R
Rau
Guest
Oh, it’s there - I missed it. So in the concentration camp, it follows that Perl may have a situation with a child having been born, and then needing to confront the terrible options.
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
Thomas Jefferson wrote of natural human rights in the Declaration of Independence; although he meant adult white males, should it not apply to the embryos and infants per Catholic teaching?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, * that all men are created equal; * that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; * that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; * that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; * that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
R
Rau
Guest
I guess Aiyana, and Consequentialists in general, don’t accept the idea of an inalienable right or the concept that Kant spoke of - I think he called it a “perfect duty”. And certainly not the notion of intrinsic evil. Their focus is drawn to outcomes only, with any act that seems to optimize the outcome deemed acceptable.
A
AiyanaS
Guest
It’s easy for other people to pass judgment, point fingers and criticize the choices of others in a tough situation and who are facing an ethical dilemma, and say what is wrong or right about there choices when looking at the situation in hind site and when the person pointing fingers is somewhere safe and reading or watching a film about the other person. After all, it’s not them who actually has to make the tough call.
What Perl did, I do not think I could do myself but then again, I wasn’t the one in her situation and neither were you.
V
Vico
Guest
There is a difference between determining guilt (moral responsibility) for an act done and determining that an act is objectively wrong.
R
Rau
Guest
That’s clear, and I’ve neither judged Perl (other than to suggest she acted out of compassion) nor nominated how I would cope in the same situation. But I can say what is the morally good course. That’s is a far simpler challenge.
A
AiyanaS
Guest
It still doesn’t change the fact that Perl saved the lives of those women, and allowed them to go on and contribute to society, marry and potentially have more children, when the alternative was she and her unborn child were to die. Or in the case of the infanticide one, the child died or the whole barrack were killed or severely punished upon discovery of the crying baby. I never said any choice was easy, I doubt I could ever do it! Make no mistake about that.
It’s unfortunate the aborted were unable too live, but God knows the day we are born and the day we die, but how we die is determined by a mix of our choices and choices of others. And honestly, it’s going to sound terrible, but He probably intended for those babies to never be born or to have a short existence, created but never meant to ever experience life. Example, He allows babies to die of cancer, He allows stillborns and miscarriages to occur, sometimes more than once. Nothing happens without God first allowing it to happen, even if the outcomes less than ideal.
R
Rau
Guest
I don’t understand the notion of God’s “intentions” as you reference it here. What does that mean? Does it suggests there can be a miscalculation on his part. Or worse, that all that happens is the Will of God? That is clearly not right.
What is God’s “intention” if it is not his Will? I understand God’s Will - that we be with him and like him. The means to that end is set out in the Decalogue and it applies to those who would act with evil intent and also those who would act with noble intent.
A
Abba
Guest
What land did Jesus missed out on?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have no expectation that the following will answer the OP’s issues. And I will admit, up front, that I’m a rather shallow person and not well versed in complex theological matters.
But
Either Jesus gave the Church the authority to instruct with authority or He didn’t. If He didn’t, then the Catholic Church is just another Christian sect, having no more meaning or importance that the Westboro Baptist Church. But if He did, then we have a moral obligation to assent even to those teachings to which we do not agree. Not to do so is sinful.
Possibly my view of sin is inexcusably shallow, but I don’t think of it as something irremediable. I do, however, think of it as something that absolutely must be faced honestly. If the Church says artificial contraception is sinful, then it is. If I do it anyway, then I’m sinning, and must deal with the fact of my sinning.
I think it was historian Kenneth Clark who, comparing the Middle Ages and Renaissance with today, remarked that compared to those people in those eras, moderns “…neither sin well nor repent well…” We don’t sin well because we don’t face the fact that we are simply doing wrong through the act of our own wills. We make excuses, we cavil, we dissent.
No, we should “sin well”. We should admit what we’re doing and, if our will is set on it, do it in full knowledge of its wrongfulness. Then, to “repent well”, we need to admit to it, confess it, at least attempt amendment.
We expect ourselves to be blameless, or at least want to think of ourselves that way. But we’re not, and we never will be. I think maybe it was Chesterton who remarked that the Catholic Church “…is for saints and sinners. For the merely respectable, the Anglican Church will do…”
I, for one, know I’m not a saint, so I am surely a sinner. Didn’t Jesus say even the just man “…falls seven times a day…”? And so, if I fall seven times a day, as Jesus says I do, perhaps I should be looking for those seven events (or more) and spend time examining my life to see those ways in which I sin, instead of trying to figure out a way to think I’m not sinning at all.
And so, if I do not find a way for my mind to rationally conclude that, yes, contraception is wrong (there are plenty of indications that it is) then what’s my duty as a Catholic about that? Well, it’s to assent anyway, to admit I’m in the wrong if I do it, to confess it and to at least make some effort at not doing it. Perhaps if I “sin well” in that regard, then I can also “repent well.”
Is it a challenge to assent to Church teachings even when my own reason refuses to accept them? Of course. But I do have a choice. I can either accept those teachings and be Catholic, or not accept them and be something else.
But
Either Jesus gave the Church the authority to instruct with authority or He didn’t. If He didn’t, then the Catholic Church is just another Christian sect, having no more meaning or importance that the Westboro Baptist Church. But if He did, then we have a moral obligation to assent even to those teachings to which we do not agree. Not to do so is sinful.
Possibly my view of sin is inexcusably shallow, but I don’t think of it as something irremediable. I do, however, think of it as something that absolutely must be faced honestly. If the Church says artificial contraception is sinful, then it is. If I do it anyway, then I’m sinning, and must deal with the fact of my sinning.
I think it was historian Kenneth Clark who, comparing the Middle Ages and Renaissance with today, remarked that compared to those people in those eras, moderns “…neither sin well nor repent well…” We don’t sin well because we don’t face the fact that we are simply doing wrong through the act of our own wills. We make excuses, we cavil, we dissent.
No, we should “sin well”. We should admit what we’re doing and, if our will is set on it, do it in full knowledge of its wrongfulness. Then, to “repent well”, we need to admit to it, confess it, at least attempt amendment.
We expect ourselves to be blameless, or at least want to think of ourselves that way. But we’re not, and we never will be. I think maybe it was Chesterton who remarked that the Catholic Church “…is for saints and sinners. For the merely respectable, the Anglican Church will do…”
I, for one, know I’m not a saint, so I am surely a sinner. Didn’t Jesus say even the just man “…falls seven times a day…”? And so, if I fall seven times a day, as Jesus says I do, perhaps I should be looking for those seven events (or more) and spend time examining my life to see those ways in which I sin, instead of trying to figure out a way to think I’m not sinning at all.
And so, if I do not find a way for my mind to rationally conclude that, yes, contraception is wrong (there are plenty of indications that it is) then what’s my duty as a Catholic about that? Well, it’s to assent anyway, to admit I’m in the wrong if I do it, to confess it and to at least make some effort at not doing it. Perhaps if I “sin well” in that regard, then I can also “repent well.”
Is it a challenge to assent to Church teachings even when my own reason refuses to accept them? Of course. But I do have a choice. I can either accept those teachings and be Catholic, or not accept them and be something else.
A
AiyanaS
Guest
Ok, better wording I guess is, “God willed for those babies to never be born into the world. He intended them to only have a short existence, created but never meant to ever experience life like the rest of us.”
There was no miscalculation, God created them knowing fully well they wouldn’t live long enough too be born, just like he does in miscarriages and still births. And like the miscarried and still born, God created those aborted anyway, for whatever reason, we’ll never know. I said before I know I’ll sounds terrible but life isn’t all peaches and roses. It might not be “right”, but neither is childhood cancer, SIDS, Death from ALS or Huntingtons, a person having to live with Epidermolysis bullosa. All those things aren’t “right” but all didn’t happen without God first saying OK to them. All of the above are the result of poor genetics or changes in body cells that are not the direct fault of another human and like I said before, cannot occur without God allowing them to occur in the first place.
I said before that God knows when we are born and when we die, but not so much of how we die. So if He creates someone and determines that they will only live 4years, 360 days, that child will not live a day less or more than intended. How they die however, is up to there own choices and the choices of others. So it’s not so much His Will for someone too be murdered but it’s His Will that that persons life ends on said day, at said time in some way, because there purpose in life is complete. Yes, it sounds terrible but that’s life for you.
A
Abba
Guest
Great post!
Thank you, Ridgerunner, this helps me. I’m going to take you up on the examining myself daily and determining seven times I sinned throughout the day. I agree, I think in modern times we tend not to acknowledge we sinned or are sinners and, of course, this affects our repentance. It’s that lukewarmness (Rev.3) and relativism and ignorance, it’s as though we have been indoctrinated with it all.
R
Rau
Guest
Ummm…this does not correspond to any notion of God’s Will that I understand. God’s Will is that we be with Him. He provided the decalgoue as the means.
This does not correspond to any notion of God’s Will that is familiar to me. This appears to be a personal view you hold.
It may be life, but it is a mistake to view all that happens in the world as God’s Will. To accept the latter by saying that God Wills results, but not the actions that cause them, appears to be another personal view you hold.
Here’s something I read that addresses this issue:
*"The New Testament makes it crystal clear that not everything that happens is God’s will. For example, Jesus instructed his disciples to pray that God’s will would be done on earth (Matt. 6:10). If everything that happens is God’s will, such prayer is superfluous. In Romans 1:10, Paul said he prayed for “a prosperous journey in the will of God” to see the believers there. Another meaningless prayer? No. The will of God for an individual, whether revealed in the written Word of God or by direct revelation, generally comes to pass only when that person understands it and, by his own, acts accordingly.
Rather than sit passively by waiting for God’s will to happen, we must make a diligent effort to learn God’s Word and then aggressively obey it. God’s will, for example, is that people do not steal [and the rest of the Decalogue…], but rather that they work to earn what they need (Eph. 4:28). Very simple. We just do what He says. But are some people stealing? Yes. If everything that happens were God’s will, then nothing would be sin or disobedience. What a travesty of logic!"*
- Status