Religion and the Discomfort of Biology?

[ricmat]

For sure, let’s keep it Christian and fraternal
Hi ricmat.


I am anti-abortion as it happens, but with certain exceptions on principled grounds - I find the proportionalist/virtue ethics approach more appealing than the Thomist deontological approach the Church has adopted.

BTW - your profile says “Christian”. But you are referring to Church (Catholic?) doctrine. Perhaps you could clarify so we know where you’re coming from.

.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I am a Catholic as I define it, but from painful experience in the past of certain Catholic fora I know that if I put Catholic in the box it is the green light to be flamed if I deviate from Church teaching at all. So I’d rather not even claim to be Catholic

 

[StAnastasia]

I don’t wonder about it at all.

Nor do I.

 

[StAnastasia]

I am a Catholic as I define it, but from painful experience in the past of certain Catholic fora I know that if I put Catholic in the box it is the green light to be flamed if I deviate from Church teaching at all. So I’d rather not even claim to be Catholic

You put a target on your back! After all, this is the Church that brought you the Spanish Inquisition with its merciful “acts of faith”!

 

[Doc_Keele]

I should have kept shtum

 

[ricmat]

I am a Catholic as I define it, but from painful experience in the past of certain Catholic fora I know that if I put Catholic in the box it is the green light to be flamed if I deviate from Church teaching at all. So I’d rather not even claim to be Catholic

So far as I know, so long as we are open to Church teaching, and try our best to understand and accept it - everything is OK. Even if we don’t quite accept all of it yet.

You think this thread is bad…you should have been around when the evolu*ion threads were hot (i.e. not banned). There were keyboards and computers burning up all over the world. Nuclear powered flame throwers were at work from every direction.

Personally, I appreciate it when someone “informs” me that what I posted as Catholic teaching was not actually correct…

In any case welcome to the forums!

 

[Doc_Keele]

Oh I have experienced some bad threads in the past - when I was going through RCIA I was on Catholic fora a lot. And some of them are not a good advert for the Church.

No, I think this thread is fine. Maybe my posting style has changed too of course.

In this field I generally know the gist of Church teaching, I just don’t always agree with the specifics. Like StAnastasia I am perplexed by the position of the Church on homologous IVF. I consider myself pro-life, but I disagree with many people who are “Pro-Life”. I just think the deontological approach has problems, which can be highlighted by looking at a thought exercise like Sophie’s Choice.

 

[ricmat]

After all, this is the Church that brought you the Spanish Inquisition with its merciful “acts of faith”!

You should read about the Spanish Inquisition sometime. Here is somewhere you could start…

an excerpt:

…This image of the Spanish Inquisition is a useful one for those who have little love for the Catholic Church. Anyone wishing to beat the Church about the head and shoulders will not tarry long before grabbing two favorite clubs: the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[ricmat]

Like StAnastasia I am perplexed by the position of the Church on homologous IVF.

Here is a page of some links on IVF that present the Church’s position fairly well.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I’ve seen the rationale, but I take issue with various of the premises:

1. people going through IVF don’t value their children LESS because of the technology, but MORE
2. why does the intervention of technology take away dignity? sexual intercourse is many things, but I’m not sure “dignified” is one of them
3. that far from creating a disconnection between the marital act and procreation, it is trying to restore the link albeit in a flawed way

 

[ricmat]

I’ve seen the rationale, but I take issue with various of the premises:

1. people going through IVF don’t value their children LESS because of the technology, but MORE

Certainly they know the pain of not having children “naturally”, so they might appreciate children more. But then wouldn’t they also be ideal to be adoptive parents as well?

IVF affords an opportunity for immense abuse. Discarded embryos. Selection for a particular sex, or physical or mental characteristic. Not all people would do that obviously. But the fact remains that we have no “right” to children. God gifts some people with children, and some he doesn’t. We have no right to this gift, it is for God to decide.

1. why does the intervention of technology take away dignity? sexual intercourse is many things, but I’m not sure “dignified” is one of them

Sexual intercourse is holy, and should be done in a spirit of total self giving, and an openness to procreation. This is slightly off track, but I recommend the book “Theology of the Body for Beginners” by Christopher West. It’s short and a fairly easy read. There is nothing new in it, but for me it was a profound revelation.

1. that far from creating a disconnection between the marital act and procreation, it is trying to restore the link albeit in a flawed way

The link that should exist is between the marital act, and an openness to procreation. It is not for us to decide that there must be a baby. Or that there must not be a baby. This is a case where we must, like Mary, accept God’s will. Mary was SO open to receiving God’s love that she brought the savior into the world. Our marital act must also be open to receiving the love of our spouse, and a possible new person. It is not for us to guarantee that a baby is created, or that a baby is not created. God is the author of life and death.

As an aside, once we decide that we can (by ourselves) determine when life begins, there is little to prevent us from (by ourselves) determining when life should end. And unfortunately that is happening regularly in Switzerland, Holland, and elsewhere.

.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’ve seen the rationale, but I take issue with various of the premises:

1. people going through IVF don’t value their children LESS because of the technology, but MORE
2. why does the intervention of technology take away dignity? sexual intercourse is many things, but I’m not sure “dignified” is one of them
3. that far from creating a disconnection between the marital act and procreation, it is trying to restore the link albeit in a flawed way

Yes, if you don’t agree with the premises the argument won’t wash. Regarding premise #2, mightn’t wearing a tux and a formal gown help with the dignity aspect?

 

[StAnastasia]

I should have kept shtum

Interesting word, Doc. But I was chastised by someone a few days ago for posting “kvetch,” so I think using Yiddish can be perilous on CAF. Haken dir a tsheinik!

 

[Doc_Keele]

Thanks for the laughs StA

Many of the objections about IVF apply to heterologous IVF but not homologous IVF.
Sexual intercourse should be open to procreation - sure. So why is there this objection to trying to restore the link?
We intervene in all sorts of bodily functions to restore function even if imperfectly - what is the justification for exceptionalism?

Your argument of a slippery slope between IVF and euthanasia is fallacious. Sorry

 

[StAnastasia]

Thanks for the laughs StA Many of the objections about IVF apply to heterologous IVF but not homologous IVF. Sexual intercourse should be open to procreation - sure. So why is there this objection to trying to restore the link? We intervene in all sorts of bodily functions to restore function even if imperfectly - what is the justification for exceptionalism? Your argument of a slippery slope between IVF and euthanasia is fallacious. Sorry

Doc Keele, are you saying there isn’t a direct link between striving to help an infertile woman have a baby and later becoming a serial killer? Are you sure of that?

 

[davidv]

Thanks for the laughs StA

Many of the objections about IVF apply to heterologous IVF but not homologous IVF.
Sexual intercourse should be open to procreation - sure. So why is there this objection to trying to restore the link?
We intervene in all sorts of bodily functions to restore function even if imperfectly - what is the justification for exceptionalism?

Your argument of a slippery slope between IVF and euthanasia is fallacious. Sorry

IVF doesn’t fix a broken link. It creates a new chain.

Both homologous and heterologous IVF are unacceptable for the same reason. I.e., conception is not brought about the way God designed it to occur.

 

[ricmat]

Many of the objections about IVF apply to heterologous IVF but not homologous IVF.

The objections apply to both.

Sexual intercourse should be open to procreation - sure. So why is there this objection to trying to restore the link?

It’s not restoring anything. An example of “restoration” would be correction of hormonal deficiencies, or perhaps surgery - both of which are allowed to help infertile couples. The “link” is not something e.g. where step 1 occurs now, and step 2 occurs days later in a laboratory. That is a link of sorts, but it’s not the link being referred to.

We intervene in all sorts of bodily functions to restore function even if imperfectly - what is the justification for exceptionalism?

See the document referred to below.

Your argument of a slippery slope between IVF and euthanasia is fallacious. Sorry

Read humanae vitea.

Or read this short article.

Excerpt:
Questions: What is the status of this teaching?
Answer: . For the reasons given, the Church considers IVF to be mortally sinful. Indeed, one of these reasons is sufficient of itself to outlaw the practice: the degrading of the two-in-one-flesh unity of parents by deflating the importance of the flesh as a vehicle of love in the formation of new life.
This is true even if the ovum and sperm come a husband and wife.

Part of being Catholic involves accepting Church teaching, even if you don’t fully understand it, or agree with it. God wants obedience to himself, and his earthly representatives. There are some here (you know who you are - and I’m not talking to Doc) who want to change Church teaching to be more “relevant” meaning - conforming to your own disordered views. That’s not the way it works.

Doc - this whole response isn’t meant to be a flame, but merely a statement of truth.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Appeals to authority contradict the claims of natural law.
Whether or not Humanae Vitae says there is a link between IVF and euthanasia is irrelevant to my refutation of your slippery slope argument.
The objections to homologous and heterologous IVF are very definitely NOT identical!
I commented that the restoration is not perfect, so I am baffled why you felt the need to restate this.

 

[ricmat]

Appeals to authority contradict the claims of natural law.
Whether or not Humanae Vitae says there is a link between IVF and euthanasia is irrelevant to my refutation of your slippery slope argument.
The objections to homologous and heterologous IVF are very definitely NOT identical!
I commented that the restoration is not perfect, so I am baffled why you felt the need to restate this.

I’m restating the Catholic position on IVF. You said you are Catholic. So the official position should be important to you.

You should read the Catholic documents on these matters before dismissing them as irrelevant.

 

[StAnastasia]

Both homologous and heterologous IVF are unacceptable for the same reason. I.e., conception is not brought about the way God designed it to occur.

Open heart surgery is unacceptable, for it frustrates death the way God designed it to occur. We are interfering with a dying process God designed and desires.