T
thinkandmull
Guest
Has the Church ever made a moral judgment about these two issues? 
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Don’t these both (especially organ transplants) seem at least as unnatural as contraception?
M
Millie123
Guest
Yes the church has teachings regarding these issues…
From the Catechism paragraph 2296:
Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.
As to how these are related to contraception, I’m sorry but, I don’t see the connection.
Contraception is preventing life. While blood transfusions and organ transplants are allowing someone’s life to continue.
From the Catechism paragraph 2296:
Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.
As to how these are related to contraception, I’m sorry but, I don’t see the connection.
Contraception is preventing life. While blood transfusions and organ transplants are allowing someone’s life to continue.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
It seems very unnatural to put someone else’s body parts inside yourself; God gave you those your body, not another’s. I believe the Church will finally teach this.
R
Richard320
Guest
One is life-giving, one is not.Don’t these both (especially organ transplants) seem at least as unnatural as contraception?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Ratzinger pp. 25-27.
**This brings us to the question already mentioned before, regarding the authority of the Catechism… This does not mean that the catechism is a sort of super-dogma, as its opponents would like to insinuate in order to cast suspicion on its as a danger to the liberty of theology. What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992–exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith.” The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive *no other weight *than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church **
If this is the only time the Church has addressed this issue, then “no other weight” means that John Paul II merely used his authority to guarantee that nothing in the Catechisms contradicted any previous Church teaching, NOT that it gave authority to anything not already taught.
Again, I see no way of arguing that contraception is wrong if organ transplants are ok
**This brings us to the question already mentioned before, regarding the authority of the Catechism… This does not mean that the catechism is a sort of super-dogma, as its opponents would like to insinuate in order to cast suspicion on its as a danger to the liberty of theology. What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992–exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith.” The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive *no other weight *than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church **
If this is the only time the Church has addressed this issue, then “no other weight” means that John Paul II merely used his authority to guarantee that nothing in the Catechisms contradicted any previous Church teaching, NOT that it gave authority to anything not already taught.
Again, I see no way of arguing that contraception is wrong if organ transplants are ok
T
thinkandmull
Guest
It would be wrong to do something unnatural to save a life; ends don’t justify meansOne is life-giving, one is not.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Saying that contraception is contrary to life doesn’t answer the argument, as the discussion about contraception last night should: it is wrong to use a condom, for example, even when fertility is not present. It’s unnatural. Putting other people’s body parts into another is Frankensteinal and I really believe that Catholics will realize this someday.
A Catechism by definition is a compedium of previous teachings
A Catechism by definition is a compedium of previous teachings
M
Millie123
Guest
I’m feeling confused by this comment …the church already has taught about the morality of organ transplants…“Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity”It seems very unnatural to put someone else’s body parts inside yourself; God gave you those your body, not another’s. I believe the Church will finally teach this.
Anyways, if it feels unnatural to you then don’t do it. A majority of the things we do in medicine is unnatural, but that doesn’t mean that it is immoral. Do you know what’s natural? Heart attacks…however, we put metal coronary stents in people who are having heart attacks.
Anaphylaxis is also natural for people with severe allergies, however, we put plastic endotracheal tubes into a person’s trachea to breath for them when they are in respiratory distress.
Renal failure is also natural for some people with poorly controlled diabetes. However, we put people on dialysis machines who are in renal failure and mechanically take over the actions of their kidneys. I could go on and on.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
You’re either a troll, a hypocrite, or really haven’t thought your argument through. I say this because in order to start this thread you had to engage in several unnatural acts.Saying that contraception is contrary to life doesn’t answer the argument, as the discussion about contraception last night should: it is wrong to use a condom, for example, even when fertility is not present. It’s unnatural. Putting other people’s body parts into another is Frankensteinal and I really believe that Catholics will realize this someday.
A Catechism by definition is a compedium of previous teachings
R
Richard320
Guest
6 of 8 posts to this point in time are yours. Sounds like your mind is made up, so why ask a question?
I’m done here.
I’m done here.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
No, I posted the question which I had thought about awhle ago, thought about it again, and realized more, so posted more
There is nothing unnatural with using an electronic machine to right a question. It is unnatural to reject the organs which God gave you. To argue otherwise is to make a mockery of the teachings on contrception (which were clarified last night, I admitted I was wrong)
There is nothing unnatural with using an electronic machine to right a question. It is unnatural to reject the organs which God gave you. To argue otherwise is to make a mockery of the teachings on contrception (which were clarified last night, I admitted I was wrong)
M
Millie123
Guest
I was not here last night, nor have I seen what you’ve posted before on other threads about contraception…so all I have to go on is what you’ve posted here.No, I posted the question which I had thought about awhle ago, thought about it again, and realized more, so posted more
There is nothing unnatural with using an electronic machine to right a question. It is unnatural to reject the organs which God gave you. To argue otherwise is to make a mockery of the teachings on contrception (which were clarified last night, I admitted I was wrong)
Anyways, it is very unnatural to use machines and tools to correct health problems. These machines are man made, they do not occur in nature. In the old days before our man made technology, the treatment for heart attacks was to let them progress naturally. The natural thing to do is to let the heart tissue die. The unnatural thing which we do now is to implant a man made metal tube into someone’s coronary artery.
As to how this issue is at all related to contraception as I said before I don’t see it. Can you please clarify?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Using machines is not against nature. We use nature to improve our tools. Taking someone else’s heart and putting it inside oneself seems to violate the integrity of the body, just as ejaculating in a woman’s mouth is not an intergral sexual act.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
All the arguments against organ transplants have the same force as arguments against onanism. “That is the body God gave you, not another person’s body”.
We are so use to these things in our society that most of us don’t think about this
We are so use to these things in our society that most of us don’t think about this
M
Millie123
Guest
Can someone interpret the above sentence for me? Does it make sense to anyone?Using machines is not against nature. We use nature to improve our tools. Taking someone else’s heart and putting it inside oneself seems to violate the integrity of the body, just as ejaculating in a woman’s is not an intergral sexual act.
Lets say that at the time of my death I choose to give someone my heart so that they can live, how is that violating the “integrity of the body.” It’s not demeaning to the body, but a testament to how sacred life is. With my heart my fellow man can live.
Also the male ejaculating inside his wife IS an integral part of the sex act.
Again how this is related to organ transplants, I’m still not understanding.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
The OP started with his conclusion and is now trying to rationalize it instead of starting with his question and using reason to come to a conclusion.Can someone interpret the above sentence for me? Does it make sense to anyone?
Lets say that at the time of my death I choose to give someone my heart so that they can live, how is that violating the “integrity of the body.” It’s not demeaning to the body, but a testament to how sacred life is. With my heart my fellow man can live.
Also the male ejaculating inside his wife IS an integral part of the sex act.
Again how this is related to organ transplants, I’m still not understanding.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Almost all of modern medicine is “unnatural” to some degree, if you think about it. As soon as we went beyond selecting the right herbs to eat in order to combat disease, we began to assemble a corpus of knowledge and materials which “unnaturally” assist us in curing some diseases, treating others, and generally extending life and making it more bearable.
It is unnatural to grind up sand and place it in front of our eyes to correct our vision, yet it is not contrary to moral law, as it is a good thing to assist our sight. It is unnatural to manufacture prosthetics and equip ourselves with mechanical and electronic accoutrements to assist our mobility needs, but it is a moral good to help the lame. It is unnatural to put electronic bugs in our ears to help us hear, yet it is a moral good to cure the deaf.
Jesus gave us signs and wonders by curing the sick. He promised us that this is a venerable profession and a blessing to mankind that we should be relieved of our suffering and afflictions. It is sheer absurdity to compare the good practice of medicine to contraception, which is not “health care”, since fertility and pregnancy are not diseases to be “treated”. It is just another sad example of the state of our culture where people are brainwashed to believe that contraception is a moral good or equivalent in any way to the miraculous cures we have been given by doctors.
It is unnatural to grind up sand and place it in front of our eyes to correct our vision, yet it is not contrary to moral law, as it is a good thing to assist our sight. It is unnatural to manufacture prosthetics and equip ourselves with mechanical and electronic accoutrements to assist our mobility needs, but it is a moral good to help the lame. It is unnatural to put electronic bugs in our ears to help us hear, yet it is a moral good to cure the deaf.
Jesus gave us signs and wonders by curing the sick. He promised us that this is a venerable profession and a blessing to mankind that we should be relieved of our suffering and afflictions. It is sheer absurdity to compare the good practice of medicine to contraception, which is not “health care”, since fertility and pregnancy are not diseases to be “treated”. It is just another sad example of the state of our culture where people are brainwashed to believe that contraception is a moral good or equivalent in any way to the miraculous cures we have been given by doctors.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
This problem easily solved.
I have left instructions at my death any, and all organs that can be donated will be. What is left will be donated for medical research. Which by the way, the Church has said is OK also.
I would be much happier leaving this world knowing that my death could help someone else live.
- If you don’t want to donate organs after death…Don’t
- If you don’t want to receive donated organs…Don’t
I have left instructions at my death any, and all organs that can be donated will be. What is left will be donated for medical research. Which by the way, the Church has said is OK also.
I would be much happier leaving this world knowing that my death could help someone else live.
B
BListon
Guest
Jesus gave us His body and blood through the Eucharist. Isn’t that kinda like a spiritual blood transfusion?It seems very unnatural to put someone else’s body parts inside yourself; God gave you those your body, not another’s. I believe the Church will finally teach this.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.