Progressive Catholics say reform must begin with Church governance

[RobbyS]

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.

Like all heretics, they think they are the true Catholics. That is why they so long for a like-minded pope, who can ratify their doctrine. In the time of the Arians, when the role of the papacy was not so well developed, they only needed to get the support of the Emperor. Today, they need a figurehead to defeat their opponents. They, of course, think of themselves as democrats. Never mind that the great majority of members of the Church if asked would oppose their reforms.

 

[Monkey1976]

A collection of living cells like you said.

Assuming that these cells had committed no crime worthy of the death penalty, would it be appropriate for anyone to destroy this collection of living cells and render them non-living?

 

[The_Scott]

The difference is the definition of when a human life begins is disputed. Its disputed legally and its disputed scientifically.

But didn’t both science and law say 200 years ago that blacks and non-whites were not human? Science is not infallible. Just because science may say x today and y tomorrow does not change the reality of the debate.

The church has a position on it but we don’t live in a theocracy.

But yet we live by moral law. It is illegal to kill, rape, steal, assault, lie (under oath). But yet the Church’s teaching on those laws doesn’t cause controversy, and certainly doesn’t mean we live in a theocracy.

So since it is disputed

See above. Science changes. For example, for much of human history it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth, not visa versa. When Copernicus brought this theory to light, did the reality of the universe physically changed? As in, did the Solar System become heliocentric in 1543 (the date of publication of his work)?

No, of course not. It had always been heliocentric. Just because science disputed this fact did not change the reality of the situation.

but also support measures to reduce the number of abortions through education, providing support, and other ways to make it a rare event.

This I agree on. We should take it one step at a time, not in one fellow, universal ban. Take baby steps.

I don’t want the government forcing themselves into such a private and personal decision.

Is not rape, domestic abuse, child abuse, suicide, mental illnesses all personal and private? What makes the government allowed to intervene in those cases, but not in abortion?

In my view it would be just as evil as a country forcing a woman to abort.

The difference is: countries who force abortion deliberately kill a human; countries that ban abortion save a human.

 

[BigBlueCane]

Assuming that these cells had committed no crime worthy of the death penalty, would it be appropriate for anyone to destroy this collection of living cells and render them non-living?

I don’t believe its ok to kill the zygote of an animal let alone a human. However, my way of thinking is not proven and not absolute. Its a matter of faith. So like I said since it is disputed I’d rather leave the freedom to choose and use non coercive means to make that event a rare one.

 

[JimG]

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.

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.

 

[BigBlueCane]

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.

 

[fix]

I don’t believe its ok to kill the zygote of an animal let alone a human. However, my way of thinking is not proven and not absolute. Its a matter of faith. So like I said since it is disputed I’d rather leave the freedom to choose and use non coercive means to make that event a rare one.

Why should it be rare?

 

[Monkey1976]

I don’t believe its ok to kill the zygote of an animal let alone a human. However, my way of thinking is not proven and not absolute. Its a matter of faith. So like I said since it is disputed I’d rather leave the freedom to choose and use non coercive means to make that event a rare one.

Even if it was disputed, that cannot be used as an excuse. If I fire a gun into a house, there’s a chance I might kill a human, and a chance I might not. It’s illegal for me to do so because it presents a potential danger to human life. Assuming that one cannot accept that a collection of cells with a unique and distinctly human genetic code is the exact definition of a human, shouldn’t even the possibility that an innocent life “might” be extinguished on a whim be cause enough to oppose abortion?

 

[BigBlueCane]

But didn’t both science and law say 200 years ago that blacks and non-whites were not human? Science is not infallible. Just because science may say x today and y tomorrow does not change the reality of the debate.

Not saying it is. Just saying what is reality today.

But yet we live by moral law. It is illegal to kill, rape, steal, assault, lie (under oath). But yet the Church’s teaching on those laws doesn’t cause controversy, and certainly doesn’t mean we live in a theocracy.

We don’t live in a theocracy and that is why its controversial.

See above. Science changes. For example, for much of human history it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth, not visa versa. When Copernicus brought this theory to light, did the reality of the universe physically changed? As in, did the Solar System become heliocentric in 1543 (the date of publication of his work)?

No, of course not. It had always been heliocentric. Just because science disputed this fact did not change the reality of the situation.

Ahhh but by that same logic the church can be equally wrong since I’m pretty sure they excommunicated some pretty respected scientists for revealing physical truth.

Is not rape, domestic abuse, child abuse, suicide, mental illnesses all personal and private? What makes the government allowed to intervene in those cases, but not in abortion?

No its not because it involves a second person who is not consenting. In the case of a pregnancy an unborn fetus is not given the full legal protections of a person.

The difference is: countries who force abortion deliberately kill a human; countries that ban abortion save a human.

At what expense? Banning abortion would mean the woman that conducts an abortion would be facing the penalty of jail correct? Along with the doctor all over an issue that is not universally agreed upon.

 

[BigBlueCane]

Even if it was disputed, that cannot be used as an excuse. If I fire a gun into a house, there’s a chance I might kill a human, and a chance I might not. It’s illegal for me to do so because it presents a potential danger to human life. Assuming that one cannot accept that a collection of cells with a unique and distinctly human genetic code is the exact definition of a human, shouldn’t even the possibility that an innocent life “might” be extinguished on a whim be cause enough to oppose abortion?

Oppose yes. Government obligated birthing no.

 

[Monkey1976]

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.

Then why are men who kill a pregnant woman charged with two homicides?

 

[BigBlueCane]

Then why are men who kill a pregnant woman charged with two homicides?

State law.

 

[The_Scott]

We don’t live in a theocracy and that is why its controversial.

You just repeated yourself. Nobody yells “theocracy!” when the Church teaches against murder or rape.

Ahhh but by that same logic the church can be equally wrong since I’m pretty sure they excommunicated some pretty respected scientists for revealing physical truth.

Like? There haven’t been any scientists who have been excommunicated who have not also denied or questioned a dogma of the Catholic faith.

No its not because it involves a second person who is not consenting.

Not for suicide victims or those with mental illnesses. And a fetus certainly isn’t consenting to its own destruction!

In the case of a pregnancy an unborn fetus is not given the full legal protections of a person.

Neither were slaves in the United States. I suppose it would’ve been morally neutral to kill them then, right? Because they weren’t legally people.

At what expense? Banning abortion would mean the woman that conducts an abortion would be facing the penalty of jail correct?

I never said that, nor do I have the answer at this time.

 

[BigBlueCane]

You just repeated yourself. Nobody yells “theocracy!” when the Church teaches against murder or rape.

Because that is a universally accepted SECULAR principle that its not good for an orderly society to allow women to be raped and people to be murdered.

Like? There haven’t been any scientists who have been excommunicated who have not also denied or questioned a dogma of the Catholic faith.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism

Not for suicide victims or those with mental illnesses. And a fetus certainly isn’t consenting to its own destruction!

Which is why I mentioned it legally is not defined as a person so it can’t consent.

Neither were slaves in the United States. I suppose it would’ve been morally neutral to kill them then, right? Because they weren’t legally people.

It would’ve been morally wrong just as I believe its morally wrong to abort a fetus, in some cases.

 

[The_Scott]

Because that is a universally accepted SECULAR principle that its not good for an orderly society to allow women to be raped and people to be murdered.

So, according to you, moral law is dependent on secular recognition?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism

Ah…but he was not excommunicated, like you asserted.

Also, the Galileo affair is much more complex than simple “science-vs.-Church” conflict. Galileo published a work that, for all purposes, called the pope a simpleton (among other things). It was less anti-science, and more conflict of two powerful egos that wouldn’t back down.

It would’ve been morally wrong just as I believe its morally wrong to abort a fetus, in some cases.

But the State said slaves weren’t legally people, so it would be allowed to abuse/kill them. Isn’t that the same logic you are using here? The State (and science) state that a fetus is not legally a person, and therefore women have the right to abort.

 

[Monkey1976]

State law.

Which only makes sense if the “collection of cells” is indeed human. Where, then, is the dispute? In the minds of those who seek to promote abortion. Call a spade a spade. The “choice” in “pro-choice” is the choice to end an innocent human life. One cannot support that choice and honestly claim that they are against abortion.

 

[BigBlueCane]

Which only makes sense if the “collection of cells” is indeed human. Where, then, is the dispute? In the minds of those who seek to promote abortion. Call a spade a spade. The “choice” in “pro-choice” is the choice to end an innocent human life. One cannot support that choice and honestly claim that they are against abortion.

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?

 

[Monkey1976]

Also, the Galileo affair is much more complex than simple “science-vs.-Church” conflict. Galileo published a work that, for all purposes, called the pope a simpleton (among other things). It was less anti-science, and more conflict of two powerful egos that wouldn’t back down.

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.

 

[The_Scott]

BigBlueCane:

Not for a church. Moral law is moral law. Secular law is secular law. We live in a country governed by secular laws.

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

Oh and dont be such a child.

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.

It was about science. I would presume he called the pope a simpleton because the pope impugned his scientific work that disproved a church belief.

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.

Yes they have the right.

Because the State is interpreter of moral law?

 

[The_Scott]

And with that, I’m going to head to bed. Have a nice night, everyone. Hopefully one of you can continue the debate in lieu of my presence.