Progressive Catholics say reform must begin with Church governance

[Monkey1976]

The choice is to allow the woman to decide. Otherwise who is to say that God isn’t evil because he ALLOWS murder and famine and earthquakes and war to happen? He allows it. He gives us free will. Does he prefer that we not murder and kill? Of course so why doesn’t he stop it?

God proposes, man disposes. We aren’t his puppets. Can I make the free choice to kill another human being? Yes. Is it my legal right to make that choice and act accordingly? Of course not. How, then, is it a “woman’s right” to choose to end another human life, but not my right to do the same? If it is because a fetus is “not legally a human”, then would you have supported the “right” of slave owners to kill their slaves? After all, they were “not legally human”. In Germany, from 1933 until 1945, Jews were “not legally human”. Would you have supported the “right” of those who ran the country to exterminate them?

 

[BigBlueCane]

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.

Galieo is regarded as one of the fathers of modern day physicists and the church condemned for his true findings. That is a fact.

 

[BigBlueCane]

Then who has the authority to decide what is moral and what is not?

Million dollar question which is why the SCOTUS said they cannot decide such a question and since there is no universally accepted truth as to when a zygote becomes a human being they came up with Roe v. Wade.

First, don’t call me a child. I am hardly pointing fingers and covering my ears yelling “la-la-la-not listening!” Second, I have said nothing that would be seen as childish or remotely immature. That insult and accusation of yours is unfounded.

You’re right I apologize. Poor choice of words. A better word would’ve been naive.

Actually, the pope had been very friendly and open to Galileo’s theory prior to him writing that book.

If you would like to actually read some sources, instead of making assumptions without knowing one way or another, then I suggest reading this: catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0043.htm

It’s long, but it is unbiased (despite what you may think about its source) and thorough in analyzing available data.

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

 

[BigBlueCane]

God proposes, man disposes. We aren’t his puppets. Can I make the free choice to kill another human being? Yes. Is it my legal right to make that choice and act accordingly? Of course not. How, then, is it a “woman’s right” to choose to end another human life, but not my right to do the same? If it is because a fetus is “not legally a human”, then would you have supported the “right” of slave owners to kill their slaves? After all, they were “not legally human”. In Germany, from 1933 until 1945, Jews were “not legally human”. Would you have supported the “right” of those who ran the country to exterminate them?

Because the legal right to do something doesnt come from god but from government trying to instill laws to govern an orderly society. It is clear in secular terms and disruptive in society to allow blanket murder. That is undisputed. It is very disputed as to when a zygote becomes a human being. In other words its a question that a secular government cannot decide fully one way or another. Since I am an American I prefer having a government stay out of such controversial personal, religious issues and allow people to decide for themselves. At the same time I would fully embrace efforts to make the choice of abortion rare.

 

[Monkey1976]

Galieo is regarded as one of the fathers of modern day physicists and the church condemned for his true findings. That is a fact.

He did propose some ideas which were genius and - eventually - turned out to be right. What he failed to do in the case of the motion of the earth was provide solid evidence. In modern terms, he falsified the data. Read up on him. He was a genius, but he wasn’t a model scientist or even a very nice person.

Oh, his “condemnation”? House arrest. At his country villa. With his estate worth - in 2010 dollars - over $8.8 million. Where his punishment was to daily read the 5 Penitential Psalms. He claimed that reading the Psalms was too much, so his daughter was allowed to read them in his stead. Sorry: No torture, no dark cell, no rack, no chains, no cruel bloodstained instruments, no bell, book, or candle.

 

[Monkey1976]

Because the legal right to do something doesnt come from god but from government trying to instill laws to govern an orderly society. It is clear in secular terms and disruptive in society to allow blanket murder. That is undisputed. It is very disputed as to when a zygote becomes a human being. In other words its a question that a secular government cannot decide fully one way or another. Since I am an American I prefer having a government stay out of such controversial personal, religious issues and allow people to decide for themselves. At the same time I would fully embrace efforts to make the choice of abortion rare.

You didn’t answer my questions:

Under the laws of the United States in the early-to-mid 1800s, slaves were not “legally human”. Would you have supported the “right” of their owners to kill them?

Under the laws of Germany from 1933 to 1945, Jews were not “legally human”. Would you have supported the “right” of the government to exterminate them?

Claiming that it’s a “personal issue” is a weak dodge at best, and cowardly at worst. Either it is the killing of an innocent life or it is not. If there is even the remotest possibility that it could be the killing of an innocent life, how can we NOT leap to their defense and still call ourselves moral?

 

[BigBlueCane]

He did propose some ideas which were genius and - eventually - turned out to be right. What he failed to do in the case of the motion of the earth was provide solid evidence. In modern terms, he falsified the data. Read up on him. He was a genius, but he wasn’t a model scientist or even a very nice person.

Oh, his “condemnation”? House arrest. At his country villa. With his estate worth - in 2010 dollars - over $8.8 million. Where his punishment was to daily read the 5 Penitential Psalms. He claimed that reading the Psalms was too much, so his daughter was allowed to read them in his stead. Sorry: No torture, no dark cell, no rack, no chains, no cruel bloodstained instruments, no bell, book, or candle.

No I guess the torture was reserved for lesser known people during the inquisition lol. Bottom line is the Church opposed him not because of his science but because what he was saying was against their teachings. It was such an egregious error that JP2 felt the need to apologize for that.

 

[BigBlueCane]

You didn’t answer my questions:

Under the laws of the United States in the early-to-mid 1800s, slaves were not “legally human”. Would you have supported the “right” of their owners to kill them?

No just like I dont support abortion today.

Under the laws of Germany from 1933 to 1945, Jews were not “legally human”. Would you have supported the “right” of the government to exterminate them?

No because I’m not a Nazi

Claiming that it’s a “personal issue” is a weak dodge at best, and cowardly at worst. Either it is the killing of an innocent life or it is not. If there is even the remotest possibility that it could be the killing of an innocent life, how can we NOT leap to their defense and still call ourselves moral?

Thats the point. No one can answer definitively whether it is killing an innocent person or not. Your faith tells you that it is but for secular law that isn’t enough. If its just about protecting life then “life” would even include the outright and utmost protection of animals. If I had my choice I’d make that trade.

 

[Monkey1976]

No I guess the torture was reserved for lesser known people during the inquisition lol. Bottom line is the Church opposed him not because of his science but because what he was saying was against their teachings. It was such an egregious error that JP2 felt the need to apologize for that.

You do realize that “The Inquisition” as a chamber of horrors is a complete fiction, right? The Inquisition was the first European court to allow the accused an advocate, the first to assume that guilt was not preestablished, and the most distrustful of testimony obtained under duress. People actually petitioned to get their cases moved from civil courts - where torture was guaranteed, no advocate was provided, and guilt was assumed - to Inquisitorial courts!

As for Galileo, he brought himself to the Church’s attention through bad science and making a mockery of his former friend who was - at that time - the pope. He then persisted in teaching to students that his falsified data (tides are caused by the oceans sloshing as the earth moves) made his conclusions correct. How would you suggest that a university deals with a professor who does this? With regard to Blessed John Paul II’s apology, it is true that the court should not have declared the idea that the earth moves “absurd”.

You might want to try reading some actual history instead of Protestant and Atheist propaganda.

 

[Monkey1976]

No just like I dont support abortion today.

No because I’m not a Nazi

Then we’ve established that support for abortion rights cannot be based on unborn children not being “legally human”.

Thats the point. No one can answer definitively whether it is killing an innocent person or not. Your faith tells you that it is but for secular law that isn’t enough. If its just about protecting life then “life” would even include the outright and utmost protection of animals. If I had my choice I’d make that trade.

My point is that even if we couldn’t answer the question definitively, should we as a society not err on the side of caution instead of on the side of the possible killing on an innocent? This isn’t something specific to the Catholic faith - this is basic moral behavior. We outlaw drunk driving because of the possibility that the driver might take another’s life. If someone throws a rock out of a 40th floor window, they can be charged with attempted manslaughter because of the possibility that a person might have been killed. Boeing recently grounded every single one of their flagship airliners because of the possibility that they might put people in danger. None of these are religious decisions.

I’m told that there may or may not be a person in a windowless room. Is it at all responsible or moral for me to fire a gun through the wall? Is it at all responsible and moral or moral for me to let someone else fire a gun through the wall, just because they think there might not be a person inside?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Because the legal right to do something doesnt come from god but from government trying to instill laws to govern an orderly society. It is clear in secular terms and disruptive in society to allow blanket murder. That is undisputed. It is very disputed as to when a zygote becomes a human being. In other words its a question that a secular government cannot decide fully one way or another. Since I am an American I prefer having a government stay out of such controversial personal, religious issues and allow people to decide for themselves. At the same time I would fully embrace efforts to make the choice of abortion rare.

This is best directly addressed by a post on a much earlier thread. And by the way, somehow who igenuinely embraces Catholicism or even religion, never neglects to capitalize the G in God.

Here is a response to the above, posted by a religious Brother:

If we assume that the Church’s authority to legislae morality is only binding on Catholics, then we become the catholic church, with lower case “c”. The Church’s place in the world is for all people, not just those who physically belong to her. This takes us back to the dogma of no salvation outside the Church.

The Church has the duty to save souls, inside her physical body and outside. She also has that power given to her by Christ. This is undeniable. Therefore, even those who are not Catholic are morally bound by the moral teachings revealed through the Church. That’s how salvation reaches them. Christ uses these means to save. But if we assume that the Church’s moral revelation is only for those within her physical boundaries, then we are returning to the Old Law that the Apostles told us was abrogated. Just as salvation was not just for the Jews, it is not just for Catholics either.

When you have two codes of law, side by side, one is revealed by God and the other is created by man, and they are in conflict, you have the mandate from Christ himself to preach the Gospel. This means that you have a mandate to censure the man-made law that is in conflict with the revealed law, because that man-made law stands between man and salvation.

The other risk that you run, if you do not insist in showing how the man-made law is a lie, you run the risk of sinning against justice. In justice, every human being is entitled to be told the truth. In justice, God does have a place in the public sector. The state does not have the right to deny him this.

God does have a place in the public arena and the public arena must never ignore revelation or revealed truth. It is the mission and moral duty of every Catholic to remind the public arena of this reality and this obligation. You cannot restrict moral truth to the members of certain faiths and let everyone else go their way. To do so, you are denying God his rightful place in society and you are allowing society to believe that there can be two codes of conduct that are mutually exclusive. To allow society to believe this is to allow a lie.

You also mentioned that this has not done well in the USA and I agree with you. This is what some popes have called the American Heresy. I don’t believe it’s just American, but I guess that it can be called that, because we were the first nation to implement the notion that freedom of religion meant freedom from moral laws. But this thinking is wrong. The moral law has been revealed through the human conscience and through natural law. Man is bound to it. American Catholics have a moral duty to impress moral revelation upon the its elected officials and upon their fellow citizens. What we cannot do is proselytize. That is forbidden by the Church. But we are commanded to evangelize, which is different.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Galieo is regarded as one of the fathers of modern day physicists and the church condemned for his true findings. That is a fact.

And that is addressed here:

Since we are oriented toward what is good, the goal must always be to desire what is good for us. To a limited extent we can judge what is good for us. I say limited, because of two realities. First, we often lack objectivity. Second, we lack omniscience. But God, who is totally objective and omniscient, knows what is good for us. He reveals it to us through the Church.

The fullness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church. In other words, the Church is built upon Truth. She cannot mislead, even if she tried. The Church can make mistakes on temporal matters. For example, the Church has made mistakes on political issues. She has made mistakes on issues in the areas of science and culture. But she has never made a mistake in the areas of faith and morals, because what she teaches on this two areas have been revealed by Christ and are safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, even if the Church wanted to do so, she cannot speak contrary to what has been revealed.

Also pertinent is one of the Forum Rules for posting:

For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:

Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.

 

[Greg_N]

The choice is to allow the woman to decide.

Here you go.

 

[BigBlueCane]

This is best directly addressed by a post on a much earlier thread. And by the way, somehow who igenuinely embraces Catholicism or even religion, never neglects to capitalize the G in God.

HAHA in my defense I also neglect to put apostrophes where they should be. Such as words like cant.

 

[BigBlueCane]

You do realize that “The Inquisition” as a chamber of horrors is a complete fiction, right? The Inquisition was the first European court to allow the accused an advocate, the first to assume that guilt was not preestablished, and the most distrustful of testimony obtained under duress. People actually petitioned to get their cases moved from civil courts - where torture was guaranteed, no advocate was provided, and guilt was assumed - to Inquisitorial courts!

Please dont try to change history or make it seem like the church never did anything horrific. Its ok to accept the churchs failings from hundreds of years ago.

As for Galileo, he brought himself to the Church’s attention through bad science and making a mockery of his former friend who was - at that time - the pope. He then persisted in teaching to students that his falsified data (tides are caused by the oceans sloshing as the earth moves) made his conclusions correct. How would you suggest that a university deals with a professor who does this? With regard to Blessed John Paul II’s apology, it is true that the court should not have declared the idea that the earth moves “absurd”.

You might want to try reading some actual history instead of Protestant and Atheist propaganda.

Again like I say the Church/Pope wasn’t against him on scientific grounds they were against him on religious grounds because they didn’t like what he was saying. Its that simple. Galileo was correct and the Church was wrong otherwise JP2 wouldn’t have apoligized.

 

[BigBlueCane]

Then we’ve established that support for abortion rights cannot be based on unborn children not being “legally human”.

Of course it can because the fetus isn’t legally a human. Maybe 100 years from now we will have technology to be able to communicate with a 2 week old fetus (I highly doubt it) and that fetus can express its thoughts. As of today using all the available medicine and going through all the philosophical arguments the conclusion is that when you think a fetus is a human deserving of all the legal rights of a human is based upon faith. Catholic faith is different from other faiths on this issue. Since there is no medical agreement, no philosophical agreement, no logical agreement, no theological agreement it is impossible IMO for a government to interject and impose ITS belief system on the public.

Such wasn’t the case in the other examples you mentioned. When the SCOTUS declared a slave not human it was imposing ITS belief system onto the public because that was not the prevailing thought at the time or at least there was no agreement on that. When Nazis declared Jews to be subhuman they were imposing their beliefs on everyone since again there clearly wasn’t agreement on that issue. In fact they were quite alone on it.

My point is that even if we couldn’t answer the question definitively, should we as a society not err on the side of caution instead of on the side of the possible killing on an innocent? This isn’t something specific to the Catholic faith - this is basic moral behavior. We outlaw drunk driving because of the possibility that the driver might take another’s life. If someone throws a rock out of a 40th floor window, they can be charged with attempted manslaughter because of the possibility that a person might have been killed. Boeing recently grounded every single one of their flagship airliners because of the possibility that they might put people in danger. None of these are religious decisions.

I’m told that there may or may not be a person in a windowless room. Is it at all responsible or moral for me to fire a gun through the wall? Is it at all responsible and moral or moral for me to let someone else fire a gun through the wall, just because they think there might not be a person inside?

I agree with you from a moral point of view. I think it is abhorrent for a woman to abort a child for convenience. However I am not about to impose my moral beliefs on someone especially when I know there are cases of rape, incest, and where the life/health of the mother is at risk. Morally I’m with you 100%. As an American I am not. I wish I could be dictator and impose my beliefs but thats not something I believe would be a healthy way to govern. I feel that animals (pets and others) are just as innocent as an unborn fetus. Yet we allow some horrible treatment of animals that are bred for consumption and we are not strong enough on the prevention of animal abuse. In both cases they are as innocent as can be since they are at the mercy of everyone else. Yet I won’t hold my breath and think that we are going to stop eating pork for example. However that won’t stop me from trying to convince people otherwise.

I think with abortion its similar. Its a losing battle trying to get it overturned and banned. This country will NEVER ban abortion where a woman and doctor face the penalty of jail for conducting an abortion. The fight should be for the hearts and minds AND for the creation of a support system so that a young girl who finds herself pregnant does not feel helpless and alone to the point where she feels abortion is her only choice. Abortion legal but rare is the way to go. In the end we all want less abortions. So who cares that its legal if we reach a point where its a rare event when it happens?

 

[ephesians4]

Please dont try to change history or make it seem like the church never did anything horrific. Its ok to accept the churchs failings from hundreds of years ago.

No, in this case Monkey1976 is absolutely correct - the inquisition (while it was not an organisation that took people to the fun-fair and gave them lollipops) is one of the most casually overblown parts of religious history, and the actual facts and scale of it bear little or no resemblance to those you will commonly see described.

 

[fix]

Oppose yes. Government obligated birthing no.

Why oppose it?

 

[JackyB]

More to the point, I think “progressive” Catholics need to accept that they are not really Catholics at all - but simply people who “play at Catholics” - and should either review their faulty opinions or leave.

Integrity is a good thing.

I fully agree, if they disagree with church teaching and have done all in their power through prayer and dialogue to resolve their issues and are still are not happy, then leave.

 

[zz912]

No just like I dont support abortion today.

No because I’m not a Nazi

Thats the point. No one can answer definitively whether it is killing an innocent person or not. Your faith tells you that it is but for secular law that isn’t enough. If its just about protecting life then “life” would even include the outright and utmost protection of animals. If I had my choice I’d make that trade.

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.