Calm down, The Barrister. A person who has lost a loved one to a violent crime would have a different perspective than a person who has not. Both people could comment, but the comments would be colored by different experiences.
The doc is explaining the medical view, based I imagine on case studies or past patients. If you can’t understand the language and need a dictionary, you can find several online. You’re trying to pick a fight and get this thread closed down. I’m finding it very informative. If you can’t contribute something, why don’t you go bother another forum.
No, this argument is used by pro-aborts to cut off debate. I find it offensive for someone to say that my opinion on any given topic is invalid because I can’t or have not directly experienced the topic at hand. That makes it a specious argument.
If you’d get off your high horse ("The Mighty Barrister? please…), you’d be able to recognize the logic behind this. It is very clear to me. And LabChick is not pro-abort and I find it highly offensive that you would say that. Didn’t you see the thread about respect?
Yesm very good. I am enjoying the conversation so far and am glad that we are finally getting to the heart of the issue. A side note however on Encyclicals: The word consent here is also translated “respect” in English as well for this very document. Check out the HarperCollins Encylopdeia of Catholicism.
Yes, very good. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments and everyone else for that matter. I know the debate well and I know the answer. I have talked about, read about, and conversed with not only my bishop on the issue, but local Theologians as well. One thing is true, as when talking to priest like Fr. Miller and the like, when it comes to morals, there are very few, very few indeed, black and white areas. True, there may be more black/white than grey, but we can not lump everyone into one category or another, the same with situations. That is why Mortal Sin, or a morally corrupt action must meet a criteria. If ity doesn’t meet the criteria, it doesn’t count. As far as encycles go and their authority - I know the answer and have said my peace. I have studied Lumen Gentium and discussed Encyclicals with Fr. Bruse Swift, O.S.B., Fr. Ed Hayes, Fr. McKinney(Newton) etc… as well as Dr. Regis MArtin(Fransican Univ.) who teaches Theology of the church. Unfortuantly people will hear an argument and take it as gospel. It’s a lot like Understanding scripture. You can understand it with taking another’s understanding of it just find. Often that is what it takes because biblical exegesis is a long and complex process. However, if you want to knwo for your self what it actually says, you have to go throught the laguages, the context, and history of the saying, as well as the place it was said (The Petrine Text is a great example) Then you can come to a gretaer understanding. As I mentioned it a earlier post, often it is quoted that encycles demand consent. Another translation of that sentence uses the owrd respect, not consent. See next post…
Thank you Lab Chick. I hate when I see these threads because I feel personally attacked because of my use of the Pill to solve these problems.
I understand that many medicines do not cure the problem but alleviate symptoms. However, when the use of the medicine has a life ending effect on an innocent life considerations for its use versus other options must be taken.
I never claimed to know what that is like. However, I would say that these conditions are not natural or “normal” and just because other things have been ruled out does not mean there is an underlying condition or other options than the Birth Control Pill for alleviation of symptoms does it?
So, it still has the same effects as the pill? Do you have a brand name of this injection?
Does the research indicate anything of interest or do you mention it for no reason?
Not off the top of my head but I have known a few women that are on it and will get the name. I think it is Lupro but that is a stab in the dark and I left my medications book at work.
Again, I will have to make some calls.
For a women that is married, is in severe pain (or medical danger) wants to maintain her sexual relationship with her spouse, and recognizes the evil of the abortifacent potential of the hormonal birth control pill this may be the preffered option. For some women it is the preffered option.
Well, do you believe that all forms of hormonal birth control are an abortifacent? If not, which ones do you believe are not? We can proceed from there.
Actually I would disagree here and this will be diving slightly off-topic but we abstain more than we don’t abstain. There are more reasons for abstaining than to just delay pregnancy. Also, a woman on the pill is unable to use Natural Family Planning. The pill destroys the ability to determine relative fertility and infertility.
Maintaining her anonymity if you can answer the following please:
If you are not sexually active then I am not concerned from a moral perspective. Out of Christian love I am concerned about the potential damage that is being done to your body from the negative impact the pill has.
Actually, it is either right or wrong as defined or in the eyes of God. In other words if something is always wrong then it is always wrong. For example, contraception is always wrong. However, the use of a contraceptive in a non-contraceptive fashion is not automatically wrong. This is not a grey area but a black and white reading of what is laid out in Church teaching. The reason it appears grey is due to confusion and dissent.
A mortal sin is **always **a sin but (yes, it is even in the Bible) culpability may be diminished through certain factors.
What we are talking about here is the situation to be judged moral or immoral. Poeple often want to clasify all use of “the pill” as immoral. Black and White, when as your own words correctly state, this is not automatically so. It is a grey area that if it meets certain criteria it falls into black(sin) or white (not a sin.) That is what I mean as far as black and white and grey. True, killing another huiman being via abortion, murder, etc… is always wrong. But even that, is sometimes allowed (Just War, if the “abortion” is teh result of a medical procedure and it is the unintended effect, etc." This just further illustrates my point, there are exceptions and to lay out a “rule” is the heresy of leagalsim. But I warn all, for use to us “legalsim” as an excuse to beleive what ever we want is a graver sin. The grey area is not necessarily because of confusion or dissent, but rather the product of us being humans and the fact that we are complex. Our actions require knowledge and many other factors to be considered mortal sin. Often, an outsider can not judge these motivations, or understandings. Hence the reason it is impossible to lay out a rule or law that is binding on everyone with such laguage. Capital punshment, abortion, contraception, war; all of these controversial topics are usually sinful. There are however circumstances in which they are allowed. However, again, these circumstances are very rare indeed, sometimes near impossible in today’s age. Yes, a mortal sin is always a sin, but I think I didn’t explain it well enough. If it isn’t a mortal sin, in other words doesn’t meet the criteria, then it isn’t a mortal sin!
Here’s what Webster says of “consent”:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the words, “assent” which according to Webster is synonymous with “consent.” It’s antonym is “dissent” or “disagreement.”
itsjustdave;
Actually, the licit uses of the pill or any contraceptive are clearly listed by the principles set forth. It is us humans staring at them too long looking for a loophole that see grey. We have to remember that the object, the Pill, is not intrinsically evil but the act.
Actually, legalism is what is more commonly known as pharasieesm (sp–ugh) and is following the letter of the law for its own sake ignoring the purpose. What we have to remember is with contraceptives we have a clear cut set of usage standards. However, these usage standards basically rule out their usage.
Actually, if gravity is met and the other two are not–the sin is mortal (still committed) but culpability is diminished or relieved.
Actually, the law of gravity and other physical laws are less merciful than God’s moral law…they hurt regardless of knowledge and consent. God’s laws are still broken even without consent or knowledge and He is merciful. (there is a great passage on this in the Bible–I have found several that drive protestants nuts–Work out your salvation–people who are apart from God still get into heaven–baptism required for heaven–Jesus Christ redeems–faith has saved–etc. seems to really confuse them to make them consistent but they can’t because they are consistent with Catholicism).
As long as it is a grave matter…it is a “mortal” or “grave” sin. However diminished capacity one or two eliminates or reduces culpability.
penWindow(‘cr/1751.htm’)
** The *object *chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience. **penWindow(‘cr/1752.htm’) In contrast to the object, the *intention *resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.penWindow(‘cr/1753.htm’) A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39penWindow(‘cr/1754.htm’) The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.penWindow(‘cr/1756.htm’) It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.