Faith and stem cell research

[Sue Pendleton]

To see all the graphs go to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30256-2001Aug3.html


Faith Is a Force On Both Sides of Stem Cell Debate
Religious Communities Split Sharply On Permitting Embryonic Research
_____Graphic_____

• Stem Cell Opinions Differ by Denomination

By Bill Broadway
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 4, 2001; Page B09

A week before his visit to Pope John Paul II, where he got an unexpected sermon on the evils of embryonic stem cell research, President Bush received a forceful letter from an official in his own denomination urging an extended ban on stem cell experimentation.

"You have promised to make a decision regarding the use of federal tax dollars to support embryonic stem cell research," Jim Winkler, general secretary of the United Methodist Church's General Board for Church and Society, wrote July 17. That decision "can maintain the current prohibition on such funding or take us further down a path to the ultimate commodification of human life," he said.

Bush, who for weeks has been deliberating the issue of federally funded stem cell research, has sought the opinions of some ethicists and religious leaders and gotten unsolicited advice from many more. But there has been no theological consensus, even within denominations.

Last week, 43 members of Bethesda United Methodist Church wrote a letter to local church officials and the denomination's public policy board calling Winkler's interpretation of a United Methodist resolution on embryonic research "morally wrong."

"We pray that Mr. Winkler will reconsider the position he has taken on behalf of the church, publicly retract his letter to President Bush and instead extend his support for embryonic cell research within the carefully considered boundaries established in the previous administration," the authors wrote.

Winkler was out of the country this week and unavailable for comment.

J.D. Hanson, the board's assistant general secretary, said its Washington office has received several e-mails for and against Winkler's letter but only the one letter demanding a retraction.

Whether to fund -- or even allow -- embryonic stem cell research is a decision "religious communities have to be involved in," said the Rev. Archie LeMone, an assistant pastor at Shiloh Baptist Church in Northwest Washington and board member of a minority transplant education program at Howard University Hospital.

Yet it's difficult to advise public officials when there is no agreement among religious groups, he said.

Some predominantly black denominations, such as the Progressive National Baptist Convention to which LeMone belongs, have not taken a position on stem cell research. They believe they need to be better informed about the topic "because human life is at stake," he said.

"We don't want stem cell research to go awry for profit," LeMone said, echoing concerns by religious leaders on both sides that embryos and procedures might be patented. And African Americans, whose ancestors came to this country as slaves, "the first form of human commodity," want to ensure that the buying and selling of humans will not be allowed again, he said.

Other opinions vary widely, and the position of religious leaders does not always mirror that of the rank and file.

Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, said that his organization has issued no statement but that he advised Bush, through the White House office of public liaison, to "step back from the moral abyss" by rejecting all forms of stem cell research.

Cizik believes that most evangelicals the association represents -- more than 125,000 in 51 denominations -- are "deeply troubled by our government actually funding stem cell research that results in the destruction of human embryos." But a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows evangelical Protestants split on the issue.

The Rabbinical Council of America, representing the country's largest organization of Orthodox Jews, last week wrote Bush expressing support for funding stem cell research on embryos that otherwise would be discarded. "Our rabbinic authorities inform us that an isolated fertilized egg does not enjoy the full status of person-hood and its attendant protections," the letter said.

The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism took a similar position in a July 16 letter to the president.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism has not taken an official stance but generally believes "it is not evil to do this research," said Rabbi Elliot Dorff, vice chairman of the denomination's committee on Jewish law and standards. According to his reading of Jewish law, "an embryo outside the womb is not a human being," he said.

Here are some other positions:

• The United Church of Christ, at its general assembly in Kansas City, Mo., last month, passed a resolution calling on Bush to release funds for embryonic stem cell research. Research should follow guidelines established by the National Institutes of Health, requiring that research be restricted to excess embryos created for fertility treatments, the resolution said.

• The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has taken no position and has no plans to address stem cell research at its national convention in Indianapolis next week. But a resolution could be introduced from the floor, a spokesman said.

• The Presbyterian Church (USA), at its general assembly in Louisville in June, passed a resolution supporting "the use of fetal tissue and embryonic tissue for vital research" that could result in the healing of illness. The resolution, introduced by the Presbytery of Baltimore,endorses the use of fetal tissue from abortions and from embryos discarded after fertilization treatments.

• At its general assembly last year, the Episcopal Church considered a resolution calling for a moratorium on stem cell research but referred it to a standing committee for further consideration. The committee will give its report at the next general assembly, in 2003.

• Islamic officials have not issued a statement or advisory. But Muslims support the use of "early embryo leftovers" in fertility clinics in research aimed at curbing and eliminating disease, said Hassan Hathout, trustee for the Islamic Organization for Medical Sciences in Kuwait. Islam opposes creating embryos with the intention of using them for research, he said.

• The 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination, at its 1999 annual meeting passed a resolution reaffirming its "vigorous opposition to the destruction of innocent human life, including the destruction of human embryos." The resolution said the use of embryos in research "would likely lead to an increase in the number of abortions and create a market for aborted embryos and other fetal tissues."

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is unlikely to announce a position until scientists further clarify the necessity of embryonic stem cell research, said Courtney S. Campbell, an associate professor of ethics at Oregon State University and a Mormon. Generally, Mormons believe life does not begin until after 14 days, a critical time for neuronal and cellular development, so research before two weeks probably would be acceptable, he said.

Disagreement over the ethics of stem cell research is evident in Congress, and religious affiliation in some cases seems to be playing a role.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), an evangelical Christian, has declared his opposition to stem cell research. But Republican senators Bill Frist (Tenn.), a Presbyterian, and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), a Mormon, have written Bush urging him to support embryonic stem cell research.

It was shortly after taking office in January that Bush decided to reconsider President Bill Clinton's decision to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Stem cells have the potential of developing into virtually any cell or tissue in the body, and scientists hope to use them to repair organs and counteract such conditions as Parkinson's, diabetes and muscular dystrophy.

Those funds would come from money Congress votes on each year for research at the National Institutes of Health, and the funding is restricted by law to research that does not involve the destruction of embryos. Technically, Clinton and his legal advisers reasoned, the funds could be used for research on embryonic stem cells because federally funded scientists would work only with cells harvested by private labs.

Winkler, as head of the Methodist church's Washington-based public policy office, speaks with the authority of the 8.3 million-member denomination's general conference -- a national gathering of clergy and lay people that meets every four years to pass laws and resolutions. Last year's general conference approved a resolution calling for a ban on all forms of human cloning and on "therapeutic, medical, research and commercial procedures which generate waste embryos."

The prohibition would include all forms of embryonic stem cell research and is based on a Methodist task force's belief that scientists have not proved that other sources of stem cells -- including stem cells from umbilical cords and adult stem cells from bone marrow -- cannot be as effective in combating disease, Hanson said.

"As the United Methodist Church and as a society, we need to stop and think about what we're doing," Hanson said. "We need to let the technical questions catch up with the scientific possibilities [for alternative sources] before we take the next step."

Hanson said he assumes the president "knows what his denomination is thinking" about stem cell research but that he has received no response from the White House beyond acknowledgment that the letter arrived.

"We've tried to offer him our advice," he said.

Assistant polling director Claudia Deane and staff writer Rick Weiss contributed to this report.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

[Joe B]

Why do these religious groups only want to get involved in banning embryonic stem cells if they are used to help research. If researchers weren't asking to use them there wouldn't be any discussion. I would think creating them would be the religious issue. You know, "There is only one God given way to create embryos and all others are ethically wrong." Medical people make them for in-vitro fertilization purposes and make a surplus that is either cryogenically preserved or thrown away.

This sounds like religious posturing to me and should be considered as such. Either an embryo outside the womb is human life and sentient and therefore deserves protection or it is not and can be used appropriately. I can clone the DNA in my skin cells but it isnt sentient. Sentience begins when the brain cells develop enough to make brain waves and begin collecting data, memories, thought. IMH http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/mad.gif

Joe B

[Sue Pendleton]

I read this as fairly good news, Joe. Other than the Southern Babtists who need an education about the difference between abortion and embryos left over from IVF; most of the other major religions/denominations in the US support embryonic researc. Only the United Methodists and some Evangelicals are against it. And if you check out the pie charts those are the church's views not the congregants. The only reason the Episcopalians are slent is this is not a year for their general convention. But in past conventions they have supported the gift of DNA in research use as well as supporting women who feel the need to or must choose abortion at some point in their lives. I'm sure the majority are probably for embryonic stem cel research and use.

[Wise Young]

Both philosophy and religion depend on logic. There is a demonstrable lack of logic in the positions taken by many of the church groups who oppose human embryonic stem cell research. First, if they really believed that killing fertilized eggs is immoral and untenable, they should be just as opposed to the trashing of unused fertilized eggs as to the use of the eggs for stem cells. Second, if these people really believed in the sanctity of human life, how can they support capital punishment? Third, if they really want to reduce destruction of embryos and fetuses, how can they support an act that will encourage the continued, unnecessary, and uncontrolled destruction of thousands of embryos in the private sector. Fourth, if they really cared for people, they would be balancing the lives of several hundred unusable fertilized eggs against the lives of millions of lives of children and adults who would be saved if effective cellular replacement therapies were available.

Several religious groups have pointed out that the use of fertility clinic embryos for research is tantamount to going to a nursing home and saying that the people there will die anyway and therefore we have a right to take their organs. This analogy is so inaccurate that I can only shake my head in amazement that it could be made and people would accept the analogy. The more accurate analogy would be removal of organs from a brain-dead child with full permission from the parents.

Wise.

[Leif]

I have also asked the above questions to some peoples, but no one will answer me!



Why value left over IVF fertilized eggs more than value Humans in their suffering and needs than eggs that will be destroyed and thrown away anyway? To discuss ethic here is impossible since the eggs already are sentenced to death and killed.
If a “cure” from embryonic stem cell research was developed “overseas” would you accept such a cure for yourself, your spouse, child and parents? Would you silently accept this therapy trough your backdoor by letting them travel overseas and little by little accepting the cure within your country (country here can be any) after a while?
Those fertilized eggs from the IVF clinics that will be destructed anyway in your country, would you accept that instead of destroying those that the eggs was shipped to another western country that approves embryonic stem cell research for finding therapies and cures for all of us?And it is as valid today as in 2001 (five years lost already, how many million more people suffering and dying can that be I wonder). And the analogy the oponents are using are still the same in their efforts to hold back this research.

Leif

[Cherry]

"Whether to fund -- or even allow -- embryonic stem cell research is a decision "religious communities have to be involved in,"


Ummm maybe Im just super ignorant, but I really don't see why - this implies that just because one is religious that person's opinion should hold more weight. I don't think so! :nono:

[bobbyg]

You know what I think? I don't think those religious views or opinions really have anything at all to do with ethics. Personally, I don't think they really have anything to do with religion, either.

In any case, I'm with Cherrylips--I don't think these people have much good to contribute and they don't have to be involved in esc research. Why should they? Isn't that an excellent question?

Sometimes we seem to take 'democracy' to such an artificial extreme that it ceases to be democratic. These 'religious' people are just squeakin' the wheel. And some of my best friends are religious nuts! Just because I want them to leave the room doesn't mean I don't love them!

[bobbyg]

Leif--next time you ask those questions, when you don't get answers, ask them, "Why won't you answer?" I wonder if they would have a response to even that. So, how is their position about ethics if they can't respond to honest questions? If they had an ethical position, you'd think they would be happy to express or explain it. Eh?

I'm going to ask one of my religious friends why they never respond to those questions. If I find out anything useful, I'll post it. This really does appear very suspect. I suspect they haven't got an answer.

[Buck_Nasty]

I don't understand why they think they are even entitled to an
opinion on the subject when they do nothing to find an alternative
treatment. I guess it's easier for them to preach.

[bobbyg]

Buck--that's it. They are giving us a general negative, lacking a balancing positive.

I guess they have a right to their opinion, but they don't have a right (or not one that I can understand) to ultimately impose their will on the rest of us. I just don't believe that there are justified spiritual reasons for their position and that it is based on power politics rather than love.

Not all spiritually-minded people agree with the radical fundamentalist view; it would be good to hear more of those people's thoughts on 'the healing path of love' as it includes good medicine.

[LaoziSailor]

Wise,Both philosophy and religion depend on logic.
[...snip...]I don't want to change the context of the "Faith and stem cell research" thread, beyond religious interference in ESC research, yet if we look at Faith and Spirituality as synonymous I would like to propose (at the risk of being accused of selling snake-oil) that we also face persecution from the Law if we decide to research (on ourselves) using hallucinatory agents to assist in "directed self healing", as we can find in Qigong, Yoga or stretching even further into areas such as quantum physics (tachyons).

Proneuron Biotechnologies (http://www.proneuron.com/News/Cov98_00/Cov98_00_13.html) states:"We believe the ability to regenerate or to heal is part of our body and we just need to direct it properly," says Harel. "Hippocrates said 'natural forces within us are the true healers of disease', and this sums up what we are trying to do. Hopefully, the body can cure everything, we just have to find out how."Why not explore whatever is explorable? That to me seems to be one of the human traits.

Cheers!

[Leif]

Leif--next time you ask those questions, when you don't get answers, ask them, "Why won't you answer?" I wonder if they would have a response to even that. So, how is their position about ethics if they can't respond to honest questions? If they had an ethical position, you'd think they would be happy to express or explain it. Eh?

I'm going to ask one of my religious friends why they never respond to those questions. If I find out anything useful, I'll post it. This really does appear very suspect. I suspect they haven't got an answer.
Like I see it.; the ethics in the real world should be - is it not better to use those cells for a possible cure than to destroy them (the IVF clinics are here to stay, which btw is good) – this is where the world are today and that will not be changed, it’s like turning the clock back. Above that, I would have had no problems using those cell above that either, but that is another and in that case a true hypothetical discussion. Thanks, Leif

[bobbyg]

Bingo.

[artsyguy1954]

I think these "religious people" are mostly conservative by nature, afraid of scientic progress and the unknown or anything they don't understand or don't want to understand. (Most likely one and the same thing in their minds.)
Next time anyone has this argument with one of these christian fundamentalists, ask them if they believe as much in compassion towards your fellow human beings as Jesus did? (The very man these types profess to love so much).
But this much soul searching may prove to be too embarassing for these simpleminded control freaks.
I don't think self awareness (and rational debate) is what they are interested in, unfortunately. They would rather take their cues from simplistic religious and political paroles. It is easier on the brain.
My experience with these people has been that it is very hard to convince them of anything, if they have already made up their mind not to be convinced.
None of this would matter in the larger stem cell debate, if "religion" were not being hijacked by the right wing powers that be as a political 'power wielding tool', often to be used like a sledge hammer, it seems to me.:thinking:

[paramoto]

My experience with these people has been that it is very hard to convince them of anything, if they have already made up their mind not to be convinced.

You are describing human nature. What are the chances of a conservative convicing you to accept a conservative point of view?

Having said that, I find it absurd that religious positions are interfering with the well being of millions who suffer different ailments, SCI being just one of them. I think it goes against our basic human right. When you weigh risk/benefit there should be no issue to discuss.

[artsyguy1954]

You are describing human nature. What are the chances of a conservative convicing you to accept a conservative point of view?[QUOTE]


Most likely pretty slim. But it would depend on the argument and the issue. When it comes to the war on terror, I would qualify as a conservative.

[Tufelhunden]

[quote=paramoto]You are describing human nature. What are the chances of a conservative convicing you to accept a conservative point of view?


Most likely pretty slim. But it would depend on the argument and the issue. When it comes to the war on terror, I would qualify as a conservative.

I'm with Artsyguy on this one. The efforts should be focused on not making this a bipartisan issue, but a human rights issue. Religeous fanatical idiots are no more immune to SCI than anyone else.

[artsyguy1954]

[quote=artsyguy1954]

I'm with Artsyguy on this one. The efforts should be focused on not making this a bipartisan issue, but a human rights issue. Religeous fanatical idiots are no more immune to SCI than anyone else.


I agree with you, Tufelhunden. Being able to be healed from inhumane illnesses or the consequences of an accident such as SCI if it is medically possible should be declared a basic human right. Bush might change his tune if one of his drug abusing daughters had a car accident and ended up in wheel chair.

[Le Type Français]

Not all spiritually-minded people agree with the radical fundamentalist view; it would be good to hear more of those people's thoughts on 'the healing path of love' as it includes good medicine.

I'm one of those people. Bush is a hypocrite and an ignorant religious prick. He says we cannot destroy life to create life. What is Iraq? The Iraq war consists of people who are all breathing oxygen and producing carbon dioxide yet the death is justified for his agenda.

Biblically, God does not recognize the fetus, much less an embryo, as a human soul if we take in account that killing a fetus received a much less severe consequence than killing a human being.

[paramoto]

[quote=artsyguy1954]

I'm with Artsyguy on this one. The efforts should be focused on not making this a bipartisan issue, but a human rights issue. Religeous fanatical idiots are no more immune to SCI than anyone else.

I think the effort should be focused on finding a cure. I am not making it a bipartisan issue, I am responding to this post by Artsyguy

"I think these "religious people" are mostly conservative by nature, afraid of scientic progress and the unknown or anything they don't understand or don't want to understand. (Most likely one and the same thing in their minds.)"

And this one:

"My experience with these people has been that it is very hard to convince them of anything, if they have already made up their mind not to be convinced."

Which by the way, I don't have a problem with other than the fact that you did not make a partisan comment on that post but did on mine, perhaps you did not go back far enough to read it. I just commented that it is human nature not to accept something that deeply challenges your beliefs. Is that more partisan than what I quoted above, I don't think so.

I do not defend any party lines. I lean conservative on most issues and liberal on some, with a very independent mind. When it comes to a cure, I honestly don't care where it comes from I'm pro-cure.

[artsyguy1954]

[quote=Le Type Français]I'm one of those people. Bush is a hypocrite and an ignorant religious prick. He says we cannot destroy life to create life. What is Iraq? The Iraq war consists of people who are all breathing oxygen and producing carbon dioxide yet the death is justified for his agenda.


I agree with you, Todd. Speaking of Iraq, it beats me how Bush can face all those crippled up and parallized Vets coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan after having done his dirty work for him over there, and he doesn,t even have the moral integrity and honesty to "say thank you" by supporting the much needed stem cell research that may some day help these guys walk again. I think that is the least he owes these guys.
BUSH! WHAT A COLDHEARTED SON OF A BITCH. What a weasel! Even looks like one when he looks at the camera with those beady little eyes:mad: :(

[artsyguy1954]

I just commented that it is human nature not to accept something that deeply challenges your beliefs. Is that more partisan than what I quoted above, I don't think so.

I do not defend any party lines. I lean conservative on most issues and liberal on some, with a very independent mind. When it comes to a cure, I honestly don't care where it comes from I'm pro-cure.[/quote]

I am with you here, Paramoto. Except I tend to be liberal on most issues and conservative on some. I don't care where the cure comes from. I just wish a good strong dose of enlightened humanist thinking could be reintroduced into the stem cell debate instead of all this irrational religious demagogery. Where is this all going to lead to if left unchecked? Book burnings and the Salem Witch Hunts revisited?

[kate]

The United Church of Christ, at its general assembly in Kansas City, Mo., last month, passed a resolution calling on Bush to release funds for embryonic stem cell research. Research should follow guidelines established by the National Institutes of Health, requiring that research be restricted to excess embryos created for fertility treatments, the resolution said.

The numbers of churchgoers who support closely supervised and ethical research far outweighs the number who insist that the frozen blastocyst must be protected. We are, sadly, much, much less organized--though there's reason to believe that situation is changing.

If you go and read the documents where the Christian Right formed its stance on stem cell research, you'll find that they really aren't that concerned about the blastocysts. They're concerned that if this research is sanctioned and allowed, they will have be on a "slippery slope" toward softening their position on abortion.

They have to insist that "life begins at conception", however goofy that assertion is in the light of nearly half a million frozen blastocysts waiting to be incinerated as medical waste. If they give up that ground, (so goes their thinking), where can they stake their claim?

I'm not making this up--I had to read through all the documents once while preparing to go and testify at our state capitol on behalf of a stem cell research bill (which failed, btw) so I saw it myself. They don't care about the research; they care about abortion.

[paramoto]

I just commented that it is human nature not to accept something that deeply challenges your beliefs. Is that more partisan than what I quoted above, I don't think so.

I do not defend any party lines. I lean conservative on most issues and liberal on some, with a very independent mind. When it comes to a cure, I honestly don't care where it comes from I'm pro-cure.

I am with you here, Paramoto. Except I tend to be liberal on most issues and conservative on some. I don't care where the cure comes from. I just wish a good strong dose of enlightened humanist thinking could be reintroduced into the stem cell debate instead of all this irrational religious demagogery. Where is this all going to lead to if left unchecked? Book burnings and the Salem Witch Hunts revisited?[/quote]

What I am going to say may sound cold and thoughtless, but it is not meant that way.

I think that the religious influence on research would be greatly reduced if a family member of a religious or ultra-conservative icon would suffer an SCI. After witnessing one of those early acute stage bowel programs, man they would finance the research with their millions. It is as simple as that. The lottery has to fall on the right number, that's all (not that I wish this crap on anyone).

[JimmyMack]

If you go and read the documents where the Christian Right formed its stance on stem cell research, you'll find that they really aren't that concerned about the blastocysts.

Where does one go to read these documents? Can you give me a link or something?


They're concerned that if this research is sanctioned and allowed, they will have be on a "slippery slope" toward softening their position on abortion.

I can only speak from the catholic perspective. The catholic church is an international church, are there not countries where ESC research is allowed? Yet I dont see the catholic church "softening" there position on abortion.



They have to insist that "life begins at conception", however goofy that assertion is........

So tell us Kate, when does life begin?


I'm not making this up--I had to read through all the documents once while preparing to go and testify at our state capitol on behalf of a stem cell research bill (which failed, btw) so I saw it myself. They don't care about the research; they care about abortion.

Well I for one am glad that you are not making this up. Again since you had to read ALL THE DOCUMENTS you should be able to supply me with a list or something


JimmyMack

[Tufelhunden]

I am with you here, Paramoto. Except I tend to be liberal on most issues and conservative on some. I don't care where the cure comes from. I just wish a good strong dose of enlightened humanist thinking could be reintroduced into the stem cell debate instead of all this irrational religious demagogery. Where is this all going to lead to if left unchecked? Book burnings and the Salem Witch Hunts revisited?

What I am going to say may sound cold and thoughtless, but it is not meant that way.

I think that the religious influence on research would be greatly reduced if a family member of a religious or ultra-conservative icon would suffer an SCI. After witnessing one of those early acute stage bowel programs, man they would finance the research with their millions. It is as simple as that. The lottery has to fall on the right number, that's all (not that I wish this crap on anyone).[/quote]

Paramoto,

I could not agree with you more. Most of these "opponents" don't even know anybody in a wheelchair. The ones who do are usually the ones who come up to you and say, "be patient, God will heal you, treat this as something of a lesson to learn from." You are right in saying that this is not to be wished upon anybody, but unfortunately this is probably the quickest way that SCI will be brought out into the limelight and dealt with.

[kate]

Where does one go to read these documents? Can you give me a link or something?

I can only speak from the catholic perspective. The catholic church is an international church, are there not countries where ESC research is allowed? Yet I dont see the catholic church "softening" there position on abortion.

So tell us Kate, when does life begin?

Well I for one am glad that you are not making this up. Again since you had to read ALL THE DOCUMENTS you should be able to supply me with a list or something

Hi, Jimmy--
I'm at work, so can't get links for you at the moment, but I wanted to say a couple things:

First, we're not talking about whether or not ESC research is allowed; we're talking about whether or not it's supported and funded and regulated by the full authority of the government of the USA. ESC research is "allowed" here in the USA, but federal tax dollars cannot be spent on it, and no one is making sure the privately funded research is done under ethical standards.

Second, the Catholic Church has an admirably consistent position on the value of human life, including opposition to the death penalty, opposition to contraception, and opposition to wars of choice. Many Catholics do use ivf procedures . . . which seems inconsistent, given the near certainty of producing excess embryos. Maybe you could fill us in on the Church's position on ivf? In any case, I wasn't talking about them, but specifically--as I think I said--about the Christian Right.

Third, you and I have previously agreed to disagree about when life begins. :) Life is obviously present in a blastocyst; it's also present in a sperm. I don't see a sperm as the equivalent of a baby, and I don't see a blastocyst as the equivalent of one either. The question isn't when "life" begins, but when a fertilized egg becomes a human being.

[paramoto]

Hi, Jimmy--
Second, the Catholic Church has an admirably consistent position on the value of human life, including opposition to the death penalty, opposition to contraception, and opposition to wars of choice.

I am a catholic and consider myself a moderate conservative. I question however some of the positions adopted by the catholic hierarchy. One of them is the prohibition of use of contraceptives. I think it is irresponsible for the church to advocate that uneducated and impoverished people in underdeveloped countries have as many kids as a woman can have in her reproductive years, and as long as her "man" is willing to stick around or come around. This practive consumes the poor into a vicious circle that creates misery, exponential growth of more uneducated children, fatherless homes and ending in even more misery. I think that consenting adults should be taught responsible sex practices.

[JimmyMack]

First, we're not talking about whether or not ESC research is allowed; we're talking about whether or not it's supported and funded and regulated by the full authority of the government of the USA. ESC research is "allowed" here in the USA, but federal tax dollars cannot be spent on it, and no one is making sure the privately funded research is done under ethical standards.


They're concerned that if this research is sanctioned and allowed, they will have be on a "slippery slope" toward softening their position on abortion.

Sanctioned and allowed are your words, I know that ESC is allowed


Many Catholics do use ivf procedures . . . which seems inconsistent, given the near certainty of producing excess embryos.

You are right there Kate, I wonder how many really take the time to understand the sublimety of the catholic faith, or even take the time to read the catechism.


Maybe you could fill us in on the Church's position on ivf?

This is all you need to know.
Google : Donum Vitae and Humane Vitae They are seperate Papal encyclicals Humane Vitae is authored by Pope Paul VI in 1967 and Donum Vitae is authored by Pope John Paul II in 1987




In any case, I wasn't talking about them, but specifically--as I think I said--about the Christian Right.

Fair enough.


Third, you and I have previously agreed to disagree about when life begins. :) Life is obviously present in a blastocyst; it's also present in a sperm. I don't see a sperm as the equivalent of a baby, and I don't see a blastocyst as the equivalent of one either. The question isn't when "life" begins, but when a fertilized egg becomes a human being.

When the sperm fertilizes the egg (conception) human life begins IMO and many scientists :), the sperm is not the baby. Agree to disagree, yeah we did

JimmyMack

[JimmyMack]

I question however some of the positions adopted by the catholic hierarchy. One of them is the prohibition of use of contraceptives.[/qoute]

Yes not a very popular position

[quote=paramoto]
I think it is irresponsible for the church to advocate that uneducated and impoverished people in underdeveloped countries have as many kids as a woman can have in her reproductive years, and as long as her "man" is willing to stick around or come around.

Sorry I've never seen or read about the catholic church advocating such a position, if possible can you provide me with details.



This practive consumes the poor into a vicious circle that creates misery, exponential growth of more uneducated children, fatherless homes and ending in even more misery.

Being poor doesnt necessarlly mean you are in misery and being rich doesnt necessarlly mean your happy. If we are talking about lacking basic needs like food and hydration then actually having a large family would better ensure your survival. As people get older they have a much larger chance of their family taking care of them, a third world social security system.


I think that consenting adults should be taught responsible sex practices.

Thats very easy to say, what do you suggest? I dont think bombing a poor nation with rubbers is gonna solve anything.

JimmyMack

[artsyguy1954]

I am a catholic and consider myself a moderate conservative. I question however some of the positions adopted by the catholic hierarchy. One of them is the prohibition of use of contraceptives. I think it is irresponsible for the church to advocate that uneducated and impoverished people in underdeveloped countries have as many kids as a woman can have in her reproductive years, and as long as her "man" is willing to stick around or come around. This practive consumes the poor into a vicious circle that creates misery, exponential growth of more uneducated children, fatherless homes and ending in even more misery. I think that consenting adults should be taught responsible sex practices.

I think we all know what paramoto means with this argument and I think he is right on the money here. I don't think there is any need to argue this point any more. For those sceptics that still want to, I would like to point out that, in my humble opinion, history has already rendered its verdict beyond any reasonable doubt. All we have to do is compare progressive, prosperous, predominantly protestant northern european countries with predominantly stagnant, impoverished catholic countries in South America and the pattern becomes pretty clear.
I am really worried that the decreasing separation between church and state and increasing anti science bias in the US may cause that country to loose it its preeminent position as economic and scientific powerhouse and that can't be a good thing for us SCI's or anyone else in the western free world.

[artsyguy1954]

"Being poor doesnt necessarlly mean you are in misery and being rich doesnt necessarlly mean your happy". (Quote by 'Jimmy Mack')

Explain that to a poor person. (in the third world).

[artsyguy1954]

The numbers of churchgoers who support closely supervised and ethical research far outweighs the number who insist that the frozen blastocyst must be protected. We are, sadly, much, much less organized--though there's reason to believe that situation is changing.[QUOTE]


Thanx for that contribution, Kate. I hope you are right about the above statement. The "silent moderate majority" needs to mobilize and speak up loudly the way the lunatic fringe has been for years.

[kate]

“We believe, as do most authorities that have addressed the issue, that human embryos do have the potential of personhood, and as such they deserve respect. That respect must be shown by requiring that the interests or goals to be accomplished by using human embryos be compelling and unreachable by other means. Indications are that human embryonic stem cell research has the potential to lead to lifesaving breakthroughs in major diseases. Currently, this knowledge cannot be obtained from cells derived from other sources . . . Prohibition of the derivation of stem cells from embryos would elevate the showing of respect to human embryos above that of helping persons whose pain and suffering might be alleviated..” (Presbyterian Church.)

Emphasis mine. Then there are the Episcopalians:

"As stewards of creation, we are called to help mend and renew the world in many ways. The Episcopal Church celebrates medical research as this research expands our knowledge of God's creation and empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer from disease or disability," the letter stated. "We appreciate the thorough and sensitive approach the authors and co-sponsors of this legislation have taken in crafting the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 and urge its passage when the full House considers this important measure."

It's simply false to think that Christians are of one (negative) mind on this issue. What about the Methodists?

Given the reality that most, if not all, of these excess embryos will be discarded—we believe that it is morally tolerable to use existing embryos for stem cell research purposes. This position is a matter of weighing the danger of further eroding the respect due to potential life against the possible, therapeutic benefits that are hoped for from such research. The same judgment of moral tolerability would apply to the use of embryos left from future reproductive efforts if a decision has been made not to introduce them into the womb. We articulate this position with an attitude of caution, not license. We reiterate our opposition to the creation of embryos for the sake of research.

[paramoto]

[quote=JimmyMack][quote=paramoto] I question however some of the positions adopted by the catholic hierarchy. One of them is the prohibition of use of contraceptives.[/qoute]

Yes not a very popular position



Sorry I've never seen or read about the catholic church advocating such a position, if possible can you provide me with details.

By making contraception taboo in impoverished countries, they are in fact advocating the conception of millions of kids without a solid family structure, resources for a proper upbringing and in many cases without food and other basic necessities. There is a distinction between poverty and misery. Poverty becomes misrery when a family that makes enough to provide barely for two kids, has 14 kids and knows of no other solution than to send the kids sometimes one, two or three years old begging in the street. What does our church think these people will do, stop having sex?? Unrealistic. We must educate the poor to have responsible sex.




Being poor doesnt necessarlly mean you are in misery and being rich doesnt necessarlly mean your happy. If we are talking about lacking basic needs like food and hydration then actually having a large family would better ensure your survival. As people get older they have a much larger chance of their family taking care of them, a third world social security system.

Misery is not intended as a gauge for happyness or sadness. There are people that are poor and there are people that live in misery. If poverty means you have difficulty paying the light bill, misery means you do not even have the service.

Regarding the third world social security system, in what thirld world? I have travelled probably to more than 25 third world countries and from my experience, misery brings about more misery. Most of these kids don't even get to first grade, and have their own kids at 14, 15 or 16 years old, and the viscious cycle continues. While prohibiting contraception may be a worthwhile concept, it does, by far, more harm than good.



Thats very easy to say, what do you suggest? I dont think bombing a poor nation with rubbers is gonna solve anything.

I don't pretend to have all solutions. I am just relating what I see and what I feel is counterproductive. Definitely the Catholic Church is a very influential institution. Instructing followers that contraceptives are a bad thing is not the answer.

Anyways, thanks for your response and appreciate your point of view.

[JimmyMack]

While prohibiting contraception may be a worthwhile concept, it does, by far, more harm than good.

Instructing followers that contraceptives are a bad thing is not the answer.

I don’t see how a Catholic endorsement of condoms would help at all. The Catholic church preaches two main ideas on the subject. Firstly, they say that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and secondly that the use of all artificial contraceptives is wrong, since sex is a gift given by God and should only be used within a loving married relationship.

Now for the Catholic Church’s rejection of condoms to be impacting the AIDS epidemic in lets say Africa it means that people are listening to the teachings on both subjects but deciding that sex outside of marriage is a ‘less evil’ sin than the use of Condoms. Now come on, you can’t seriously believe that. Perhaps an endorsement of Condoms would help because Catholic charities who are huge contributers in Africa would supply them, but it is insane to believe that people aren’t using condoms because the church says not to, but will have sex despite the church saying that is a sin.


JimmyMack

[paramoto]

I don’t see how a Catholic endorsement of condoms would help at all.

I am not suggesting that the Catholic Church should become the largest condom distributor in the world. I am suggesting that they stop teaching that it is wrong and I think they should allow followers to use condoms.

I don't disagree that the church should teach abstinence. I agree that sex should be practiced by married couples, but in today's world that just is not happening. Plus, in my arguments you find that I am limiting my discussion to the prevention of conception of impoverished children in wedlock. I am precisely discussing the effect on today's world of these poor families having child after child, with 10 or 15 family members living in a 12 x 12 shack made of plastic or carton.

Regarding Aids and Africa, it is my view that people are not informed enough to make an educated decision. Same goes for all rural and some urban Latin America.

Regarding sex out of wedlock, you are putting words in my mouth. I have never said that sex outside of marriage is less evil than than the use of condoms (the phrase doesn't even make sense to me). What I said was that condom use was a much lesser evil than having a bunch of kids begging in the street and turning into prostitution because alternatives to having kid after kid were not taught. Everything else you claim I said, I didn't.

And regarding sex as Gods gift, what about something as simple as a spinal chord and the ability to go to the bathroom with dignity, is that a gift from God?? Then if it is, which again is the lesser of two evils; doing scientifical research with embryos that will be tossed to the garbage or not doing the research to protect what will be disposed of? Is that embryo that will never see the light of day more important than my 42 year old life that has to feed and educate three kids?? This catholic doesn't think so.

By the way, I practiced responsible sex with my catholic wife of 16 years and never gave it a thought. The alternative (having kid after kid) was just not acceptable.

[Wise Young]

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=c42857ae-3052-4224-972b-0af609201afd&k=56740
Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, June 06, 2006
VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican issued a sweeping condemnation Tuesday of contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilization and same-sex marriage, declaring that the traditional family has never been so threatened as in today's world.

The document was issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family, whose head, Alfonso Cardinal Lopez Trujillo, is a strong opponent of the use of condoms under any circumstances.

However, the document did not mention an ongoing debate within the Vatican on whether the Roman Catholic Church could permit condoms to battle AIDS in a particular circumstance - when one partner in a marriage has the virus.

It reaffirmed the famous 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae that stated the Vatican's opposition to contraception. Since then, it said, couples "have been limiting themselves to one, or maximum two children."

"Never before in history has human procreation, and therefore the family, which is its natural place, been so threatened as in today's culture," said the 57-page document.

It also condemned in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination and the use of embryos.

"The human being has the right to be generated, not produced, to come to life not in virtue of an artificial process but of a human act in the full sense of the term: the union between a man and a woman," it said.

The document did not break any new ground but summarized traditional Vatican positions.

Lopez Trujillo sparked controversy three years ago when he said condoms don't prevent AIDS and may help spread it because they create a false sense of security. The Vatican insists sexual abstinence is the only sure way to fight AIDS.

<more>


http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1759966,00.html
Pope orders condoms study in Aids fight

Barbara McMahon in Rome
Monday April 24, 2006
The Guardian

Pope Benedict has asked senior theologians and scientists to prepare a document discussing the use of condoms as a means of preventing the transmission of HIV, a Vatican official has revealed.

The study comes only days after a contender in last year's papal elections, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, challenged the Roman Catholic church's official position by suggesting that condom use was the "lesser evil" in combating Aids.

It is unclear whether the proposed document will pave the way for a fundamental shift in church policy. The Vatican currently opposes the use of condoms as part of its teaching against contraception, and advocates sexual abstinence as the best way to fight the spread of the Aids virus.

<more>

[artsyguy1954]

Emphasis mine. Then there are the Episcopalians:



It's simply false to think that Christians are of one (negative) mind on this issue. What about the Methodists?

I never meant to imply that all Christians are opposed to ESC research. I know better than that. It just seems that moderate Christians condoning this research are drowned out by the fundamentalists.

[Lindox]

Maybe the Catholic Church could sell all their golden statues and other wordly goods that are left after the child molestation cases are resolved, and donate the money to fund medicine for all the AIDS victims in the third world countries..and Italy of course.

[JimmyMack]

I am not suggesting that the Catholic Church should become the largest condom distributor in the world. I am suggesting that they stop teaching that it is wrong and I think they should allow followers to use condoms.

I don't disagree that the church should teach abstinence. I agree that sex should be practiced by married couples, but in today's world that just is not happening. Plus, in my arguments you find that I am limiting my discussion to the prevention of conception of impoverished children in wedlock. I am precisely discussing the effect on today's world of these poor families having child after child, with 10 or 15 family members living in a 12 x 12 shack made of plastic or carton.

Regarding Aids and Africa, it is my view that people are not informed enough to make an educated decision. Same goes for all rural and some urban Latin America.

Regarding sex out of wedlock, you are putting words in my mouth. I have never said that sex outside of marriage is less evil than than the use of condoms (the phrase doesn't even make sense to me). What I said was that condom use was a much lesser evil than having a bunch of kids begging in the street and turning into prostitution because alternatives to having kid after kid were not taught. Everything else you claim I said, I didn't.

And regarding sex as Gods gift, what about something as simple as a spinal chord and the ability to go to the bathroom with dignity, is that a gift from God?? Then if it is, which again is the lesser of two evils; doing scientifical research with embryos that will be tossed to the garbage or not doing the research to protect what will be disposed of? Is that embryo that will never see the light of day more important than my 42 year old life that has to feed and educate three kids?? This catholic doesn't think so.

By the way, I practiced responsible sex with my catholic wife of 16 years and never gave it a thought. The alternative (having kid after kid) was just not acceptable.


Please except my apologiy, I get caught up in the moment, always playing the Catholic apologist.

JimmyMack

[JimmyMack]

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=c42857ae-3052-4224-972b-0af609201afd&k=56740


http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1759966,00.html

Thanks Wise, I was looking for that doc. yesterday and couldnt find it.

JimmyMack

[Wise Young]

Emphasis mine. Then there are the Episcopalians:

It's simply false to think that Christians are of one (negative) mind on this issue. What about the Methodists?


Kate,

Although Catholics only represent 25% of the U.S. population, they have come a dominant role in our government. For example:

• An absolute majority of the Supreme Court is now Catholic (5 out 9 justices are Catholic. There is only one Protestant (John Paul Stevens), one Episcopalian (David Souter), and two Jews (Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg). http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html
John Roberts, Chief Justice
Anthyony M. Kennedy
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
and Samuel Alito.


• Congress. Catholics now form 28.8% of Congress (Source (http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html)). There are two many Catholic Representatives to list bubt there are currently 24 Catholic senators:

Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Ken Salazar (D-Colorado)
Christopher Dodd (D-Conn)
Joseph Biden (D-Delaware)
Mel Martinez (R-Florida)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) converted from Methodist to Catholicism (Source (http://www.adherents.com/people/pb/Sam_Brownback.html))
Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky)
Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana)
David Vitter (D-Louisiana)
Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Barbara Mikulski (R-Maryland)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
John Kerry (D-Massachusetts)
John Sununu (R-New Hampshire)
Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey)
Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico)
Mike DeWine (R-Ohio)
Geroge V. Voinovich (R-Ohio)
Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Maria Cantwell (D-Washington)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)

The Senate lost several Catholic senators in 2004: Tom Daschle, Ben Nighthorse Campbell,

• Governors. An astonishing 24 state governors of 56 states/territories are Catholic (43%). Did you know that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jeb Bush are Catholic.

Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-California)
Bill Owens (R-Colorado)
Jeb Bush (R-Florida)
Felix Camacho (D-Guam)
Thomas Vilsack (R-Iowa)
Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kansas)
Kathleen Blanco (D-Louisiana)
John Baldacci (D-Maine)
Jennifer Granholm (D-Michigan)
Brian Schweitzer (D-Montana)
John Lynch (D-New Hampshire)
Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico)
George Pataki (R-New York)
Michael Easley (D-North Carolina)
John Hoeven (R-North Dakota)
Benigno Repeki Fitial (Northern Mariana Islands)
Ted Kulongoski (D-Oregon)
Aníbal Acevedo Vilá (PDP-Puerto Rico)
Don Carcieri (R-Rhode Island)
Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota)
Tim Kaine (D-Virginia)
Christine Gregoire (D-Washington)
Jim Doyle (D-Wisconsin).

While Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey is not Catholic, he was preceded by two Catholic governors Jim McGreevey and Richard Codey and the Catholic Church was not shy calling upon them to implement the Catholic agenda. Governor Kathleen Sebelius has been called "shameful" by the Church for her position on abortion (Source (http://catholicfire.blogspot.com/2006/05/governor-sebelius-another-shameful.html)) and James Doyle is under pressure from the Catholic Church for his position on stem cells (Source (http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/15364)). The former governor of Oklahoma Frank Keating (1995-2003) was a life-long Catholic. Louisiana Governor Blanco is very pro-life and has indicated that she will sign an abortion ban (Source (http://catholicfire.blogspot.com/2006/06/louisiana-governor-blanco-will-sign.html)).
Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia is the first Catholic Governor and the only second state-wide Catholic office holder in Virginia history. Of course, New York State now has had two consecutive Catholic governors in Mario Cuomo and George Pataki. Governor Janet Napolitano is a Methodist but she has been banned from speaking at Catholic Churches because of her position on abortion (Source (http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/0805bishop-gov05-CP.html)).

What many people may not realize is that Canada's population is 43% Catholic and correspondingly 43% of their prime ministers have been Catholic (Source (http://www.adherents.com/gov/adh_pm.html)).

It wasn't so long ago when John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic President and it was a big thing. Interestingly, there has never been a Catholic Vice-President but 26% were presbyterian and 22% were Episcopalian (Source (http://www.adherents.com/gov/adh_vp.html)). Likewise, Episcopalians have 26% of the presidents (even though they are only 2% of the population) and Presbyterians have 24% of presidents (even though they were 2.8% of the population).

Wise.

[kate]

I myself was raised Catholic--one of 8 kids born to an Irish mom who was one of 22 herself. (I have more than a hundred first cousins!) My mom still goes to mass each and every week, and I'm old enough to remember the uproar over Jack Kennedy's faith.

Our girls go to a (very expensive :( )Catholic high school, as do many of their liberal friends.

I'm sayin', I kind of get what Catholics are all about. :) My problem with their stance on esc is this: it's a cheap grace kind of thing for a great many of the Catholics I know. It's a position that costs them nothing and makes them feel righteous.

These are people I like a lot and know well. They're great parents, partly because the majority of them have carefully limited their families to 2 kids, just as I have. But their faith requires them to refuse contraception, and there--where it would be personally costly and a lot of trouble--they choose to ignore the teachings.

When it comes to esc, where the personal cost is nada and it's easy to follow along, they say their faith demands that they not support it.

If you're only faithful when it's easy, you can't expect people outside the church to respect positions you claim are based on religious conviction. I know there are people who do avoid contraception, and I know there are Catholics with sci whose conscience forbids esc research. Those people live lives that demonstrate the quality of their faith . . . the rest of them haven't convinced me that their position on esc stems from anything real.

[dan_nc]

Exactly. I am really tired of the pro-lifers and their arguments about the morality of what they are doing. Indeed it costs them nothing to say that abortion should be banned; that in-vitro fertilization should be banned; and that stem cell research should be banned.

I wonder if the stance would change if they or their wife became impregnated as a victim of rape. If they couldn't have children. If they are living with SCI or other incurable disease.

[paramoto]

Please except my apologiy, I get caught up in the moment, always playing the Catholic apologist.

JimmyMack

No apology is necessary Jimmy. This is just a friendly debate of ideas. Thanks anyways.

[alan]

I've read that people who pick and choose which tenets of their religion to follow and which to ignore have been called "salad bar <insert faith here>." The name does seem to fit.

[paramoto]

I've read that people who pick and choose which tenets of their religion to follow and which to ignore have been called "salad bar <insert faith here>." The name does seem to fit.

Can you explain??

[Tufelhunden]

For example a salad bar Catholic would be one who would be against abortion but practice sex using a contraceptive device. Much the same way a person likes croutons on their salad, but not bacon bits. A non-salad bar Catholic would eat the whole salad, meaning practice their faith with integrity.

[Tufelhunden]

These are people I like a lot and know well. They're great parents, partly because the majority of them have carefully limited their families to 2 kids, just as I have. But their faith requires them to refuse contraception, and there--where it would be personally costly and a lot of trouble--they choose to ignore the teachings.


Woops, almost forgot.

[Wise Young]

I myself was raised Catholic--one of 8 kids born to an Irish mom who was one of 22 herself. (I have more than a hundred first cousins!) My mom still goes to mass each and every week, and I'm old enough to remember the uproar over Jack Kennedy's faith.

Our girls go to a (very expensive :( )Catholic high school, as do many of their liberal friends.

I'm sayin', I kind of get what Catholics are all about. :) My problem with their stance on esc is this: it's a cheap grace kind of thing for a great many of the Catholics I know. It's a position that costs them nothing and makes them feel righteous.

These are people I like a lot and know well. They're great parents, partly because the majority of them have carefully limited their families to 2 kids, just as I have. But their faith requires them to refuse contraception, and there--where it would be personally costly and a lot of trouble--they choose to ignore the teachings.

When it comes to esc, where the personal cost is nada and it's easy to follow along, they say their faith demands that they not support it.

If you're only faithful when it's easy, you can't expect people outside the church to respect positions you claim are based on religious conviction. I know there are people who do avoid contraception, and I know there are Catholics with sci whose conscience forbids esc research. Those people live lives that demonstrate the quality of their faith . . . the rest of them haven't convinced me that their position on esc stems from anything real.

You will laugh about this. I went to a Catholic covent school (they accept boys in the primary school) in Hong Kong up to second grade. I still remember having to go to the chapel every morning and being told to pray. The nuns were strict and used a long ruler to rap our knuckles. I still remember Sister Rosemary and how my older brother kicked her in the shins when she hit him. Catholic girls liked to bully the boys. When I was growing up, I used to think that there is a guardian angel watching over me.

When I was a graduate student doing my PhD thesis at the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole on Cape Cod, I use to have long conversations about science and catholicism with a nun who was a marine biologist. Because of their rigorous education, many catholics are superb scientists and have very interesting perspectives about the science and faith. The man that I trained with got his PhD from Sir John Eccles who is a devout catholic and struggled to reconcile his science and his faith. Perhaps the life-long training in reconciling strict dogma with phenomena is conducive to scientific thinking. Many of the world's brilliant scientists are Catholic.

The Catholic Church actually has quite thoughtful positions in many areas of science. For example, they strongly oppose the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as a scientific theory. This is not surprising considering that the basis of genetics was discovered by Mendel who was a Catholic priest and head of a monastary. Likewise, despite the less than illustrious history of the Catholic Church treatment of its early astronomers, we should remember that both Galileo and Copernicus were devout Catholics, and their work was supported by the Catholic Church for the most part, as long as they did not directly challenge the authority of the Church.

On the subject of abortion and embryonic stem cells, however, the Catholic Church has positions that contradict many of their other precepts. Early Catholic thinkers, such as St. Augustine, in fact held pragmatic positions on abortion based on empirical observation rather than theory. Augustine believed, for example, that ensoulment began more than a month after conception and the Church still has not specified when ensoulment occurs. Despite this, a long line of Popes has condemned abortion for hundreds of years, to the point that abortion is still the only mortal sin that a lay Catholic can commit that is not forgivable. Despite his consistently pro-life position, Pope John Paul went to the extent of saying that abortion is not licit even to save the life of the mother. Even more curious, the Catholic Church opposes adoption of embryos and creation of "snowflake" babies.

A Jewish rabbi explained these contradictions to me last year, saying that not committing sin is more important than life to Catholics. When given the choice between life and not committing sin, they choose the latter.

Wise.

P.S. By the way, Wikipedia has a very thoughtful and eye-opening description of Augustine's early hedonistic and Manichaean life. He was the son of a pagan father and a devout Catholic mother. Augustine converted to Catholicism at age 32, after winning the most visible academic chair in the Latin world in 384 (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo)).

[JimmyMack]

You will laugh about this. I went to a Catholic covent school (they accept boys in the primary school) in Hong Kong up to second grade. I still remember having to go to the chapel every morning and being told to pray. The nuns were strict and used a long ruler to rap our knuckles. I still remember Sister Rosemary and how my older brother kicked her in the shins when she hit him. Catholic girls liked to bully the boys. When I was growing up, I used to think that there is a guardian angel watching over me.

When I was a graduate student doing my PhD thesis at the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole on Cape Cod, I use to have long conversations about science and catholicism with a nun who was a marine biologist. Because of their rigorous education, many catholics are superb scientists and have very interesting perspectives about the science and faith. The man that I trained with got his PhD from Sir John Eccles who is a devout catholic and struggled to reconcile his science and his faith. Perhaps the life-long training in reconciling strict dogma with phenomena is conducive to scientific thinking. Many of the world's brilliant scientists are Catholic.

The Catholic Church actually has quite thoughtful positions in many areas of science. For example, they strongly oppose the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as a scientific theory. This is not surprising considering that the basis of genetics was discovered by Mendel who was a Catholic priest and head of a monastary. Likewise, despite the less than illustrious history of the Catholic Church treatment of its early astronomers, we should remember that both Galileo and Copernicus were devout Catholics, and their work was supported by the Catholic Church for the most part, as long as they did not directly challenge the authority of the Church.

Nice job Wise, you saying it carries more wieght then if I would.

On the subject of abortion and embryonic stem cells, however, the Catholic Church has positions that contradict many of their other precepts. Early Catholic thinkers, such as St. Augustine, in fact held pragmatic positions on abortion based on empirical observation rather than theory. Augustine believed, for example, that ensoulment began more than a month after conception and the Church still has not specified when ensoulment occurs.

Augustine believed in the 40 day theory, that the soul reached it full state on the 40th day, know where did he condone abortion. The church has specified that the soul is infused at the moment of conception. I'm not sure how there can be empirical evidence on the soul, it is a matter of faith, remember Augustine was a theologian not a scientist.



Despite this, a long line of Popes has condemned abortion for hundreds of years, to the point that abortion is still the only mortal sin that a lay Catholic can commit that is not forgivable.

Absolutly uneqivically not true, this is a reckless statement. If you have an abortion and you know it is a mortal sin and you do it anyway you can be excommunicated, however all you have to do is go to the sacrament of confession and you can be restored to full communion with the church. Some Catholics who might be a little ignorant of there faith might read your statement and want to be recieved back into the church but might not because of your statement and your credentials.

The only sin that is unforgivable is the sin against the Holy Spirit if you are a Catholic and have lived a not so swell life and the Holy Spirit is prompting you to repent and you ingnore this your sin is not forgiven and therefore it is an unforgivable sin.


Despite his consistently pro-life position, Pope John Paul went to the extent of saying that abortion is not licit even to save the life of the mother.


We have discussed this before and you still cant find me the encyclical or papal bull to back up your above statement, I've read John Paul say "the health of the mother" not "the life of the mother" 1 word changes the whole dynamic. Any way what John Paul was talking about was entopic pregnancy and he stated that the health of one should not take precedence over the health of the other, the church is fully aware that the babies chances of survival are nill but as long as the Dr. tries to save the infants life but fails, well thats all you can humanlly do.


Even more curious, the Catholic Church opposes adoption of embryos and creation of "snowflake" babies.

The Church has not given a final statement concerning "snowflake babies" however there are some theologians that do oppose this, I'm not sure how it will end.



A Jewish rabbi explained these contradictions to me last year, saying that not committing sin is more important than life to Catholics. When given the choice between life and not committing sin, they choose the latter.

Wise what you need to do is not talk to a jewish rabbi, but crack open the Catholic Catechism and start there, let me know if I can help



P.S. By the way, Wikipedia has a very thoughtful and eye-opening description of Augustine's early hedonistic and Manichaean life. He was the son of a pagan father and a devout Catholic mother. Augustine converted to Catholicism at age 32, after winning the most visible academic chair in the Latin world in 384 (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo)).

Just read "the Confessions of St Augustine" its his autobiography and it is a classic,

Respecfully

JimmyMack

[paramoto]

For example a salad bar Catholic would be one who would be against abortion but practice sex using a contraceptive device. Much the same way a person likes croutons on their salad, but not bacon bits. A non-salad bar Catholic would eat the whole salad, meaning practice their faith with integrity.


I see. Is there such a thing as a "salad bar" protestant, methodist, lutheran, atheist, etc.?? or does that term only apply to catholics?

I am a catholic and I honestly don't know many catholics (or any for that matter) who absolutely "practice their faith with integrity". Do you know of anyone that sees a hot babe on the street and not stare with sexual curiosity?? Do you know of anyone that has not ever told even a little white lie?

Salad bar anything is either derogatory or hypocritical, depending on who it comes from.

[JimmyMack]

I am a catholic and I honestly don't know many catholics (or any for that matter) who absolutely "practice their faith with integrity".

Your right Para, if we Catholics were all perfect we would not need the church, the church is for us sinners not for the perfect.

JimmyMack

[Leif]

Your right Para, if we Catholics were all perfect we would not need the church, the church is for us sinners not for the perfect.

JimmyMack
Hi Jimmy, why not give a loophole then for embryonic stem cell reacearch. What kind of damage could it possible have done? Quite frankly as some (not evangelicals) are saying, this will happen and they hope so. Even evangelical Christians (although a bit lame) here now says it, - do you agree with evangelicals?

[JimmyMack]

Hi Jimmy, why not give a loophole then for embryonic stem cell reacearch. What kind of damage could it possible have done? Quite frankly as some (not evangelicals) are saying, this will happen and they hope so. Even evangelical Christians (although a bit lame) here now says it, - do you agree with evangelicals?

Hi Leif,
I'm not totally sure of your question, do I agree with evangelicals about a loophole? Leif there are lots of places in the world where ESC research can be done, here in the USA if a pro-ESC president gets elected then I'm sure he would push to fund ESC and most likely create new ESC lines,this could happen in 2008. Why inst there a venture capitalist or angel investor domestic or international that is willing to step up to the plate to fund ESC research if all the data points to ESC curing all sorts of ills, these people are not motivated by the Catholic Church but by ROI. If you could circumvent the Goverment and get the funding elsewere youd be better off anyway, the US goverment beuacracy would screw it up anyway. I don't get to vote on ESC so I'm not denying you your avenue to a cure, and like you said 75% of americans support ESC (I think thats what was said)so if we as a nation could vote on ESC then ESC research would be a reality. I think/believe that a path to recovery ( I don't think that a total 100% cure from SCI is realistic so I use the word recovery) from a SCI will take a combination of therapies and ESC might not even be a part of the combo, it could also come from nano tech, who knows. Don't think because I hold a differing opinon that I do not want you to recieve as much of a recovery as you can get, becuase I do, we just don't agree on the path.


JimmyMack

[Steven Edwards]

Hi Jimmy, why not give a loophole then for embryonic stem cell reacearch. What kind of damage could it possible have done? Quite frankly as some (not evangelicals) are saying, this will happen and they hope so. Even evangelical Christians (although a bit lame) here now says it, - do you agree with evangelicals? I'll step in here.

Leif, technically speaking, the Catholic Church does not oppose ESC research. The Catholic Church opposes the destruction of embryos, which currently is required to establish ESC lines. If we could find a way to establish ESC lines without destroying embryos, everything would be cool.

[paramoto]

I'll step in here.

Leif, technically speaking, the Catholic Church does not oppose ESC research. The Catholic Church opposes the destruction of embryos, which currently is required to establish ESC lines. If we could find a way to establish ESC lines without destroying embryos, everything would be cool.

But when did it all go from abortion to sperm and ovary?? This is an embryo. An embryo that may hold the key to the reduction of suffering all over the world.

[JimmyMack]

I'll step in here.

Leif, technically speaking, the Catholic Church does not oppose ESC research. The Catholic Church opposes the destruction of embryos, which currently is required to establish ESC lines. If we could find a way to establish ESC lines without destroying embryos, everything would be cool.



And the Catholic Church has alot of excellent scientists (as Dr Wise has pointed out) who happen to be preists, who are working to accomplish just that.

JimmyMack

[JimmyMack]

An embryo that may hold the key to the reduction of suffering all over the world.

There will always be suffering, until the last human is dead, there are things that science will never cure, loneliness, abuse, neglect, detraction, culmany, jealousy ,anger, rage,there will always be poor and hungry among us always, these things alone have caused more suffering then any disease, and we have all been guilty of some or all of them.


Over and Out

JimmyMack

[Steven Edwards]

But when did it all go from abortion to sperm and ovary?? This is an embryo. An embryo that may hold the key to the reduction of suffering all over the world. Not sure. I'll be offline until Monday, but maybe Jimmy can answer. It all centers on when ensoulment is complete. Find out when that perception changed and you'll have your answer.

[Wise Young]

Originally Posted by wise
Despite this, a long line of Popes has condemned abortion for hundreds of years, to the point that abortion is still the only mortal sin that a lay Catholic can commit that is not forgivable.

Absolutly uneqivically not true, this is a reckless statement. If you have an abortion and you know it is a mortal sin and you do it anyway you can be excommunicated, however all you have to do is go to the sacrament of confession and you can be restored to full communion with the church. Some Catholics who might be a little ignorant of there faith might read your statement and want to be recieved back into the church but might not because of your statement and your credentials.

The only sin that is unforgivable is the sin against the Holy Spirit if you are a Catholic and have lived a not so swell life and the Holy Spirit is prompting you to repent and you ingnore this your sin is not forgiven and therefore it is an unforgivable sin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wise
Despite his consistently pro-life position, Pope John Paul went to the extent of saying that abortion is not licit even to save the life of the mother.


We have discussed this before and you still cant find me the encyclical or papal bull to back up your above statement, I've read John Paul say "the health of the mother" not "the life of the mother" 1 word changes the whole dynamic. Any way what John Paul was talking about was entopic pregnancy and he stated that the health of one should not take precedence over the health of the other, the church is fully aware that the babies chances of survival are nill but as long as the Dr. tries to save the infants life but fails, well thats all you can humanlly do.

JimmyMack,

I have learned a lot from you and thank you for correcting me. But let me find the places where I had read the information that I wrote about above.

• Regarding the Church's position on abortion to save the life the mother, the statements of Pope John Paul seem indirect but my reading suggests no room for an abortion to save the life of the mother. There are certain conditions under which it might be carried out but these seem to be added on and also do not cover all circumstances. The intentional performance of an abortion in order to save the life of the mother does not appear to be "licit".
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm
The Tribunal of the Holy Office ruled on 1894-MAY-28 and 1889-AUG-19 that "it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform...any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother." This would seem to include operations needed to save the life of the woman.

The fertilized ovum, embryo and fetus are considered by the church as full human beings. They thus have "an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that 'evil is never to be done that good may come of it'; or, which is the same thing, that 'a good end cannot justify a bad means'. " 4

In his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI wrote: "It is not licit, even for the gravest reasons to do evil so that good may follow there from, that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disordered, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well being...directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons [is] to be absolutely excluded." 11

Footnotes:
4. # "Abortion," New Advent. Translated from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 1 (1907). Online at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
11. Pope Paul VI, "Humanae Vitae. Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the regulation of birth," 1968-JUL-25, at: http://www.vatican.va/



Regarding excommunication for the act of abortion, you are right that one can go back receive absolution through the sacrament of confession, according to this web site.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/abortio2.htm

Abortion - Excommunication

The way the excommunication for abortion works is this.

Canon 1398 provides that, "a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication." This means that at the very moment that the abortion is successfully accomplished, the woman and all formal conspirators are excommunicated.

An abortion is defined as "the killing of the foetus, in whatever way or at whatever time from the moment of conception" (Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, published in the "Acts of the Apostolic See" vol. 80 (1988), 1818). This definition applies to any means, including drugs, by which a human being present in the woman is killed. Thus, once a woman knows she is pregnant the intentional killing of the new life within her is not only murder but an excommunicable offense. A woman who only thinks she might be pregnant has a grave responsibility to find out and to protect the possible life within. Any action to end a "possible" pregnancy while probably not an excommunicable offense would be callous disregard for life and gravely sinful.

Conspirators who incur the excommunication can be defined as those who make access to the abortion possible. This certainly includes doctors and nurses who actually do it, husbands, family and others whose counsel and encouragement made it morally possible for the woman, and those whose direct practical support made it possible (financially, driving to the clinic etc.).

Clearly those who think the availability of chemical abortions will settle the abortion issue are deluded. It will only widen to drug manufacturers, pharmacists and family physicians those guilty of grave sin and subject to excommunication. [It should also be noted that many contraceptive pills are already abortifacient in operation. Theoretically, the knowing use of such a pill for its abortafacient purpose could also subject one to excommunication. Pill manufacturers have recently been touting this capability of their deadly wares.]

NOTE WELL To actually incur the excommunication one must know that it is an excommunicable offense at the time of the abortion. Canon 1323 provides that the following do not incur a sanction, those who are not yet 16, are unaware of a law, do not advert to it or are in error about its scope, were forced or had an unforeseeable accident, acted out of grave fear, or who lacked the use of reason (except culpably, as by drunkenness). Thus a woman forced by an abusive husband to have an abortion would not incur an excommunication, for instance, whereas someone culpably under the influence of drugs or alcohol would (canon 1325).

In any case, whether one has been excommunicated or not, the sin of abortion must be confessed as the taking of innocent human life (5th Commandment). If the penitent did not know about this law at the time of the abortion then he or she was NOT excommunicated. If the person knew about the law but there were extenuating circumstances (such as mentioned above concerning c. 1323) then these factors should be mentioned to the confessor. He will say whether he has the faculty from the bishop to absolve from this excommunication or whether he even needs to. If he does not, he will privately and secretly obtain absolution from the bishop or send the person to a confessor who has that power.

A person who believes they have been excommunicated must refrain from Holy Communion until both absolution for the sin and absolution for the excommunication has been given.

One complicating factor for anyone in this situation is that intentionally withholding mortal sin (abortion) or knowledge of one's excommunication invalidates ALL the absolutions for other sins given since the time of the intentionally overlooked sin. Culpably withholding mortal sin or an excommunication means that even after the priest says the words of absolution because of dishonesty on the penitent's part, the sin has not been absolved. Absolution is not magic, it depends upon sincere repentance from all known mortal sins and a firm purpose of amendment. Such sins would need to be confessed again, as part of an integral (complete and honest) confession. This is not the case if the person did not know that what they did was sinful in the eyes of God and the Church, but only found out this out latter. Since they did not withhold from confession what they knew to be sinful their prior confessions are valid.

The Church makes every effort to make Penance available and obliges priests to make anonymity possible as well (c. 964). There is really no valid excuse for delaying one's full return to the sacraments. All those who have had abortions should come home to Christ and the Church.

But, a person who does not admit that abortion is wrong cannot be forgiven. The "sin" of intentional abortion and continued belief that it is the correct action is not forgivable. Likewise, it appears that all people who vote for politicians who favor legal abortion, and the politicians themselves, are committing a mortal sin.
http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htm
Abortion and Excommunication
May 20, 2004

Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication.

Canon Law and Church Teaching

Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

The phrase “latae sententiae” literally means a ‘broad sentence’ or ‘wide judgment,’ in other words, a sentence or judgment which is applied widely. In this context, it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does not require the particular judgment of a case by competent authority.

Apostasy, heresy, and schism are all offences which incur a sentence of excommunication automatically. Heresy is the obstinate denial of any truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium. The Magisterium has repeatedly and definitively taught that abortion is always gravely immoral. (CCC 2270 to 2275)

Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 57: “Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

Obtaining an Abortion

Any Catholic who deliberately and knowingly obtains a procured abortion commits a mortal sin and is also automatically excommunicated, under canon 1398.

Under the laws of secular society, if one person commits a crime, then anyone who deliberately and knowingly provides essential or substantial means for that person to commit that crime is called an accessory to that crime and is also subject to the penalties of law. Similarly, any Catholic who deliberately and knowingly provides essential or substantial means for any woman to procure an abortion also commits a mortal sin and also incurs the same sentence of excommunication.

Any Catholic who substantially assists another in the deliberate sin of abortion is also guilty of serious sin and also incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Believing in Abortion

Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral commits the sin of heresy. The sin of heresy also incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Unfortunately, some Catholics obstinately deny that abortion is always immoral, and some Catholics claim that abortion can, at times, be a morally-acceptable choice, and some Catholics claim that a person can, in good conscience, choose abortion. Under the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, canons 751 and 1364, all such Catholics are automatically excommunicated for the sin of heresy.

This sentence of latae sententiae excommunication applies to any Catholic who denies that abortion is gravely immoral, regardless of whether they keep this denial hidden or publicly reveal it.

Promoting Abortion

Those Catholics who publicly announce their denial that abortion is always gravely immoral, or who publicly promote abortion, or who publicly argue in favor of legalized abortion, also commit a mortal sin and also incur a sentence of automatic excommunication.

This sentence of excommunication applies to Catholics who are politicians, as well as to those Catholics who are political commentators, or public speakers, or who write or otherwise publicly communicate their erroneous view that abortion can be morally-acceptable or that abortion should be legal. This sentence of excommunication also certainly applies to those Catholics who claim to be theologians or Biblical scholars, but who believe or teach that abortion is not always gravely immoral.

Those Catholics who promote abortion are automatically excommunicated for two reasons. First, they have fallen into the sin of heresy by believing that abortion is not always gravely immoral (canons 751 and 1364). Second, these Catholics are providing substantial assistance for women to obtain abortions by influencing public policy to make abortions legal, and to keep abortions legal, and to broaden access to abortion. Those who provide such substantial assistance commit a mortal sin and incur a sentence of automatic excommunication (canon 1398).

Voting for Abortion

Any Catholic politician who casts a vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion, commits a mortal sin.

When such a vote indicates that the Catholic politician believes that abortion is not always gravely immoral, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canons 751 and 1364, because of heresy.

When such a vote is intended to have the effect of making abortion legal, or more easily obtainable, or more widely available, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canon 1398, as someone who is attempting to provide substantial or essential means for women to obtain abortions. Catholic politicians who pass laws which legalize, protect, or widen access to abortion, are providing essential assistance to women who want to obtain abortions.

It is not sufficient for Catholic politicians to claim that they are “personally opposed” to abortion. If any Catholic politician favors legalized abortion, despite a claim of personal opposition, such a politician commits a mortal sin by promoting abortion and by voting in favor of abortion.

The same is true for any Catholic who casts any vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion. Such a voter commits a mortal sin and incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication for two reasons. First, they are committing the sin of heresy by believing that abortion should be legal and available. Second, they are committing the grievous sin of providing women with substantial or essential assistance in obtaining abortions, by attempting to legalize or broaden access to abortion.

However, if, for a period of time, Catholic politicians and voters are unable to enact a law prohibiting all abortion, then Catholic politicians and voters may in good conscience vote for whichever law offers the greatest restrictions and limits on abortion. Subsequently, Catholic politicians and voters are required by the moral law to continue to enact further restrictions and limits on abortion, to the greatest extent possible, and, at every possible opportunity, to vote for laws which completely outlaw abortion.

Voting for Politicians

In general, the moral law requires Catholic voters to vote for those candidates who oppose abortion over those who favor abortion. However, there are exceptions to this general principle. For example, if a political candidate favors abortion, but is a member of a party which generally opposes abortion, a Catholic voter may, in good conscience, vote for that candidate, with the intention of giving more political power to the party which opposes abortion.

In another case, a Catholic voter might, in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion candidate, if the political office would offer no opportunity for the elected candidate to vote for or against abortion. Even so, every Catholic voter should consider that anyone who supports abortion, as if it were a woman’s right, or as if it could ever be a moral choice, must necessarily be someone who has a seriously limited understanding of morality and justice. Such a person would not often be the better candidate for any office in place of one who understands that abortion is gravely immoral.

In every case, a Catholic should vote in such a way as to obtain as many restrictions on abortion as possible, and so as to obtain the end to legalized abortion as soon as possible.

Constitutional Amendment

Within any constitutional form of government, it would be ideal to have a constitutional clause or amendment which permanently and completely outlaws all procured abortions. Such an amendment must ban all abortions, regardless of circumstance, so that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent prenatal human being will be always contrary to human law, just as it is always contrary to the moral law.

A constitutional amendment can permit certain medical procedures, which are absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother, and which indirectly result in the unintended and unsought death of the prenatal, only if there is no possible way to save the life of the prenatal. A prenatal is defined as any human being from conception to birth. Every reasonable effort should be made to save the lives of both mother and prenatal. If the life of the prenatal can be saved by no other possible option than by risking or allowing the death of the mother, then the prenatal must be saved.

Catholic teaching clearly allows for certain medical procedures, which indirectly and involuntarily result in the death of the prenatal, to save the life of the mother, but only when all options to save the life of the prenatal have been exhausted. Such a procedure is not an abortion and is not an exception wherein abortion is allowed.

On the other hand, a constitutional amendment which bans abortion with exceptions for various cases, such as rape, incest, or a risk to the mother’s life, would be worse than having no such amendment at all.

Any woman who is willing to commit the sin of abortion, would also be willing to lie. If a constitutional amendment permitted abortion in cases of rape, then any woman willing to lie and to falsely claim that she was raped, would be able to also claim that she had a constitutional right to an abortion. The result would be that a constitutional amendment, which seems to ban abortion with some exceptions, would end up giving every woman who is willing to tell a lie, a purported constitutional right to abortion. This situation would be worse than having no such constitutional amendment at all.

Therefore, the only acceptable pro-life constitutional amendment would be one that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, bans all procured abortions without exception.


So many Catholics should be excommunicated, including of course John Kerry.

Wise.

[JimmyMack]

JimmyMack,

I have learned a lot from you and thank you for correcting me.

I have learned much more from you Wise, your a good man with a good heart.

JimmyMack

[Chicago]

I would have to say that the example of the word of God is that there is a threshold as to when a spirit becomes accountable. Even the definition accountable should be the crux since faith is the church's tool for repairing the body. Why should the church (any church) say whst is clean or unclean when even scripture itself says that all things are clean in God's eyes. It is man that draws the lines in the sands by his beliefs.

Accountability to me is knowing a brain dead person is about equal to a clump of stem cells that hasn't the tool of faith yet. It has a predetermined line in the sand it follows and when knowledge is given, it deviates and becomes an accountable reflection of itself. I would call a reflection of something within itself a spirit. And a level of repair must be in order or else it is still evolving and isn't a spirit yet.

The spirit of St. Louis for example is know by it's design and more importantly by the pilot. The plane was not really a spirit but was rather flown by the knowledge of right or wrong across the ocean. The design was only the first battle. Flying it was the victory.

[JimmyMack]

Likewise, it appears that all people who vote for politicians who favor legal abortion, and the politicians themselves, are committing a mortal sin.
So many Catholics should be excommunicated, including of course John Kerry.


On Voting for Pro-Abortion Candidates
“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
— Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger- The future Pope Benedict XVI


No mortal sin.....

JimmyMack

[JimmyMack]

Wise this is an excerpt that you posted, you yourself proved that it is not a mortal sin to vote for a candidate who supports abortion.


Voting for Politicians

In general, the moral law requires Catholic voters to vote for those candidates who oppose abortion over those who favor abortion. However, there are exceptions to this general principle. For example, if a political candidate favors abortion, but is a member of a party which generally opposes abortion, a Catholic voter may, in good conscience, vote for that candidate, with the intention of giving more political power to the party which opposes abortion.

In another case, a Catholic voter might, in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion candidate, if the political office would offer no opportunity for the elected candidate to vote for or against abortion. Even so, every Catholic voter should consider that anyone who supports abortion, as if it were a woman’s right, or as if it could ever be a moral choice, must necessarily be someone who has a seriously limited understanding of morality and justice. Such a person would not often be the better candidate for any office in place of one who understands that abortion is gravely immoral.

In every case, a Catholic should vote in such a way as to obtain as many restrictions on abortion as possible, and so as to obtain the end to legalized abortion as soon as possible.

JimmyMack

[Wise Young]

On Voting for Pro-Abortion Candidates
“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
— Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger- The future Pope Benedict XVI


No mortal sin.....

JimmyMack

Jimmy,

Former Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict presumed that the wayward Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion. However, what if the Catholic person does share the candidate's pro-abortion stand and votes for that person?

I understand that if you intentionally and materially participate in abortion, including voting for and sharing the views of a politician who believes that abortion is all right, you have committed a sin for which you can be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

In fact, according to the web sites that I cited, a person is *automatically* excommunicated if they had an abortion, regardless of reason for the abortion, including a mother assenting to an abortion to save her own life and who does not repent her decision. Is my interpretation wrong?

A physician who does an abortion intentionally to save the life of the mother would seem to be in the same boat, or perhaps worse in the eyes of the Church. Are there any other actions that a layman (non-priest) can commit that automatically merits excommunication? If so, isn't this a little bit severe?

What is the status of a mother or father who donates a fertilized egg or blastocyst to research? Is this equivalent to an abortion? If so, does this also merit excommunication? And, if the person does not regret this decision, is it not unforgivable?

Why does the Catholic Church consider the act of abortion to be worse than murder or killing of somebody in a war? After all, we have Catholic chaplains in the military who pray and provide last rites for souls of Catholic soldiers who have killed many people. They do not excommunicate such soldiers.

My Jewish rabbi friend pointed out that the Catholic Church differentiates between taking of "innocent" life compared to taking of other lives. And, he suggested that an abortion results in the death of a fetus without opportunity for the fetus to be absolved of its "Original Sin". He said that there are special syringe devices that allow Catholic priests to baptize fetuses in utero. But this information, while helpful, does not really answer the question.

Please excuse my questions but I simply don't understand.

Wise.

[JimmyMack]

Jimmy,
Former Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict presumed that the wayward Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion. However, what if the Catholic person does share the candidate's pro-abortion stand and votes for that person?

I understand that if you intentionally and materially participate in abortion, including voting for and sharing the views of a politician who believes that abortion is all right, you have committed a sin for which you can be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

What we know so far is that a Catholic who doesnt share the same view as a candidate can still vote for that candidate without commiting a mortal sin or being excommunicated, even if the candidate is pro abortion, this much we have established.


what if the Catholic person does share the candidate's pro-abortion stand and votes for that person?

That would be a mortal sin, but not a reason for excomm.And it would only be a mortal sin if the person commiting the offence knows it is and willingly procedes.


In fact, according to the web sites that I cited, a person is *automatically* excommunicated if they had an abortion, regardless of reason for the abortion,

I'll get back to you on that one, "automatically" I'm not sure.


including a mother assenting to an abortion to save her own life and who does not repent her decision. Is my interpretation wrong?


A physician who does an abortion intentionally to save the life of the mother would seem to be in the same boat, or perhaps worse in the eyes of the Church. Are there any other actions that a layman (non-priest) can commit that automatically merits excommunication? If so, isn't this a little bit severe?


Wise could this be what you are referring to when you say John Paul says no exception for the life of the mother?

Thus one must conclude with Pope John Paul II in The Gospel of Life that, "despite the risks and problems associated with carrying the pregnancy to term, ... it is essential that the reality, life and gift that is the child in the womb not be eclipsed by discussion of dangers. Every child is a 'wonder' and is to be loved in the midst of great tragedy".[23]

This is what John Paul and the church is saying/means
I'm using a case of an Anencephaly infant
The psychological and moral challenges posed by these cases are in part at least unavoidable, and the parents of these children require the greatest support in meeting them. But the uncertainties inherent in bearing the child to delivery with the knowledge that the child may be born dead or will die soon after cannot be greater for a woman who understands the dignity of life or the love owed her child than would be the psychological and moral guilt of being a party to the child's destruction, a burden which must lie on her conscience the rest of her life, and which cannot be removed simply by false reassurances by others that she acted rightly, when the facts cannot be hidden from her conscience nor ever forgotten.[22] The mother who fulfils her responsibility to her child by carrying the child to term, can rest in the knowledge that she has done all she can for her baby out of respect for the child's own rights as a human being. She will have the child baptized and may wish to hold her child, soon to enter into eternal life, in her motherly arms, rather than have it destroyed and discarded as without human worth.

If, however, during the course of a pregnancy, a life-threatening pathology of the mother occurs, it is entirely justified to use appropriate procedures to save the mother's life, even if as an unavoidable side-effect, the child dies. The classical "principle of double effect" recognizes that the woman has a right to defend her own life even if this results in her child's death, provided that the child's death is not the means by which she saves herself. If her life is not threatened, but some lesser risk to her health or well-being, then induction of delivery before "viability" cannot be justified since it is certainly fatal to the child.[24] After "viability" early induction is permissible for a proportionate benefit either to mother or child,[25] but it should be noted that in current medicine viability is very difficult to define or to determine, especially in the case of the child with anencephaly whose life is tenuous. Such a child can hardly be determined to be "viable" until after delivered, nor is it in any way benefited by premature delivery.

Wise here is the whole text
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=543

Pope Pius back In 1951
: “Every human being, even the infant in the mother’s womb, has the right to life immediately from God, not from the parent or any human society or authority. Therefore there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic , social, economic or moral “indication” that can show or give valid juridical title for direct deliberate disposition concerning an innocent human life - which is to say, a disposition that aims at its destruction either as an end in itself or as the means of attaining another end that is perhaps in no way illicit in itself. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a most noble end, but the direct killing of the child as a means to this end is not licit...” (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Italian Midwives, 10/29/51)

The princible of "Double Effect"
http://www.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html
Applications. The principle of double effect has played a significant role in the discussion of many difficult normative questions. Its most prominent applications are in medical ethics, where it figures prominently in attempts to distinguish among permissible and impermissible procedures in a range of obstetrical cases. The Catholic magisterium has argued that the principle allows one to distinguish morally among cases where a pregnancy may need to be ended in order to preserve the life of the mother. The principle is alleged to allow the removal of a life-threatening cancerous uterus, even though this procedure will bring the death of a fetus, on the grounds that in this case the death of the fetus is not "directly" intended. The principle disallows cases, however, in which a craniotomy (the crushing of the fetus's skull) is required to preserve a pregnant woman's life, on the grounds that here a genuine evil, the death of the fetus, is "directly" intended. There there is significant disagreement, even among those philosophers who accept the principle, about the cogency of this application. Some philosophers and theologians, by emphasizing the fourth, "proportionality," condition, argue that the greater value attaching to the pregnant woman's life makes even craniotomy morally acceptable. Others fail to see a morally significant difference between the merely "foreseen" death of the fetus in the cancerous uterus case and the "directly" intended death in the craniotomy case.

Wise, I'll answer your other questions perhaps tommorrow.You have a responcibility to present the Catholic churches position trufthully, but to do so you must know the truth.

JimmyMack

[Chicago]

What about responsibility to self. If a mother gives birth, then this doesn't mean much unless the child can be held accountable and pass. Do we think Hitler will pass the judgement. We know Judas didn't pass and Jesus said it would have been better to not have been born. I am sure He was referring to the spiritual birth because Jesus would have said conceived. Of course the second birth cannot come without the first so this is why Jesus didn't use the word conceived. It would have excluded the spirit of the matter.

John 7:38 - say that the spirit of life is not given until it can be glorified. This is like an employer give his em0ployees their paychecks in advanced because the wemployeer relies on his employees to use their wages in doing the work that is given. Remember the parable of the talents. The spirit was the pay and only some are able to work. This is because they are not called by God and cannot be accountable. The emloyer was Jesus and the wages of sin and death had to be paid. None of the employess were mature enough to taste death and raise from the dead so God did it Himself. If God had not risen from the dead, then all the spirts would have been in vain. Much like the man who hid his talent in the earth. Man is a sinner and must die. But for some mature spirits knowing good and evil, it would be better for some to die not knowing many things in this world but living by faith in self. These are the words and thoughts of the Creator.


The double effect issue seems like it wasn't made for man. When the rich young rule ran up to Jesus and asked Him about his desire. Jesus said to follow me. Even after the ruler had told Jesus that he had kept all the law and then asked, "what lack I"? The simple answer to give up and follow me was not easily acceptable to the young ruler. Maybe he did later. But after the ruler did go away, even the disciples of Jesus was astonished at this saying. Who can give up "all". It was an opened ended statement Jesus used for the zealous young ruler. The disciples also elaborated further by saying we have done thus and left blah blah ..

Well, apparently, the answer was that with man there is no two way street. Only God can build 2 way streets because following the right thing 100% of the time is not for anyone but God. Sure we would be better to guess at things many times and take this as a faith in the shambles attitude rather than cut off our nose to spite our face.

Knowledge is safe if used properly because truth is to be accepted by faith. Even more so, faith in God takes precidence when knowledge is not given. This was why Jesus asked the young ruler to sell all and follow Him. Faith will move mountains in different ways than knowledge. Paul said it like this. Hope that is seen is not hope. And we know faith carries hope. So when knowledge is seen, what is left but truth. But according to the Bible, the just shall live by faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God. God has all truth and nothing is unclean to Him. Man is what fails to keep himself clean by lack of faith.

[JimmyMack]

Sue Pendleton,
I'm sorry I hijacked your thread, it just penetrated my thick crainium.

Wise maybe you can cut out our disscussion at #51 or where ever, and we can have our own thread or maybe a new thread should be started...your call

Chicago,
When you go on your Bible tiraids it turns people off, if you have learned something from the Bible live it, don't qoute it. For the life of me I have no clue what you are trying to add to the disscussion and I can't make heads or tails out of your posts, post all you want but please stay within the context and learn me something.

JimmyMack

[Chicago]

OK,


I walked the walk and had my friends not recognize me since my accident and convert to Christianity. Even Jesus took a walk after His reurrection without His friends even seeing Him for nothing but a stranger. So, there will be a day we all will see enough truth.

But there was a time when I walked with my friends and knew them not also. This was in high school before my accident and before my conversion. I would have to agree with my Lord, "the flesh can do nothing of itself"

I dont understand how a spirit can manifest itself before it has developed a vessel to dwell in. I can dig up clay dirt and add water - but molding it and it curring is the only way it will hold wine (a spirit).


God Bless

[Chicago]

Also might add,


Is it better to read the bible and follow my own interpretation or to rely on a Pope. Especially if my interpretation says to me that even a Pope condones things that are not in the scriptures.

What does this have to do with stem cell research. Well - faith is hope. It's not about being right. It's not about what Catholics think. It's about hope. If the pope would just tell his flock to read the bible for themselves and act by faith, then politics would probably get a lot easier. A lot less hijacking and "double effect" might decrease also if faith was used more often.

[Wise Young]

Sue Pendleton,
I'm sorry I hijacked your thread, it just penetrated my thick crainium.

Wise maybe you can cut out our disscussion at #51 or where ever, and we can have our own thread or maybe a new thread should be started...your call

Chicago,
When you go on your Bible tiraids it turns people off, if you have learned something from the Bible live it, don't qoute it. For the life of me I have no clue what you are trying to add to the disscussion and I can't make heads or tails out of your posts, post all you want but please stay within the context and learn me something.

JimmyMack

Jimmy, I thought about moving this discussion but couldn't find a suitable forum or topic to put it into. It doesn't really belong to Politics or Life, and unfortunately may lead to an an expanding argument concerning the religious views on abortions. Let's keep the discussion in this topic in Cure until we get complaints otherwise.

The Catholic Church has more members than any other church in the United States. It has also taken a strong position opposing abortion and stem cell research. In New Jersey, nearly half of the population are Catholic. If polls are to be believed, many Catholics disagree with their Church on abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

In my opinion, the question of faith and stem cell research is an important one. Many people are struggling to reconcile what their religious leaders are telling them, their own perceptions of their faith, and stem cell research. Because abortion has been linked with embryonic stem cell research, I think that this discussion is useful and important.

I am sorry if I do not understand or appreciate the difference between mortal sin and excommunication. Also, some of the sources that I have been citing may be out-of-date. For example, I was relying on the Thomas A. Shannon's article when I stated that that the Church has not taken a philosophical position on the time of ensoulment (Source (http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0102.asp)):
These claims are reflective of the traditional teaching recently restated, for example, in the Instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, that the "human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized" (I, 1).

The Instruction is careful to note that the Church has not taken a philosophical position on the time of ensoulment. However, "From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way…" (Donum Vitae, Introduction).

While the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has left open the resolution of the actual time of ensoulment, it has in fact insisted that the prudent response would be to recognize that as a practical matter ensoulment is coincident with fertilization. This position, combined with the traditional respect-for-life position of the Church, is what propels its opposition to embryonic stem-cell research.

Professor Shannon actually lists several (rather esoteric, in my opinion) arguments against the concept that ensoulment occurs at conception.
• Fertilization is a process that takes time and there is not a single moment in time when fertilization occurs. Fertilization is not involved at all in the case of somatic nuclear cell transfer or cloning.
• Development is a process and it is "really difficult to tell precisely where a fetus is in the process of development" to make moral judgments in relation to the stages of development.
• The fertilized egg has the ability to divide into two (i.e. twin) or more individuals even days after fertilization, and divided eggs can also be merged together. The soul should be not dividable and mergeable.
• Part of the fertilized eggs can be removed without preventing the development of the rest, and the part that is removed can be coaxed to become another being or any specialized cells of the body.

Father Shannon suggested that all these arguments suggest that the blastocyst has not yet achieved the status of "true individuality". He pointed out if you divided him, you would have two halves of him. However, if you were to divide a blastocyst, you would have two individuals, and this would not be sufficient definition for an individual. However, he pointed out that the Church does not endorse this view because of its affirmation that fertilizaton is the biological beginning of a new human life and moral priority should be given to this beginning.

I find Professor Shannon's discourse on "cure" to be disturbing. He said:
The stem-cell debate might be an opportunity for us to ask if we should not, as a nation, begin to focus on prevention rather than cure as our dominant health-care strategy.

<snip>

I am not arguing that we should abandon research or high-tech medicine. I am arguing that we as a country seriously need a national debate on health care and the kind of interventions that would be beneficial for all citizens, not just the wealthy.

<snip>

In addressing all of the questions covered in this Update, it's important to remember the Church does not wish merely to be a naysayer against development and scientific progress. In fact, the Church is very positive and supportive about advances in science that improve the quality of human life.

Most of the world knows that the Church works in many places, often in areas of high poverty, seeking to help liberate the human family from disease. In evaluating how to move ahead, whether it is in the laboratory or in society at large, always we are to remember an underlying principle: to value the dignity of human life.



I am bothered that in all this analysis, Professor Shannon did not seriously consider the lives of those who are suffering and dying, and consider that stem cell therapies do have the potential to save many lives and reduce suffering. He of course may not reflect the official position of the Catholic Church.

Wise.

[eagle18]

The original poll has asked where to apply for money. The concept appears that Federal and state governments are big buildings in capitol cities where men in suits decide who to give money to.

These governments are in fact you and me. We decide where the money goes. The only really important poll is what concerns the average and majority of tax paying/voting people. That number one concern happens to be the security of those peoples lives and property. They are frightened, and with good cause, that a "dirty bomb" may be exploded in their area, resulting in you know what.

Therfore we maintain an army half way around the world in order to protect us from such a terrifying incident. The taxpayer cost which is favored by most people to support that army is enormous. An army cannot be suffiently supplied by air. It takes ships whose crews must be paid. Gasoline to run the ships and constant overhauling and repair of same. The army requires alot more than guns and bullets. It needs food, medicine, clothing, housing, dental care, replacement parts for weapons such as tanks and airplanes and all manner of guns. Rubber for tank treads, salaries for the troops, and probably about 100 other things that could be listed.

The millions of dollars which are donated by various groups for stem cell research are peanuts compared to what it cost to supply that army. I would hazard a guess that one could add up all the monies that are given for stem cells, wouldn't support that army for 3 months.

So, with that in mind, those men in suits that I alluded to earlier have no choice but to allot what money there is based on what the people/government desire most, which is protection.

Only by educating the American people that they are creating more enemies with every day that our army is there, and that the real threat is because we are there, and that money can be spent elsewhere, do we have the opportunity to change where the government allots funds.

In order to educate the people will take mass media. Television, films and the press are is what is needed to undertake the concept of which I speak.

The catholic church has always attempted to blockade any scientific discovery which condradicts in any way the the creation of the world as described in the book of Genesis. The church has always eventually lost what is natural to the human mind and body: The quest for freedom from spiritual bondage. Therefore, I am not as concerned about the church as about ourselves. The government is us, and unless it becomes educated through a ground roots mass media approach, then we are still going to be pleading our case to the mythical men in suits for some time to come.

For one thing it should be made clear that we are not undertaking any measures on behalf of ourselves alone. We should be pointing out the advantages of stem cell research for all other nuerological illnesses, cancer and what have you. We should not only be pointing it out, but believing in our hearts that we long to help them, as much as ourselves.

[JimmyMack]

The catholic church has always attempted to blockade any scientific discovery which condradicts in any way the the creation of the world as described in the book of Genesis.

Always attempted? Always? Your statement above is laughable. Listen I don't care if you hate and dispise the Church it really doesn't matter to me, but try to get the facts right.

Wouldnt the "Theory Of Evolution" be the biggest obstacle to the book of Genesis?


The Church and Evolution
The Catholic Church has never had a problem with "evolution" (as opposed to philosophical Darwinism, which sees man solely as the product of materialist forces). Unlike Luther and Calvin and modem fundamentalists, the Church has never taught that the first chapter of Genesis is meant to teach science. F.J. Sheed writes in his classic Theology and Sanity that the creation account in Genesis,


... tells us of the fact but not of the process: there was an assembling of elements of the material universe, but was it instantaneous, or spread over a considerable space of time? Was it complete in one act, or by stages? Were those elements, for instance, formed into an animal body which as one generation followed another gradually evolved-not, of course, by the ordinary laws of matter but under the special guidance of God-to a point where it was capable of union with a spiritual soul, which God then created and infused into it? The statement in Genesis does not seem actually to exclude this, but it certainly does not say it. Nor has the Church formally said that it is not so....
Pius XII correctly pointed out in the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that the theory of evolution had not been completely proved, but he did not forbid


that the theory of evolution concerning the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter-for Catholic faith obliges us to hold that human souls are immediately created by God-be investigated and discussed by experts as far as the present state of human science and sacred theology allows (no. 36).
In his catechesis on creation given during a series of general audiences in 1986, John Paul 11 provided the following discussion on the first chapter of Genesis:


This text has above all a religious and theological importance. There are not to be sought in it significant elements from the point of view of the natural sciences. Research on the origin and development of individual species in nature does not find in this description any definitive norm.... Indeed, the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis.... It must, however, be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. The doctrine of faith, however, invariably affirms that man's spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings (General Audiences, January 24 and April 16, 1986).


The Church's quarrel with many scientists who call themselves evolutionists is not about evolution itself... but rather about the philosophical materialism that is at the root of so much evolutionary thinking.
The Church's quarrel with many scientists who call themselves evolutionists is not about evolution itself, which may (or may not) have occurred in a non-Darwinian, teleological manner, but rather about the philosophical materialism that is at the root of so much evolutionary thinking. John Paul 11 puts the matter succinctly:


The Church is not afraid of scientific criticism. She distrusts only preconceived opinions that claim to be based on science, but which in reality surreptitiously cause science to depart from its domain.
This remark was aimed at biblical exegetes, but it certainly applies to Darwinian science, which contains hidden philosophical additives.

The Church insists that man is not an accident; that no matter how He went about creating Homo sapiens, God from all eternity intended that man and all creation exist in their present form. Catholics are not obliged to square scientific data with the early verses of Genesis, whose truths-and they are truths, not myths-are expressed in an archaic, pre-scientific Hebrew idiom; and they can look forward with enjoyment and confidence to modem scientific discoveries which, more often than not, raise fundamental questions which science itself cannot answer.

57 years ago Pope Pius made his comments, Pope John Paul II made his 20 years ago. is that blocking all scientific discovery if it doesnt jive with the book of Genesis?




The church has always eventually lost what is natural to the human mind and body:

Sounds nice but what does it mean?

JimmyMack

[angel7]

Good grief - many of us on this site, including myself, have written our local newspapers, congress and the president explaining we only want the embryos that are slated to be THROWN AWAY!! I even mentioned to Bush that if he really cares about the religious aspects of ESC then the INV clinics should be shut down.

What ever happened to separation of church and state? Oh that's right we have a President in office that has literally stated he has a direct line to God! How about this - Bush holds another State of the Union address and asks the American public to vote on the use of leftover embryos for research? This used to be a democracy didn't it? Instead of us replying to each other about this - let's start another campaign sending letters to Bush. Let's include all other people suffering from paralysis and all other injuries and diseases that could be helped by ESC?

What do you think?

Deb

[eagle18]

Always attempted? Always? Your statement above is laughable. Listen I don't care if you hate and dispise the Church it really doesn't matter to me, but try to get the facts right.

Wouldnt the "Theory Of Evolution" be the biggest obstacle to the book of Genesis?


The Church and Evolution
The Catholic Church has never had a problem with "evolution" (as opposed to philosophical Darwinism, which sees man solely as the product of materialist forces). Unlike Luther and Calvin and modem fundamentalists, the Church has never taught that the first chapter of Genesis is meant to teach science. F.J. Sheed writes in his classic Theology and Sanity that the creation account in Genesis,


... tells us of the fact but not of the process: there was an assembling of elements of the material universe, but was it instantaneous, or spread over a considerable space of time? Was it complete in one act, or by stages? Were those elements, for instance, formed into an animal body which as one generation followed another gradually evolved-not, of course, by the ordinary laws of matter but under the special guidance of God-to a point where it was capable of union with a spiritual soul, which God then created and infused into it? The statement in Genesis does not seem actually to exclude this, but it certainly does not say it. Nor has the Church formally said that it is not so....
Pius XII correctly pointed out in the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that the theory of evolution had not been completely proved, but he did not forbid


that the theory of evolution concerning the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter-for Catholic faith obliges us to hold that human souls are immediately created by God-be investigated and discussed by experts as far as the present state of human science and sacred theology allows (no. 36).
In his catechesis on creation given during a series of general audiences in 1986, John Paul 11 provided the following discussion on the first chapter of Genesis:


This text has above all a religious and theological importance. There are not to be sought in it significant elements from the point of view of the natural sciences. Research on the origin and development of individual species in nature does not find in this description any definitive norm.... Indeed, the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis.... It must, however, be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. The doctrine of faith, however, invariably affirms that man's spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings (General Audiences, January 24 and April 16, 1986).


The Church's quarrel with many scientists who call themselves evolutionists is not about evolution itself... but rather about the philosophical materialism that is at the root of so much evolutionary thinking.
The Church's quarrel with many scientists who call themselves evolutionists is not about evolution itself, which may (or may not) have occurred in a non-Darwinian, teleological manner, but rather about the philosophical materialism that is at the root of so much evolutionary thinking. John Paul 11 puts the matter succinctly:


The Church is not afraid of scientific criticism. She distrusts only preconceived opinions that claim to be based on science, but which in reality surreptitiously cause science to depart from its domain.
This remark was aimed at biblical exegetes, but it certainly applies to Darwinian science, which contains hidden philosophical additives.

The Church insists that man is not an accident; that no matter how He went about creating Homo sapiens, God from all eternity intended that man and all creation exist in their present form. Catholics are not obliged to square scientific data with the early verses of Genesis, whose truths-and they are truths, not myths-are expressed in an archaic, pre-scientific Hebrew idiom; and they can look forward with enjoyment and confidence to modem scientific discoveries which, more often than not, raise fundamental questions which science itself cannot answer.

57 years ago Pope Pius made his comments, Pope John Paul II made his 20 years ago. is that blocking all scientific discovery if it doesnt jive with the book of Genesis?





Sounds nice but what does it mean?

JimmyMack


The church didn't assist in the attempt to throw in jail, a one John Scopes back in the 1920's for teaching Darwin's Descent Of Man (evolution to you) in a Tennesse shoolroom? The church did not openly and with prejudice support a biblical fundamentalist, William Jennings Bryan who prosecuted the offender?

The only thing laughable here is your incredible lack of historical knoweledge, good taste, lack of manners and towering ignorance. You accuse me of hating the church when I have never made such a statement. Quite to the contrary my dear ignoramous. I happen to know that religion is the cornerstone of civilization.

Now, do us all a very nice favor. Be a good little bigoted idiot boy that you are, and keep your mouth shut and don't ever open it again.

[Wise Young]

No personal attacks, please. Thank you. Wise.

[JimmyMack]

The church didn't assist in the attempt to throw in jail, a one John Scopes back in the 1920's for teaching Darwin's Descent Of Man (evolution to you) in a Tennesse shoolroom?

The Catholic Church didnt assist (all my posts are about the Catholic Church and none other)
At no time was Scopes held in jail on this charge which, by the way, was only classed as a "misdemeanor", not a "felony." it was a staged trail for the aclu to test the "butler act" Scopes ended up paying a $100 fine


The church did not openly and with prejudice support a biblical fundamentalist, William Jennings Bryan who prosecuted the offender?

Here are all the players and not one Catholic, in the 1920's Catholics were not well recieved especially in the south.

(Some characters appear in more than one group where they played multiple roles.) Because it was staged.

The Judge:
The Honorable J.T. (John Tate) Raulston (circuit judge for the 18th judicial district)


The Defendent:
John Thomas Scopes (sports coach and teacher at Rhea County High School)



Wallace Haggard (local attorney)
Herbert Hicks (local attorney)
Sue Hicks (local attorney - brother of Herbert Hicks)
J.Gordon McKenzie (County Judge)
W.E. Morgan (local businessman)
George Rappelyea (Mining company manager)
F.E. "Fred" Robinson (owner of Robinson's Drug Store and chairman of the Rhea County Board of Education)
John Thomas Scopes (co-opted)
Walter White (Rhea County Superintendant of Schools)
B.M. Wilber (local justice of the peace)


Lawyers
For the Defense
Clarence Darrow (pro bono volunteer - effective head of the defense team)
Arthur Garfield Hays (ACLU - nominally manager of the defense team)
Dudley Field Malone (pro bono volunteer)
Frank B. McElwee (local attorney)
John R. Neal (Dean of private law school in Knoxville and technically head of the defense team)
William T. Thomas (Darrow's legal associate)


For the Prosecution
William Jennings Bryan (volunteer - assistant prosecutor)
William Jennings Bryan Jnr (volunteer - assistant prosecutor, W.J. Bryan's son)
Wallace Haggard (volunteer - assistant prosecutor)
Herbert Hicks (volunteer - assistant prosecutor)
Sue Hicks (volunteer - assistant prosecutor)
Ben McKenzie (volunteer - assistant prosecutor, retired district attorney-general)
J. Gordon McKenzie (volunteer - assistant prosecutor, Ben McKenzie's son)
Thomas A. "Tom" Stewart (Chief Prosecutor - Attorney-General for the 18th judicial district)


Witnesses
For the Prosecution
(In the order in which they gave evidence)
Walter White (School superintendent)
Howard Morgan (student at Rhea County High School - claimed he was present when Scopes allegedly taught Darwin's theory of evolution)
Harry Shelton (student at Rhea County High School - claimed he was present when Scopes allegedly taught Darwin's theory of evolution)
Fred Robinson (drug store owner and chairman of the school board)


Expert Witnesses for the Defense
(Only Maynard Metcalf and William Jennings Bryan gave evidence in person - see The Expert Witnesses - and Others for more on Maynard Metcalf.)

Scientific:
Fay-Cooper Cole (Professor of anthropology at the University of Chicago)
Winterton C. Curtis (Professor of zoology, University of Missouri)
Charles Hubbard Judd (Director of the School of Education, University of Chicago)
Jacob G. Lipman (Director of the New Jersey agricultural Experiment Station at New Brunswick)
Kirtley F. Mather (Chairman of the Geology department at Harvard University)
Maynard M. Metcalf (Zoologist, researching at Johns Hopkins)
Wilbur A. Nelson (State Geologist for Tennessee)
Horatio Hackett Newman (Dean of the College of Science at the University of Chicago)


Theological:
William Jennings Bryan (Politician, public speaker, assistant prosecutor)
Dr. Shailer Matthews (Dean of the School of Divinity, University of Chicago)
Dr Herbert E. Murkett (Pastor, First Methodist Church, Chattanooga)
Dr. Herman Rosenwasser (Rabbi and linguist, San Fransisco)
Walter C. Whitaker (Rector of St. John's Episcopal Church, Knoxville)


Jurors
(The list covers everyone who was called as possible jurors for the trial, in the order they were called, It includes their occupation and religious affiliation, and (where relevant) the reason they were excused from jury service.
Only those people with a number against their name actually served on the jury.)
1. W.F. Roberson (farmer, no religious affiliation)
2. J.W. Dagley (farmer, Methodist)
3. Jim Riley (farmer)
J.P. Massingill (minister - excused by Darrow on grounds of partiality)
J.H. Harrison (excused at own request on grounds of age. He was 66)
4. W.D. Taylor (farmer, described himself as "Methodist Episcopal, South" (Southern Methodist))
Tom Jackson (farmer, Southern Methodist - excused by Darrow on grounds of partiality)
5. R.L. Gentry ((farmer, public school teacher, Baptist)
J.C. Dunlap (After objection by J.G. McKenzie he is excused by judge on grounds of partiality)
W.A. Ault (merchant, Baptist - excused by Darrow on grounds of partiality)
Will Weir (teacher - excused by judge on his own admission of partiality)
6. J.R. Thompson (ex-US marshall, farm owner (not a farmer), Methodist)
Tom Jackson (farmer, Southern Methodist - excused by Darrow on grounds of partiality)
7. W.B. Smith (farmer, Baptist)
J.T. Leuty (farmer, no religious affiliation, excused by J.G. McKenzie on grounds of partiality)
8. Jess Goodrich (shipping clerk, Campbellite)
9. J.H. Bowman (cabinet maker turned farmer, Methodist)
10. Bill Day (farms or rents his farm out, Baptist)
H. A. Davis (Was called but did not respond.)
F. S. Collins (Was called but did not respond.)
11. R.L. West (farmer, Baptist)
W.P. Ferguson (farmer, Baptist - excused by Darrow on grounds of partiality)
12. J.S. Wright (farmer, Baptist)


The only thing laughable here is your incredible lack of historical knoweledge, good taste, lack of manners and towering ignorance. You accuse me of hating the church when I have never made such a statement. Quite to the contrary my dear ignoramous. I happen to know that religion is the cornerstone of civilization.


The Scopes monkey was a staged event, the ACLU sent a press release to several Tennessee newspapers, such as the Chattanooga Daily Times, announcing that they would provide legal assistance, etc. for a school teacher in Tennessee who would be willing to stand trial for having taught evolution in a public school so that a test case could be mounted to challenge the constitutional validity of the " Butler Act"


Now, do us all a very nice favor. Be a good little bigoted idiot boy that you are, and keep your mouth shut and don't ever open it again.



JimmyMack

[Chicago]

Jimmy,



You are absolutely right. I should live it and not just quote scriptures. I will figure out a way because at least evil men are not in the Catholic Political arena like before. Sure, we can speculate about ESC but faith will lead to patience and the church might be doing us a favor, who knows.

I doubt if you will comment but the process and fusion paragraph below was interesting. So interesting that perhaps there is scripture that can explain this. My approach would be to determine how unique the virgin birth was and why creation was necessary. This would probably be a good read if someone could ever write it. So - thanks for that post again.



God Bless,


DLT

[kate]

Jimmy, I'm impressed with your knowledge about the Scopes trial. Are you a student of this kind of thing in general? Also, in what sense are you using the word "staged"? You don't mean that the trial was somehow faked, do you?

[cass]

kate, it was staged in the sense the ACLU offered to defend anybody willing to go on trial for teaching Darwin. scopes ended up being the guy because businessppl in his town thought it would be great publicity. so, you see, it always comes down to one thing....politics...:D

btw, if i remember correctly, Darwin only came up with the theory of evolution after God "failed" him when his young daughter died. kind of a vendetta...

[kate]

kate, it was staged in the sense the ACLU offered to defend anybody willing to go on trial for teaching Darwin. scopes ended up being the guy because businessppl in his town thought it would be great publicity.

btw, if i remember correctly, Darwin only came up with the theory of evolution after God "failed" him when his young daughter died. kind of a vendetta...

Well, that's also interesting--I don't know much about Darwin himself at all, or the Scopes trial, beyond what was in the movie, Inherit the Wind.

I just did some noodling around for information about his life, and I'm not sure it's accurate to say that he came up with his theory after his daughter died in 1851. He definitely abandoned his religious views, though, at least according to one biographer:

In this intimate portrait of the great naturalist as devoted family man, Keynes describes how Charles Darwin's "life and his science were all of a piece." The great-great-grandson of the scientist, Keynes uses published documents as well as family papers and artifacts to show how Darwin's thinking on evolution was influenced by his deep attachment to his wife and children.

In particular, his anguish over his 10-year-old daughter Annie's death sharpened his conviction that the operation of natural laws had nothing to do with divine intervention or morality. Keynes . . . shows that much of Darwin's intellectual struggle in writing On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man arose from his efforts to understand the role of suffering and death in the natural order of the world.

Early in his career, Darwin saw the indifference of natural law as an answer to the era's religious doubts about how a benevolent god could permit human misery; cruelty and pain, he argued, should not be seen as moral issues, but as inevitable outcomes of nature. After Annie's death, however, Darwin's views darkened, and in a private letter he railed against the "clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature!"


Yeah, I have a few questions for the benevolent God myself. :)

http://www.scienceandreligionbooks.org/reviews_detail.asp?book_id=1189

[cass]

yes, kate, tis true he was already going down that path. only he could answer the question about his daughter. btw, he had other children with problems.

i believe most biographers agree it was the daughter that really sent him over "the edge" in terms of not believing as he had. his theory has many holes in it, but in general, i believe it is correct; however, i see no conflict with religion.

[JimmyMack]

Jimmy, I'm impressed with your knowledge about the Scopes trial. Are you a student of this kind of thing in general? Also, in what sense are you using the word "staged"? You don't mean that the trial was somehow faked, do you?

Staged in the sense that it was produced so to speak by the ACLU, roles were assigned to argue various positions and people volunteered for other positions. Scopes himself later admitted to never teaching curriculum from Darwins "The Desent of Man".

A Student? No, my convictions are pretty strong, I had better be able to back them up, not to convince anyone that I'm right, but to let people know that my points might merit some consideration at the very least. I feel that I've talking on the roll of the resident Catholic apoligist here at CC, and I do it just to clear up some misunderstandings about Catholic issues.


JimmyMack

[dan_nc]

Jimmy, I thought about moving this discussion but couldn't find a suitable forum or topic to put it into. It doesn't really belong to Politics or Life, and unfortunately may lead to an an expanding argument concerning the religious views on abortions. Let's keep the discussion in this topic in Cure until we get complaints otherwise.


All the more reason for a Religion and Ethics forum :).

[JimmyMack]

Jimmy,
You are absolutely right. I should live it and not just quote scriptures. I will figure out a way because at least evil men are not in the Catholic Political arena like before. Sure, we can speculate about ESC but faith will lead to patience and the church might be doing us a favor, who knows.

I doubt if you will comment but the process and fusion paragraph below was interesting. So interesting that perhaps there is scripture that can explain this. My approach would be to determine how unique the virgin birth was and why creation was necessary. This would probably be a good read if someone could ever write it. So - thanks for that post again.
God Bless,
DLT

Chicago,

I'm sorry I went off on you in the one post, I have no excuse. You have the same rights on this board as I. Quoting scripture- I guess I subscribe to the St Francis of Assi school of scripture quoting, which is as follows, "preach the Gospel to all and when absolutly neccesary use words"



I will figure out a way because at least evil men are not in the Catholic Political arena like before.

I admit that I'm a Catholic apologist but.....ummm I'm not sure that statement is correct :)


My approach would be to determine how unique the virgin birth was and why creation was necessary

This is easy, I think everypne on the planet no matter who they are or how they were raised, knows how unique a virgin birth is. YOUR WHAT!!

Both sides of the fence can tell you creation was not neccsary, to the materialist ( people who believe only in matter, atoms, substance and nothing spiritual) creation was an accident with nothing but chance to dictate its course, nothing neccsary in that. To most religious, creation was not neccessary, what does planets and stars add to the omnipotent infinite (GOD)
nothing, we humans add nothing at all to creation, nothing, I mean we create but what we create is finite, always finite.


JimmyMack

[angel7]

Dear Mr. Senator Cornyn:

The lines Bush allowed to be used were contaminated and definitely not enough. Can you please explain why you would rather THROW AWAY frozen embryos as opposed to using them to save lives. You need to do a little more research on the whole subject. Also, if you are so anti-ESC why isn't there a bill in Congress to shut down all infertility clinics that destroy embryos all of the time?
----- Original Message -----
From: SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov
To: debbieloupate@msn.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:54 PM
Subject: Thank You For Contacting My Office


Dear Ms. Kelsoe:

Thank you for contacting me about embryonic stem cell research. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

I believe that every life is a precious gift from God and deserves respect. A civil society recognizes and protects these gifts.

Embryonic stem cell research remains a complex, contentious ethical issue. Though many well-intentioned parties seek expanded government funding for such research, I—together with many colleagues—believe that embryonic stem cell research using taxpayer dollars must be carefully circumscribed.

In 2001 President George W. Bush established a sound policy, limiting use of federally funded research to existing stem cell lines that were derived with informed donor consent, from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes, and without any financial inducement to donors.

I support President Bush’s policy and believe we can gain valuable medical knowledge and significant scientific advancement from research on these embryonic stem cell lines without crossing important ethical boundaries. I am also encouraged by the promising results of adult stem cell research. This is an important issue for many Americans, and you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind as relevant legislation is considered.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator





517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov

Please sign up for my monthly newsletter at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/newsletter.

PLEASE NOTE:
Due to the nature of electronic communication, if you did not receive this e-mail directly from my office, I cannot guarantee that the text has not been altered. If you have questions about the validity of this message, or would like to respond to this message, please use the web form available at my website, http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact.

[Chicago]

JimmyMack,


I hope my tiraids were not too much. I am not very good at writing sometimes. About evolution, I have some thoughts and not sure if it will address all or any relavent materials in this thread. It might be extensive but I tried to keep it down to earth. Thanks for your perspectives everyone. No :mega: unless you are blind please.



My main object in pointing out the unique birth and the necessity of creation was meant to imply that scripture probably is saying these two events may have a dual effect relationship. It is very hard to put into words but we know that God was a spirit according to scripture. It doesn't say he was anything else but this doesn't mean God wasn't something else also. But anyway, we know somehow God became infused into His creation. Infused is sketchy so this is an open ended statement.


But my usage of "unique" was for a reason in my last posting. God probably could have entered any fertilized egg and this would have been three sets of codes in creation. The sperm, the egg, and then God. Why didn't God use all three when He came to earth. What would have been the implications of this if He had used three sets of coding?



Well -instead of a double helix we would probably would have seen Jesus with a triple helix DNA. We read in scripture how the substance of God overshadowed Mary and caused her to conceive. The word substance and the following scripture given - indicates that God Himself entered her egg and furnished the necessary code of instructions to start the process of creating a man. Reference suggests that of the Holy Ghost in the scripture can only mean a merging of some sort and was indeed God.


Now, if creation was not necessary as you said in the last post, then was Jesus a man with half of his double helix being the creation and the other half the creator. Of course, the differences with Jesus and us is that half of the genetic make up was complete from the beginning and not divided like in normal births. Half from each parent. God was His own parent and His own son. Why, because creation seemed to have been made in a particular way. A way where God was similar enough to be half His own equation.


If we go back to Genesis, we will see that even though Eve knew good, this was enough for her to be a spirit. Her genetics could understand what "not" meant. But, when she learned why "not", a curse was given to her to carry on with the understanding as a parent. She was now like God - knowing good & evil. The curse was to bear children for survival because God said multiply also. This command was for a reason and the reason was the Jesus had to take away the curse. Without a crop of humans, God could not have joined His creation in the redemption process.


So the process of God fusing was for Himself. We benefit too if we are able to reach by faith and take of the tree of life as Genesis instructs us too. The two trees in the Garden of Eden was symbolic of God creation of man with a double helix. If you remember, the bible explicitly states that Jesus became sin or a curse for us. How did he become the curse and which tree did God replace when His substance found Mary. I am not sure yet. I would say the double helix was both trees in the garden all along. Just happens that this was pre-existent and pre-determined concerning the resurrection.


God was that tree of life and was also the tree of knowledge but Eve caused some kind of breach with the tree of knowledge and thus began the long-suffering of man looking forward to the promise of redemption. God too was there in the flesh 2,000 years ago desiring with desire at the last supper before He drank the bitter cup of death, known to Eve as knowledge.


Many things has Jesus seen since His resurrection. Evil men professing to do God's bidding with little or no knowledge. Then wars and rumors of wars. Deaths unnecessary and some becoming a martyr to make others white. The shadow of God watching as we reach by faith for the cures that are promised. Revelations speaking of blood crying "how long". The lies that divide cultures and pits race and creed against greed.