Dubia action

[billcu1]

Its ok to take steps to prevent conception in the case of rape. For example the US bishops allow this in catholic hospitals. Such is an act with a good moral object. It is not ok to do anything that could see a conceived child harmed.

OK so this they do to prevent conception is before fertilization, otherwise they would leave an egg or embryo alone. Is that right? I wasn’t sure.

 

[Rau]

OK so this they do to prevent conception is before fertilization, otherwise they would leave an egg or embryo alone. Is that right? I wasn’t sure.

Fertilization & conception are really the same thing. What is forbidden is to destroy or imperil a newly conceived person.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think you are aware Blue that rape is not the conjugal act referred to in Church teaching.

You believe the Church’s natural law teaching on contraception doesn’t apply outside of acts of the validly married then?
I do not believe the Magisterium has ever said that fornication can never be unitive but I am willing to be surprised… but I believe it has been acceptably taught by Catholic moralists that unconsented sex within marriage may not be contracepted…must be somehow unitive then.

So I think it is a little more complicated than you are suggesting perhaps.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Fertilization & conception are really the same thing. What is forbidden is to destroy or imperil a newly conceived person.

You mean a newly conceived human embryo.

The Church has never rescinded the age old traditional teaching that a human soul (and therefore a human person) is only present after “quickening”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You mean a newly conceived human embryo.

The Church has never rescinded the age old traditional teaching that a human soul (and therefore a human person) is only present after “quickening”.

I think you need to recheck your catechism.

Here you go.

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

The Church right here says that a human being exists from the moment of conception.

Now here, also the catechism:

The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

Notice the very last part: "Created immediately by God’.

It is clear from the catechism that a human being–a human person–is present, body and soul, immediately from conception.

 

[Rau]

You believe the Church’s natural law teaching on contraception doesn’t apply outside of acts of the validly married then?.

I believe the church’s teaching on contraception has no application to rape. That is what I said. It is clear. And it is what I meant.

 

[chevalier]

We don’t know that the Holy Father won’t dialogue with these Cardinals. In truth we only know what the Cardinals have made public. I am in no way saying the Cardinals are being less than truthful. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes we will possibly never know. It isn’t required we know all the details, it is required we be faithful to the Church and her leader on earth.

Unfortunately we do know.

Cardinal Burke on 11 April 2017:

I greeted him after the meeting for the College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia before Christmas, but I have not spoken to him, and he has not granted me an audience. So, I don’t know what he is thinking.

We have all heard allusions from Pope Francis about the critics, but that’s not dialogue, that’s underhanded criticism of his own (and sadly characteristic of his manner).

I believe the church’s teaching on contraception has no application to rape. That is what I said. It is clear. And it is what I meant.

Arguments can indeed be made that rape victims don’t choose to engage in intercourse, hence they have a right to prevent conception (in a way that will not abort a foetus). I’d say that in or after rape killing the sperms is okay while they’re still sperms only.

Actually, it’s more than four now. But regardless, he needs to clarify some things. In Argentina and Germany and probably many other places too they are allowing divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion. And in defense of the good Cardinal Burke, I have personal friends who know him…and they say he is a very humble and holy man. I’m currently taking the Fr. Hardon Catechism class and when I finish this fall I get the honor of meeting Cardinal Burke…I’ll let you know what he’s like up close and personal.

The problem with Francis is that he says one thing in public and perhaps not a different thing but a lot more in private, so that the silence puts in question his integrity, especially when stuff like his letters to Argentine bishops comes out that’s so markedly different from his official slience on the subject. And he’s the one we have to thank for bishops in Malta, Germany and other parts of the world claiming his authority to hand out the Holy Communion to divorced and civilly remarried people who are sexually active, and a situation in which the Pope says one thing (after he endorses the liberal cardinals’ explanations of AL) and his doctrinal chief (card. Mueller) says another.

This approach is foolish.
Pope Francis is to be assumed in union with past Popes as is I indicated by all advising Cardinals bar 4.

That is hard to do when he contradicts JP2 on ‘brother and sister’. And forum internum plus even regarding some remarrieds as being in a sort of ‘dire necessity’ would be one thing (and I would support it and believe myself in agreement with the canon lawyers of old time), but the muddy ‘prayerful discerment’ process devised by liberal German cardinals takes things further. And yes, we’ve got Francis to thank for it, with his peculiar manner of handling things and with his views that one can’t really trust because he’s not open and is often evasive or aggressive, hence something’s just simply wrong there.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I believe the church’s teaching on contraception has no application to rape. That is what I said. It is clear. And it is what I meant.

Fascinating that you cannot see the forest because there are clearly only individual trees

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think you need to recheck your catechism.

Here you go.

The Church right here says that a human being exists from the moment of conception.

Now here, also the catechism:

Notice the very last part: "Created immediately by God’.

It is clear from the catechism that a human being–a human person–is present, body and soul, immediately from conception.

I would think twice before giving up your day job to become a scholar.

1. I did not deny that the embryo currently has the same RIGHTS as a person (though traditionally even this was not always so).
2. You have assumed that in Catholic theology/philosophy “human being” and “human person” are univocal terms.

As I observe, as far as I know the Church’s ancient teaching on delayed hominisation has never been explicitly rescinded. Nor has limbo.
While these teachings are no longer mainline the issues have never been, to my knowledge, defined with any certainty and the faithful are free to hold to the ancient teachings if they wish.
In fact DH has been suggested to be on the rise by some experts.

But we are off topic so let’s give it a rest.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That is hard to do when he contradicts JP2 on ‘brother and sister’. And forum internum plus even regarding some remarrieds as being in a sort of ‘dire necessity’ would be one thing (and I would support it and believe myself in agreement with the canon lawyers of old time), but the muddy ‘prayerful discerment’ process devised by liberal German cardinals takes things further. And yes, we’ve got Francis to thank for it, with his peculiar manner of handling things and with his views that one can’t really trust because he’s not open and is often evasive or aggressive, hence something’s just simply wrong there.

That is merely an unproven and unprovable assertion given JPII is deceased.
The most that can be said is that Francis appears to be contradicting a writing of JPII.

According to this simplistic methodology of “contradiction” and disunity then God is at odds with His own creation because it is written in the OT that day and night is caused by the sun’s motion rather than that of the earth.

If you rightly do not accept that then perhaps apply the same hermeneutic to Pope Francis and JPII and the scales will hopefully fall away for you.

 

[chevalier]

That is merely an unproven and unprovable assertion given JPII is deceased.

No, just no. You don’t need both writers to be among the living to compare their writings.

The most that can be said is that Francis appears to be contradicting a writing of JPII.

Appears to be but somehow isn’t?

According to this simplistic methodology of “contradiction” and disunity then God is at odds with His own creation because it is written in the OT that day and night is caused by the sun’s motion rather than that of the earth.

And you talk about ‘simplistic methodology’?

If you rightly do not accept that then perhaps apply the same hermeneutic to Pope Francis and JPII and the scales will hopefully fall away for you.

Did you even read the passages? Did you read Francis’s letter to Argentine bishops?

 

[Rau]

Fascinating that you cannot see the forest because there are clearly only individual trees

A pine tree is a pine tree, despite the presence of other species in the vicinity. :yup:

 

[Tim_D]

Did you even read the passages? Did you read Francis’s letter to Argentine bishops?

That was my question about the encyclical and the dubia; did Blue Horizon even read them because he never once makes mention of anything pertaining to them.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I would think twice before giving up your day job to become a scholar.

1. I did not deny that the embryo currently has the same RIGHTS as a person (though traditionally even this was not always so).
2. You have assumed that in Catholic theology/philosophy “human being” and “human person” are univocal terms.

As I observe, as far as I know the Church’s ancient teaching on delayed hominisation has never been explicitly rescinded. Nor has limbo.
While these teachings are no longer mainline the issues have never been, to my knowledge, defined with any certainty and the faithful are free to hold to the ancient teachings if they wish.
In fact DH has been suggested to be on the rise by some experts.

But we are off topic so let’s give it a rest.

I concur that we are off topic.

And I’ll pray for you and all those in need of prayer.

 

[Tim_D]

And yes, we’ve got Francis to thank for it, with his peculiar manner of handling things and with his views that one can’t really trust because he’s not open and is often evasive or aggressive, hence something’s just simply wrong there.

That is a very good perception. I’ve come to the thought that Pope Francis behaves more like an “activist” priest or bishop than the protector of the Deposit of Faith. Though I gave him the benefit of the doubt at first, I cannot imagine how a man who seems to care less about the sacred Traditions of the Church ever became elected pope.

One of the more (in my opinion) absurd things that he did was to revise the provision for bestowing the title of “Monsignor” only to men 65 years and older to avoid “careerism” in the Church. The only Monsignor I know is a fine priest, a wonderful pastor and does much to aid the diocese. The idea that he is only doing it to advance in the Church is ridiculous.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A pine tree is a pine tree, despite the presence of other species in the vicinity. :yup:

As it was on the water with the America’s Cup so too here. Bye bye Jimmy.
youtube.com/watch?v=CA2xcqNzxX8

https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/ins...loads/sites/21/2017/06/170617_AC35_RP3549.jpg

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, just no. You don’t need both writers to be among the living to compare their writings.

Appears to be but somehow isn’t?

And you talk about ‘simplistic methodology’?

Did you even read the passages? Did you read Francis’s letter to Argentine bishops?

I can see my comments concorded over your head without avertion.
I unfortunately must conclude you do not yet possess an understanding of the commonly accepted themes needed to easily appreciate the contradictions inherent in your approach to the dead versus the living word. God bless.

 

[chevalier]

Dude, I don’t know what you’ve been smoking, but you need to put it down.

 

[chevalier]

In any case, this is what results from AL:

lifesitenews.com/news/canonical-cardinal-clashes-with-doctrinal-cardinal-over-communion-for-adult

Divorced and remarried, unmarried couples living together, are certainly not models of unions in harmony with Catholic doctrine, but the Church cannot look the other way. For which reason the sacraments of Reconciliation and Communion ought to be given also to so-called wounded families and to those who, even though living in situations not in line with the traditional canons on matrimony, express a sincere desire to draw closer to the sacraments after an adequate period of discernment.

The 6th commandment is now ‘traditional canons of matrimony’ to progressive churchmen.

 

[Brendan]

Four out of 220 Cardinals are unhappy with Pope Francis **mainly because their Pride was hurt **in Pope Francis downgrading their titles and duties. .

When did those Cardinals tell you that? Or are you simply presenting your opinon on another’s intentions as some sort of fact?