Does the Church allow for mother’s life/health or rape/incest exceptions then?
A few years ago, I was living in Greenville, and went to a couple of masses at this church. At one of these masses, the priest (who may have been Father Newman, although I can’t recall with certainty) spent most of the homily attacking people who support in vitro fertilization.
My best friend is the father of a beautiful boy, who was conceived in vitro. The homily pissed me off enough to convince me never to return to that particular church.
It also contributed in some small measure to my decision not to rejoin the Catholic Church, which I had been considering for some time, despite my serious doubts about the existence of an immortal soul.*
The idea that I couldn’t be a good Catholic and support in vitro fertilization just clinched it for me, I suppose.
I don’t think Father Newman’s views on Barack-voters and communion should be interpreted as representing the stance of the Catholic Church in general. Nevertheless, the Church is so obsessed with the issue of abortion, it’s not surprising that some of its members would reach such a conclusion.
*I know, it’s pretty silly to think you could be Catholic and not believe in the afterlife. All I can say is that I missed the aesthetics of the mass and the Church’s traditional commitment to social justice; I also thought maybe the theology could be understood in allegorical terms (much like the Book of Genesis is widely regarded by most Catholic theologians as a metaphor than a literal history of the beginning of the world). I realize now I was mistaken, and that holding such views (in addition to my pro-choice beliefs) just isn’t compatible with Catholicism.
The Church relies on some complexities here regarding whether or not the life is directly taken, that I’m not sufficiently familiar with explain. The gist is, you’re allowed to take actions that will save the mother, but that will have the unintended (but known) consequence of causing the child’s death.
But it is definitely the belief of the Church that the heroic and saintly choice is to sacrifice one’s own life for the sake of the child:
One lovely year was all we had until the sickness came
And stole the roses from her cheeks my tears they fell like rain
For nine long months she carried you but in the end she died
She chose to go so you might live, long, long before your time
So you ask me why I look so sad on this bright summers day
Or why the tears are in my eyes and I seem so far away
It’s just you seem a lot like her, when your eyes look into mine
And you smile so much like she did, long, long before your time
Really, this outlook applies to any circumstance where one can sacrifice for another.
No.
In a far more general sense, the Church teaches that ends cannot justify means.
The archetypal exploration of this is from The Brothers Karamazov:
“Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature – that baby beating its breast, for instance – and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.
And if a life is taken when that situation does not apply, then it’s intrisically evil. You can’t say it’s ok to kill in self-defense, therefore it’s ok to kill in non-self-defense.
He’s not talking about logic or philosophy, he’s talking about Church canon. I can see how that works given the explanation above, even if I don’t agree with it.
No innocent person has ever been executed :rolleyes:, so why would anyone object to the death penalty?
Anyway Sarah Palin is God’s official candidate.
No innocent person has ever been executed :rolleyes:, so why would anyone object to the death penalty?
Anyway Sarah Palin is God’s official candidate. :smack:
…for M.I.L.F. magazine’s centerfold for the month of November.
Yes, but it is acceptable to suggest that he fellate a chainsaw.
But we’re not talking about self-defense, we’re talking about the right of the state to execute criminals, which, in your words “only morally justified if there is no other way to prevent a person from harming other people”. I agree that this is the position of the Church. Determining whether or not there is another way to prevent the person from causing harm involves prudential judgment. If you’re using to prudential judgment to make the decision, then it cannot be intrinsically evil. It can be be horribly evil, but it’s not called an intrinsic evil.
Vote Republican or lose the wafer? Hardly seems fair. Wasn’t there a holy stink raised the last time some twit held the Eucharist “hostage”?
How do you say quid pro quo in Latin?
I’m canceling my subscription!
::BARF SMILELY::
No, it’s not “intrinsically” evil. That is a term of art, and it does not apply to this situation, because the conditions under which it applies cannot be defined by bright-line rule.
Now, don’t get me wrong: in my view, it is evil. But someone else may argue that even with a life sentence without parole, a killer may kill again: guards or fellow prisoners may be at risk. And if he believes, after prudentially examining the issue, this to be a legitimate danger, he may legitimately call for the death penalty.
Because of this, we don’t call it intrinsically evil. That phrase refers to an act which is always evil, in and of itself. The death penalty is “only” evil as applied.
By the way – abortion, you may be surprised to hear, is not intrinsically evil, either. There are circumstances in which the act of abortion is not evil. Typical examples involve the principle of secondary effect, in which surgery which is necessary to save the life of the mother, and is undertaken for that end, has the unintended secondary effect of killing the unborn child… ectopic pregnancy, for instance, is probably an excellent example.
Is chosing the life of the mother over that of the child, when it’s obvious that a) mom would not survive the pregnancy, and b) neither would the fetus (ectopic pregnancy, e.g.) seen in that same light?
I am not being a smartass, I don’t remember the RCC’s position.
Timing is everything! 
Good to see we’ve finally got a pro-war priest! Was it not Jesus that said Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran? Haseth not the scripture proclaim that 100 years in useless war earneth a seat on the trigger hand of the Father? Was it not the Apostle John that said “Fuck the poor, I’m gettin’ my rich on”? This was clearly an election of black vs white! Jesus would have never hung out with those Democrat types, those prostitutes, those poor, those diseased! There is a reason that white suburban churches are the nicest!
The Church says that as long as the person is in prison then the DP is not justified. That takes all subjective “judgemen” right out of it. The position of the Church is that any circumstances which would justify executing a criminal are so remote and theoretical as to be, for practical purposes, non-existent.