Originally posted by no1marauderDang! I have failed to shut up no1! :'(
Speech is a useless tool to use to instruct those who lack the cognitive abilities to grasp simple points. Opposition to criminal laws against abortion is not supporting the practice or saying it is not immoral or sinful; it is ...[text shortened]... this at some point rather than ranting about "killing people".
Originally posted by ColettiHere's the issue, Coletti:
Ohhh. So they are against laws against abortion. That does make it okay. I'm at peace now. Don't know why the RCC got so upset with these guys who say it's okay for people to kill other people. Since it's a personal decision... 🙂
The Church holds that, at the moment of conception, the 'organism'
(for lack of a neutral term) is a 'life,' or a 'person,' entitled to rights
and priviliges like every other 'person.'
This position does not have secular unanimity; when this 'organism'
acquires 'personhood' is the subject of debate. There are many
people who argue that (e.g.) first trimester embryos are not persons
and not subject to rights or protections.
Given that there is no scientific unanimity on the notion that, at the
moment of conception, the 'organism' is a person, and that there is
a strong movement (a majority?) who hold that it is not a person,
making a law against abortion makes no sense. If you make the law
on the basis of Church teaching, then such a law is a violation of
the separation of Church and State. This is the argument as I
understand it. In short, because no viable, logical argument has been
made to scientifically demonstrate that a first trimester
'organism' is indeed a 'person,' it makes no sense outside of a
religious context to impose such a law.
But you are missing my main point: The RCC has many Doctrinal
stances on a variety of moral issues. However, they only choose to
generally (as opposed to specifically) refuse Holy Eucharist to those
who have a Pro-Choice stance, and not those who support the death
penalty, the unjust war in Iraq (and thus the killing of innocents),
those who support contraception, and so forth. Thus, I conclude that
the issue is not a moral one (for one would be obliged to be consistent
on moral issues), but a political one.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI think on your main point I understand and may even agree. I just don't know RCC doctrine in enough detail. However, I don't think the RCC considers a requirement for a secular majority agreement as a condition for supporting changes to civil law. The Law should take precedence over the law.
Here's the issue, Coletti:
The Church holds that, at the moment of conception, the 'organism'
(for lack of a neutral term) is a 'life,' or a 'person,' entitled to rights
and priviliges like every other 'person.'
This position does not have secular unanimity; when this 'organism'
acquires 'personhood' is the subject of debate. There are ...[text shortened]... ne (for one would be obliged to be consistent
on moral issues), but a political one.
Nemesio
Personally - I think it is right to push for laws against abortion. I believe it is an issue of ethics, not science. I don't think science can answer the question. And I think there's no denying the link morality and civil law - it is not simply a utilitarian or scientific formulation. And to simply give up would not be democratic. We make our case, and support those that we agree with for political office. If one side gets enough support - then we make or change the law.
The separation of church and state, and the science argument, merely sidetrack the issue. (That being said - I am leery of my church organization giving support for particular candidates for office. But they should take positions of issues related to morality.)
Originally posted by Nemesio
Answer the question, Ivanhoe.
Although the question is directed at ivanhoe, I'll answer them because they weigh in my debate with no1.
You are agreeing that Pro-Choice RC politicians be denied Eucharist because they enable
the public to engage in what the Church believes is a 'grave sin.'
So far so good. This is the Catholic concept of "scandal" (CCC 2284-87; not to be confused with the everyday usage of the term).
What about those RC politicians who are 'Pro-Death Penalty?' Yes or no?
No, they need not be denied the Eucharist. "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty" (CCC 2267).
Those who are 'Pro-Contraception?' Yes or no?
Yes.
Those who are 'Pro-Divorce and Remarry?' Yes or no?
Yes.
Those who are 'Pro-War?' Yes or no?
No. The Church does not oppose 'Just Wars' (CCC 2308-10).
These are all 'issues are the moment,' because all of these stances are in direct controversy with the Doctrinal stances of the RC Church.
No, they're not. Of the five issues listed by you, only abortion, contraception and divorce is in direct conflict with Church teaching under all circumstances. Could we avoid the war-death penalty red herrings in the future?
Originally posted by Nemesio
Here's the issue, Coletti:
The Church holds that, at the moment of conception, the 'organism'
(for lack of a neutral term) is a 'life,' or a 'person,' entitled to rights
and priviliges like every other 'person.'
Not quite. The Church does recognise that the zygote/embryo/fetus is not quite a person(*), but teaches that it has the "the rights of a person" (CCC 2270) by virtue of being a human life.
(*) By "person" I assume you're referring to a sentient, responsive life-form (I think Bennett posted a more detailed definition in another thread elsewhere).
Given that there is no scientific unanimity on the notion that, at the
moment of conception, the 'organism' is a person, and that there is
a strong movement (a majority?) who hold that it is not a person,
making a law against abortion makes no sense.
1. Can the scientific community actually make a judgment on personhood? Isn't it a philosophical concept?
2. The fact that a majority hold that it is not a person and not eligible for rights does not mean it does not have rights. Think universal suffrage and slavery.
Originally posted by no1marauderYour posts? I thought I was responding to stomp, but anyway ...
What part of my posts was unclear to you? The Church was proposing denying Communion to pro-choice politicans merely because they opposed criminal laws banning abortion; these laws would apply to everybody, mostly non-RC members. By the same logic, politicians who opposed laws banning artificial contraception or divorce should also be denied comm ...[text shortened]... or immoral. Are you confusing the logical implications of this position with another position?
Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, they need not be denied the Eucharist. "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty" (CCC 2267).
This is very interesting, because the Catechism I have makes no
mention of the death penalty in CCC 2267.
In CCC 2266 it reads, in whole:
Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the
aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional
teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right
and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by
means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not
excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For
analogous reaons, those holding the authority have the right to repel
by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.
The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by
the offense. When this punishment is voluntarily accepted by the
offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment
has the effect of preserving public order an the safety of persons.
Finally the punishment has a medicinal value; as far as possible it
should contribute to the correction of the offender.
Please note the content of 2267:
If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an
aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public
authority should limit itself to such means, because they better
correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are
more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Given 2267, this seems to point to the notion that capital punishment
ought never be used; incarceration for life is a bloodless means of
defending human life against the aggressor and protects the public
order and safety of persons.
Furthermore, given the studies that capital punishment is unevenly
applied across racial lines and does nothing statistically to reduce
crime. These are all clear violations of the intention of this teaching.
As such, the way in which capital punishment is applied in the US is
demonstrably unnecessary from a theological point of view.
No. The Church does not oppose 'Just Wars' (CCC 2308-10).
I am aware of this, and the late Pope said explicitly that this is not
a just war. As such, the war is unjust and a violation of Church
teaching. An unjust war is a hotbed of all manner of unjust killing and
those RCs who don't fight it are tacitly supporting these murders and,
as such, ought to be guilty themselves (CCC 2269, regarding being
indirectly responsible for bringing about a person's death).
I do not consider these 'red herrings' in the first place (because the
way in which the death penalty is applied is clearly in violation with
Church teaching and because the war is unjust). Even ignoring those
two aspects, given that the Church has not denied Communion to
those who support divorce and contraception (that is, those who don't
fight against it) only indicates to me the degree to which the Church
has become an entity interested in manipulating politics, not
encouraging morality.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerThank you for clearing up the technical language.
Not quite. The Church does recognise that the zygote/embryo/fetus is not quite a person(*), but teaches that it has the "the rights of a person" (CCC 2270) by virtue of being a human life.
That having been said, there is no consensus in either the scientific
or philosophical community on the issue. The Church relies on
citations from Scripture and the theological notion of the soul as
fundamental to its argument. This necessarily has no currency in an
environment with a separation of Church and State.
There are very few arguments that do not rely on Scripture/Soul
notions, and there are many secularists who have arguments against
those. As such, the State (which is a secular institution) has an
obligation to ignore sacred arguments and to rely on the best secular
arguments available.
In fact, it would seem to me that a RC politician is a contradiction in
terms, because s/he is required to apply secular judgment on all
issues (if s/he wants to honor that separation which is one of the
founding pillars of the US). I do not see a way for an RC politician to
both honor the fundaments of US government while at the same time
honoring those tenets of the RC Church.
Suffrage and Slavery are two strawmen: both are easily argued against
without using theology (and, indeed, theology was a strong supporting
force for keeping both in place!).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThat is mandated your philosophical position. It is not clearly the case, or universally true.
There are very few arguments that do not rely on Scripture/Soul
notions, and there are many secularists who have arguments against
those. As such, the State (which is a secular institution) has an
obligation to ignore sacred arguments and to rely on the best secular
arguments available.
Nemesio
The number of arguments has no bearing of the validity of the arguments. They all depend on what you take as axiomatic truths.
The state being a secular institute does not necessarily give it precedence of the church - or any authority over the church. It ignores the advice of the church (or any authority on ethics and morality) at risk of loosing it's own authority to make civil law. The authority of the state depends on the acceptance of the people - who may or may not place the church over the state on issues of morality.
The authority of any established civil government is predicated on the authority given it by the people if that government is republican or democratic.
The wall between church and state is another red herring.
Originally posted by ColettiRubbish. No one I have heard (besides you) supports a theocracy in the US; the state, by definition, never "loses it's authority to make civil law". And again, there is no contradiction between people believing in what the church says on moral issues but also accepting that not every church belief should be codified into the criminal law.
That is mandated your philosophical position. It is not clearly the case, or universally true.
The number of arguments has no bearing of the validity of the arguments. They all depend on what you take as axiomatic truths.
The state being a secular institute does not necessarily give it precedence of the church - or any authority over the church. It ...[text shortened]... is republican or democratic.
The wall between church and state is another red herring.
The authority given to the government of the US by the people accepted restrictions on governmental endorsement of religious beliefs to the detriment of people who do not follow such beliefs. I take Thomas Jefferson's, James Madison's and the rest of the Framers words that the wall between church and state is a necessary and vital component of a system based on limited government and fundamental rights, over your ignorant assertion that it is a "red herring". Try reading some of Jefferson's works rather than the Westminister Statement of Faith for a change and you might someday understand what this country is supposed to be about, Coletti.
Originally posted by Coletti
That is mandated your philosophical position. It is not clearly the case, or universally true.
I've not made a philosophical stance, Coletti. I've observed that the
vast majority of arguments against abortion rely on 'supernatural'
(or spiritual) arguments which, by mandate, have no currency in the
effecting of laws.
The number of arguments has no bearing of the validity of the arguments. They all depend on what you take as axiomatic truths.
Those axiomatic truths which are rooted in theology have no basis for
the formation of law in the US.
The state being a secular institute does not necessarily give it precedence of the church - or any authority over the church. It ignores the advice of the church (or any authority on ethics and morality) at risk of loosing it's own authority to make civil law. The authority of the state depends on the acceptance of the people - who may or may not place the church over the state on issues of morality.
People are free not to get abortions, use contraception, or get divorced.
No one is giving the state authority over the Church. It is the Church
that is trying to assert authority over the state when they try to prevent
such actions.
With respect to abortion, as I said, there is no compelling argument to
insist that first-trimester embryos are entitled to rights. This is the
problem: there have been many arguments against it (Bennett is
one who has presented one several times), but very few arguments
for it (ones without internal inconsistency).
The wall between church and state is another red herring.
This statement is absolutely absurd. The wall between Church and
State is one of the fundaments upon which the United States rests.
It is at the root of the abortion debate.
There are a lot of people against abortion, and vehemently so. When
that group of people presents an internally consistent philosophical
and scientific argument demonstrating that the entity which forms at
conception is entitled to all of the rights that you and I have, you will
find the public opinion will sway, as it did with slavery and suffrage.
As long as the argument remains the province of religious debate, it
will remain bankrupt of any legal authority (unless we want to establish
a theocracy).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAny argument for or against abortion depends on a philosophical position, which in turn depend on assumptions of some axiomatic truths. It those axioms are not correct, the truths of the conclusions will be uncertain.
With respect to abortion, as I said, there is no compelling argument to
insist that first-trimester embryos are entitled to rights. This is the
problem: there have been many arguments against it (Bennett is
one who has presented one several times), but very few arguments
for it (ones without internal inconsistency)....Nemesio
Again, science has no say, unless you assert science has it's own philosophical foundations - which should be established up front.