Vatican accuses Amnesty of immorality

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Ya, I guess I missed that part.

Read the two sentences before it.


Officials in the catholic church have no power over their followers?
So i guess we shouldn't care if the pope doesn't want to fund amnesty, since he has no power anyway.

He doesn't have the power to make Catholics do anything (fund or stop funding Amnest ...[text shortened]... ion that they meant gestating offspring were parasites in the technical sense.[/b]

Read the two sentences before it.

You mean where you contradict yourself? If you don't believe God is male, why refer to God as "he"?

He doesn't have the power to make Catholics do anything (fund or stop funding Amnesty). He can, however, teach them it's wrong to do so given Amnesty's position-reversal on abortion.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the pope has no power? If not, then my aguement that positions of power in the catholic church can only be held by men stands.

You brought up 'war', specifically.

I brought up war in the context of killing people. We could argue all day about the definition of a "war", but the impotant thing is that the church sanctioned killing people. Lots of people.

Do you believe it is hypocritical for a government to punish murderers if its soldiers kill enemy soldiers who are seeking to invade the country?

I'm not really sure what you mean. Perhaps yo could explain further?

History is not as black and white as you think - research both those examples.

I never said history was black and white, just that the church endorsed killing people, which is true.

I don't understand why you claim a multicellular organism with undifferentiated cells is not an organism.

When did I say that? You said it equals a human being. I said it doesn't.

It doesn't fit any biologist's definition of 'parasite'. I'm willing to bet that, if asked, the compilers of your vet's dictionary would refute any notion that they meant gestating offspring were parasites in the technical sense.

Why? I think it fits the definition quite nicely, and I'm willing to bet many biologists would agree. No comment about the rest of my post I see.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How many times did Jesus determine that people were ineligible to commune with him?

Was Judas denied a seat the last supper?

How many times did Jesus determine that people were ineligible to commune with him?

Quite a few, in fact. Read the second half of John 6 (which, not coincidentally, is about the Eucharist).

EDIT: There are many examples in the Gospels where Jesus makes it clear that He will accept people only on His terms -- not theirs.

Was Judas denied a seat the last supper?

No. But Jesus did not exactly hide his disappointment and sorrow at the betrayal, did he?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
There are times when a woman is denied access to Holy Communion due to her being out of favor with the Church.

When this occurs, what portion of the time is it a man that makes the determination that she is not eligible to receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

There are times when an applicant for a graduate seat is denied by the Admissions Board. Is this an example of "subjugation"?

Originally posted by kirksey957
What is the Catholic church's position on the Lord's Supper? Is it something that belongs to the denomination, the church, the priest, or to Christ? In my church, there is always the point made that "this table does not belong to this church or to this denomination or to me. This is Christ's table and if you belong to Christ, you are most welcome here."

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm

The Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) understanding of the Eucharist* is quite different from that of your denomination. While it does not "belong" to the Church in the sense that a piece of property or liturgical vessel is, the Church is its custodian and legitimately establishes the liturgical and pastoral norms for its celebration and sharing. It is the priest's responsibility to see that those universal norms are adhered to at the immediate local level.

---
* While the term 'Lord's Supper' can be quite correctly used (CCC 1329), it's not common in Catholic parlance.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Hold on a second. It is my understanding that a priest cannot refuse
a communicant the Eucharist, even if he knows of a grave sin that ought
to prevent partaking. I thought the burden of responsibility was upon
the faithful regarding receiving and not receiving; I thought I had read
this somewhere in canon law, but I'm not sure. As I recall, s ...[text shortened]... ought
that they could only insist that the communicant consume the species in
their presence.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM

Can. 129.1 gives the priest the power to enforce the canonical norms of the Church. This includes the prohibitions to receiving communion established under Can. 915 (which, btw, only deals with Catholics; non-Catholics are addressed in Can. 844.1-5).

Prohibition under Can. 915 (and also Can. 844) does not pertain to the private nature of Holy Communion, but to its public element. The priest cannot refuse a communicant simply on the basis of knowledge of a grave sin committed in the past (naturally, the confessional seal, if any, cannot be violated under Can. 983) -- the supposed recepient must obstinately persevere in it and the grave sin should be manifest (i.e. of a public nature or a matter of public knowledge).

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu31.htm#answer2

[quote]
Q. 2. Under what circumstances can a Catholic priest deny someone the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist?

A. It can be denied under the following circumstances:

1. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist cannot be administered to members of other religions, and

2. The Sacrament ...[text shortened]... w many times did Jesus refuse to commune with grave sinners or members of particular religions?

While broadly correct, the quote greatly simplifies canons 844 and 915 (on which it is based).


Interestingly, the argument given for not having female Catholic priests is that Jesus never had female disciples (despite everybody knowing that's not actually the reason behind the policy but a contrived excuse to maintain it in modern times).

*Mind-reader alert*


But how many times did Jesus refuse to commune with grave sinners or members of particular religions?

With persistent grave sinners? Try Matt.11:20-24, Matt.12:10-15, Matt.13:53-58 etc.

For Christ's treatment of those who refused to accept His teaching on the Eucharist try John 6:35-70

Originally posted by whiterose
um, no, this was the comment you dismissed:

"I'm just trying to point out that the churche's position on abortion is hypocritical given its history, and is in fact simply another way to attempt to subjugate women."
Like I said, my arguement on the church's hypocrisy.

Are you claiming that you did not express your opinion in that statement that the Church sought to subjugate women?

Originally posted by whiterose
Not caring for the child and not calling soical services amounts to killing the child, something I already stated that she has no right to do.

"Amounts to killing the child"? It's quite obviously not the same thing as plunging a knife into the child's heart.

And why should it matter what it "amounts to"? Doesn't the woman have the right to choose what she should and should not do with her own body as long as it does not directly violate anyone else's rights (as it would if she were to stab or choke the baby)? Why should she be punished because the baby can't take care of itself?

Originally posted by whiterose
[b]They are abilities of the brain in human beings. Nothing about language, reasoning, creativity etc. says that these can exist only in human-like brains.

They can exist only with a nervous system. You have yet to give me any definition of intelligence which does not require one.

If society can give individuals rights, then surely it can take it away?

yup[/b]

They can exist only with a nervous system. You have yet to give me any definition of intelligence which does not require one.

This is not rocket science. The definition (or determination) of intelligence is based on what an entity can do. If a computer is determined to be intelligent, then it clearly will not use any biological infrastructure. Your argument here (if any) is fallacious -- just because known instances of intelligence coincide with a nervous system doesn't mean that's how it should or can only be.

Sheesh!

yup

The surely you can have no objection to society taking away a woman's "right to choose" since it is society that granted her that right in the first place.

Originally posted by whiterose
[b]Read the two sentences before it.

You mean where you contradict yourself? If you don't believe God is male, why refer to God as "he"?

He doesn't have the power to make Catholics do anything (fund or stop funding Amnesty). He can, however, teach them it's wrong to do so given Amnesty's position-reversal on abortion.

Are you ser ...[text shortened]... bet many biologists would agree. No comment about the rest of my post I see.[/b]

You mean where you contradict yourself? If you don't believe God is male, why refer to God as "he"?

Ever heard of something called analogy? Or metaphor?


Are you seriously trying to argue that the pope has no power? If not, then my aguement that positions of power in the catholic church can only be held by men stands.

I'm arguing that your view of the "power" of the Church is secular and myopic. What do you mean by 'power' in this context?


I'm not really sure what you mean. Perhaps yo could explain further?

Germany attacked Britain during WWII. Britain defended itself; many German soldiers and pilots were killed in the process.

Is it hypocritical for Britain to punish murderers today?


I never said history was black and white, just that the church endorsed killing people, which is true.

So did the British government in my example above.


When did I say that? You said it equals a human being. I said it doesn't.

It is, by definition, a human being. That's what a human being is. You can argue (as many do) that it is not a human person -- but you can't deny it's a human being.


Why? I think it fits the definition quite nicely, and I'm willing to bet many biologists would agree.

There are a number of biologists on this site. Want to try?


No comment about the rest of my post I see.

It's not worth responding to. You can claim to want to have lots of children some day -- I hope you let them know early enough that you considered them "parasites" carried in a life-threatening process and they should be thankful for your deciding not to destroy them.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Are you claiming that you did not express your opinion in that statement that the Church sought to subjugate women?

Yes, I am also argueing that the church's position on abortion is part of its effort to subjugate women. I don't know why you keep trying to divert the topic to semantics instead of answering my post.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]They can exist only with a nervous system. You have yet to give me any definition of intelligence which does not require one.

This is not rocket science. The definition (or determination) of intelligence is based on what an entity can do. If a computer is determined to be intelligent, then it clearly will not use any biological infras man's "right to choose" since it is society that granted her that right in the first place.[/b]

This is not rocket science. The definition (or determination) of intelligence is based on what an entity can do. If a computer is determined to be intelligent, then it clearly will not use any biological infrastructure. Your argument here (if any) is fallacious -- just because known instances of intelligence coincide with a nervous system doesn't mean that's how it should or can only be.

So if a computer is determined to have intelligence based on this new definition does it deserve the same rights as humans? No.

The surely you can have no objection to society taking away a woman's "right to choose" since it is society that granted her that right in the first place.

No. Read my posts. What I said was that society determines what rights people have, not what rights people should have.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]You mean where you contradict yourself? If you don't believe God is male, why refer to God as "he"?

Ever heard of something called analogy? Or metaphor?


Are you seriously trying to argue that the pope has no power? If not, then my aguement that positions of power in the catholic church can only be held by men stands.

I'm argui ning process and they should be thankful for your deciding not to destroy them.[/b]

Ever heard of something called analogy? Or metaphor?

An analogy is a comparison between two different things, in order to highlight some form of similarity.
A metaphor is a figure of speech in which one thing is called another which it resembles in some significant way.
So I'll ask you again, why should God be refered to as He?

I'm arguing that your view of the "power" of the Church is secular and myopic. What do you mean by 'power' in this context?

Power, as the dictionary defines it, is possession of controlling influence. Why should the definition be any different in the context of the church?

Germany attacked Britain during WWII. Britain defended itself; many German soldiers and pilots were killed in the process.

Is it hypocritical for Britain to punish murderers today?

Ah, that's clearer. It would be hypocritical of them to punish someone for murdering another in self defence, but I'm pretty sure they know that and have laws set up accordingly.

So did the British government in my example above.

They are not the ones trying to ban abortion.

There are a number of biologists on this site. Want to try?

Sure, bring it on.

It's not worth responding to. You can claim to want to have lots of children some day -- I hope you let them know early enough that you considered them "parasites" carried in a life-threatening process and they should be thankful for your deciding not to destroy them.

Aren't most people brought up to thank their mothers for bringing them into this world? I know one of the christian tenents is to "honour thy mother and father". So yes, children should be thankful to their parents. Would you disagree?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM

Can. 129.1 gives the priest the power to enforce the canonical norms of the Church. This includes the prohibitions to receiving communion established under Can. 915 (which, btw, only deals with Catholics; non-Catholics are addressed in Can. 844.1-5).

Prohibition under Can. 915 (and also Can. 844) d ...[text shortened]... e grave sin should be manifest (i.e. of a public nature or a matter of public knowledge).

Thank you for this information.

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If the legal system adequately factors in such criteria as deliberation, mental state, compulsion, other relevant circumstantial factors etc. -- then yes.

In your view, is the immorality of a deliberate abortion completely independent of the known developmental state of the unborn human?

My intuition is that it should *not* be completely independent. All else equal, I believe it is morally worse to deliberately terminate (one's own) pregnancy at 8.5 months than at 8.5 seconds. By way of comparison, I also believe that it would be morally worse to deliberately terminate (another's) human life at 8.5 years than (one's own) pregnancy at 8.5 months. However, as a baby develops, I believe that the immorality of termination approaches an asymptote.

Do you altogether fail to share these moral intuitions? Or do you share them, but on principled grounds reject them?