The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionWhat an abortifacient is -- and what it isn't
by Jamie L Manson on Feb. 20, 2012
"One of the well known truisms in ethics is that good moral judgments depend in part on good facts."
So wrote Dr. Ron Hamel, senior director of ethics for the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) in the January-February 2010 issue of their journal Health Progress.
This edition of Health Progress focused on emergency contraception, particularly on the just treatment of women who check into hospital emergency rooms after suffering rape.
The ethicists and medical professionals who contributed to the journal could not have known then how valuable their articles would become two years later, when the church and country would become embroiled in a controversy over contraception.
Hamel's words about the importance of adequate and accurate information in making moral judgments seems especially urgent now as many church leaders and commentators continue to use misleading information to argue that the HHS mandate will force employers to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.
The HHS mandate allows women free access to all FDA-approved forms of contraception. This includes the IUDs (intrauterine devices), the drug Plan B (levonorgestrel) and a new drug called Ella (ulipristal acetate), which came on the market in 2010. Church officials and others have argued that because these three contraceptives are abortifacients, the government is forcing them to participate in the distribution of devices and drugs that cause abortion.
The reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the IUD and Plan B work only as contraceptives. Since Ella is new to the market, it has not been studied as extensively. But as of now, there is no scientific proof that Ella acts as an abortifacient, either.
There is only one drug approved to induce abortion. It is called RU-486 (mifepristone) and is not on the FDA's list of approved contraception. It is available only by prescription and no employer is forced to pay for it as part of an employee health plan.
To understand why scientists believe that the IUD, Plan B and Ella are not abortifacients, it is important first to understand the biology of conception. In order for a woman to become pregnant after sexual intercourse, her ovaries must release an egg (ovulation). Sperm can remain viable inside her reproductive tract for five days. Therefore, if intercourse takes place up to five days before ovulation or within two days after, both sperm and egg are viable and the egg cell can be fertilized.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Now, just because an egg is fertilized doesn't necessarily mean that it will develop into an embryo. For that to happen, the fertilized egg must be implanted into the endometrium that lines the uterus. Implantation happens seven days after fertilization, if it happens at all. Scientists estimate that, at a minimum, two-thirds of fertilized eggs fail to implant. Some scientists estimate that the number may even be as high as 80 percent, according to Discover Magazine.
For this reason, according to the medical definition, a woman is not considered pregnant until the developing embryo successfully implants the lining of the uterus.
Some church officials argue that a woman is pregnant at the moment of fertilization. If that is the case, then it follows that 60 to 80 percent of the time, this natural process results in a massive loss of life.
Now, back to contraception. When church officials argue that the IUD could be an abortifacient, they are relying on research from the 1970s that indicated that the IUD could affect an embryo's ability to implant. Decades of research since has demonstrated that the IUD actually works much earlier in the reproductive process than once thought. It does not destroy an implanted embryo. Approximately one in 100 women using the IUD get pregnant.
Rather, the IUD, which is a T-shaped device inserted into the uterus by a medical professional, works by affecting the way in which sperm move. Some IUDs release a synthetic version of the hormone progesterone called progestin, which thickens cervical mucus making more difficult for sperm to enter the uterus. Few sperm are able to reach the fallopian tubes, and those that do reach the site of fertilization are usually incapable of fertilizing an egg.
The drug Plan B is also artificial progestin and therefore impedes the sperm from entering the uterus in the same way as the IUD. But the drug can also stop the ovaries from releasing an egg. If an egg has already been released, Plan B can slow down the movement of the egg. By slowing down both the egg and the sperm, it prevents fertilization.
The effectiveness of Plan B drops considerably if given more than two days after intercourse. But even at its peak of effectiveness, it is only works 50 percent to 80 percent of the time. Some have argued that Plan B acts after fertilization by changing the uterine lining is such a way that implantation is impossible.
But according to Dr. Sandra Reznik, who also wrote for the January-February 2010 edition of CHA's Health Progress, if Plan B "involved a change in the endometrium, then one would expect a higher rate of success [in preventing pregnancy]. ... Taken together, there are biological, clinical and epidemiological data clearly indicating that Plan B's mechanism of action involves only pre-fertilization events."
For five years, staff at CHA collected, reviewed and summarized the great majority of articles on Plan B's mechanism of action, Ron Hamel explains in his article: "Virtually all of the evidence in the scientific literature indicates Plan B has little or no post-fertilization effect ... on the endometrium that would make it inhospitable to implantation."
The drug Ella is perhaps the most controversial because its chemical structure is similar to that of RU-486. Unlike Plan B, Ella can be taken up to five days after intercourse, therefore working for the entire life span of the sperm. Like Plan B, however, women who take Ella can still get pregnant, which suggests that this pill, too, is not an abortifacient.
In several studies, 2 percent of women taking Ella up to five days after intercourse became pregnant. Researchers estimate that at least 5 percent of women not taking the pill would have become pregnant. Ella prevents fertilization through a progesterone blocker that delays or inhibits ovulation.
Some have argued that because Ella is similar in composition to RU-486, it functions in the same way. RU-486 works by decreasing the lining of the uterus to the point that an implanted embryo will dislodge. Scientists argue that there is no evidence that Ella has this type of effect on the endometrium and therefore, there is no evidence that the drug can interrupt an existing pregnancy or prevent implantation. Experts point to the drug's 2 percent failure rate as proof.
According to one study published in The Lancet, when the drug is given in a massive dose, it could alter the lining of the uterus and theoretically impair an embryo's implantation. But no woman could have access to that amount of Ella.
The most important point that emerges from all of this research is that, so far, there is no scientific evidence that any FDA-approved contraception is capable of destroying an embryo. To say that any of these drugs are abortifacient is not only misleading, it does a profound disservice to women who find themselves in a situation where they might have to use one of these drugs or devices.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, an average of 207,754 sexual assaults is reported in this country every year. And according to a study at Princeton, more than 25,000 women become pregnant every year after being sexually assaulted.
The CHA did a fine job of arguing why emergency contraception should be available to all victims of sexual assault, regardless of the hospital's Catholic affiliation. But ultimately, women other than those who have been raped could also find themselves in need of this contraception as well. Condoms break and slip, women miss doses of birth control pills, and some women face all types of sexual coercion by men.
Regardless of the situation, it is for a woman to decide what is best for her health and well-being.
As we saw last week in the all-male panel testifying before Congress about contraception and in the statements of the Rick Santorum and his financial backers, the culture of shaming women for taking control of their sexuality is still a powerful force in this country. And the desire by men to take control of women's bodies seems equally powerful.
In the face of these assaults on women's health and women's sexual autonomy, it is the responsibility of analysts and commentators to be honest about the science of contraception and to be cautious when asserting what an abortifacient is and what it isn't.
[Jamie L. Manson received her Master of Divinity degree from Yale Divinity School, where she studied Catholic theology and sexual ethics. Her columns for NCR earned her a first prize Catholic Press Association award for Best Column/Regular Commentary in 2010.]
| Editor's note: We can send you an email alert every time Jamie Manson's column, "Grace on the Margins," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: Email alert sign-up. If you already receive email alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Grace on the Margins" to your list. |
Now, Jamie, you have to stop
Now, Jamie, you have to stop sowing these scientific facts around to contradict the myths upon which the patriarchy bases its control over women's bodies!
Jamies argument falls apart
Jamies argument falls apart as the definition of conception was purposely changed to accommodate the contraceptive devices and the pill. The doctors knew that the public would never accept an abortifacient.
Although there are other sources regarding this, I'm referring you to Wikipedia:
Both the 1828 and 1913 editions of Webster's Dictionary said that to "conceive" meant "to receive into the womb and ... begin the formation of the embryo."[13] It was only in 1875 that Oskar Hertwig discovered that fertilization includes the penetration of a spermatozoon into an ovum. Thus, the term "conception" was in use long before the details of fertilization were discovered. By 1966, a more precise meaning of the word "conception" could be found in common-use dictionaries: the formation of a viable zygote.[14]
In 1959, Dr. Bent Boving suggested that the word "conception" should be associated with the process of implantation instead of fertilization.[15] Some thought was given to possible societal consequences, as evidenced by Boving's statement that "the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy could depend on something so simple as a prudent habit of speech."
It sounds like Dr. Boving was
It sounds like Dr. Boving was interested in not having semantic confusion between conception and fertilization, given that they are not the same thing. This hardly causes Jamie's argument to fall apart. The simple fact of the matter is that there never was a pregnancy if the egg failed to implant. The implanted egg sends signals to the woman's body which cause it to change. This is pregnancy. The mother of the eggs fertilized in a clinic is not pregnant until the fertilized eggs are implanted in her uterus and begin growing there.
No, it doesn't sound like he
No, it doesn't sound like he wanted to avoid confusion. The redefinition of pregnancy as beginning at implantation-renamed-conception was not based upon science. There were no new scientific discoveries concerning pregnancy that warranted this redefinition.
Clearly Boving wanted to make bc palatable, therefore this redefinition was based on *politics.*
Abortion was illegal in 1959. Boving HAD to play word games so that the abortifacient mechanism of some bc would magically disappear.
You tenaciously hold onto this deceptive definition of pregnancy, as if that somehow means there *is* no growing, developing, human life inside mom prior to implantation.
However, as I linked before, this definition is hardly settled among ob-gyns despite ACOG. Over 1100 ob-gyns polled, and the *majority* of them say pregnancy begins at fertilization/conception. 1100 means the results are reasonably indicative.
As the title of this article says--"When does pregnancy begin? Doctors disagree."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/us-when-does-pregnancy-begin-i...
If pregnancy begins at
If pregnancy begins at fertilization, then how does IVF fit in?
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) agrees with me. A new life begins at fertilization, but a woman isn't pregnant until the new life implants.
Yes, you agree with ACOG, but
Yes, you agree with ACOG, but the *majority* of ob-gyns disagree with you, as per my link above.
In 1959, there was no scientific discovery concerning pregnancy that warranted the redefinition of pregnancy as starting at implantation. Boving changed the definition for *political* reasons, since abortion was illegal in 1959, and the pill was known to have an abortifacient mechanism if pregnancy continued to be defined as beginning at fertilization.
In nature, that is, through
In nature, that is, through the course of a natural life, through natural sexual intercourse, sometimes babies result, sometimes there are natural abortions, sometimes there is no "conception". The point is, and I believe the Church's position is, let's keep it natural. If a man and a woman get married, have relations, they may or may not have children. This is the natural way it's been done for thousands of years. Less sexual promiscuity, less disease, less divorce, etc. Keep it natural.
What was that old line in the butter? commercial, "Don't mess with Mother nature!"
What you are saying is a bit
What you are saying is a bit different from "you must keep it natural or go to hell" and "if you even let someone who doesn't belong to your church get help not keeping it natural, you go to hell".
Excuse me, but using this
Excuse me, but using this 'natural planning' method would have insured that either my husband and I were celibate, or we would have had approximately 23 children!! The 'natural' method might work for some, but definitely not all.
A LIGHT AMIDST SUCH HEAT ...
A LIGHT AMIDST SUCH HEAT ... As usual, Jamie, many thanks for shining your piercing laser light of reason through the heated hierarchical smokescreens.
It is tragic that women's health is being put at risk by the papal ploy to replace Obama with a Republican whom the pope and his 1% contributors can better manipulate.
It is encouraging that you have so decisively separated the essential wheat from the clerical chaff.
For more on this papal ploy, please read the links and comment, "Santo Subito St. Santorum", readily accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/santorum-theologian-chief
PAPAL PLOY PLANNED IN '09
PAPAL PLOY PLANNED IN '09 ........ Also, Jamie, as you try to sort thorough the bishops' "anti-contraception crusade", please note the comment on the origins of the crusade, entitled. "Papal Ploy Planned in 2009", readily accessible by clicking on at;
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/gops-b-team
I am in total agreement that
I am in total agreement that men should not have controll over women's bodies.
Rape, force and coersion to participate in genital sex to me is an absolute reason to end the possibility of becoming pregnant.
Sis
Yay, Jamie...I have been
Yay, Jamie...I have been lamenting the false characterizations of IUD's, Ella and Plan B as "abortion inducing drugs" for two weeks now. Thanks for enlightening NCR readers and, one would hope, our bishops, about their mistaken understandings of the science of contraception. And now we need to tell Chris Matthews and Phyllis Zagano too, OK?
You have provided a valuable service to the ongoing discussion, and I am most grateful.
May I second your comment:
May I second your comment: Yay, Jamie, indeed. I too have been looking for the science in this discussion.
Thank you both. As my
Thank you both. As my parents used to say, "Facts are stubborn things." Sure wish we heard more of them.
I would like to present the
I would like to present the following information from the Catholic Health Association. In brief, the CHA has recently published items supporting the use of PLAN B but NOT supporting Ella, as of September 2011. I have not located relevant data on IUDs at the CHA website; however, I am not a CHA member so I don't have access to all materials on their website.
Dr. Ron Hamel, senior ethicist at the Catholic Health Association, published articles in 2010 and 2011 which provide moral support for using levonorgestrel as emergency contraception, and perhaps for revising product labeling about potential to disrupt implantation. In 2011 he writes, “Several recent studies [=5 studies published in 2010] on the mechanism of action of levonorgestrel (Plan B/LNG) continue to suggest that the drug does not have an abortifacient effect. It works by preventing ovulation and when it does not prevent ovulation, it does not work.” Prior to analyzing these five new studies, Hamel had said in a 2010 essay that evidence was sufficient to support ‘moral certainty’ for using Plan B without an ovulation test that might delay use of the drug at a critical time. ‘Moral certainty’ means that a person acts based on a cautious assessment of the best available evidence. Although the Catholic Health Association is regarded by some as a relatively less conservative Catholic group, Hamel bases his 2010 essay on the work of Dr./Fr. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, a biologist affiliated with the National Catholic Bioethics Center, which has a more conservative reputation.
See Ronald Hamel, “EC: An Update,” Catholic Health Association (2011) at http://www.chausa.org/searchresults.aspx?searchtext=implantation; Hamel, “Thinking Ethically About Emergency Contraception,” Health Progress January-February 2010, at http://www.mergerwatch.org/storage/pdf-files/Health%20Progress%20JanFeb2.... Also see Stephen Vincent, “In Cases of Rape,” Human Life Review, Summer 2007, at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_200707/ai_n21100626, which favors the ‘ovulation approach.’ For additional essays which say the ‘pregnancy approach’ is justified, see Hamel et. al., “Emergency contraception and sexual assault: Assessing the moral approaches in Catholic teaching,” Health Progress, Sep/Oct 2002, at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3859/is_200209/ai_n9127951/pg_1; also Hamel, “Emergency Contraception and Catholic Health Care: Moral Considerations” Catholic Health Association Ethics Resources: Rape Treatment Protocol (2007) at http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Cached-CH.... For both perspectives, see ch. 11 of Edward Furton et.al., eds., Catholic Health Care Ethics: A Manual for Practitioners, 2nd ed. (National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2009).
HOWEVER, even if levonorgestrel can be used to prevent fertilization without preventing implantation, other drugs need to be assessed individually. The Catholic Health Association and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists have criticized the emergency contraceptive drug ulipristal acetate (marked as ‘Ella’) because of evidence which indicates that it can disrupt implantation. See letter from Sr. Carol Keehan, CHA president, to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (September 22, 2011), at http://www.chausa.org/searchresults.aspx?searchtext=implantation. See also testimony by Dr. Donna Harrison, AAPLOG President, to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (June 10, 2010) at http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/emergency-contraception/aaplog....
I think women are fighting a
I think women are fighting a losing battle in the Church because its not about facts or logic. But thank you for adding your voice to those that are trying. Do not stop speaking out.
"I think women are fighting a
"I think women are fighting a losing battle in the Church because its not about facts or logic. But thank you for adding your voice to those that are trying."
I think you are wrong. Look at what has happened to the RCC in the US. After HV there was a steady decrease in US attendance in the RCC of cradle catholics. I think what was a raging river will double in size with these Bishops. Who will lose the ROMAN Catholic Church. I think it likely that there will be many catholics who will simply dissent Rome for local Catholic churches not attached to Rome because the leadership has been caught in horrible misbehavior and poor administrative leadership.
Thank you, Jamie, for
Thank you, Jamie, for bringing this 63 year old female up to speed on the science of reproduction. I, for one, have not been fully cognizant of these drugs uses. Thanks for explaining it.
Oh hear we go! We are going
Oh hear we go! We are going to try every possible way to spin this and before long, abortifacients will be the same as daily vitamins! Doesn't anyone in NCR have the guts to stand up for life and expose this for what it is! Are you all this consumed by the culture of death?
The more I read the spin on NCR the more I am convinced that Abortion will soon become the 8th Sacrament of the Catholic Church.
Andrew K
Isn't this the point, Andrew?
Isn't this the point, Andrew? Women, not men, should be the major voice in this discussion. I'm sorry, sir.
Andrew, your reply sounds
Andrew, your reply sounds more like emotion and less like facts. Where are your facts that IUDs, Ella and Plan B are abortifacients? Until you can present them, your comments, and those of Rick Santorum, et al., will be "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," I'm afraid.
If you read this analysis
If you read this analysis closely the evidence points to the fact that no one really knows if implantation of a fertilized egg is effected or not, there is only conjecture and speculation with the highest authority being cited as Discover magazine. While such evidence may serve to assuage the consciences of some that Plan B , the IUD, and Ella seem not to be abortion causing mechanisms there is no proof of that position. Clearly the intent of "emergency contraception" is to stop any life process from continuing. Finally it may be wise to remember that "there are no final truths in Science" when trying to justify such drugs and devices with scientific observation and thought. It was not to long ago that the same scientific professionals actually thought that a women’s period brought on toxic secretions through the skin... Google "Menotoxin Scientific American"
As a scientist teaching at a
As a scientist teaching at a University, I have to agree with "Anonaymous"'s comment. It is amazing that just because something is posted online or in print and claims to be science, so many readers of this forum uncritically accept the claims without any attempts to personally verify the information. Folks, please, go do the research yourself and find the primary sources.
The statement "Now, just because an egg is fertilized doesn't necessarily mean that it will develop into an embryo." has nothing to do with science, but with politics, and for the real critical thinkers, metaphysics. The most obvious point that so many fail to see: A new human organism begins life at the point when it is genetically constituted as such. The label embryo have been altered from earlier definitions and used to justify certain actions. Word gymnastics is not science.
BTW, the absence of evidence does not automatically affirm the validity of the opposing position. This is basic logic. No evidence is exactly just that - no evidence. Therefore, no firm conclusion can be made, especially in decisions where the cost of erroneous conclusions is unacceptably high: human lives.
It is a human weakness that we engage in lazy thinking and are so quick to accept supposed facts that agree with our views. Our universities are supposed to train you to resist that and encourage critically thinking. Perhaps some of you need to ask for a refund. :-)
"The most obvious point that
"The most obvious point that so many fail to see: A new human organism begins life at the point when it is genetically constituted as such."
Sure it begins then, but there is nothing in nature (Natural Law) that indicates that it is God's will that all fertilized human eggs are intended to become human beings. The evidence would suggest that God is indifferent at best -- observational evidence, not experimental evidence.
Interesting statement: "there
Interesting statement: "there is nothing in nature (Natural Law) that indicates that it is God's will that all fertilized human eggs are intended to become human beings."
Natural law pertains to that which can be rationally discerned from human nature. Let's see, a fertilized egg is in essence no longer an egg, but something else. It is referred to technically as a zygote. But what is it essentially? Certainly not an egg anymore, because now it has the genetic material from both parents. In fact, it has all the genetic material that normal humans have. Having all the genetic material of a normal human being in a living organism is a sufficient indicator of a human being.
Yes some will die early - very early. But the rate of death is not in any way a relevant consideration of what something is.
Reason would lead us to think that God creates with purpose in mind. But revelation would lead us to think that God creates us for union with Him(John 17:24) in eternity. He therefore, did not create solely for the purpose of living in this world.
Thus, I think that you may not properly understand natural law and how it is to be applied.
It's hard to know whether I
It's hard to know whether I am communicating with the same anonymous in all cases. Assuming I am, it is nature's way to create far more potential offspring than it brings to maturity. Waste is part of the process. If you are looking at this as created by God, you would have to conclude that it is God's will that everything follow this pattern, given that only humans were supposedly fallen and not all of God's creation. Whether that is the Catholic Church's way of perceiving natural events and concluding they are part of Natural Law, is not really my point.
Just because a ferilized egg
Just because a ferilized egg has all the genetic material to become a new human, doesn't mean the male contribution is genetically active. That takes implantation. Until then the maternal genes and maternal environment are the only operative forces. Hence twinning occurs before implantation.
Would you care to provide a
Would you care to provide a reference to the original source of this claim, please?
I'm hoping that you will teach me something new, but as far as I know, in female zygotes, X-chromosome inactivation occurs randomly, BUT in males, genes on the single copy maternal X chromosome are more likely to be expressed without the corresponding normal genes on a second X chromosome to compensate. So what you claim may be more likely to be so in males. However, I'm not even willing to bet on that, given that the Y-genes are also likely to be expressed.
"Reason would lead us to
"Reason would lead us to think that God creates with purpose in mind. But revelation would lead us to think that God creates us for union with Him(John 17:24) in eternity. He therefore, did not create solely for the purpose of living in this world."
Anonymous,
Perhaps you strayed from your field of expertise in quoting this passage out of context in support of your point, yes? Or perhaps I have misunderstood your point? Are you suggesting that God creates those "human beings" which die prior to implantation (Having all the genetic material of a normal human being in a living organism) for the purpose of divine union? That a secondary purpose, divine union, is their primary purpose and not to live in this world? A rather strange argument which I would characterize as 'grasping for straws'. So, God, the creator of all cannot create these 'human beings'(fertilized eggs) in other ways but chooses to create them, allows them to die for divine union? Seems a bit like conjecture...............
Well perhaps I could think of a couple of other ways; rape and incest can and have produced 'human beings'...I wonder what God was thinking when tacitly approving the actions that created the human being--you know, 'life' being a gift from God.................
Manson states, "If that is the case, then it follows that 60 to 80 percent of the time, this natural process results in a massive loss of life"--this 'life' being your "fertilized egg-humans"--seems rather inefficient of God, doesn't it?
Perhaps, reason could also lead to a different conclusion than yours:
"Navigating Right and Wrong:Decision Making in a Pluralistic Age" and Daniel E. Lee, the author, states on page 52, "Those who purport to see moral values in nature tend to pick and choose. Robins and other songbirds that provide for the nutritional needs of their offspring provide a good role model. Lions that devour their young are quite a different matter. In the final analysis, those who claim to derive ethical values from nature are in reality making certain value assumptions about nature--value assumptions that provide a screen to sort out what they like from what they don't like.. In short, instead of deriving ethical values from nature, they are bringing their set of ethical values to nature and interpreting nature in light of these values"
Cheers,
Dear javier, I'm the
Dear javier,
I'm the anonymous that you were referring to.
You wrote, "That a secondary purpose, divine union, is their primary purpose and not to live in this world? A rather strange argument which I would characterize as 'grasping for straws'. So, God, the creator of all cannot create these 'human beings'(fertilized eggs) in other ways but chooses to create them, allows them to die for divine union? Seems a bit like conjecture..............."
I can safely assume that you do not understand the Catholic/Christian worldview, which is that the ultimate goal of human existence is union with God. It is NOT secondary. Living in this world is merely a place of trial, intended to be temporary. It only seems like grasping for straws to one who does not believe in the God of Christianity. For the secular person, all that matters IS this lifetime, which of course, makes utter nonsense of morality, or reduced morality to a struggle for power.
"Those who purport to see moral values in nature tend to pick and choose."
I would fully agree. Because these people totally fail (may I include you?) to understand natural law, in which the comparison group is NOT nature as in the animals and which species, but rather, the nature of human beings. So, understood correctly, there is no possibility of picking and choosing, because the species is already clearly identified - humans.
If you are willing to do the hard work, javier, then let me know and I can point you to FREE internet resources to educate you on the natural law perspective. Now that's a good reason to cheer. So, cheers!
Dearest anonymous2, "I can
Dearest anonymous2,
"I can safely assume that you do not understand the Catholic/Christian worldview, which is that the ultimate goal of human existence is union with God."
I agree, our ultimate goal is divine union. My response was directed to your statement: "Reason would lead us to think that God creates with purpose in mind. But revelation would lead us to think that God creates us for union with Him(John 17:24) in eternity. He therefore, did not create solely for the purpose of living in this world." As I read your statement which seemed to suggest that you were offering a 'reason/rationalization' why fertilized eggs often self abort; that God's will for those self aborted fertilized eggs is divine union...not life in this world. Or, were you not suggesting this? Did I misunderstand your statement:" He therefore, did not create solely for the purpose of living in this world?" Pray tell, from where does your insight come? Would you direct me to the biblical basis for this or to a church document that states this, please? I'm willing to do that 'hard work' of reading it! :)
"Those who purport to see moral values in nature tend to pick and choose."
"I would fully agree. Because these people totally fail (may I include you?)"
I believe you already have! :)
I suspect our disagreement has more to do with the degree to which we are or are not suffering from institutionalization. "Natural law, our tradition holds, is written within our hearts by our Creator and is our ability to grasp in some way the mind of the Creator for us" (O'Neil and Black 147, The Essential Moral Handbook; A guide to Catholic living)). The crux of the issue is that "the teaching Church claims authority not only to interpret the Sacred Scriptures but also to interpret the meaning of the natural law" (160)and as we know the Church has been wrong in many areas. The Church has arrogantly believed that they have fully grasped the mind of the Creator! For example, this quote demonstrates how wrong the Church's understanding can be [not to change the subject but to point out that the Church has been wrong and can be wrong again about our human nature and what is 'good' which is the focus of natural law theory; "how we have been created to tend toward the good" (147)]:
"The phrase “objective disorder” has often and rightly been heard as unnecessarily offensive. But for those who know the Catholic tradition, the phrase is not surprising. In fact, we have a long history of saying that heterosexuality is objectively disordered. For in addition to being an inclination to procreative sex, heterosexuality also includes an inclination to lustful thoughts, masturbation, fornication and other evils. From Paul and Augustine through Thomas Aquinas and Alphonsus Liguori up to the Second Vatican Council, we have argued in our theology and in our canon law that marriage is a “remedy” for this disorder.
Our tradition has been conflicted when it comes to sex. At one point some in the hierarchy taught that, practically speaking, no man ever engages in sexual intercourse with his wife without committing at least venial sin. Thus, for some people celibacy was, in part, a way of avoiding sin. (Even now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that chastity is the virtue, never fully attained, of overcoming this disorder and of striving toward integration.)" Here is the link (free, too):
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2670
Perhaps the Church's understanding of natural law is incorrect or is still developing, yes?
"If you are willing to do the hard work, javier, then let me know and I can point you to FREE internet resources to educate you on the natural law perspective."
Gosh, if you would be so kind I'd really like that, Masta!! :)
Cheers,
Dear javier, "As I read your
Dear javier,
"As I read your statement which seemed to suggest that you were offering a 'reason/rationalization' why fertilized eggs often self abort;"
Yes, you are right! I was offering a reason which is fully consistent with the teaching of the Church, all ALL life, which of course includes early embryos that die prematurely, is for union with God. And if they die early, it is because God allows for that to happen and therefore, "did not create solely for the purpose of living in this world."
CCC760 God created the world for the sake of communion with his divine life
And yes, it is true that the "Church claims authority not only to interpret the Sacred Scriptures but also to interpret the meaning of the natural law" but it needs to be stated more precisely. The Church claims authority also in matters of morality, i.e. natural law. CCC1950-1960
"as we know the Church has been wrong in many areas." There's a logical gap in your thought process here, javier. "Many areas" does not necessarily include moral issues. The Church is authoritative in matters of faith doctrines and morals. If you wish, you may present evidence for times when the Church has erred in moral issues, and explain why she is in error.
"In fact, we have a long history of saying that heterosexuality is objectively disordered." You are way too careless in your words, javier. Heterosexuality, expressed in certain actions and in certain contexts, are not morally evil.
"At one point some in the hierarchy taught that, practically speaking, no man ever engages in sexual intercourse with his wife without committing at least venial sin."
I invite you, therefore, as a thoughtful and responsible thinker, to present evidence that the Church has authoritatively taught this.
Is America Magazine your only source of information about the Church's history and teachings? Are you interested in engaging in serious discussion or not?
Dear Anonymous2, " And if
Dear Anonymous2,
" And if they die early, it is because God allows for that to happen and therefore, "did not create solely for the purpose of living in this world."
So, you ARE stating that God creates these 'zygotes' (as you corrected me) for divine union and then just allows them to die at an astonishing rate? Would you also propose that God needed to/wanted to create more little zygotes through rape and incest? God 'blessed' that union? The point of my posting is that those (may I include you?) who are firmly entrenched in their own ideology will distort/contort their reasoning, perhaps you might call it 'theological speculation', to force an explanation to fit their image of God and their mythic universe. God, who created humans out of clay, forgot how to do that; he/she needs to create little zygotes and then let them die? Doesn't seems reasonable or god-like. I wonder if the logical gap you allude to belongs in your camp, yes? You would have made more sense if you had just stated that you don't know why the little zygotes self abort rather than drag God's will into it!
"as we know the Church has been wrong in many areas." There's a logical gap in your thought process here, javier. "Many areas" does not necessarily include moral issues. The Church is authoritative in matters of faith doctrines and morals. If you wish, you may present evidence for times when the Church has erred in moral issues, and explain why she is in error."
Well, ya got me there! Wait I suppose the one area that does come to mind would be the Crusades: "Urban held a synod at Claremont in 1095, where he called the knights of Christendom to a crusade against the Moslems. With overwhelming enthusiasm, the lords of Europe rallied around the papal banner. It was a striking demonstration of the power of the Pope now exerted over the minds and hearts of men--a moral authority that no Empereor or King could hope to rival" (A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Bokenkotter 120). I suppose that killing Moslems was probably a moral issue--maybe not--but as you point out God creates human beings for divine union---I guess killing them, even in God's name, might be wrong, yes?
Urban, the sovereign leader of the Church back then, led the knights to commit murder and does not disagree when the knights shout in reply "God wills it!" (155).
I suppose another one that comes to mind would be the 'just war' theory developed by Augustine and still in force today even as church documents contradict it:
'Evangelium vitae ' prohibits the killing of life (62) an 'intrinsically illicit act" yet the church has found ways around God's command of "You shall not kill" (61). In war there is always 'collateral damage' whether intended or not! 62."No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." I don't see the exception for war here, do you?
I could point how the Church is wrong about homosexuality--I can if you feel the need--but I do not wish to get completely sidetracked from the god that likes to create zygotes and then lets them die so that they can enjoy divine union--just out of curiosity, do these zygotes continue to develop with God or do they remain tiny little zygotes with no sense of self or discernible
intelligence....or has God not revealed that to you? :)
"Is America Magazine your only source of information about the Church's history and teachings? Are you interested in engaging in serious discussion or not?"
Did you not read the quotes from O'Neil and Black, O'Connell--those were real books by priests :) Lee, I do not believe is a priest but rather a professor!
I suspect that you may not have the resources....just sayin :)
Well, Anonymous2, I believe you are the one who offered FREE internet resources--all you have offered is the CCC--this from a Church which claims that they are right because they ARE right and because God says they are right! If you want church documents for this just check out Dominus Jesu; if you cannot find it I'll provide a link!
Cheers,
Dear javier, "So, you ARE
Dear javier,
"So, you ARE stating that God creates these 'zygotes' (as you corrected me) for divine union and then just allows them to die at an astonishing rate? Would you also propose that God needed to/wanted to create more little zygotes through rape and incest? "
Yes to the first question. The one impt. ingredient that is perhaps causing you to fail to understand my view is sin; sin through the free choices that humans make.
The sin of humanity affected all of life on earth and even extend to human biology. Sin, has damaged us and its effects can be seen in susceptibility to diseases, deleterious mutations, genetic anomalies, and yes, even premature deaths.
Yet God allows the world to go on - because we are to learn the consequences of our behaviors, to understand that our choices and the choices of our ancestors continue to affect us, even in ways that we do not feel we deserve. And as part of this learning, some of us become motivated to attempt to repair the damages of sin, and to work to improve our world and the lives of others. Others are motivated to work for their own selfish desires.
And so it applies to rape and incest. The sin of others will affect both the innocent and the guilty. It is a powerful lesson about the significance of relationships in human existence, and the need for repentance and sacrifice for the sake of others, and most importantly, the need for a savior.
So, God does not "bless the union", but rather He can bring redemption (i.e. good things) out of any tragic circumstances.
You wrote:
"The point of my posting is that those (may I include you?) who are firmly entrenched in their own ideology will distort/contort their reasoning, perhaps you might call it 'theological speculation', to force an explanation to fit their image of God and their mythic universe."
Ha! Yes, you have already included me. Again, do you not see that you are in exactly the same boat? We both have firm beliefs through which we view the world. You see, to put yourself above that which you accuse me of.
I can easily go into a defense of the Church's moral authority on the Crusades and such, but as has happened so many times, I realize that what I end up doing is giving an history lesson to the people who don't want to put in the time to study the issues carefully. Therefore, this time, I choose not to be sidetrack by this issue and focus instead on our original disagreement, which is about the premature deaths of embryos.
"Did you not read the quotes from O'Neil and Black, O'Connell--those were real books by priests :) Lee, I do not believe is a priest but rather a professor!"
Perhaps that's your main weakness, javier. You follow printed opinions as if their are indisputable authority, without doing the background legwork yourself. Any professor/priest/author can expressed an opinion; but it is up to the thoughtful reader to assess the validity of the opinion. You don't seem to have done so, but simply uncritically accept what was printed.
"Well, Anonymous2, I believe you are the one who offered FREE internet resources--all you have offered is the CCC--this from a Church which claims that they are right because they ARE right and because God says they are right!"
Perhaps I am woefully mistaken, but is this not a Catholic forum, discussing Catholic issues, and was my original response not about expressing the Catholic faith perspective? And were the quotes from the CCC not direct answers to your questions about showing where the Church taught this or that?
It seems like you are grasping at straws now - to disagree for the sake of disagreeing and creating confusion. Perhaps our discussion should end here. No hard feelings I hope.
Dear Anonymous2, No hard
Dear Anonymous2,
No hard feelings on my part at all. :)
"Yes to the first question. The one impt. ingredient that is perhaps causing you to fail to understand my view is sin; sin through the free choices that humans make."
So you are suggesting that these little zygotes are being punished because of someone else's sins--this is the God you believe in? A god that would be so petty as to punish a life for the actions of others. I do understand your position....I just happen to disagree with it! I'm not a fan of the Atonement theory but rather tend toward the Duns Scotus school of thought. Here is a link for you: (http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1202.asp)
"The sin of humanity affected all of life on earth and even extend to human biology. Sin, has damaged us and its effects can be seen in susceptibility to diseases, deleterious mutations, genetic anomalies, and yes, even premature deaths. "
Have you proof of this or are you just accepting what you have been taught because it makes sense to you?
That is a theory promulgated by Augustine --but that is all that it is, a theory into which you have been inculcated. Have you done your "background legwork " or did you read this in a book or just what you learned in CCD? Augustine postulates the idea that babies inherit “personal guilt” through the male seed during sexual intercourse (A new look at the Sacraments, William Bausch 70). I'm not sure why I continue to offer you references since apparently you do not value them: " You follow printed opinions as if their are indisputable authority, without doing the background legwork yourself. "
"because we are to learn the consequences of our behaviors, to understand that our choices and the choices of our ancestors continue to affect us, even in ways that we do not feel we deserve. "
Well, what a strikingly different picture Jesus offers us of his Father in the gospel of Luke in Ch 15--you can keep your image of your god and I'll stick to the one Jesus offers :) Or you could also read the story of the blind man in John's gospel where Jesus negates your theory that "diseases, deleterious mutations, genetic anomalies, and yes, even premature deaths" are the results of ones ancestors actions! But heck, that was only Jesus, perhaps the CCC knows more and can prove that Jesus was, sadly, 'grasping at straws'!!! :)
"So, God does not "bless the union", but rather He can bring redemption (i.e. good things) out of any tragic circumstances."
Since you know all the church's teachings so well does it not claim that ALL life is from God--so God produced this new life which only he/she can do, this zygote that you state is a human being, from an act of violence? and you say God didn't bless that union? I know that challenges your thinking/logic about God so you just entrench yourself further by ignoring your own logic/reason! Here is a nice little joke, one of my favorites which shows that ONLY God, the author of life, can create life:
"One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"
But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."
The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"
"Perhaps that's your main weakness, javier. You follow printed opinions as if their are indisputable authority, without doing the background legwork yourself."
Perhaps this is your opportunity to enlighten me--you don't read? you do not give credence to church documents? to people who self-flagellate you do listen to uncritically? To each his own!
Specifically, to help me out, define what you consider "background legwork", please!
"Any professor/priest/author can expressed an opinion; but it is up to the thoughtful reader to assess the validity of the opinion. You don't seem to have done so, but simply uncritically accept what was printed."
Now you definitely are grasping at straws--if I was uncritically accepting of printed matter I would not have responded--I would have remained a 'pay, pray and obey' Catholic and not responded to your post! Perhaps it is best that we end this discussion because your logic seems to be failing quickly: because I provided you with quotes from scholarly sources ,which you disagreed with, I have "uncritically accept[ed] what was printed"?
Perhaps now that we are ending our discussion and because you began the conversation invoking 'reason' you might look up : non sequitur (Latin for It does not follow) It is a comment that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it, it seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.
Cheers, :)
Dear javier, Our discussion
Dear javier,
Our discussion has ended, but as I offered, here are the web links to help you understand natural law - you need to read it over carefully, because most people without guidance, can easily fall into misinterpretations.
Easy Summaries:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html
From Aquinas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm#article1
May God grant you wisdom.
Anonymous2, I came across
Anonymous2,
I came across this quote which I think may explain your perspective(s) "He therefore, did not create solely for the purpose of living in this world" and "Living in this world is merely a place of trial, intended to be temporary":
"What is ideology? In its simplest terms, ideology is the distortion of reality for the sake of one's own interest. It is the denial of the facts of the case; it is the substitution of one's own desires. The witty cliche, 'My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts,' is a classic statement of ideology" (Principles for a Catholic Morality Timothy O'Connell p.219)
So you can 'reinterpret' the facts of self aborting fertilized eggs (human beings) by claiming, on your own authority, that God created them for a purpose other than living in this world all you wish. I challenge you to support your thesis with something other than just your ideology (perhaps there are some FREE internet sources you could provide!).
Cheers,
Dear javier, I would like to
Dear javier,
I would like to quote javier, "I agree, our ultimate goal is divine union. "
Therefore, God "did not create solely for the purpose of living in this world" and "Living in this world is merely a place of trial, intended to be temporary" (Quotes from me).
Your statement fits perfectly in support of mine.
Ideology is the distortion of reality, I agree, but what you failed to consider is which opinion best describes reality as it is. Your accusation of me, denial of facts and substitution of own desires can just as easily be applied to you!
Explaining the fact of "self-aborting fertilized egg" (a misnomer, because it is not an egg, but a zygote) is NOT a reinterpretation of the facts, because I fully accept the fact that many early embryos die for a variety of reasons. It is an EXPLANATION of the facts from a theological perspective.
And it is not "my own authority that God created them for a purpose other than living in this world", but the Church's, CCC1024
This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called "heaven." Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.
Also,
CCC1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation.
Implied in this is that there is a possibility of union with God for these unbaptized human embryos. And if union is the goal, and they die before they are born, then therefore, for some, God "did not create solely for the purpose of living in this world"
Not my authority, but the authority of logic together with the Church's.
Also, read Pope JPII the Great's letter, Salvifici Doloris, to understand more about life on earth as trial.
I would like to quote javier,
I would like to quote javier, "I agree, our ultimate goal is divine union. "
Therefore, God "did not create solely for the purpose of living in this world" and "Living in this world is merely a place of trial, intended to be temporary" (Quotes from me).
Your statement fits perfectly in support of mine.
Dear Anonymous2,
I don't believe you are correct. Our discussion, from my perspective, began with your offering "a 'reason/rationalization' why fertilized eggs often self abort; that God's will for those self aborted fertilized eggs is divine union...not life in this world" and my disagreement and questioning about the truth behind your statement. I did notice that you have avoided responding to the rape/incest scenario--God chose that event to 'create' little zygotes? I don't believe that your logic/reasoning can explain that. It seems that you are arguing that God, the creator of life (zygotes), creates life for divine union no matter how inefficient the process is or how horrific it is to the women.
"Ideology is the distortion of reality, I agree, but what you failed to consider is which opinion best describes reality as it is."
With respect, it certainly isn't yours; you have not offered anything substantial in support of your theory and, frankly, your logic is flawed.
"Your accusation of me, denial of facts and substitution of own desires can just as easily be applied to you!"
Absolutely! But the difference, as I see it, is, I'm not trying to make everything fit into a nice neat theology that 'make sense'--some things do not make sense. Or to attribute everything to God's will as early man did; lightning...oh that is the angry God in the sky, sunshine...oh, great God is in a good mood. I can get all I want of that type of theology from TV evangelists; as a thinking Catholic shallow reasoning is offensive--I don't know how else to state it but I don't mean it as a personal attack :)
"It is an EXPLANATION of the facts from a theological perspective."
Perhaps, 'speculation' is more apt then.............
Cheers,
Dear javier, You wrote "I
Dear javier,
You wrote "I don't believe you are correct. Our discussion, from my perspective, began with your offering "a 'reason/rationalization' why fertilized eggs often self abort; that God's will for those self aborted fertilized eggs is divine union...not life in this world" and my disagreement and questioning about the truth behind your statement."
The logic is simple:
Ultimate goal of all human life is union with God.
The embryos that die prematurely were human lives prior to death.
Therefore, God will's for them to be united with Him.
"It seems that you are arguing that God, the creator of life (zygotes), creates life for divine union no matter how inefficient the process is or how horrific it is to the women."
For you to make such a statement fairly, you must be nearly all-knowing. Perhaps you believe you are. In what way is bringing these lives into union with Him inefficient? He works in whatever ways He chooses, and what I've been saying is that we try to interpret this piece of knowledge in terms of God's ultimate goal - union.
Women are raped because of sinful choices of others. But God does not suspend the natural processes because of these sinful choices made. On relatively rare occasions, He creates new life out of the horrific event, perhaps as a means of bringing a change of heart out of both the victims and the perpetrators. Whatever the case may be, as you have already admitted, every life is for union with God - therefore, the life of the embryo, a human person, is for union with God.
BTW, it seems clear to me that you are interested primarily in attacking the Catholic Church, and in your other post, your intent to destroy the reputation of Pope JPII the Great came out loud and clear.
By your standards, people should be judged according to whether they self-flagellate or not, without even considering their religious traditions and their intentions. You simply wish to judge and dismiss a person based a personal action that does not make sense to you. There is a word for that - prejudice.
Dear Anonymous2, Thanks for
Dear Anonymous2,
Thanks for those links, I'll take a look at them!
"On relatively rare occasions, He creates new life out of the horrific event, perhaps as a means of bringing a change of heart out of both the victims and the perpetrators."
Yeah, see here is where we part company; trying to rationalize what you think God is doing: "perhaps as a means of bringing a change of heart out of both the victims and the perpetrators". In the past, though I don't have a ready link for you, people were inculcated to 'accept their lot in life' --because this was "perhaps" their cross to bear. In reality people were told this to maintain the status quo.........
Frankly, as I have stated before, "You go ahead and keep that image of God and I'll stick with Jesus' image of his Father"
"BTW, it seems clear to me that you are interested primarily in attacking the Catholic Church, and in your other post, your intent to destroy the reputation of Pope JPII the Great came out loud and clear"
I was following your advice......critically reading and thinking. I responded to what I believed was your error in assigning a 'theological interpretation' to the high rate of zygotes dying. You do not think that a person's background is relevant for critically analyzing a person's writings? For example, would you take advice about sexuality from someone who is addicted to pornography? Probably not, I imagine! Likewise, recognizing that JPII self-flagellated is relevant and provides a context to his thoughts and proclamations because it elucidates, to some extent, his imaging of God. I suspect you could accuse me of trying to ruin his reputation if, in fact, I had lied about him, yes? If this is true, and apparently these biographers and witnesses assert that it is true, then your claim about me is false (calumny)!
Thanks for the conversation!
Cheers,
"Also, CCC1283 With respect
"Also,
CCC1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation."
This same Church used to teach that these children or should I write, zygotes, went to Limbo...another invention without basis or proper logic! Why would we need to pray for their salvation? They, the self-aborted zygote, hasn't been born, much less born into original sin which is the reason for Baptism!
"In the 1985 book-length interview, "The Ratzinger Report," the future Pope Benedict said, "Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally -- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation -- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.
"It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism," he said.
In "God and the World," published in 2000, he said limbo had been used "to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible" to ensure that they had the "sanctifying grace" needed to wash away the effects of original sin." http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm
"Implied in this is that there is a possibility of union with God for these unbaptized human embryos."
Hmm, why only a possibility? Why not a certainty? Where is your logic/reason here?
"And if union is the goal, and they die before they are born, then therefore, for some, God "did not create solely for the purpose of living in this world"
You don't know for what purpose God created, according to you, these human beings and your original out-of-context passage from John is not helpful nor does it resolve this issue as you claim. I suspect you are engaging in eisegesis rather than exegesis.
"Also, read Pope JPII the Great's letter, Salvifici Doloris, to understand more about life on earth as trial."
This from a guy who used to self-flagellate...... http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-27/world/pope.flagellate_1_vatican-radio...
http://www.smh.com.au/world/pope-john-paul-made-rod-for-his-own-back-201...
Good luck with that! I wonder if JPII was familiar with the line by Jesus, "It is mercy I desire not sacrifice" Mt 9:13
Cheers,
javier, javier, You continue
javier, javier,
You continue to stubbornly refuse to look up original sources and take the uncritical path of accepting what you read if they agree with your views. In all honesty, it is getting to be tiresome.
"This same Church used to teach that these children or should I write, zygotes, went to Limbo...another invention without basis or proper logic! Why would we need to pray for their salvation? They, the self-aborted zygote, hasn't been born, much less born into original sin which is the reason for Baptism!"
Show me proof that the Church magisterium officially taught this doctrine of Limbo at some point in history.
"You continue to stubbornly
"You continue to stubbornly refuse to look up original sources and take the uncritical path of accepting what you read if they agree with your views."
Anonymous2,
Is this not the kettle calling the pot black??? :)
You offered sources; I accepted your offer. You have reneged. Provide me with what you consider "original sources" bearing in mind that I do not read Hebrew, Greek or Latin.
"This same Church used to teach that these children or should I write, zygotes, went to Limbo...another invention without basis or proper logic! Why would we need to pray for their salvation? They, the self-aborted zygote, hasn't been born, much less born into original sin which is the reason for Baptism!"
Show me proof that the Church magisterium officially taught this doctrine of Limbo at some point in history."
You know this is the same tactic the Vatican employed when Benedict caused that stir which outraged the entire Muslim world; "uh, the Pope was not speaking authoritatively....uh.... he was speaking as a former professor at that university. It is when thinking people challenge the Pope/hierarchy with 'critical thinking' that they back peddle as fast as they can.
But to answer your question: all my education has been Catholic. The practical teaching of the church taught all of us that unbaptized babies that died went to Limbo. This was real-life Catholic teaching. Can you provide 'authoritative' proof for your comments that began this discussion?: "Reason would lead us to think that God creates with purpose in mind. But revelation would lead us to think that God creates us for union with Him(John 17:24) in eternity. He therefore, did not create solely for the purpose of living in this world." Didn't think so............
Cheers,
Mr (or Ms.) Javier, Do you
Mr (or Ms.) Javier,
Do you have the proof that Mr (or Ms.) Anonymous2 asked for or not?
And what in the world is "The practical teaching of the church". Any one who teaches catechism, in schools or parishes?
Do you even understand the distinction between the magisterial teaching and private opinions?
Are you a disgruntled ex-Catholic?
Are you Anonymous3? :) "Do
Are you Anonymous3? :)
"Do you have the proof that Mr (or Ms.) Anonymous2 asked for or not?"
Let me do this the long way for you. As I wrote, all my education has been in Catholic institutions, grammar, high school and college. These institutions are overseen by the diocesan bishop, who is charged with governing (CCC 894) and teaching (CCC 888): "They are 'heralds of the faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers' of the apostolic faith 'endowed with the authority of Christ". They are responsible for what is taught in their diocese.
From the tone of your question(s) it seems like you wish to hide behind 'authoritative' teaching, however you define it and the practical reality of what the church has taught. I'm not interested in re-hashing that for you. I suppose I could track down people and have their statements 'notarized' for you but for folks who have already made up their minds that would be a waste of my time. I grew up in this church; I'm not an outsider.
"And what in the world is "The practical teaching of the church". Any one who teaches catechism, in schools or parishes?"
See above!
"Do you even understand the distinction between the magisterial teaching and private opinions?"
I do!
"Are you a disgruntled ex-Catholic?"
Not an ex-Catholic nor disgruntled :)just a thinking and educated Catholic.
Of course, just because I am not a 'pay, pray and obey' Catholic or a Catholic that fits your definition does not mean I am not a Catholic. If you believe that every word that comes out of the hierarchy is gospel then we probably shouldn't continue this conversation, yes? If you think I haven't answered your questions let me know! :)
Cheers,
Mr (Ms.) Javier, I'm the
Mr (Ms.) Javier,
I'm the Anonymous that you called Anonymous3.
You seem to believe out of almost one billion Catholics, your experience is the same for everyone. Hmmm...
The practical reality is that the actual education experience of Catholics growing up in America is diverse. The practical reality is that just like any large organization, the Bishops cannot possible check on what is taught across all the schools and parishes in the diocese. The practical reality is that for you to blame the entire Magisterium of the church for your poor Catholic education is simply unreasonable. So, stick to the actual official documents, to check if what you have been taught is correct or not.
You may called it hiding behind authoritative teaching, but it goes to show that you have no understanding of the role of the Magisterium.
Here is a test: explain why the RCC believes that teachings of the Magisterium is authoritative.
The Protestants understood that to reject the authority of the Magisterium (which includes the Pope), is to stop being Catholics. So, in essence you are a Protestant. You may still be a Christian, but for sure not a Catholic Christian. Call yourself whatever you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you reject the Magisterium's authority and you are therefore a Protestant.
So, after so many attempts to get it out of you, it must be that the practical reality is that you really have no proof that the Magisterium ever taught officially about limbo. Just admit it.
Wow Anonymous3, You seem to
Wow Anonymous3,
You seem to have an ax to grind with my comments. Is your faith that shallow that you cannot have a discussion without creating and "in" group and an "out" group? I've posted here previously that those with the more conservative viewpoints tend to try to excise those of us who use our God-given gray matter called brains. It seems to me that your comments come from fear-based thinking and a poor image of God. Recognize that just because we disagree I don't label you as Protestant or a lesser Catholic....just that we differ and that is OK!
"The practical reality is that just like any large organization, the Bishops cannot possible check on what is taught across all the schools and parishes in the diocese."
Really? When the bishops want to mobilize themselves and assert their 'authority' and 'check on what is taught" they find ways of doing that(well, except for the sexual abuse scandal!); they wanted to investigate the women religious orders to find out what was going on there--they launched a witch hunt quite readily, yes? When they wanted to fight President Obama they sent out letters to be read at each Mass, yes? Are you sure you aren't Anonymous2? you use the same poor logic and reasoning.
"The practical reality is that for you to blame the entire Magisterium of the church for your poor Catholic education is simply unreasonable."
Would you kindly point out where I blamed the 'entire Magisterium'?
"So, after so many attempts to get it out of you, it must be that the practical reality is that you really have no proof that the Magisterium ever taught officially about limbo. Just admit it."
Did you read my other post where I responded to your request for proof? I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but there were a couple of Catechisms, a pope, a Catholic encyclopedia as references for you :)--I don't know about you but they sure appeared official............ :)
Cheers,
Anonymous3, In reading the
Anonymous3,
In reading the links provided by Annymous 2 I came across this statement which might be more helpful to you in understanding the role and responsibility of the bishop in handing on the faith (in case the CCC quotes were not clear enough) here is the link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01656b.htm
"The plenitude of ecclesiastical power given by Christ to His Apostles resides solely in the bishops. From the bishop, as the centre of the Christian community, depend the government and care of souls, namely, the dispensing of doctrine and of the sacraments. The helpers with whose aid the bishop exercises his pastoral ministry are the parish priests, their vicars and co-workers."
Cheers,
Proof, Mr (or Ms.) Javier?
Proof, Mr (or Ms.) Javier?
See right below! :)
See right below! :)
Anonymous 2 and 3, What is
Anonymous 2 and 3,
What is nice about this forum, when working at its best, is that we can learn from each other :)
One can quibble about 'proof' and whether something is dogma or not but Roman Catholics have defended their two prong approach to authority, Scripture and TRADITION! Here is a link from the same Catholic encyclopedia Anonymous2 provided: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
"It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory."
A bit of searching on the internet also noted that Pius X, in his published Catechism of 1910 defended this concept of Limbo:
Here is the link so you can read it for yourselves [though Anonymous2 doesn't trust the "printed opinions" even if they are in catechisms or Catholic encyclopedias!] :) http://www.catholicessentials.net/limbo.htm
Church Teaching:
* "Moreover as Christ was true and perfect man, He of course was capable of dying. Now man dies when the soul is separated from the body. When, therefore, we say that Jesus died, we mean that His soul was disunited from His body. We do not admit, however, that the Divinity was separated from His body. On the contrary, we firmly believe and profess that when His soul was dissociated from His body, His Divinity continued always united both to His body in the sepulchre and to His soul in limbo. It became the Son of God to die, that, through death, he might destroy him who had the empire of death that is the devil, and might deliver them, who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to servitude." Catechism of Council of Trent, The Creed, Article IV
* "Q: What are we taught in the Fifth Article: He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead?
A: The Fifth Article of the Creed teaches us that the Soul of Jesus Christ, on being separated from His Body, descended to the Limbo of the holy Fathers, and that on the third day it became united once more to His Body, never to be parted from it again" Catechism of St. Pope Pius X, The Fifth Article of the Creed
* "Q: What is here meant by hell? A: Hell here means the Limbo of the holy Fathers, that is, the place where the souls of the just were detained, in expectation of redemption through Jesus Christ" Catechism of St. Pope Pius X, The Fifth Article of the Creed
* "On the contrary, we firmly believe and profess that when His soul was dissociated from His body, His Divinity continued always united both to His body in the sepulchre and to His soul in limbo" ("Roman Catechism," Fourth Article, 6)." Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, The Creed, The Fourth Article, End Notes
* "The fourth and final reason is that Christ might free the just who were in hell [or Limbo]. For as Christ wished to suffer death to deliver the living from death, so also He would descend into hell to deliver those who were there". Also, "The reason they were there in hell [i.e., Limbo] is original sin which they had contracted from Adam, and from which as members of the human race they could not be delivered except by Christ. Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, The Creed, The Fifth Article, Reasons for Christ's Descent
* "Therefore, "He descended into hell" means that the soul of Jesus Christ, after His death, descended into Limbo, i.e., to the place where the souls of the just who died before Christ were detained, and were waiting for the time of their redemption" Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, The Creed, The Fifth Article, End Notes
* "The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, as the Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell." Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas, Whether the limbo of children is the same as the limbo of the Fathers?
* "Suarez, for example, ignoring Bellarmine's protest, continued to teach what Catharinus had taught -- that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode (De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4); and, without insisting on such details, the great majority of Catholic theologians have continued to maintain the general doctrine that the children's limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness, just the same as it would have been if God had not established the present supernatural order" 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo
* "Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while form the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo
Cheers,
Sigh. Mr (Ms) Javier, I
Sigh. Mr (Ms) Javier, I decided to allow you to name me Anonymous3 :-)
I don't have time to respond to every point, but I think you did your research in a big rush.
You read and quoted the wrong section of the Encyclopedia! You quoted from the Limbus patrum section, and not the correct Limbus Infantium section, which is what you were originally complaining about. And if you read the entire section, you will see that the Encyclopedia gives the strong impression that it is all speculations, and not authoritative.
"I don't have time to respond
"I don't have time to respond to every point"
Well you sure seemed to be in no rush to engage the conversation "Proof, Mr (or Ms.) Javier?"
Here in America we address each other, generally, by our user name, for example I don't respond to you by "Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous"--the Mr. or Ms. is irrelevant to the discussion
I address you by the Anonymous3 so as to differentiate you from other Anonymous'--seems reasonable to me unless to wish to hide even further than just 'Anonymous' :)--you could give yourself a moniker that still hides your identity but allows us to recognize who we are engaging, for example, "No Salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church" :)
If you went to the site it is listed under the title "Limbo"--but for the sake of your argument, that I made a mistake, this is all you have to respond? You do not address all the other quotes and references? Really?
Cheers,
Anonymous3, Waiting with
Anonymous3,
Waiting with bated breath for your clever comeback!
Cheers,
Mr (Ms) Javier, the
Mr (Ms) Javier, the Protestant,
You really are a Protestant, even if you refused to admit it. The Magisterium is a key part of Catholicism, like a defining feature. You are like the one who rejects the divinity of Christ and still wants to be called a Christian. I am sorry that your Catholic education was so poor that they didn't even teach you something as basic as that - the authority of the bishops in union with the See of Peter. Anyway, I don't blame you. It is the parish that has let you down.
I checked out your second reference to PiusX's catechism. Again, it is clear that you did no careful research at all. Here is the exact quote:
1 Q. What are we taught in the Fifth Article: He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead?
A. The Fifth Article of the Creed teaches us that the Soul of Jesus Christ, on being separated from His Body, descended to the Limbo of the holy Fathers, and that on the third day it became united once more to His Body, never to be parted from it again.
2 Q. What is here meant by hell?
A. Hell here means the Limbo of the holy Fathers, that is, the place where the souls of the just were detained, in expectation of redemption through Jesus Christ.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm
Once again, it is NOT about limbo infantium.
It seems like you simply did googled a bunch of references, and used anything that gave any apeparance of supporting your view. I'm afraid to say taht it is sloppy research. Tells me that you are not interested in truth finding, but to prove yourself right.
I don't think it is my responsbility to go over and double check your references. This is not high school.
Anyway, I don't think I'll convince you, because regardless of the evidence,you'll stubbornly hold yourself to be right and call yourself a Catholic. For me, it is looks like a Protestant, walks and talks like one...
Farewell.
"Mr (Ms) Javier, the
"Mr (Ms) Javier, the Protestant"
Gotta love it! When you have no argument the name calling begins!
Cheers,
OK, Anonymous3, How about
OK, Anonymous3,
How about this for your 'proof' and obstinacy? Unless you are prepared to argue that the International Theological Commission intentionally made false statements in this document I'm not sure what else you might be persuaded by to recognize that the Church did teach about Limbo--which if you will recall was my point--the practical teaching of the church---to which you demanded 'proof' and suggested that my Catholic education was so 'poor'. In fact my Catholic education was excellent--that you disagree with it is irrelevant!
"The International Theological Commission (ITC) of the Roman Catholic Church consists of up to 30 Catholic theologians from around the world.[1] These theologians are appointed for renewable five year terms and have tended to meet together in person once every year for a week.[2] The function of the ITC is to advise the Magisterium of the Church, particularly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), a dicastery of the Roman Curia.[3][4] The Prefect of the CDF is ex officio the president of the ITC, which is based in Rome. According to Joseph Ratzinger - now Pope Benedict XVI - the idea for this group was put forward during the first Postconciliar Synod of Bishops in 1967.[5]
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*
1."It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. "[ did you read that? ordinary teaching!]
3. The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation, even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. " [read that? traditional theological teaching?]
26.On the other hand, when the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) denounced the medieval theory of “Limbo”, Pius VI defended the right of the Catholic Schools to teach that those who died with the guilt of original sin alone are punished with the lack of the Beatific Vision (“punishment of loss”), but not sensible pains (the punishment of "fire"). In the bull “Auctorem Fidei” (1794), the Pope condemned as “false, rash, injurious to the Catholic schools” the Jansenist teaching “which rejects as a Pelagian fable [fabula pelagiana] that place in the lower regions (which the faithful call the ‘Limbo of Children’) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, without the punishment of fire, just as if whoever removes the punishment of fire thereby introduces that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation of which the Pelagians idly talk”.[53] Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century. " [if you made it down to here, did you read 'common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century'?]
Cheers,
Thanks for pointing out mistakes! :)
Javier wrote: "The function
Javier wrote:
"The function of the ITC is to advise the Magisterium of the Church..."
Dictionary.com. Advise: to give counsel to; offer an opinion or suggestion as worth following.
Therefore:
to advise is not equal to official teaching of Magisterium.
It is actually a good thing to stubbornly refuse to accept your unsupported arguments.
Keep trying :-)
Anonymous3, I see now why you
Anonymous3,
I see now why you chose Anonymous--I'd be embarrassed too if I wrote what you are writing. I owned up to the mistakes you pointed out--there is no shame in that--being dishonest and offering specious replies is a waste of everyone's time!
1) If you will notice I used a quote--not my words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Theological_Commission
2) I NEVER stated it was the official teaching of the Church--the practical teaching, yes. Try to follow the discussion--you are attempting to change the topic to something else BECAUSE you have no argument! Was college difficult for you?
3) Play with the wording all you want to distract from your inability to refute my original point which you so eagerly challenged, even to the point of taunting--Limbo was the traditional and common teaching of the Church.
4) Pope Benny--whom I'm sure you just adore --as far as I know he hasn't found anything in there he disagrees with--if these quotes I provided you were false I suspect we would have heard from the Vatican. You know how they can be! :) For those entrenched in their views no amount of evidence will convince. C'est la vie!
5) You focus on the word "advise", which is irrelevant to the discussion, the Commission stated what was the common teaching of the Church--a statement of fact!There was no advising involved in those statements! The document was not to advise if the church had taught about Limbo--that was an established fact! Perhaps you are part of that group, Lefebvre's Society of St. Pius X, that also denies the Holocaust--you just stubbornly deny even given all the historical facts?!
Are you that afraid that the Church could have taught something without any scriptural foundation--that if they were wrong about that what else could they be wrong about? Is your faith so shallow? Stubbornness is not a sign of a deep faith.
Here is the link from the Vatican site for you to read:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_...
Cheers,
If you have anything that is related to the original discussion please feel free to continue; if you are just going to obfuscate the original point with name-calling and unrelated and irrelevant topics please save us all our time and effort. Also, please re-consider a moniker; there so many Anonymous' out there ;)
Mr (Ms) javier, You seem
Mr (Ms) javier,
You seem sooooo angry, that you inserted so many insults into your response. ad Hominem (i.e. personal attacks)may makes you feel better when you don't have any good rebuttals, but thank you for showing the world how you really argue.
I know I cannot convince you, a disgruntled closet protestant, to agree with the Catholic Church, and so I'll just stop there.
I pray that you will over time get over this and learn to forgive.
No more responses and I have no hard feelings against you.
Take care.
Gotta love it! Still cannot
Gotta love it! Still cannot address the issue! AND the name-calling continues! :)
Cheers,
Anonymous3, I was at work
Anonymous3,
I was at work earlier and so only had time for my initial reaction to your last post which was ROFL :)
"but thank you for showing the world how you really argue." You mean with links and references and admitting when I'm wrong versus no support for your position other than denying? You mean that way? :) I guess you showed me and them (the world) how to argue the proper way: no facts, no references, name calling (protestant, disgruntled, angry, closeted),taunting, projecting your anger onto my responses
and my favorite: an inability to stay on topic while trying to deflect the discussion to something else (see above under name-calling). You do remember the topic? :
I stated that the Church taught the theory of Limbo in its practical teaching. This last reference from the Vatican website and a document of the International Theological Commission (on which Joseph Ratzinger, at one time, had served: "His intense scientific activity led him to important positions at the service of the German Bishops’ Conference and the International Theological Commission.........John Paul II named him Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and of the International Theological Commission on 25 November 1981) supported my statement.
Look! A link from the Vatican website!:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/biography/documents/hf_be...
"You seem sooooo angry, that you inserted so many insults into your response"
Perhaps this is part of the problem: you are projecting your anger here! Anyone who has posted on public forums for some time recognizes the danger of misinterpreting a 'written response' and assigning emotions to it. Nothing in either discussion with you or Anonymous2 has made me upset--in fact, if you lived close I would buy you lunch at a nice restaurant. Now the offer is still good but the problem with that would be that any "Anonymous" could claim to be you just to get a free lunch! :)
The only time I have been upset on this forum is when one poster repeatedly bashed our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters--so you see, I do get angry over important issues. Limbo is a non-issue. Please don't take this last comment (gay bashing) as an opportunity to go off topic and onto a rant about that, OK? I absolutely had fun responding you! :)
Cheers,
Andrew, Did you even read the
Andrew,
Did you even read the essay? Ms. Manson outlined, in great detail, why these birth control products are NOT abortifacients. Precisely what is your problem?
I, and many others disagree.
I, and many others disagree. It is a slippery slope and I would hope as a culture we don't travel down that road, because it will only lead to more and more. I remember as a kid the arguments around Roe v Wade and everybody said Abortion would be so rare it won't ever be something to worry about. Well here we are 40 years later and the world is a very different place isn't it!
I appreciate your comments. I hope someday you might see things differently.
Peace to you BFG!
Andrew K
The number of births still
The number of births still greatly outnumber the number of abortions. Do you see a future in which people stop having babies? Why focus on abortions to determine whether the world is mostly a good place or mostly a bad place? A place where people are unkind to one another and dictatorial is not likely to be a place into which people want to bring children.
Marie, Because any culture
Marie,
Because any culture that denigrates the value of human life won't have much of a future. It is only a matter of time, probably in our life time, that our culture will become unrestorable. If you don't believe me, look around. Look at this NCR web site and you have all the clues you need.
Andrew K
Andrew, it is not "spin" to
Andrew, it is not "spin" to present data supported by medical research. It is especially enlightening to me, as a Catholic woman, to see that the Catholic Health Association has been involved in gathering and disseminating this information and to see from Jamie's article and the comments from Faithful Catholic Housewife - how widely this information is available if one knows to look for it.
Getting real information that informs an issue slows down "the spin" from overheated rhetoric. Now, those who comment on different on-line news sources need to get this information out into the world so people know how to make an informed decision.
Andrew, you are free to
Andrew, you are free to maintain your religious/philosophical beliefs about reproduction in spite of any contrary scientifically credible medical facts. If that keeps your personal world tidy, so be it.
.
The only 'spinning' going on is being done by medically uninformed culture warriors, their politician friends, and the fringe so-called "experts" upon which their disinformation talking points depend. Good public policy in our non-theocratic nation, for people of all religions and no religion, must be based on actual scientific facts, not religious fantasy. Willful scientific ignorance is not a virtue, ...something even Catholic bishops never seem to learn.
.
Post new comment