll tell you this, if she “attacks” me again (she ranted at me for correcting her very gently), I may forget my charitable side and let her have it.

Please pray for all catholics that are misconstruing the truth and spreading these mistakes because those that don’t know our faith will come to believe them.

Bless you! and thanks again

 

[jeffreedy789]

Vatican doesn’t speak for me because it never stays in one place.

she goes to a catholic church. she was probably raised catholic. but this quote shows that she’s not catholic. her views are not those of a catholic person.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Use the Catechism. You can find it on-line at scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Now, in the end, I often find myself dealing with this sort of person by first using the Catechism – cut and paste, and show them exactly what it says.

If they want to argue with that, I point out that if you reject the Magisterium, you are not a Catholic, by definition.

 

[Loboto-Me]

You guys are great! I’ve put the link into my favorites, that’s wonderful. I had the catechism from the papal site, but this one seems to be easier to navigate.

Once again thank you and bless you.

 

[Strider]

Loboto-Me:

It’s not about a right to life thing, it was about a hypothetical question that if aliens exist, would they be saved.
Her answer to that was :
I will say this. I don’t view God as harsh or cruel. I don’t believe He simply allows group A into heaven and says to hell with the rest. I also don’t believe that God would deny entry to those without a soul. In Catholicism, you aren’t home free if you haven’t been baptized but…when I posed the question after suffering a miscarriage…my priest said that yes, God would grant the baby into heaven. The baby hadn’t been baptized before it died so it had “no soul” per dogma…His reply? God accepts one and all, his love knows no boundaries.

First, refer her to CCC # 363 - 366.
Next, did you notice in the above quote of hers, “I will…” “I don’t…”
“I don’t…” “I also…” That’s a lot of her and none of the Church. Also, ask her for references to back up her statement about an unbaptized baby having no soul “per dogma”. Where? What dogma? And what is her source for this 11 year old girl?
Where does it say the Vatican requires a woman with an ectopic pregnancy to forfeit her fallopian tube? This is ludicrous.
Don’t let her get away with this. Make her source everything. And when you reply, source it with legitimate Church documents.
She can’t and you can. Relax and go for it.
And in agreement with others who’ve posted above, she’s not Catholic. Catholics refer to the “Church,” not “The Vatican.” Sounds like she’s been reading Dan brown.

.

Maybe that will help you a bit

 

[vern_humphrey]

Strider:

First, refer her to CCC # 363 - 366.
Next, did you notice in the above quote of hers, “I will…” “I don’t…”
“I don’t…” “I also…” That’s a lot of her and none of the Church. Also, ask her for references to back up her statement about an unbaptized baby having no soul “per dogma”. Where? What dogma? And what is her source for this 11 year old girl?
Where does it say the Vatican requires a woman with an ectopic pregnancy to forfeit her fallopian tube? This is ludicrous.
Don’t let her get away with this. Make her source everything. And when you reply, source it with legitimate Church documents.
She can’t and you can. Relax and go for it.
And in agreement with others who’ve posted above, she’s not Catholic. Catholics refer to the “Church,” not “The Vatican.” Sounds like she’s been reading Dan brown.

.

Maybe that will help you a bit

I find these so-called “Catholics” are addicted to the vertical pronoun. It’s always “I will decide,” not “the Church teaches.”

 

[axolotl]

Where does it say the Vatican requires a woman with an ectopic pregnancy to forfeit her fallopian tube?

My diocese’s newspaper has an ask a priest column. A few years ago a woman wrote about her daughter, who had terminated an ectopic pragnancy via microsurgery. The priest told the mother that the daughter must confess her sin and seek forgiveness.

He said that many times in an ectopic pregnancy, the tube is also pathological. When the tube is removed, killing the fetus in the process, it is acceptable, because the diseased body part is being removed. They fetus dies in the process, but that was the foreseen effect and not the goal of the procedure.

I do have trouble accepting this position. Am I to wait until until my fallopian tube is about to rupture before the condition can be dealt with? My doctor is not to use a less invavise treatment which saves the tube and preserves fertility more?

.