# Ask The Catholic Guy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2001, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224 "2001-11-14T00:51:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![MHand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@MHand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MHand)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2001, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/121 "2001-11-27T03:08:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\* > But since you mention “safe” as the key term, I’ll point out it is perfectly possible to be a good Catholic and participate in, or procure, an abortion _if necessary to save the life of the mother_. In this case, if this is what you mean by safe (and if you mean “legal” only at times like that), then yes. > \*\* I was always taught the one of the differences between Jewish and Catholic medical ethics, is that Judaism requires saving the life of the mother over the fetus when a choice must be made, whereas Catholicism requires saving the fetus even if that means endangering or killing the mother. Did I learn this incorrectly? (The Catholic Law, that is – I know the Halacha (Jewish Law) is right) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2001, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/122 "2001-11-27T04:30:06Z")
> [@](#): > > whereas Catholicism requires saving the fetus even if that means endangering or killing the mother. There is a strong element in Catholic theology that favors the new, untested life over the life of a person who has already had a chance to make their own decisions. However, that is not enshrined in Catholic doctrine. The general belief that this _is_ doctrine goes back to the novel and movie _The Cardinal_, in which the protagonist makes the choice to save his niece, condemning his sister. Unfortunately, that work of fiction has taken on the aura of having proclaimed a doctrine that has never been promulgated. Each of my Franciscan priest uncles (both of whom were scholars) addressed that issue on several occasions, and each pointed out that the position of the RCC is to lay out the various arguments _in a pastoral setting_ and leave the decision to the prospective parents. Each noted that a mother with six kids under 12 (_good Catholic families and all_) would be perfectly justified to take the radiation therapy to avoid leaving her already born children motherless. (That, of course, is a more clear-cut decision than most women would face in that situation.) ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/123 "2001-11-28T00:09:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JerseyDiamond \*\* I always thought that catholics and Christians believed the same thing until now. It’s clear that Christians believe the Bible and catholics believe the roman catholic doctrine. \*\* [/QUOTE] This reminds me of a fellow student telling me in a history class (while we were studying the Protestant Reformation, no less!) that Catholics were not Christians because we were founded by the Romans, which is why we are called ROMAN Catholics, while the Christians (e.g. Protestant) were founded by Jesus Christ. [:sighs:] Jersey, please remember to always read the OP before posting, and that that staments bashing ANY religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. are not needed on the SDMB, or anywhere, for that matter. If you have an Honest, curious question, by all means ask, but if you do not have anything nice to say, well, don’t say anything at all. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![MHand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@MHand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MHand)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/124 "2001-11-28T03:39:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > whereas Catholicism requires saving the fetus even if that means endangering or killing the mother. > > Each of my Franciscan priest uncles (both of whom were scholars) addressed that issue on several occasions, and each pointed out that the position of the RCC is to lay out the various arguments _in a pastoral setting_ and leave the decision to the prospective parents. Each noted that a mother with six kids under 12 (_good Catholic families and all_) would be perfectly justified to take the radiation therapy to avoid leaving her already born children motherless. (That, of course, is a more clear-cut decision than most women would face in that situation.) \*\* I’m not sure that I understand. You consider the fetus to be as much of a life as the mother – right? Yet, the parents are allowed to make an informed decision to commit murder base on utilitarian principals?! What if the parents disagree? By reductio ad absurdum - perhaps the father that isn’t happy with his marriage and would prefer to save the fetus. I’m more just curious here than argumentative, but this is Great Debate. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/125 "2001-11-28T03:58:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Yet, the parents are allowed to make an informed decision to commit murder base on utilitarian principals? The “standard” scenario for this dilemma is a woman who is diagnosed with cancer in the early stages of pregnancy. She has a good prognosis for recovery if she undergoes either chemotherapy or radiation therapy, either of which will most likely end the pregnancy. In addition, there is a fair chance that if she delays the therapy, her unborn child will die anyway, either because of the cancer or because the woman will die before she can deliver the child. In the hypothetical case just outlined, there are no “good” solutions, but the RCC will allow her to decide whether to risk her death (depriving her living children of a mother while possibly not saving her unborn child) or to risk the life of the child she is carrying to provide for her already-born children. From the perspective of an uninvolved spectator, her decision seems somewhat clear (although I would never want to be in any similar position). As one keeps changing the scenario, playing “what if?” games to make the decision more difficult, it is less clear what an “obvious” choice or decision would be. Unlike the problem birth described in _The Cardinal_, real life problems are rarely clear-cut–and unlike the events described in _The Cardinal_, the RCC does not have an absolute ruling on how each person _must_ respond. There _are_ guidelines, but the RCC is not quite as rigid as some authors (and some priests) make it appear. The RCC _does_ believe that each person has both a conscience and free will. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/126 "2001-11-28T05:40:52Z")
I second **tomndebb** ’s commentary with respect to the abortion choices. **MHand** , in th example you give, under Jewish law, the fetus is viewed as a _rodef_, which mandates the choice of saving the mother. In the Catholic view, the fetus is definitionally innocent, and the considerations are simply which life to save. The loss of the unborn baby’s life in an effort to save the mother is an _unintended secondary effect_. As to the discussion about making the choices based on unworhty motives - saving the child at the expense of the mother’s life because of an unhappy marriage, for example - it’s clear that sin derives not just from actions, but from the intentions motivating those actions. A parent making such hoices would be acting wrongly; this doesn’t destroy the system of permitting parents to make choices. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Katisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bcef8e/32.png) [@Katisha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katisha)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/127 "2001-11-28T07:59:22Z")
OK, here’s a stupid question regarding how completely neurotic I can get when it comes to this stuff – does anyone else ever feel vaguely guilty about not being offended by stuff that the Church generally takes to be offensive – you know, like _Life of Brian_ or “The Vatican Rag” or _Jesus Christ Superstar_ (although the last two probably only piss off the Catholic League these days), or, I don’t know, _Dogma_ or something (although I haven’t seen that – but I’m not about to scream for Kevin Smith’s head either)? I mean, I thought _Life of Brian_ was funny (albeit disturbing) but I don’t think less of my religion for it… ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/128 "2001-11-28T13:54:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Katisha \* > \*\*OK, here’s a stupid question regarding how completely neurotic I can get when it comes to this stuff – does anyone else ever feel vaguely guilty about not being offended by stuff that the Church generally takes to be offensive – you know, like _Life of Brian_ or “The Vatican Rag” or _Jesus Christ Superstar_ (although the last two probably only piss off the Catholic League these days), or, I don’t know, _Dogma_ or something > \*\* “guilty about not feeling upset…” Ah, yes, wonderful Catholic Guilt. But no… even since back when I was an active member, the only times I get upset about mass media representations of ANY religion is when it descends into libel. But then again, my Catholic education was carried out by Brothers who made very clear that the capacity for critical thinking was a divine gift. I’m more concerned about representations that are not overtly a parody or a fantasy, and may lead people into thinking some doctrines exist when they don’t (v. the aforementioned _The Cardinal_ example). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/129 "2001-11-28T15:57:48Z")
> [@](#): > > _although the last two probably only piss off the Catholic League these days_ The Catholic League had the potential to be an advocate to reduce Catholic-bashing in the media. Instead, they have chosen to be a shrill set of professinal victims who take offense at everything from the truly libelous to the totally inoffensive. On a few occasions, years ago, I was lured into seing some mediocre presentation, just to see what they were screaming about. I have found their protests to be valid so rarely, that I now ignore them except when their screams are liable to embarrass me as a Catholic. The shame is that there _is_ a certain amount of anti-Catholic bias in _some_ sectors of the media, but the CL has trivialized the message to the point where they can no longer be regarded as legitimate spokespersons of Catholic thought. Rather than modeling themelves after the best traits of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League, they have chosen to emulate the worst traits of Donald Wildmon and his trivial American Family Association. ---
**Author:** ![Katisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bcef8e/32.png) [@Katisha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katisha)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/130 "2001-11-28T17:07:53Z")
Oh, I totally agree with **tomndebb** about the Catholic League – from poking around their website, it looks like they get up in arms about basically anything where there’s an unsympathetic Catholic character, or a conflicted one. Occasionally there’ll also be some sort of sneer about trying to appeal to “progressive” (the quotes are theirs, not mine) Catholics – so, people like me, I guess. 😉 (Also, they seem to think the producers of _Law & Order,_ one of my favorite shows, have some kind of vendetta against Catholicism for making episodes like the one with the crazy ex-nun charged with beating a girl to death while trying to conduct an exorcism, although they made it perfectly clear that this sort of thing is _not_ cool with the Church and they brought on a friendly priest type to explain how the whole exorcism process is supposed to work on those very rare occasions when it happens.) I think “shrill” is definitely the right word. There _is_ some real anti-Catholic bias out there, but I don’t think it lurks under every rock and in every corner of the mass media. And people like that do far more to disillusion me with Catholicism than, say, Tom Lehrer ever could. [sub](Also, intellectually speaking I’m in complete agreement with **JRDelirious** as well – the nuns who ran my school were big on criticial thinking too. Well, except for my ninth-grade history teacher, but that’s another story. Emotionally, Catholic guilt is a tricky thing to shake…[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![dierson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@dierson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dierson)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/131 "2001-11-28T21:00:41Z")
yesterday I was surfing CATV and I came across a deal explaining “the eucharist”. From what they said… **the bread is the ACTUAL Body of Jesus Christ and the blood is the ACTUAL blood of Jesus Christ. You consume it orally in the ceremony “Eucharist”. Tell me how this isn’t ACTUAL cannibalism.** Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/132 "2001-11-28T22:06:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dierson \* > \*\*yesterday I was surfing CATV and I came across a deal explaining “the eucharist”. From what they said… **the bread is the ACTUAL Body of Jesus Christ and the blood is the ACTUAL blood of Jesus Christ. You consume it orally in the ceremony “Eucharist”. Tell me how this isn’t ACTUAL cannibalism.** > Thank you. \*\* Heh…no silly…doncha know, we eat the [Death Cookie™](http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074%5F01.asp). Geez, I didn’t get the memo guys. Help me out…are we in RC season now…as I recall it overlaps with deer and pheasant season in the midwest…? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/133 "2001-11-28T22:40:23Z")
Happens all the time, Dave. Usually not here, though. Jersey, a bit of advice. Telling other people they’re not Christian, even by implication, when they consider that they are, is no way to win friends and influence people. Consider the following, which I considered posting seriously in anger and then thought better of, but now post merely as a way to show you how hurtful it can be: > [@](#): > > No, **Christians** worship Jesus Christ and the Triune God of which He is part. Including Catholics. Those who worship the Bible and put it in God’s place are Bibliolaters, not Christians. If you were offended by that, you see my point. And I do apologize for the offense – I simply wanted to _show_ you, by example, how one can be hurt by that sort of remark. Do a search for some of **Tom~**'s posts on the origins of Catholic belief, or pop over to the Salad Bar on the Pizza Parlor and check some of **Wolseley** ’s posts. You might be surprised by what you find. ---
**Author:** ![dierson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@dierson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dierson)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/134 "2001-11-28T22:53:24Z")
That was an interesting cartoon. It struck me as odd though in one respect…that in order to abandon the “cookie god” the folks in the cartoon use “the book god”. I suppose listening to what scared sheep herders wrote and then has been transcribed many times and is now virtually ambiguous makes only slightly more sense than a “cookie god”. But back to my question: Is this cannibalism or isn’t it. If someone were to say “Eat me!” and you took a bite outta their arm…what is the difference between that and saying, “Hey this wafer is someones arm! [MUNCH!] and I’ll wash it down with this fluid I call someone’s blood!” If I were at a restaurant and I said, I KNOW this [food] is [insert proper name]'s body! \*I’d be asking for a mental health holdover at the Psych hospital. Wouldn’t common sense say,“Uh, this is ridiculous I’m going to sleep in on sundays now.” ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/135 "2001-11-28T23:15:51Z")
Well, it’s called the Transfiguration, I believe-when the host becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. Physically, it’s still a wafer-but it IS Christ, according to the church beliefs. Or perhaps it is the vessel that holds Christ’s spirit. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/136 "2001-11-28T23:26:31Z")
Transubstantiation is I think what **Guin** meant. And, I believe, that what occurs is that the wafer/wine are still physically wafer/wine their essences are changed to body/blood. I’m sure I’ll be corrected though. ---
**Author:** ![dierson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@dierson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dierson)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/137 "2001-11-29T00:10:31Z")
When you guys figure out what word you wanna make up for this imaginary process transfigurization transubstansiation…whatever. It IS a particular human and you are eating it and drinking it. That is cannibalism by definition. I don’t care how it happens I just wanna know what would possess anyone to STAY IN A ROOM where they are “Celebrating” the oral consumption of another human??? Even if it is “symbolic” it is still sickening. OR…if I am somehow misled…let me know now with regular english not religious words that mean nothing to me. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/138 "2001-11-29T01:53:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dierson \* > \*\*When you guys figure out what word you wanna make up for this imaginary process transfigurization transubstansiation…whatever. It IS a particular human and you are eating it and drinking it. That is cannibalism by definition. I don’t care how it happens I just wanna know what would possess anyone to STAY IN A ROOM where they are “Celebrating” the oral consumption of another human??? Even if it is “symbolic” it is still sickening. > > OR…if I am somehow misled…let me know now with regular english not religious words that mean nothing to me. > > Thank you. \*\* I have a broken hand… feel blessed, deirson, that i stomach the pain of typing in order to answer your question! Anyway, my whole outlook on the “Eat Jesus” thing is that, during the last supper, Jesus said ‘eat this, for it is my body’ and drink this, for it is my blood’ or something along those lines. While many Potestant Churches point to another part “in rememrance of me” to say it is symbolic, the point is that JEsus did not say “eat this, for it symbolizes my body,” he said it WAS his body. And as far as I know, if Jesus had meant it to be a symbol, he probably should have said so. Another point to consider (I remember only vaguely the story. please correct) is that several hundered years ago a priest’s congregation was having doubts about the Transubstantation and the devote priest prayed for some sign from God to show his congregation the light, and lo and behold, the bread turned to flesh, the wine to blood, and it never rotted, and is still around to day somewhere in the Vatican or something. well, my hand hurts, so I might drop by later, but till then, Adios. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/139 "2001-11-29T01:53:38Z")
Um, would you kindly not refer to my religion as “cannibalistic?” The concept of a Eucharistic meal (“eating” your god), certainly did not begin with Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224/140 "2001-11-29T02:26:20Z")
Well, **dierson** has a point. When the first (Catholic) Portuguese began spreading word of Christianity in the regions that are now Ghana and Nigeria, the locals were horrified by the notion of the barbarians from Europe who actually ate someone at their religious services. (Rather ironic in light of all those “African cannibal” cartoons in the _New Yorker_ over the years.) As **Guin** noted, the concept of eating the flesh of a god is not limited to Christianity (leading skeptics with an anthropological bent to dismiss the concept of the Eucharist as simply a cultural curiosity unrelated to Salvation). It should be noted that Catholics are not alone in their belief regarding the Eucharist. The Orthodox hold the same belief and the Church of England holds that same _basic_ understanding. (I am not sure about the various daughter churches of England around the world, but I believe that the conservative wings of those denominations follow the Anglican lead on this issue.) While wrangling over the philosophical concepts of transubstantiation versus consubstantiation, the more conservative _Evangelische_/Lutheran congregations hold to the same basic understanding, as well. * * * **martinez** , I suspect that you will find that your _sign_ is a religious legend, reflected in several other stories of doubters who took the Host home and broke it, only to have it bleed on their tables, and others who heard the voice of Jesus proclaim his presence from the Host. There may be a church somewhere with a relic that purports to be from the event you described, but I doubt that the Vatican puts much stock in the idea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-catholic-guy/93224.md?page=8)