Well, they did compare their detractors to the Nazis. I guess that counts for something :dubious:
Bricker, you’ve used the dismissive term “church-haters”.
Could you please point out any of your posts in this thread that might make someone hate your church less?
Thank you. That’s very kind of you, and I accept, and in turn if I caused you any offense, I am sorry.
Correct. There is no direct Scriptural authority on this point.
As to what was believed at one time… Aquinas wasn’t even the first. Although the earliest church authorities had always regarded abortion as on par with infantcide, St. Augustine taught in the fifth century that only a developed fetus was ensoulled, and that a soul could not live in an unformed body. Pope Innocent III adopted this view; Pope Sixtus V rejected it, and Pope Gregory XIV reinstated it.
So why, you might ask, do you point to the current definition as an absolutely correct claim, when the church has clearly held other positions on the matter?
And the answer is: in every time, the church sought to provide the best answer it could, given the facts as it knew them. It’s fair to say that neither Augustine or Aquinas was as hip to the actual biological processes at work as we are today. We know, as they did not, that there is no “quickening” instant; that the process of mitosis is the same from when the embryo becomes two cells as when he or she becomes 512 cells.
So… might the church learn something else, tomorrow, that changes this teaching again?
Of course.
Sure. The Church has the authority to craft rules that bind the faithful together even if they’re not based on some eternal truth. The Church makes a rule concerning what vestments priests may wear at Mass. Now, tomorrow, if the Pope (pardon me… the motherfucking Pope) wished, he could replace that with a rule that required priests to celebrate Mass in a tuxedo, with top hat and tails. That wouldn’t change any of the eternal truths associated with the Eucharist. But it would be a valid exercise of rule-making power, and, once made, it would be wrong for priests to disobey that law.
Of course! Challenge my ideology all you want. I freely admit that several key points of my belief are unprovable and run against the weight of the shared evidence.
I do think, though, that there’s a difference between challenging what I’ve said, and challenging what I haven’t said but you feel is somehow implied. If I pipe up defending Idi Amin against those charges of cannibalism, don’t pummel me for daring to defend Idi Amin… but feel absolutely free to say, “OK, fine, he’s not a cannibal; that has nothing to do with the fact that he’s a murdering psycho, though, does it?”
Or, to pick one example from this thread… “OK, fine, reporting laws in Massachusetts didn’t compel the church to act before 2002. They still acted reprehensibly, evilly, even.”
Yes, they did.
Well, I infer that this post was occasioned by some of my posts, although I don’t know if it was specific ones of their aggregate effect.
I’m pretty certain that nothing short of Christ’s personal appearance in front of you would cause you, personally, to revise your opinion.
Absolutely correct.
IOW, all you have is dismissiveness. Not support of any kind.
I suppose this is part of what runs counter to my own logic. On one hand, the RCC would argue that canon law has weight because it is inspired by God and approved by His authority on earth. But on the other, you argue that canon law is informed by human knowledge.
I’d have to argue that in the very least this seems an inconsistency to me; either canon law is inspired and informed by the Lord, or it isn’t. It seems almost that you’re coming perilously close to arguing that canon law is imperfect because human knowledge is fallible; that because humans do not know everything about God’s creation, they must perforce create a law which is imperfect. Can an imperfect law be inspired by God? If it’s imperfect, can it have God’s approval?
Hmm. And I’ve always said there’s nothing that could get me to go back.
Might still be true. Probably is, in fact. But at least you’ve given me something to think about.
'Cept I don’t think tuxedos and tails go together. 
How charitable of you. :rolleyes:
God exists, and He’s pretty revolted by you.
You disagree. That’s fine. You’re wrong, but you’re not unreasonable in your view.
Canon law is not regarded as perfect by any means, any more so than secular law is. But it’s binding on the faithful, because the church has the authority to make binding law for the faithful… just as secular law is not perfect but nonetheless binding on the populace, because the state has the authority to craft binding law.
We hope that the Holy Spirit would act to prevent canon law (or any other exercise of the church’s authority) from going too far astray, just as we hope that the Holy Spirit ensures that the Pope is a good and just man. But that isn’t always the case; we have only to look to history to see that the Church has ushered in as Pope several venal, corrupt, and downright evil Pontiffs.
So canon law has weight not because it’s perfect, but because it was made by the folks legitimately in charge of the Church as a valid exercise of the Church’s authority. Sure, it could be flawed, or even outright wrong. If I had a crack at it, there are a number of things I’d do differently.
But the same thing could be said of our secular law. It’s not perfect, but it has authority based on our social contract. And if I could have a crack at IT, there are things I’d do differently.
Lobbying, petitions, protesting, running for office etc. are available ways that you, as an individual, can use to change secular law, so let’s just dump that comparison, o.k.?
If you disagree with the RCC’s policy manual, the thing you misrepresent as “law”, you can go find another denomination, one that doesn’t practice and tolerate child rape and misogyny (which is essentially every other fucking one). It is not binding on the faithful, as you falsely claim it is; the loyalists you call “faithful” accept it voluntarily, or are trained not to realize they have a choice. You *cannot *opt out of real law, a term to which you misleadingly (and obviously deliberately so) add the word “secular”.
One is law, one is not. It is dishonest of you to represent them as parallel.
Then the honest thing is not to assert them as fact anyway, and dismiss all positions that run *with *the weight of the evidence. That’s a huge part of your difficulty here.
I see Bricker’s point regarding Catholic bashing. Let’s not let any facts get in the way of the message. The Catholic Church is unmitigated evil, and we can acknowledge nothing, nothing, that contradicts this.
“Well, they do tolerate child rape by their own ordained people, true, but they run a damn fine Bingo night!”
Is that the sort of thing you mean?
Thank you for your kind invitation, but I will decline it, since lobbying, petitions, and protests are also available to me as a means to try to change both church policy and canon law. Indeed, “running for office” also has an analog: there are lay positions on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is an important policy-making organization.
No bashing intended, but don’t statements by high-ranking RCC officials that suggest they are being persecuted or the situation is a media-driven fantasy suggest an evasion of responsibility and lack of penance?
Wouldn’t this be true of any organization in a similar situation?
There is a point there, of course, but to extend what Czarcasm said, the validity of said law in the RCC is by force God-given. The Church claims its authority from God, unlike secular law in the US which ultimately claims its authority from the consent of the governed (and that, much more than a “social contract”, is the real force). There really is no comparison with US secular law; canon law does not derive authority from those which it governs, but rather from those who govern the Church. And as you have said elsewhere in the thread, canon law operates independently from interpretation by court or other operative body: those who contravene the law are proclaimed guilty by their own actions, not through pronouncement. I could go on but I think most would agree that the differences between canon and civil law are too vast to use one to draw conclusions from the other.
I think your argument is somewhat at odds with actual RCC doctrine. The preamble to the 1983 clarification of canon law makes the point that salvation, although it is not solely obtained by adherence to the law, the Code of canon law is “closely connected with the saving character of the evangelical message itself.” In laymen’s terms: following canon law, the laws of the RCC, helps you reach heaven. Now I know I don’t hold a JCD but I’d doubt the RCC would concede that canon law might be “flawed, or even outright wrong.”
Indeed, the very claim that canon law is “closely connected” to salvation suggests that canon law is, in the RCC’s argument, approved in some form by God. To claim that canon law is “the best answer (the Church) had, given the facts as it knew them” seems a bit of a circular argument again. It seems difficult to rationally argue that on one hand canon law is “closely connected” to salvation, while on the other hand dismissing problems with canon law as the foibles of imperfect human beings.
Correct. And if she does choose the abortion, she (and anyone who helps her procure it) is automatically excommunicated.
The distinction seems to be someone who’s intentionally harming you. So, like, if I trip and fall on you, you can’t stab me in the eye.
The problem is that absolution requires that you repent and have the intention to never repeat the action again. So you must acknowledge that the abortion was a sin and wrong before you can be forgiven for it.
I think part of the problem is that the RCC has had demonstrably corrupt Popes before–there’s nothing new here. And the Church has always survived, so why make waves now, when eventually it will all sort itself out? :rolleyes:
That’s usually how it works–the priest will deny absolution until the person turns themself in.
You can’t abort an ectopic pregnancy. You can just remove the fallopian tube, which has the unfortunate *secondary *effect of also killing the fetus.
:rolleyes: Do you hide the good silver when a Black man attends, too?
Woudn’t happen. Direct abortion is never allowable, ever. The only defense is that the nun honestly misinterpreted the directive **Bricker **cited earlier.
The RCC position is that while someone may choose to sacrifice themself to save you, you can’t kill someone else to save yourself. I think I gave an analogy upthread of two people stranded at sea. If I club you over the head while you’re sleeping and eat you to keep myself alive long enough to reach land, when the alternative is that we would both starve to death at sea, that’s still murder.
The distinction that most people would make, of course, is that a zygote is not a person. But the RCC sees no distinction. A single-celled human being is just as much a person to them as Andre the Giant.
Almost as though there’s no magical soul that we get imbued with at some point. Almost as though we’re just meat machines like everything else on the planet. Oh, no, wait, the *obvious *answer is that we become ensouled persons at the very moment that the genetic material of the sperm and egg combine. :rolleyes:
You can try, certainly. Can you cite any successes in any such attempt by any layperson, or is the response always benevolently dismissive?
In fact, have you ever actually tried to exercise the “availability” you cite, or are you simply satisfied with every chapter and verse?