Progressive Catholics say reform must begin with Church governance

[JimG]

JimG:

Disputed by whom? Every biologist and embryologist knows when a new human being begins. The ovum is not a new and distinct individual of the species. Neither is a sperm cell. When they unite, the result is a new and genetically distinct individual of the human species. Not mom; not dad, a new and distinct individual.human being.

The question is when does a cluster of cells become classified as a human being with all the protections under the constitution. That is in dispute.

No. We know when a new human being begins. That’s straightforward biology. The question is rather, why should the law protect some human beings and not others. Why can we legally kill some human beings and not others?

 

[The_Scott]

.
Yeah forgive me if I dont see that source as unbiased LOL!

So maybe instead of laughing me off, you can actually take a look at it and read it.

 

[scipio337]

You wouldn’t have “supported” gassing the Jews, you just would have supported the “choice” of Hitler to decide to gas the Jews. You wouldn’t want to impose your beliefs on him.

I think this whole thread shows very clearly, that liberalism comes before everything else, including Catholicism.

See “I personally wouldn’t own a slave, but…”

Leftism is its own religion, and it trumps Catholicism, every time. Just look at the behavior of Vice President Biden during the debates:

My religion defines who I am. And I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who – who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.

With regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a – what we call de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and – I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.

"I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women, they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court – I’m not going to interfere with that.

Here is the rule in American politics: When the left uses religion to promote liberal policies, it is a beautiful thing. When the right uses religion to promote conservative policies, it threatens the separation of church and state and may lead to the creation of a theocracy.

Why is Mr. Biden completely comfortable with policies that “impose on others” what he understands as Catholic “social doctrine”? He will use the government to forcefully take people’s money away and impose whatever policies he thinks Catholic social doctrine favors. Why, then, will he not impose on others his church’s definition of the worth of human life from conception?

But Joe Biden would never say that the Catholic Church’s social doctrine is only valid “in my personal life.”

 

[scipio337]

The difference is the definition of when a human life begins is disputed. Its disputed legally and its disputed scientifically. The church has a position on it but we don’t live in a theocracy. So since it is disputed I’d rather be pro-choice (allow freedom for the woman to decide for herself) but also support measures to reduce the number of abortions through education, providing support, and other ways to make it a rare event. I don’t want the government forcing themselves into such a private and personal decision. In my view it would be just as evil as a country forcing a woman to abort.

Banning the abhorrent procedure would be the equivalent of forcing an abortion? In what moral scale does that exist?

I’m sure it’s okay to force Catholic Social Doctrine on others, but respecting human life is the short road to a theocracy?

See “Cognitive Dissonance”.

 

[Brendan]

Don;t get confused bewteen sinfulness and dissent. The former is most definitely Catholic; the latter is not.

These Catholics are the latter and they want open dialogue so that they can change doctrine.

Yes they ask questions, the problem comes in when they don’t accept the answers.

And you hit the nail on the head, they want to change what is unchangeable. That is not a sign of rationality.

It’s like getting a bunch of high school math teachers clamoring for the value of π to be change to 4 because Math professors are not recognizing the value of integers.

No amount of ‘dialogue’ in the world could change π to 4.

 

[Brendan]

The question is when does a cluster of cells become classified as a human being with all the protections under the constitution. That is in dispute.

But the biological fact is that it is human and it is alive. That is beyond dispute, as it is pure science.

What your question then is if human rights apply to all humans, or just a subset defined by civil law.

Of course, that premise would require that civil law holds authority over human rights. If so, anti-bellum slaves and 1940’s German Jews were not denied human rights, as civil law excluded them from having human rights in the first place.

Is that your premise?

 

[Brendan]

It was actually very pro-science. Galileo was also called out on the evidence he presented for the motion of the earth. His claim was that tides were the result of the oceans “sloshing” back and forth as the earth moved, and it was this evidence alone that he was using as support. No, I’m not a rabid geocentrist. I know that the earth is a small planet circling an utterly ordinary yellow dwarf in an outer spiral arm of a galaxy that is billions of years old and which is one of only a billion billion more galaxies in the universe. In addition to being a poor politician, Galileo was also guilty of bad science. His conclusions may have been true, but his observations did not support them.

Not only that, but his model failed under empirical evidence. His model was actually WORSE than the Platonic model for predicting planetary reciession, as Galileo’s model had the planetary orbits as being circular, not elliptical.

In addition, his model would require stellar parallax ( that the position of stars would vary depending on where in the orbit the Earth was.

Stellar parallax actually DOES occur, but Galileo did not recognize the sheer distances that the stars involved.

So what the Church asked Galileo to do was to bring forth his theory as an intellectual model only, not as scientific fact., which was appropriate, as it did not meet with the criteria necessary to qualify as actual scientific fact.
But Galileo refused.

Even now, if a scientist was as off base as Galileo was in experimental confirmation, they too would be rejected by every major science journal.

 

[edwest2]

There is no valid Catholic group that can call itself “progressive.” Progressive only means “do what we tell you to do,” generally without considering the Church was founded by Jesus Christ and most of these “progressives” are not degreed scholars in the areas they are “demanding” change.

However, they will continue to post here and we must continue to tell them the truth, and identify those groups that use the word Catholic but are advocating for “progress” that is against clear Church teaching. The last thing we need is such groups confusing other Catholics.

Peace,
Ed