Why would it matter ? It wouldn’t notice if it did have an afterlife; there’s nobody there to notice.
How’d I miss this?
If secular humanism finds no conflict (or few) in Christ’s words & lessons, it doesn’t make Christ retroactively a humanist, nor his words humanistic. This is backwards.
Christ didn’t co-opt humanism. The humanist has co-opted Christ in limited ways, finding his message to be consistent with a humanistic worldview.
But the fact that there is some agreement between Christian ethics (and the bible) and secular humanist ethics doesn’t confer legitimacy to secular humanism within the Christian framework.
Christ was no secular humanist.
If that is their position, why do they ignore the 20% of pregnancies that end in spontaneous abvortion? Should these children not be granted all the rights and privileges of any other human who has died?
Oh, absolutely. The Magdalene Laundry comes to mind. That’s some reaching out right there.
Until it is a tenet of the Catholic church to adopt every child who needs a family, their admonition against abortion rings hollow. Kindred to the sound of tinkling brass.
Twenty percent of all pregnancies end in “spontaneous abortion?” What is that?
(I don’t disbelieve you, but I’d like a credible site.)
According to the Mayo Clinic:
Thanks for the credible site.
I don’t want to find myself speaking for the RCC as I’m not a Catholic. (or defending them)
As to Contrapuntal’s post, it seems to me that the RCC would consider that fetus to be [essentially] a dead baby, right? As such, wouldn’t it be accorded a funeral and burial like any other baby? It seems so, but I don’t know. What any given Catholic does in this circunstance is an individual decision.
I’d like a RCC cite that indicates some RCC policy that “ignores” this population. Ignores them in what fashion? Ignores them how?
According to Catholics United for the Faith and americancatholic.org miscarried babies are entitled to a Catholic funeral.
Thanks for that.
It seems to me that the RCC is consistent, if nothing else. On the front end they require celibacy before marriage (IIRC), monogamy after marriage, and burials for aborted babies. Hardly seems that they’re ignoring them. I also seem to remember (IIRC) that both Catholic Social Services and Lutheran Social Services are active in helping to place babies for adoption.
I kind of like the response from one of their Senators
Man, what a burn.
You are welcome. I would agree with you on your last point…Catholic Charities placed ME for adoption. I lived in a Catholic orphanage, cared for by Sisters, until I was 6 weeks old when my parents adopted me. IMO, this is one of the Church’s greatest missions.
I also have to agree that the RCC is at least consistent. The idea that the church will become “irrelevant” is, well, irrelevant. The Church doesn’t subscribe to the idea that times change/morality changes, and they don’t tend to compromise too much on the respect that they have for life, especially innocent life.
I’m still not understanding the church’s position that clearly.
If a Catholic murdered an adult, they would not be excommunicated. Why is the supposed murder of a fetus that much worse?
Because it gives them an opportunity to hurt women.
And the 11-year-old girl isn’t innocent? I’m not seeing much respect for her life. The church has a ridiculously simplistic definition of what “life” is.
Strictly from a PR perspective, bad move Catholic Church. I can respect standing up for your principles even when it isn’t popular, but they can’t honestly think this is going to get them new converts.
I’m guessing it has something to do with the dogma that infants who die before they can be baptized go straight to Hell.
IANA Catholic, but I agree with the church on this issue.
Here’s how I’d explain it: The innocent girl was raped, which is an unspeakably horrible circumstance. That she became pregnant as a result is even worse. At this point, the two main options are A) get an abortion or B) allow the pregnancy to continue to birth. Both options result in harm to an innocent human, which is terrible. In my eyes, and in the eyes of the Catholic Church, option A is equivalent to murder of the unborn child, and is thus unacceptable. Option B is also unacceptable, since the girl must face the physical challenges that come with pregnancy and childbirth, in addition to the unfair stigma that she will be subjected to. It is a case where the lesser of two evils must be chosen. I believe that an abortion, which results in a loss of a human life, is worse than no abortion, which disrupts (in a huge way) a human life. It is not an easy decision, but the belief is that continuing a life trumps the huge disruption to the girl’s life. It’s not fair at all, and no one would claim that it is.
Catholics take no pleasure in hurting women. Lissa asked a question in good faith, and you responded with an entirely untrue declaration. It is true that saying that a raped woman must carry her pregnancy to birth does hurt the woman. But that is of course not the goal. The goal is to save the life of the fetus, and the woman is hurt along the way. The Catholic Church does not like the fact that their policy hurts women, but they find the alternative (an innocent death) unacceptable. And I agree with them.
Only if you look at a fetus as the equal of the girl; an actual, thinking person. That’s an insulting, stupid and vile position to take. It shows contempt for both her and humanity in general. You are equating her with a thing, a mindless lump of tissue.
Of course it’s easy; the people making it are all male, and will never have to make it.
I judge by behavior, and the Catholic Church - and the majority of Christian groups - have always acted to harm women. They have always been misogynistic. I see no evidence that they have the slightest concern for the woman, at best. They place the fetus above her health and freedom because of their utter contempt for women.
The problem is that in most of these cases the woman is not aware that she was pregnant. The miscarriage is simply evacuated with the menstrual fluid. To be consistent, the Church would have to make it a policy to examine the menstrual products of every woman to insure that a fetus was not present. As Duck Duck Goose has pointed out, if said fetuses are in fact children, they are excluded from the vision of God.
Does the RCC make an exception “in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest?”
Not in the case cited by the OP. The 11 year old girl was raped by her step-father.