Non-Catholic religions and abortion

[zearro]

That’s why we need to get to know God, first, which means that we have to be people of prayer, and we have to be sincere seekers after Truth.

We have to be like scientists, looking for what God actually is, rather than trying to fit Him into our preconceived ideas, or tell Him what He ought to be. In order to do that, we have to read history, read the Bible, listen to the Saints, and listen to the Church - we can’t rely on our own wishful thinking.

I don’t approve of wishful thinking either. Quite right get the facts

 

[zearro]

Do you think that we are equal with God, or that we can stand and reason with God?

If there was an omnipotent and omniscient God I could hardly be in a position to argue equality with such a being and obviously his reasoning would be superior. **So agreed **but here is the rub

You have said that Abraham knew that Jehovah was good because he was the creator (see one of your previous posts). However we know of **many claims **for other creator Gods. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods. Brahma the creator teaches the caste system and rebirth both doctrines which are considered to be heretical by the catholic church. So Jehovah and Brahma can’t be the same God. ( Some Hindus would argue that they were but I don’t expect that of a catholic without them at the same time falling into heresy)

So using your argument I could say that do you think that we are equal with Brahma, or that we can stand to reason with Brahma

Further I could say who are you to deny those truths revealed by the great Brahma to his chosen ones. (I wouldn’t but I could):

Thus with Abraham we don’t know why he was convinced that the Being who revealed itself to him was the creator. The being may have been powerful but deluded or Abraham simply got the wrong end of the stick.

You could argue likewise that those who claim Brahma revealed himself to them may well have met a very powerful but deluded being

Now Brahma and Jehovah do not teach the same thing, so by what criteria do we know which is the true creator God?,

Well as you said in another post you would have to get to know them. So how would you decide that Brahma was not the genuine article?

 

[zearro]

That is absurd.

This is in response to my assertion that there are no principles behind catholic morality other than obedience. ( I brought this up because I was arguing that catholicism was right to be anti abortion but there were no moral principles behind their stance unlike Buddhism).

**I would be very interested to know what those principles are **. I have been asking this question of Christians for a very long time and you are the first to argue that such principles exist. I was even told by one Calvinist that I was mistaken if I thought Christianity was about morality. He refused to elaborate.

 

[zearro]

That is absurd.

Ok. I am sure most anybody with freedom of belief has pursued/avoided God in different ways/levels of enthusiasm throughout their life if they are fortunate to live long enough.

The error you perceive in the God I know can be answered logically and with reason to include the moral principle of the question at hand.

I think that the probability of a creator God is highly unlikely. So it is not a question of seeing error in God than it is of seeing error in Brahm because one sees error in Hinduism.

The legitimacy of who/what claims authority is long debated. Indeed

Mine are:
Does God exist? What is God? Who am I to God?

Each of those questions can have different answers to people at different times in their lives. Each question spawns new questions and the answers change or do not get answered right away if ever. It is a life long quest for many.

At some point however we must make firm decisions about those questions and simplify the answers otherwise we tend to wander like a blind man and that can be unhealthy. Agreed

I took about a year before I answered the first question definitively-Yes. It took me abot three yers to decide the Christin God defintely does not exist (shrug)

Over 15 years…the second question has become much more defined now, but its not something that a human will ever fully answer or understand. There is a lot to consider if being fair, and I want to be fair at least to myself. The simplest answer to #2 you might recognize without much debate is- I Am.

The third question is like the second but started much later and is less developed. Right now my answer is- I have been given at least 1 talent. So have you.

Diplomacy is for coming to common agreement and that is not always the desired result, as in this case. It was the principles behind the morality that convinced me I was wrong in my earlier belief regarding the unborn.

It was one of the last moral dilemas I faced before returning to the Sacraments, and it was not blind obedience that brought me to the conclusion I now hold. OK appreciate your approach will reply to the last part of your post in a seperate post

I’ll answer this posed to another.

We don’t know the fate of any soul, past, present or future.

Here is what we do know.

I accept as authority the one who is understood to be speaking that verse. Myth would not support the reality of His impact. Man is given life. It is not ours to take.

I am not sure if you have a problem with the Church as an institution or the dogma or both, but you haven’t made your case whatever it is.

 

[Verisimilitude]

This is in response to my assertion that there are no principles behind catholic morality other than obedience. ( I brought this up because I was arguing that catholicism was right to be anti abortion but there were no moral principles behind their stance unlike Buddhism).

**I would be very interested to know what those principles are **. I have been asking this question of Christians for a very long time and you are the first to argue that such principles exist. I was even told by one Calvinist that I was mistaken if I thought Christianity was about morality. He refused to elaborate.

Well, you are wrong about the moral principles and Catholicism and if you want something more than my last post which I though clarified it- be more specific…or give Buddhist example so I see what criteria you are using.

Other than that I am off to bed.

 

[zearro]

snip…I’ll answer this posed to another.

We don’t know the fate of any soul, past, present or future.

Here is what we do know.

I accept as authority the one who is understood to be speaking that verse. Myth would not support the reality of His impact. Man is given life. It is not ours to take.

I am not sure if you have a problem with the Church as an institution or the dogma or both, but you haven’t made your case whatever it is.

.

I am not making a case for abortion. The case I 'm making is quite different.** I 'm anti abortion**. On that score there is no case for me to make. I m not required to argue for a position that I disagree with!.

OK with regard to ‘We don’t know the fate of any soul, past, present or future’. I will answer this by assuming that you are catholic. If I am wrong then this answer is wasted.** I am going to disagree with your assertion by saying that a catholic cannot hold your position without denying papal infallibilty**.

I m going to quote from the papal bull **‘On the Beatific Vision of God’ Benedictus Deus. Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336 **
The first thing to note in this bull is that the declaration is forever and ever.

The second that it is made with apostolic authority

Thirdly that the Bull because of the general nature of its contents is obviously for the instruction of the whole church.

So this bull meets the reqirements of speaking ex cathedra.

The bull explicitly says that baptised children who die before they reach the age of free will go to heaven immediately after birth (there my be delay in purgatory for some categories but this may not apply to the children. Here is the bull in full.

papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html

On the Beatific Vision of God
Benedictus Deus
Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336

By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ- provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, or will not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if they then needed or will need some purification, after they have been purified after death-**and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death **and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essense with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence . Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment.
Such a vision and enjoyment of the divine essence do away with the acts of faith and hope in these souls, inasmuch as faith and hope are properly theological virtues. And after such intuitive and face-to-face vision and enjoyment has or will have begun for these souls, the same vision and enjoyment has continued and will continue without any interruption and without end until the last Judgment and from then on forever.
(On hell and the general judgment)
Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell. Nevertheless, on the day of judgment all men will appear with their bodies “before the judgment seat of Christ” to give an account of their personal deeds, “so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor. 5.10).

 

[zearro]

Well, you are wrong about the moral principles and Catholicism and if you want something more than my last post which I though clarified it- be more specific…or give Buddhist example so I see what criteria you are using.

Other than that I am off to bed.

I have mentioned in other posts that the criteria which Buddhism uses for morality is to empathise with anothers’ suffering. This is one of the main reasons that Buddhism is anti abortion. There are others. This principle is absoltue in that it is extended as far as humanly possible so that it also includes the animal kingdom. Catholicism does not take the principle of refraining from causing suffering to innocents to its logical conclusion so it cannot be considered as an underlieing criteria behind its morality. I hvae argued this in full elsewhere so enough for now and sleep well.

 

[iamrefreshed]

**O I agree **but then I have never said that an evil act could be made good from the perpetrator’s point of view. But in this case the victim gets the benefit of eternal salvation - that can’t be denied. It could be argued that it is not an evil act But I for one would not take that stance.

Who’s to say what that murdered child might have accomplised in life and where they may have been in God’s plan?

Could they have become a saint?
Could their place in heaven been greater?

With your logic we should abort all children.

When you begin to apply ‘what ifs’ your logic deteroriates.

 

[estesbob]

Who’s to say what that murdered child might have accomplised in life and where they may have been in God’s plan?

Could they have become a saint?
Could their place in heaven been greater?

With your logic we should abort all children.

When you begin to apply ‘what ifs’ your logic deteroriates.

Dont you just love being lectured on Catholic theology by a Buddhist?

 

[PaulDupre]

.

I am not making a case for abortion. The case I 'm making is quite different.** I 'm anti abortion**. On that score there is no case for me to make. I m not required to argue for a position that I disagree with!.

OK with regard to ‘We don’t know the fate of any soul, past, present or future’. I will answer this by assuming that you are catholic. If I am wrong then this answer is wasted.** I am going to disagree with your assertion by saying that a catholic cannot hold your position without denying papal infallibilty**.

I m going to quote from the papal bull **‘On the Beatific Vision of God’ Benedictus Deus. Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336 **
The first thing to note in this bull is that the declaration is forever and ever.

The second that it is made with apostolic authority

Thirdly that the Bull because of the general nature of its contents is obviously for the instruction of the whole church.

So this bull meets the reqirements of speaking ex cathedra.

The bull explicitly says that baptised children who die before they reach the age of free will go to heaven immediately after birth (there my be delay in purgatory for some categories but this may not apply to the children. Here is the bull in full.

papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html

On the Beatific Vision of God
Benedictus Deus
Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336

By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ- provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, or will not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if they then needed or will need some purification, after they have been purified after death-**and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death **and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essense with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence . Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment.
Such a vision and enjoyment of the divine essence do away with the acts of faith and hope in these souls, inasmuch as faith and hope are properly theological virtues. And after such intuitive and face-to-face vision and enjoyment has or will have begun for these souls, the same vision and enjoyment has continued and will continue without any interruption and without end until the last Judgment and from then on forever.
(On hell and the general judgment)
Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell. Nevertheless, on the day of judgment all men will appear with their bodies “before the judgment seat of Christ” to give an account of their personal deeds, “so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor. 5.10).

You poor confused fool.:nope:
Paul

 

[Verisimilitude]

OK with regard to ‘We don’t know the fate of any soul, past, present or future’. I will answer this by assuming that you are catholic. If I am wrong then this answer is wasted.** I am going to disagree with your assertion by saying that a catholic cannot hold your position without denying papal infallibilty**

I’ll confine my response to the specific question posed rather than the entire Bull which would take us off tangent and pose tougher questions. The 14th century was a strange time. It should be noted there was a period of patrology which resulted in the Bull being published. It seems the Pope espoused this view and the controversy caused him to vet his concept with theologians. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity or conclusion.

Though my declaration was given with respect to the average person I stand corrected by it in the larger view. Apparently we do know the fate of some. It makes logical sense that since the Resurrection, those few with merit and the many with no fault or sin to expiate (BC & AD souls) join God maybe immediately. It’s comforting to know and does nothing to contradict my faith. I do not begrudge their grace, but life is to be lived and many missed the opportunity.

Luke 12:7
" Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.

 

[zearro]

Who’s to say what that murdered child might have accomplised in life and where they may have been in God’s plan?

Could they have become a saint?
Could their place in heaven been greater?

With your logic we should abort all children.

When you begin to apply ‘what ifs’ your logic deteroriates.

Hey I don’t write catholic papal bulls even this one which speaks ex cathedra.! I m just pointing out some logical conclusions if you claim it to be true! Also I am not saying catholics should not put their own salvation before that of their children. I m not saying they must kill their children.It is only those catholics who want to 100% guarantee their child’s salvation and don’t want to take any chances and are prepared to go to hell who may consider this option. I don’t expect there to be any takers!

You’re are talking about potential I m talking about certainty. Also I am not talking abortion but infanticide. The church does not baptise foetuses. The catholic will have to wait until the child is born, baptise it and then kill it. So yes if all children baptised as catholics (unbaptised children don’t have the same certainty) lose their life before the age of free will ALL of them will go to heaven. **A catholic must believe this. ** He can’t deny that they go to heaven.

**So I m not saying that catholics should logically kill ALL children **but only baptised children whose salvation is assured. Unbaptised children’s salvation is not assured. It would be cruel to kill the unbaptised. As foetuses do not have the right to baptism it would also be cruel to abort them.

**According to catholic dogma **t all (100%) baptised children who die before the age of free will go to heaven. GUARANTEED

It is **not guaranteed **that they will become saints. It is not guarnteed that they will not go to hell. You may stop some people from experiencing a higher place in heaven but you will also give others the opportunity to spend an eternity in hell. Half loaf is better than none. A lower place in heaven for all is better than an eternity in hell for some plus the occasional saint.

If you want to pit certainty against potential remember that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Better to save ALL the children than to damn many for the possibility of a saint.

DON*T YOU WANT AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO BE SAVED OR DO YOU WANT TO JEOPORDISE THE SALVATION OF SOME FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF A SAINT?.

BETTER THAT YOU GO TO HELL SO THAT AS MANY AS POSSIBLE CAN GO TO HEAVEN. IT WOULD BE FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

The best solution for catholics is not to have children. Then no child will be born who may go to hell (and some defintely will). Don’t give birth to children and you won’t have to worry whether they will be saved or damned and at the time you don’t risk your own salvation. i:thumbsup:

 

[zearro]

I’ll confine my response to the specific question posed rather than the entire Bull which would take us off tangent and pose tougher questions. The 14th century was a strange time. It should be noted there was a period of patrology which resulted in the Bull being published. It seems the Pope espoused this view and the controversy caused him to vet his concept with theologians. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity or conclusion.

Though my declaration was given with respect to the average person I stand corrected by it in the larger view. Apparently we do know the fate of some. It makes logical sense that since the Resurrection, those few with merit and the many with no fault or sin to expiate (BC & AD souls) join God maybe immediately. It’s comforting to know and does nothing to contradict my faith. I do not begrudge their grace, but life is to be lived and many missed the opportunity.

This is a good segue to your other response about extending compassion as much as humanly possible to animals. It’s notable that humans can extend compassion whereas animals cannot; domesticated animals notwithstanding but it is limited. Nowhere is abuse of anything created to include animals in dogma or doctrine. If you consider this:

It could rightly be concluded this was the original intent, just as our lifespan may have been as long as Methuselah. But after the Fall:

Animals are special too, but not equal with humans. It is not a thing to be ashamed of and it is not a mystery. It was Able’s offering that pleased God, and God saved animals with Noah. All things should be handled with care and respect it deserves but fishing and hunting are reasonable activities. Start another thread about animals and their processing to the table if you want to though I doubt I will join it. As far as this thread goes we are in agreement that human life is worth protecting in all its stages.

Heaven is our goal now, but it might not have always been had we never left Gods presence to begin with. I think your idealism is like the Original Intent rather than the reality of our Original Sin. We can’t and maybe shouldn’t live according to that intent today. Either way there is only one Original God.

The 3 years you took to conclude the Christian God not existing should be revisited.

Every time I debate it I revisit it lol!

I agree that the catholic sees the human as having a higher position than the animal and I fully recognise that those scriptures support that view. I also recognise that catholics do not believe that animals should be treated cruelly for fun and hopefully they minimise that cruelty in terms of using the poor beasts for food etc. I think catholics in wealthy contries could go further and restrict themselves to a healthy vegetarian diet. This would certainly apply to those Catholics who argue against abortion on the grounds of the foetus’s suffering (rather than just obedience to God’s will)…

I was saying there is a danger in espousing morality based on obedience to God’s will. You can ignore the suffering of another if you believe God’s will permits it., For example some Christian’s believe that God’s will permits abortion at least in certain circmstances. I would like to see principle of minimising suffering being given more importance in catholic morality. I think they could get some ideas from Buddhism in that respect.

There you are I conclude right back on topic - non catholic religions and abortion

 

[fierysword1920]

What in hell is even being talked about here. Catholic morality being questioned based on the fact that we eat red meat? What has this got to do with abortion. Also what is the deal with Catholic people not having kids or rather shouldn’t have kids. Last I knew Catholics, like myself are concerned with all peoples salvation. Yes people will go to hell, maybe myself included, nobody knows for certain. People have got to stop putting limitations on Almighty God’s power. We cannot rationalize him in our own regard or understanding, at least not completely or even close. God has a plan for all people on this earth and nothing happens good or bad first without God’s approval on it.

Every time I debate it I revisit it lol!

I agree that the catholic sees the human as having a higher position than the animal and I fully recognise that those scriptures support that view. I also recognise that catholics do not believe that animals should be treated cruelly for fun and hopefully they minimise that cruelty in terms of using the poor beasts for food etc. I think catholics in wealthy contries could go further and restrict themselves to a healthy vegetarian diet. This would certainly apply to those Catholics who argue against abortion on the grounds of the foetus’s suffering (rather than just obedience to God’s will)…

I was saying there is a danger in espousing morality based on obedience to God’s will. You can ignore the suffering of another if you believe God’s will permits it., For example some Christian’s believe that God’s will permits abortion at least in certain circmstances. I would like to see principle of minimising suffering being given more importance in catholic morality. I think they could get some ideas from Buddhism in that respect.

There you are I conclude right back on topic - non catholic religions and abortion

 

[estesbob]

Hey I don’t write catholic papal bulls even this one which speaks ex cathedra.!

With you superb insight to the Catholicreligion perhaps you could lecture us on the meaning and importance of papal Bulls, their realtionship to encyclicals and Pastoral letters, their place in the Magestrium, the history of their use and the amount of auhtority they project.

Or did you just find the usual anti-Catholic web site, cut a cite allegedly from a papal bull , paste it here and like Jack Horner declare "what a good boy I am.

 

[zearro]

What in hell is even being talked about here. Catholic morality being questioned based on the fact that we eat red meat? What has this got to do with abortion. Also what is the deal with Catholic people not having kids or rather shouldn’t have kids. Last I knew Catholics, like myself are concerned with all peoples salvation. Yes people will go to hell, maybe myself included, nobody knows for certain. People have got to stop putting limitations on Almighty God’s power. We cannot rationalize him in our own regard or understanding, at least not completely or even close. God has a plan for all people on this earth and nothing happens good or bad first without God’s approval on it.

In short there are no principles behind catholic morality other than obedience. Catholics being anti abortion is good but their moral argument is weak.

For example if you say abortion is wrong because an innocent suffers. This is within everyone’s experience. If you say it is wrong *Because my God commands it so’ then this is not within everybodies experience. It won’t convince Buddhists who are anti abortion on the grounds of suffering. It won’t convince some Christians or humanists etc. They can all relate to suffering - it is a universal experience but they won’t ll be able to relate to your church saying: ‘My God says so´.’

There are implications to all this but this is enough for now.

 

[zearro]

What in hell is even being talked about here. Catholic morality being questioned based on the fact that we eat red meat? What has this got to do with abortion. Also what is the deal with Catholic people not having kids or rather shouldn’t have kids. Last I knew Catholics, like myself are concerned with all peoples salvation. Yes people will go to hell, maybe myself included, nobody knows for certain. People have got to stop putting limitations on Almighty God’s power. We cannot rationalize him in our own regard or understanding, at least not completely or even close. God has a plan for all people on this earth and nothing happens good or bad first without God’s approval on it.

If you don’t believe the suffering of the foetus is an important moral criteria just say so. My argument won’t work with people who see nothing wrong with causing suffering. However, I know some catholics respect this principle. It is to them I speak. If you do believe that causing suffering is an immoral issue such as in abortion then be logically consistant and extend it to animals. It is quite a simple argument.

 

[zearro]

What in hell is even being talked about here. Catholic morality being questioned based on the fact that we eat red meat? What has this got to do with abortion. Also what is the deal with Catholic people not having kids or rather shouldn’t have kids. Last I knew Catholics, like myself are concerned with all peoples salvation. Yes people will go to hell, maybe myself included, nobody knows for certain. People have got to stop putting limitations on Almighty God’s power. We cannot rationalize him in our own regard or understanding, at least not completely or even close. God has a plan for all people on this earth and nothing happens good or bad first without God’s approval on it.

There is a way of ensuring your children defintely go to hell and there is way that you can give them sporting chance of choosing hell. Why am I bringing this up? I want people to ask if catholicism is a religion based on selflessness or selfishness.

To ensure that your child goes to heaven whilst ensuring your own damnation is quite a heroic act. If you don’t believe heaven is guarnteed for them then it is gross. But catholic teaching is that baptised children go to heaven.

Now look at abortion. Are catholics against it because they feel compassion for the suffering of the foetus or are they against it because God forbids it.? The first reason is out of compassion (selfless) the second is out of fear of hell therefore selfish. We know selfishness is not morality. Does that make things clearer and why the issue of suffering, abortion and vegetarianism is connected?

 

[fierysword1920]

I myself am completely against abortion and yes suffering is universal that is why the catholic churches stance is supported by morals and obedience. These sufferings are rendered to us by God for disobedience. God does not just say that those who sin will be affected only, rather it is all of us sharing in our human existence that suffer for iniquity. Those whom the message does not apply as you say, it is only that because in their own selfish and prideful vanity that they do not humble themselves. I also am for the humane treatment of all life on earth and the way that we slaughter some animals for food is not correct and is inhumane, but this is off subject and meant for another thread.
Abortion is wrong and the church has much info as to why besides blind obedience, if only a person truly wishes to find it, which you seem not to be interested in.
God Bless everyone and have a good weekend, walk with the man!

There is a way of ensuring your children defintely go to hell and there is way that you can give them sporting chance of choosing hell. Why am I bringing this up? I want people to ask if catholicism is a religion based on selflessness or selfishness.

To ensure that your child goes to heaven whilst ensuring your own damnation is quite a heroic act. If you don’t believe heaven is guarnteed for them then it is gross. But catholic teaching is that baptised children go to heaven.

Now look at abortion. Are catholics against it because they feel compassion for the suffering of the foetus or are they against it because God forbids it.? The first reason is out of compassion (selfless) the second is out of fear of hell therefore selfish. We know selfishness is not morality. Does that make things clearer and why the issue of suffering, abortion and vegetarianism is connected?

 

[zearro]

With you superb insight to the Catholicreligion perhaps you could lecture us on the meaning and importance of papal Bulls, their realtionship to encyclicals and Pastoral letters, their place in the Magestrium, the history of their use and the amount of auhtority they project.

Or did you just find the usual anti-Catholic web site, cut a cite allegedly from a papal bull , paste it here and like Jack Horner declare "what a good boy I am.

I find it best to stick to sites people approve of then they can’t use excuses like yours. Not that I don’t look at anti catholic sites, I do. With regard to the papal bull - NOT GUILTY in that respect. This is a catholic site. If you want to know what papal bulls etc are the links are at the top. papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html. You could have checked this out for yourself as I have provided the link at least once before. Why didn’t you do so before accusing me of obtaining the bull from an anti catholic site?

These are the criteria for speaking ex cathedra from Vatican Council I

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
**Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. **

piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

If you check this against the papal bull I think you will find that it easily meets the criteria of ex cathedra. Anybody can check this for themselves. You don’t need superb insight.