The Right to Choose

[WillieWonka]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=871&highlight=baptism+desire

Baptism of desire.

Also, parents can desire for their stillborn and miscarried babies to be baptized.

The Church puts no limits on what God does to bring ALL of his creation to salvation. We do not know the state of any human’s soul at death. Only God can see your soul.

Why do you keep putting limits on God’s plan and abilities? When we limit God we do not allow Him to work.

Stop limiting God and increase your faith.

Eddie Mac

Are the unborn members of the Church?

 

[allhers]

Well, are the unborn members of the Church or not?

Yes and I already told you in two posts already, why don’t you go and read them when you ask a question and someone answers?

Others have answered you too. Do you just like asking questions but don’t really want to know the truth?

post 375 and 378

Honestly I normally have the patience to deal with people such as you but you are beginning to get on my last nerve. I think I’ll just pray for you and not bother to answer since you don’t read the answers anyway. Its beginning to fell like I’m talking to the wall, and why would I want to do that?

I even remember reading somewhere once this:

Don’t talk to walls! …I think I’ll go look that up to see where I read it, I think it was Judie Brown that I heard it from…bye now.

 

[WillieWonka]

Yes and I already told you in two posts already, why don’t you go and read them when you ask a question and someone answers?

Others have answered you too. Do you just like asking questions but don’t really want to know the truth?

post 375 and 378

Honestly I normally have the patience to deal with people such as you but you are beginning to get on my last nerve. I think I’ll just pray for you and not bother to answer since you don’t read the answers anyway. Its beginning to fell like I’m talking to the wall, and why would I want to do that?

I even remember reading somewhere once this:

Don’t talk to walls! …I think I’ll go look that up to see where I read it, I think it was Judie Brown that I heard it from…bye now.

So, the unborn child of Hindus in Mumbai is a Catholic? If that’s the case, is baptism a waste of time?

Does anyone know where the official Church teaching is that says the unborn are Catholics?

 

[PapaSquash]

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
(Douay-Rheims)

All members of the human race without distinction are one in Christ Jesus. We Christians are not permitted to make distinctions between “members” and subhumans

 

[WillieWonka]

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
(Douay-Rheims)

All members of the human race without distinction are one in Christ Jesus. We Christians are not permitted to make distinctions between “members” and subhumans

Is one allowed to make a distinction between Catholics and non-Catholics? Are all members of the human race Catholic?

 

[PapaSquash]

Catholic means “universal.” everybody is universal. Obviously not everybody is in full communion with the universal church. What’s your point anyway?

Seems like you are trying to lay verbal traps instead of trying to communicate.

What does being a member of the church have to do with choice, or protection of the unborn/the weak/the expensive/the unwanted/the inconvenient/the broken and the ill? ALL deserve protection, not just “my tribe.”

 

[fix]

Interesting observation. We can see society allows a million abortions per year, and we can see it makes double charges in a few instances. The double charges are a victory by the anti-abortion forces. However, the vast difference in numbers allows us to say the unborn are not considered members of society.

No, what we can say is that relativism has gained support from many.

I said nothing about justification. I said protection is extended to members of society. It is not extendd to non-members. We can observe it. That is not a normative statement.

Protection is extended to non members all the time.

However, we should note that smaller social units will protect the unborn. Take the immediate family. They may consider the unborn afamily member and protect it with the same ferocity they protect the born members of the immediate family. But our larger society does not consider te unborn a member.

Whether the courts consider a human a member does not change the reality. It only shows an abuse of power.

Are the unborn members of the Church?

The Church seeks protection of all humans whether formal members or not.

 

[WillieWonka]

Catholic means “universal.” everybody is universal. Obviously not everybody is in full communion with the universal church. What’s your point anyway?

Seems like you are trying to lay verbal traps instead of trying to communicate.

What does being a member of the church have to do with choice, or protection of the unborn/the weak/the expensive/the unwanted/the inconvenient/the broken and the ill? ALL deserve protection, not just “my tribe.”

It’s a simple question. Is the unborn fetus a member of the Cuurch. It is Catholic?

 

[catharina]

It’s a simple question. Is the unborn fetus a member of the Cuurch. It is Catholic?

Your question remains irrelevant.
What’s relevant is that unborn children do exist.
The Church defends their right to life.
Your opinion to the contrary is also irrelevant.

 

[WillieWonka]

No, what we can say is that relativism has gained support from many.

Protection is extended to non members all the time.

Whether the courts consider a human a member does not change the reality. It only shows an abuse of power.

The Church seeks protection of all humans whether formal members or not.

1. I observe relativism has gained support, and I observe the unborn are not considered members of society.
2. Can you tell us how protection is extended to non-members of society all the time? We can see instances in foreign affairs, but that is done in a strategic effort to protect members of society. Did you have something else in mind?
3. Perhaps courts are abusing power. I am smply observing the phenomenon, not making a normative statement.
4. The Church may seek protection of all human beings.
5. Is the unborn fetus a member of the Church? Is it a Catholic?

 

[catharina]

1. I observe relativism has gained support, and I observe the unborn are not considered members of society.
2. Can you tell us how protection is extended to non-members of society all the time? We can see instances in foreign affairs, but that is done in a strategic effort to protect members of society. Did you have something else in mind?
3. Perhaps courts are abusing power. I am smply observing the phenomenon, not making a normative statement.
4. The Church may seek protection of all human beings.
5. Is the unborn fetus a member of the Church? Is it a Catholic?

See Post 389.

 

[WillieWonka]

Your question remains irrelevant.
What’s relevant is that unborn children do exist.
The Church defends their right to life.
Your opinion to the contrary is also irrelevant.

I acknowledge many find the right of the unborn to exist is very important.

Is the unborn fetus a member of the Church? Is it Catholic? From the responses here, I begin to suspect the anwser is, “No.”

 

[catharina]

I acknowledge many find the right of the unborn to exist is very important.

Is the unborn fetus a member of the Church? Is it Catholic? From the responses here, I begin to suspect the anwser is, “No.”

You seem to be imagining that the Church only defends right to life for Catholics.
No. You’re quite wrong about that. Perhaps you can move on from your pointlessness?

 

[WillieWonka]

You seem to be imagining that the Church only defends right to life for Catholics.
No. You’re quite wrong about that. Perhaps you can move on from your pointlessness?

So, if the unborn is not considered a member of the Church, is it so unreasonable it is not considered a member of society?

 

[catharina]

So, if the unborn is not considered a member of the Church, is it so unreasonable it is not considered a member of society?

You must be terribly young.
Until forty yrs ago, this country ALWAYS protected the unborn.
The same was true around the world.
The protection flowed from the Judeo-Christian ethic.
Yes, relativism has changed the civil/criminal code of law.

Next?

 

[SteveGC]

I acknowledge many find the right of the unborn to exist is very important.

Is the unborn fetus a member of the Church? Is it Catholic? From the responses here, I begin to suspect the anwser is, “No.”

Hi WW. I’ve been away from the threads a few days. Saw your persistent question here and thought I’d offer my :twocents:

I’m not sure where you’re going with all this, but putting the “Catholic” identity on anyone, whether in the womb or in the world is sometimes a mix bag of opinion. But the Church teaches that all persons validly baptized are, in essence, members of the universal church of Jesus Christ, which goes by the formal name of The Catholic Church. If received with true faith in Christ, baptism forgives original sin, which we’re all born with, as well as any personal sins up to the point of this baptism, and it also makes the recipient a spiritually adopted son or daughter of God. This baptism is normatively accomplished through the physical application of water to the individual. There is also a teaching which allows for this baptism (and church membership) without this physical application - normally when the application is impossible to accomplish, and/or the individual would be baptized if they were not inhibited by ignorance of it through no fault of their own. This is called baptism of desire (or implicit baptism of desire). There is also baptism of blood (martyrs).

For newborns, infants, toddlers, small children, and any persons incapable of consciously and deliberately choosing against (or turning away from) God, also known as personal sin, baptism “washes” away (forgives them of) original sin. This baptism, which requires faith, is given to these individuals through the representative faith of their caretakers (parents, Godparents, etc). Their vow, or oath, of faith on behalf of the child validates the baptism of the youth.

So what about babies in the womb? This falls under a combination of the representative faith of the parents, and the desire for baptism (or implicit desire of it) for the unborn child. IOW, any person who would make a vow of representative faith for the unborn child and sincerely intends to have the child baptized when physically capable of doing so, makes that child a member of Christ’s Church while still in the unborn state. You probably won’t find this specific explanation about the membership of the unborn in Church documents, but it is my deduction based on official Church teaching.

So, in the sense of all the above, not ALL unborn children are “Catholic”, but an unborn child need not necessarily be a child of Catholic parents to meet the above criteria. Of course, whether or not an unborn, or any born person, is “Catholic” is not a criteria for whose right to life is to be protected. We’re all God’s people, whether we believe it or not. Catholics are simply those that believe it. But we all are to be protected (born and unborn alike).

Again, not sure what you’re concluding by the answers you receive. I think you’re trying to suggest an acceptable disagreement regarding the definition of “human being with intrinsic right to protected life”. IOW, the legal system does not recognize the unborn as included in that definition, but The Catholic Church does…and therefore, there should be tolerance and allowance for these varying definitions which originate from these authoritative governing bodies. If that’s your motive, I would respond by saying that the discussion would best serve your understanding of the Catholic position if it moved away from “when does ensoulment precisely happen” or “is it acceptable for people to abort if they don’t believe in the rights of the unborn”…and rather moved toward a dialogue about objective truth, moral relativism, and the reality of Church authority. Once you see the Catholic position on those topics, I think you’ll more clearly see that it doesn’t matter to a Catholic that the U.S. courts define a “human being with protected rights” as only those who have been born. What matters is what God (through the Church) officially teaches as such.

 

[WillieWonka]

Hi WW. I’ve been away from the threads a few days. Saw your persistent question here and thought I’d offer my :twocents:

I’m not sure where you’re going with all this, but putting the “Catholic” identity on anyone, whether in the womb or in the world is sometimes a mix bag of opinion. But the Church teaches that all persons validly baptized are, in essence, members of the universal church of Jesus Christ, which goes by the formal name of The Catholic Church. If received with true faith in Christ, baptism forgives original sin, which we’re all born with, as well as any personal sins up to the point of this baptism, and it also makes the recipient a spiritually adopted son or daughter of God. This baptism is normatively accomplished through the physical application of water to the individual. There is also a teaching which allows for this baptism (and church membership) without this physical application - normally when the application is impossible to accomplish, and/or the individual would be baptized if they were not inhibited by ignorance of it through no fault of their own. This is called baptism of desire (or implicit baptism of desire). There is also baptism of blood (martyrs).

For newborns, infants, toddlers, small children, and any persons incapable of consciously and deliberately choosing against (or turning away from) God, also known as personal sin, baptism “washes” away (forgives them of) original sin. This baptism, which requires faith, is given to these individuals through the representative faith of their caretakers (parents, Godparents, etc). Their vow, or oath, of faith on behalf of the child validates the baptism of the youth.

So what about babies in the womb? This falls under a combination of the representative faith of the parents, and the desire for baptism (or implicit desire of it) for the unborn child. IOW, any person who would make a vow of representative faith for the unborn child and sincerely intends to have the child baptized when physically capable of doing so, makes that child a member of Christ’s Church while still in the unborn state. In this sense, not ALL unborn children are “Catholic”, but an unborn child need not necessarily be a child of Catholic parents to meet the above criteria.

Again, not sure what you’re concluding by the answers you receive. I think you’re trying to suggest an acceptable disagreement regarding the definition of “human being with intrinsic right to protected life”. IOW, the legal system does not recognize the unborn as included in that definition, but The Catholic Church does…and therefore, there should be tolerance and allowance for these varying definitions which originate from these authoritative governing bodies. If that’s your motive, I would respond by saying that the discussion would best serve your understanding of the Catholic position if it moved away from “when does ensoulment precisely happen” or “is it acceptable for people to abort if they don’t believe in the rights of the unborn”…and rather moved toward a dialogue about objective truth, moral relativism, and the reality of Church authority. Once you see the Catholic position on those topics, I think you’ll more clearly see that it doesn’t matter to a Catholic that the U.S. courts define a “human being with protected rights” as only those who have been born. What matters is what God (through the Church) officially teaches as such.

"IOW, any person who would make a vow of representative faith for the unborn child and sincerely intends to have the child baptized when physically capable of doing so, makes that child a member of Christ’s Church while still in the unborn state. In this sense, not ALL unborn children are “Catholic”, but an unborn child need not necessarily be a child of Catholic parents to meet the above criteria. "

OK. So, some unborn are members of the Church because of actions of their parents. Then those whose parents do not take such action are not members of the Church.

I am drawing a comparison between unborn membership in society, and unborn membership in the Church. Some condemn the notion that the unborn are not considered members of society. But, if many of these same fetuses are not considered members of the Church, is the notion that unreasonable?

A question might arise as to why a fetus is not simply baptised as soon as the pregnancy is known. I presume the answer is because the Church doesn’t know at what point the fetus has a soul.

 

[mlchance]

So, if the unborn is not considered a member of the Church, is it so unreasonable it is not considered a member of society?

Yes, it is unreasonable since the Church is a subset of society. One need not belong to a subset to belong the set itself.

A question might arise as to why a fetus is not simply baptised as soon as the pregnancy is known. I presume the answer is because the Church doesn’t know at what point the fetus has a soul.

If you actually bothered to study what the Church teaches, you could avoid ridiculous presumptions.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[SteveGC]

"IOW, any person who would make a vow of representative faith for the unborn child and sincerely intends to have the child baptized when physically capable of doing so, makes that child a member of Christ’s Church while still in the unborn state. In this sense, not ALL unborn children are “Catholic”, but an unborn child need not necessarily be a child of Catholic parents to meet the above criteria. "

OK. So, some unborn are members of the Church because of actions of their parents. Then those whose parents do not take such action are not members of the Church.

I am drawing a comparison between unborn membership in society, and unborn membership in the Church. Some condemn the notion that the unborn are not considered members of society. But, if many of these same fetuses are not considered members of the Church, is the notion that unreasonable?

A question might arise as to why a fetus is not simply baptised as soon as the pregnancy is known. I presume the answer is because the Church doesn’t know at what point the fetus has a soul.

What does not being a member of the Church have to do with being a member of society? Just because a person may or may not be “Catholic” has nothing to do with the reality that they are a person. So, yes…I do think it’s unreasonable to conclude that because some unborn may not be members of the Church, that they are therefore not members of society. Remember, the Church didn’t come up with the definition of when life begins on their own. The Church is guided by the very hand of God, and when the Church makes an official teaching, it is coming directly from the Spirit of God. Not believing in God makes that difficult to understand, I know. But that’s the truth. Hence, as life begins at conception, the unborn at all stages are members of society…regardless of the “catholicity” of the unborn. This is why Catholics condemn the notion of excluding the unborn from society.

The fetus isn’t baptized because it is impractical to do so…not because of any ensoulment issue. Again…the Church infallibly declares that life begins at conception (this comes from the teaching of God). God may not have revealed the precise timing of ensoulment, but He did guide the Church to declare when life begins. I’ll add this post of mine from the other abortion thread, where I replied to one of your ensoulment issues:

But WW, this (ensoulment issue) has no bearing on what is acceptable to believe. Because, despite the [lack of a] unanimous declaration of precise timing of ensoulment, the Church officially declares that life begins at conception…at that very instant…and is sacred…and must not be deliberately terminated…ever. The fact that they disagree on the timing of ensoulment is irrelevant to the infallible declaration of when life begins.

And so, it is NOT acceptable to God to believe otherwise…to believe there is a point between conception and nidation wherein abortion is justified. God, through the Church, decrees that life begins at conception…period.

The crux of the matter is whether or not it is important to someone to follow what God decrees…or to follow their own prideful whim.

 

[WillieWonka]

Yes, it is unreasonable since the Church is a subset of society. One need not belong to a subset to belong the set itself.

If you actually bothered to study what the Church teaches, you could avoid ridiculous presumptions.

– Mark L. Chance.

I observe the Catholic Church spans many societies. The church is not a subset os any society. It intersects with societies.

Why is the fetus not baptised as soon as its presence is known. If one considers if fully human and entitled to all the rights and protections of a full human, wouldn’t baptism be in order?