My viewpoint on Conservative versus Liberal Catholic: The faithful v the fake

[Michael57]

You are equivocating, here. Is a fertilized egg a human being? Yes or No! “Beginning of a human being” won’t cut it. Does a fertilized egg have a soul?

You must have some interesting definition of “equivocating” that I am not familiar with, could you rephrase that comment? I say this, because the post you’re replying to is, to me at least, unequivocal. Perhaps I err in my understanding of it.

Science does not answer when the soul enters the body. Science cannot measure the soul. Most scientists leave that up to theologians to ponder. And the Vatican is clear on the subject.

Your statement about a “blob of cells” sounds a bit uninformed on the subject, either from a scientific perspective or a religious one. It sounds more like a repetition of what many people that advocate for abortion and birth control use when arguing for support of their position.

It also sounds at odds with what the Church knows to be true. But perhaps, again, I misunderstand what you are saying.

Do you support birth control and/or abortion? If so, how do you reconcile that with the teaching of the Church? How is that not a participation in the act of abortion?

 

[adrift]

You are equivocating, here. Is a fertilized egg a human being? Yes or No! “Beginning of a human being” won’t cut it. Does a fertilized egg have a soul?

Why does it make you mad I thought I was clear that the Church teaches that a person has a soul from the moment of conception. Life cannot exist without a soul.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

No, he’s not equivocating. Nor is the Church. A fertilized egg is a human being.

Exactly right.

I do not understand why you want to infuse this commission with some sort of official, binding authority, but then you dismiss the actual Church authority as “the subjective personal opinion of one Pope.” Such emotive language with regards to the pope begs the question. Indeed, this argument only works if we view Church teaching as a numbers game where the “opinion-of-one-commission-of-many-people” is greater than the “opinion-of-one-pope.” Catholic teaching has never been determined by majority vote. And it’s not likely to start anytime soon.

Paul VI sought advice. People advised. But then he – being the one with the actual authority on the matter – spoke the truth. I have always viewed that historical happening as evidence of how the Holy Spirit protects the pope from teaching error even when the world has gone mad around him.

Well put and what I could not express but I wanted to.

You must have some interesting definition of “equivocating” that I am not familiar with, could you rephrase that comment? I say this, because the post you’re replying to is, to me at least, unequivocal. Perhaps I err in my understanding of it.

Science does not answer when the soul enters the body. Science cannot measure the soul. Most scientists leave that up to theologians to ponder. And the Vatican is clear on the subject.

Your statement about a “blob of cells” sounds a bit uninformed on the subject, either from a scientific perspective or a religious one. It sounds more like a repetition of what many people that advocate for abortion and birth control use when arguing for support of their position.

It also sounds at odds with what the Church knows to be true. But perhaps, again, I misunderstand what you are saying.

Do you support birth control and/or abortion? If so, how do you reconcile that with the teaching of the Church? How is that not a participation in the act of abortion?

Good points! You are correct in that the Church is clear on this matter.

 

[ffg]

You are equivocating, here. Is a fertilized egg a human being? Yes or No! “Beginning of a human being” won’t cut it. Does a fertilized egg have a soul?

As others have stated, in short, yes.

Some fun analysis -

I’m sure some parents would love it if a kid came out the shute ready to walk, eat, etc.

These things come about due to a developmental process through time.

If the purpose of the human being was to be born upon conception and the mother was to care for the child outside the womb to begin, that would have been the way God made us.

But it’s not. That doesn’t change the ‘what’ we are because we can’t see the subject.

Currently, though not right or good, we can develop human beings in petri dishes. Maybe it would help some people to just leave the early human in the dish, set the dish under a heat lamp, setup a time lapse camera, and wait 16 years.

Probably wouldn’t be too comfortable for the person.

But might help someone realize that what is, is.

Think of it like this, you can’t get green without Yellow and blue, right? Once you mix them, you certainly don’t have yellow or blue anymore, and you don’t have to wait for green to show up, it just is.

 

[Moonbug]

Why does it make you mad I thought I was clear that the Church teaches that a person has a soul from the moment of conception. Life cannot exist without a soul.

Exactly right.

Well put and what I could not express but I wanted to.

Good points! You are correct in that the Church is clear on this matter.

Up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are flushed out of the uterus usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.

“During this stage the blastocyst can still be eliminated by being flushed out of the uterus. Scientists have hypothesized that the hormones cause a swelling that fills the flattened out uterine cavity just prior to this stage, which may also help press the blastocyst against the endometrium.[6] The implantation window may also be initiated by other preparations in the endometrium of the uterus, both structurally and in the composition of its secretions.”

 NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE----NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH

Why does God place souls in these fertilized eggs and then lets them die?

 

[adrift]

Up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are flushed out of the uterus usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.

“During this stage the blastocyst can still be eliminated by being flushed out of the uterus. Scientists have hypothesized that the hormones cause a swelling that fills the flattened out uterine cavity just prior to this stage, which may also help press the blastocyst against the endometrium.[6] The implantation window may also be initiated by other preparations in the endometrium of the uterus, both structurally and in the composition of its secretions.”

 NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE----NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH

Why does God place souls in these fertilized eggs and then lets them die?

I have been looking for the source of this information but I will have to keep looking. After looking on the National Institute Of Health web site I could not find your statement. I did find it all over the web of those who promote abortion. I wonder why they like this since it really has nothing to do with when life starts. I have wondered about how they came up with the percentage which seem ridiculous to me. How in the world would they come up with this? How would they know? But it besides the point. The indication of your question is because there is spontaneous abortions then it follows they couldn’t have souls.

However:
Conception = life
Life=soul

I can’t tell you why God created people He knew would go to hell. I can’t tell you why anyone dies including those who die shortly after birth. It is makes more sense to me that He would create souls that would spend eternity with Him who never sinned against Him. Although it is not known what happens to these souls, I believe that they are enjoying perfect bliss.

 

[Moonbug]

I have been looking for the source of this information but I will have to keep looking. After looking on the National Institute Of Health web site I could not find your statement. I did find it all over the web of those who promote abortion. I wonder why they like this since it really has nothing to do with when life starts. I have wondered about how they came up with the percentage which seem ridiculous to me. How in the world would they come up with this? How would they know? But it besides the point. The indication of your question is because there is spontaneous abortions then it follows they couldn’t have souls.

However:
Conception = life
Life=soul

I can’t tell you why God created people He knew would go to hell. I can’t tell you why anyone dies including those who die shortly after birth. It is makes more sense to me that He would create souls that would spend eternity with Him who never sinned against Him. Although it is not known what happens to these souls, I believe that they are enjoying perfect bliss./QUOT

My apology for using the logo. Would have preferred to use an irritation logo, but couldn’t find one. The info below might help. but if you would prefer to read the entire article, please Google: IMPLICATIONS OF DEFINING WHEN A WOMAN IS PREGNANT.

When Is a Woman Pregnant?

To be sure, not every act of intercourse results in a pregnancy. First, ovulation (i.e., the monthly release of a woman’s egg) must occur. Then, the egg must be fertilized. Fertilization describes the process by which a single sperm gradually penetrates the layers of an egg to form a new cell (“zygote”). This usually occurs in the fallopian tubes and can take up to 24 hours. There is only a short window during which an egg can be fertilized. If fertilization does not occur during that time, the egg dissolves and then hormonal changes trigger menstruation; however, if fertilization does occur, the zygote divides and differentiates into a “preembryo” while being carried down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. Implantation of the preembryo in the uterine lining begins about five days after fertilization. Implantation can be completed as early as eight days or as late as 18 days after fertilization, but usually takes about 14 days. Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete.

Source: American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists.

 

[Rete]

For the purpose of the actual point made in the OP, the fact that you have denied the validity and truth of the encyclical Humanae Vitae places you solidly outside of the orthodox Catholic camp.

You are basically a Protestant who calls himself Catholic. If you were Catholic, then you would have recognized the infallibility conferred on such decisions by the Holy Spirit.

If anything, that encyclical convinces me more than anything else that the Holy Spirit guards the Church from error. Here you had a liberal Pope appoint a lot of liberal academics to “decide” whether it is okay to practice birth control. Not only did he break from the modernists who expected him to allow it, he composed an extremely prophetic document describing exactly what would happen in nations where it was legalized.

But all that is beside the point. I don’t think it is very honest of you to call yourself a Catholic and dissent from that encyclical as if it is in error. If you honestly believe it is in error, then you are a Protestant for exactly the same reason as Martin Luther was a Protestant. You reject Papal authority or even the validity of all Church councils.

 

[Michael57]

A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete.

Source: American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists.

So, what’s your point? You have offered no proof of your assertion.

I am more than qualified to know and understand what the academic description of life is and how it applies to human reproduction. You’re not even making a case one way or the other.

And you clearly disagree with the doctrine of the Church.

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.

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

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.
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.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.

“A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.

The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

That is from the CCC at the Vatican website.

 

[adrift]

My apology for using the logo. Would have preferred to use an irritation logo, but couldn’t find one. The info below might help. but if you would prefer to read the entire article, please Google: IMPLICATIONS OF DEFINING WHEN A WOMAN IS PREGNANT.

When Is a Woman Pregnant?
.

I tried to Google it but I didn’t find what you are quoting from. I would love to know how they determined that" Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant." How can they possible now that to be true?
But as I said before it doesn’t matter. A fertilized egg is a new life with a soul. A soul exist from conception. To interfere with that life to cause death is a mortal sin.

 

[Starrsmother]

I tried to Google it but I didn’t find what you are quoting from. I would love to know how they determined that" Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant." How can they possible now that to be true?
But as I said before it doesn’t matter. A fertilized egg is a new life with a soul. A soul exist from conception. To interfere with that life to cause death is a mortal sin.

I agree–a baby is a baby from the moment of conception. You might look up “blighted ovum” on line to answer part of your question though and “statisitcal rates for early spontaneous abortion” to answer the other part. Just a suggestion–no advice meant.

 

[Moonbug]

I tried to Google it but I didn’t find what you are quoting from. I would love to know how they determined that" Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant." How can they possible now that to be true?
But as I said before it doesn’t matter. A fertilized egg is a new life with a soul. A soul exist from conception. To interfere with that life to cause death is a mortal sin.

I have no idea, but an educated guess would be the controlled study of a viable statistical study of the menstrual discharges of a given number of women, who meet the broad requirements of the given statistical spectrum over a period of time. I would assume a great deal of microscopic study and classification would be involved. But what do I know.

Stick to your guns. I’ve had my say. Chow !

 

[Starrsmother]

I have no idea, but an educated guess would be the controlled study of a viable statistical study of the menstrual discharges of a given number of women, who meet the broad requirements of the given statistical spectrum over a period of time. I would assume a great deal of microscopic study and classification would be involved. But what do I know.

Stick to your guns. I’ve had my say. Chow !

Moonbug is on target. Stick to your guns-- there are studies out there if you care to investigate. Either way, does it matter–if God creates a life and chooses to take that life to be with Him–even if it’s prior to a woman realizing that she’s pregnant–that is significantly different than man making that decision for God, right? Genetics (and things that make a pregnancy viable or non-viable) is a bit of a **** shoot–but God never is.

 

[adrift]

I agree–a baby is a baby from the moment of conception. You might look up “blighted ovum” on line to answer part of your question though and “statisitcal rates for early spontaneous abortion” to answer the other part. Just a suggestion–no advice meant.

Thank you for your reply. It doesn’t really answer my questions concerning this statement

Up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are flushed out of the uterus usually before the woman knows she is pregnant

I just can’t understand how they could determine this especially since they state that even the women might not know she is pregnant.

I have no idea, but an educated guess would be the controlled study of a viable statistical study of the menstrual discharges of a given number of women, who meet the broad requirements of the given statistical spectrum over a period of time. I would assume a great deal of microscopic study and classification would be involved. But what do I know.

I have not been able to find any documentation of any studies done. Educated guess has to be based on something. That something is what I am looking for the past thirty years. None of what I can find states how they get the statistics. It is stated as unquestioned fact. A fact which frankly doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[CrossBro]

I agree–a baby is a baby from the moment of conception. You might look up “blighted ovum” on line to answer part of your question though and “statisitcal rates for early spontaneous abortion” to answer the other part. Just a suggestion–no advice meant.

Please do not use the term “spontaneous abortion”.

That is a term made up by Planned Parenthood to make women feel empowered that it is okay to murder a son or a daughter.

Makes it sound like there is no line between murder and nature.

 

[adrift]

Moonbug is on target. Stick to your guns-- there are studies out there if you care to investigate. Either way, does it matter–if God creates a life and chooses to take that life to be with Him–even if it’s prior to a woman realizing that she’s pregnant–that is significantly different than man making that decision for God, right? Genetics (and things that make a pregnancy viable or non-viable) is a bit of a **** shoot–but God never is.

You are correct in your final conclusions. Why does it matter because the first time I heard these statements was in support of abortion. I do believe that truth matters. I just cannot understand how there could be studies of this that would be truthful. But there could be and so I would like to understand where it comes from. If there are studies out there, I haven’t found them but I am still looking.

 

[adrift]

, the pill was invented by a Catholic doctor.

I thought this would be an easy search but it turned out to be complicated. According to one source the so called morning after pill was developed by Dr Carl Djerassi who came from a Jewish back ground. Other sources says it was built on the development of the pill and no one invented it.

As for the pill, that too was complicated, Gregory Goodwin Pincus is said to be the co-inventor with , Frank Colton both of whom were Jews.

 

[adrift]

I thought this would be an easy search but it turned out to be complicated. According to one source the so called morning after pill was developed by Dr Carl Djerassi who came from a Jewish back ground. Other sources says it was built on the development of the pill and no one invented it.

As for the pill, that too was complicated, Gregory Goodwin Pincus is said to be the co-inventor with , Frank Colton both of whom were Jews.

I have just found the Catholic that is being referred to his name was John Rock. He helped Pincus in developing the pill by conducting the clinical trials. In the end, he couldn’t accept the teachings he tried to subvert and ended up as a fallen away Catholic but he is not credited with the invention that was Pincus.

 

[Starrsmother]

Thank you for your reply. It doesn’t really answer my questions concerning this statement

I just can’t understand how they could determine this especially since they state that even the women might not know she is pregnant.

I have not been able to find any documentation of any studies done. Educated guess has to be based on something. That something is what I am looking for the past thirty years. None of what I can find states how they get the statistics. It is stated as unquestioned fact. A fact which frankly doesn’t make sense to me.

God bless you my friend and I understand your confusion. If you’d like to PM me privately, I’d be happy to give you the detail you are wanting to know–but I already got nailed once on here because I attempted to answer a medical question–a very simple one about how certain forms of contraception work. I was informed that giving medical opinion is against forum rules–which I admit that I’d been lax in reading initially–so I am now VERY careful. I am a Catholic provider and feel personally, that one of the greatest tools that we have in fighting abortion, abortificant contraception, IVF and so on is the TRUTH! Knowledge and truth are what most abortion facilities and many fertility specialists do NOT want women to know in any way–as women aren’t heartless creatures as a whole who really would suffocate their own baby because he or she arrived at an inconvenient time–much less allow that baby to be cut into small pieces and ripped from their womb–if they truly knew the WHOLE unpleasant truth!!. Ignorance is often bliss and KNOWLEDGE is a great tool. It has helped me many times in counselling with young women faced with undesired pregnancy–and many other issues–and I am a big believer that the more women know–the easier it is to help them make moral choices. I’ve often thought that if we would just begin a concentrated effort to educate girls and women as to how their reproductive systems work, even how we can influence our own chances of getting certain cancers and other issues–that we could change our society’s morals. Secular society spends tons of time and tax dollars teaching our kids how to put on a condom or where they can get an abortion without parental involvement–but we spend virtually NO time teaching them the TRUTH!! Believe me–Jesus stated an undeniable FACT when he said that laws were made FOR man not the other way around. There are valid biological reasons why women (and men) should maintain the virtues in Catholic teaching–besides simply not committing mortal sin. I doubt that our popes and hierarchy even KNOW the true biological reasons that what they teach is right----they are not medical professionals after all! Catholic teaching is often inspired by God. But God takes care of us–and He has lead His church correctly–if we would only listen. The problem is that today, often women want a reason for not doing something beyond “Because it’s a sin!”–and that is what I have always tried to give my ladies----with, I dare say, a fairly positive outcome over all–much better for sure than when I use the “Because it’s a sin approach”–as that’s usually when a woman turns you off!!!

BUT, I don’t want to break a forum rule and get thrown off here. Yes, there’s a study–more than one infact—on the question you asked. The results can never be 100%–but they can be close. One example of such a study is a still on-going study that’s been in process for over 50 years on a variety of health issues. It is called “The Nurses Study” which tells you where they got their research group. If you want more info–as I said, get with me personally. I prefer not to take any chance of offending the powers that be on here though, as I do enjoy participating and learn many things myself through this venue!

 

[Michael57]

There are valid biological reasons why women (and men) should maintain the virtues in Catholic teaching–besides simply not committing mortal sin. ** I doubt that our popes and hierarchy even KNOW the true biological reasons that what they teach is right**----they are not medical professionals after all! Catholic teaching is often inspired by God.

Now that’s very funny! (You were kidding, right?)

Were you not aware that many of the ordained that have extensive science (and math) training?

Even Pope Francis is a trained Chemist, which, I dare say, speaks better of his understanding of chemistry, biology, and biochemistry than most “medical professionals” who may spend a semester or two studying hard science at the freshman/sophomore level before concentrating on their specialty.

Why even the scientist that hypothesized “The Big Bang” was a priest! And most physics major that I’ve run across tend to look down their noses at all other sciences. (And most Math majors tend to look down their noses at physicists…, always the pecking order in science, eh? But I digress…)

Don’t sell our ordained short on what their education brings to their understanding of the human condition.

 

[Starrsmother]

Now that’s very funny! (You were kidding, right?)

Were you not aware that many of the ordained that have extensive science (and math) training?

Even Pope Francis is a trained Chemist, which, I dare say, speaks better of his understanding of chemistry, biology, and biochemistry than most “medical professionals” who may spend a semester or two studying hard science at the freshman/sophomore level before concentrating on their specialty.

Why even the scientist that hypothesized “The Big Bang” was a priest! And most physics major that I’ve run across tend to look down their noses at all other sciences. (And most Math majors tend to look down their noses at physicists…, always the pecking order in science, eh? But I digress…)

Don’t sell our ordained short on what their education brings to their understanding of the human condition.

No, I wasn’t kidding at all–not the tiniest bit. I don’t discount anyone’s education–including any pope’s. An education even in chemistry however, is not the same as a medical education and training in terms of understanding how many modern medical items work–and I rather doubt Pope Francis would claim otherwise. Because, it just isn’t–period. Having said that, it seems to me that you deliberately missed my point–which was that it doesn’t and hasn’t taken a doctor in medicine in the church to tell Catholics when something is right or wrong–particularly noticeable with the advent in recent years of artificial contraception. The popes and the church in Rome have been condemning such since the advent of it–and not because all or most of these popes were experts in medicine. They did believe in divine revelation however–and I do too. Much as God once told the OT Jews not to eat pork–because He knew they wouldn’t know how to cook it properly and it could be dangerous to them–Jesus continues to guide His people even today. I remember when oral contraceptives first came out and “everyone” (whomever that is) listened to Rome decry their use and responded with a shrug “Well, what would you expect? They’re just a bunch of fat old white bachelors who want to see women barefoot and pregnant and not have rights. It’s the 60’s after all!” And even many Catholics felt the same: “If the pope had to have 10 kids and feed and pay for them, the pill would be a sacrament !” I’m simply stating that it doesn’t take a big education sometimes–but only a little faith----and God tells his church the truth. Sometimes He doesn’t tell His church everything at the beginning–such as in the case of the pill where only now (nearly 70 years later) science begins to see the results of some of these hormonal uses (just to name one thing) on women who have used them over a number of years in their lifetime. And guess what? The pope and church were right! Go figure! The church said “It is a sin!” Medicine now says “Well, there are all these little side effect things we’re starting to see…” Could God be working within His church to let our Pope and leadership know when to tell us No"–much as we might tell a 5 year old “No” without giving them a detailed explanation for something they want–as they aren’t able to understand all the ramifications yet? Sometimes I think that’s part of believing in Divine Revelation–and what it’s all about. We don’t always have to know why–only have faith and believe! And frankly, I think that’s pretty cool!!!