Vatican III Agenda

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have read through the Catholic catechism- and yes, they do teach as if biology did not exist. What else do you expect of dogma?

And anyway, any bioethics essay is invariably a complex exercise of doublethink. Although ostensibly recognizing biology, the Vatican teaches its theology without considering scientific thoeries. Same goes for philosophy, mos ...[text shortened]... y considering the findings in biology. Even though biology has many philosophical ramifications.

The Encyclical on the relationship between Faith and Reason ("Fides et Ratio" ):

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM



The Encyclical "The Splendor of Truth"( "Veritatis Splendor" ):

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0222/_INDEX.HTM

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have read through the Catholic catechism- and yes, they do teach as if biology did not exist. What else do you expect of dogma?

And anyway, any bioethics essay is invariably a complex exercise of doublethink. Although ostensibly recognizing biology, the Vatican teaches its theology without considering scientific thoeries. Same goes for philosophy, mos ...[text shortened]... y considering the findings in biology. Even though biology has many philosophical ramifications.

Conrau: "I have read through the Catholic catechism- and yes, they do teach as if biology did not exist. What else do you expect of dogma?"



Pontifical Academy of Science :

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/index.htm



http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_acdsci_doc_190999_publications_it.html


050.... Recent advances in the evolution of primates. Working Group, 24-27 May 1982, pp. xvii-204

056.... Chemical events in the atmosphere and their impact on environment. Study Week, 7-11 November 1983,

058.... The impact of space exploration on mankind. Study Week, 1-5 October 1984, pp. xxvii-364

075.... A modern approach to the protection of the environment. Study Week, 2-7 November 1987, pp. xxiv-606

089.... The emergency of complexity in mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. Plenary Session, 26-31 October 1992, pp. xx-474

003.... Statement of the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, 7-8 October 1981, pp. 14

004 Declaration on prevention of nuclear war, 23-24 September 1982 (Textes anglais, français et italien), pp. 30





On bioethics:


079.... Brain research and the mind-body problem: Epistemological and metaphysical issues. Round Table, 25 October 1988, pp. xv-186

083.... The determination of brain death and its relationship to human death. Working Group, 10-14 December 1989, pp. xxvii-210

091.... The legal and ethical aspects related to the project of the human genome. Working Group, 19-20 November 1993, pp. xiv-193

093.... Scientific bases and problems of natural fertility regulation. Working Group, 16-19 November 1994 (not published)

105....The Cultural Values of Science. Plenary Session, 8-11 November 2002, Vatican City, 2003, pp. 389, XVII tables

Part I (pdf)
Part II (pdf)
Part III (pdf)
Part IV (pdf)
Part V (pdf)



On evolution:

003.... The origin and early evolution of life. Plenary Session, 22-26 October 1996, pp. 340

.... and there is much, much more.


Conrau: "I have read through the Catholic catechism- and yes, they do teach as if biology did not exist. What else do you expect of dogma?"

Now Conrau, can you imagine that people who are better informed than you about these matters would label your above statement as "Rubbish" with a capital R ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Like the humans who decided what writings would be in the Bible? Is it possible they made mistakes?

The Catholic Church doesn't even go with the Bible.
They use a misolet how ever you spell it.

And plus the Church has more books then The Protestents.

A great read that I am reading right know is Called Talking with Catholic Friends and family.

Originally posted by RBHILL
The Catholic Church doesn't even go with the Bible.
They use a misolet how ever you spell it.

And plus the Church has more books then The Protestents.

A great read that I am reading right know is Called Talking with Catholic Friends and family.

Rb try real life and drop the catholic junk..i did looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnngg ago..

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]It is very much a scare campaign.

I still don't know why we always seem to go around in circles where the giggle-groan lever is painfully jammed on groan. Maybe it is the way I bring my points across, but you never seem to get them... ever! 😠

Let's start from the beginning shall we:

I made the statement that as a principle: morality should ...[text shortened]... their ethical convictions.

Are we clear or do you need anything else spelled out to you?[/b]

I agree that the embryo is a human being, but as I have explained, a fully developed human should have precedence over a flimsy embryo.

And yes, you are using the typical prevarication of an issue to promote your scare campaign.
1. Mengeler's work was not legitimate scienctific research, while embryonic research is. Ethical debate aside.
2. Embryonic research is a promising line of research. Mengeler's was just a form of torture. There was no intention of making any improvements in medicical science.

I see embryonic research as just another category in the system of triage we use in hospitals (elderly and fatal cared for last in the event of capacity crisis) or as just a consequence of the abortion movement.

I am however, outraged by Mengeler's experiments because he was experimenting on humans. And if I should have been around in that time, it could very well have been me who was mutilated.

And anyway, in my first post I didn't even mention morality. I said the Vatican teaches as if biology does not exist. You have completely misled this discussion.

Originally posted by Halitose
Whatever. You love to latch onto the anti-Semitic punch line, where I never claimed anything of the sort. It is the Darwinian concept of some races evolving into superior races which Nietzsche jumped on with his Übermench and how such a class of "supermen" could define their own morality. It was this concept that Hitler applied to his twisted view of ...[text shortened]... r of the Jews, gypsies and all other ideologically “unfit” (to use some of Darwin’s phrasing).

In biology classrooms, students don't read anything older then a few years. Leave Darwin alone, his work was valid science. You can't accuse empirical thought for being responsible for Hitler.

And DONT confuse the Theory of Evolution with Darwin
s theory, the two are very different.

Originally posted by Halitose
What does the very concept of "survival of the fittest" imply?

Are you saying Natural Selection is racist?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Conrau: "I have read through the Catholic catechism- and yes, they do teach as if biology did not exist. What else do you expect of dogma?"



Pontifical Academy of Science :

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/index.htm



http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_ac ...[text shortened]... n you about these matters would label your above statement as "Rubbish" with a capital R ?[/b]

Did I say that the Vatican has makes no mention of biology, or that the Catechism does not contain any chapters pertaining to biology?

I dont think I did. In fact I think I might have acknowledged somewhere that it does have many chapters discussing biology and bio-ethics.

What I did say, however, was that the Vatican teaches as if biology does not exist. So when I open up my catechism and it says, "Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts," I see a cavalier neglect of biological determinism. I am not saying that the Vatican is wrong. I am just asserting that many of its teachings have not been scrutinized in light of recent developments in science. It therefore, can be deter many Catholics who will immediately think of genetics, and the like.

My original objection was not on morality or bio-ethics.

I just feel that since science is advancing at such rapid pace, the Vatican should discuss the implications of new discoveries.

Originally posted by Conrau K
In biology classrooms, students don't read anything older then a few years. Leave Darwin alone, his work was valid science. You can't accuse empirical thought for being responsible for Hitler.

And DONT confuse the Theory of Evolution with Darwin
s theory, the two are very different.

And DONT confuse the Theory of Evolution with Darwin
s theory, the two are very different.

Could you perhaps lay out the immense differences between the two?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I agree that the embryo is a human being, but as I have explained, a fully developed human should have precedence over a flimsy embryo.

And yes, you are using the typical prevarication of an issue to promote your scare campaign.
1. Mengeler's work was not legitimate scienctific research, while embryonic research is. Ethical debate aside.
2. Embryonic ...[text shortened]... he Vatican teaches as if biology does not exist. You have completely misled this discussion.

So if I understand you correctly, you reject my principle for another. Which one is it? Who decides to which point your "precedence theory" is valid? If you accept that an embryo is human, would you have a problem with scientific experimentation being done on a fetus? How about a pre-born infant. A newborn? 5 year-old? If not, by what criteria?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]And DONT confuse the Theory of Evolution with Darwin
s theory, the two are very different.

Could you perhaps lay out the immense differences between the two?[/b]

Darwin's theory is no longer used in society. The Theory of Evolution is. The theory of evolution is based on genetics. Darwinism is based on Gemmules.

Originally posted by Halitose
So if I understand you correctly, you reject my principle for another. Which one is it? Who decides to which point your "precedence theory" is valid? If you accept that an embryo is human, would you have a problem with scientific experimentation being done on a fetus? How about a pre-born infant. A newborn? 5 year-old? If not, by what criteria?

I accept that an embryo is a human, but not an intellectual human. A feotus (depending on period of gestation) is an intellectual human.

My "precedence thoery" is not mine. Hospitals use it. Say you find a child and his granfather stranded on a road. Both of them are dying. You can only save one. Who will use save?

I guess since they're both human you would decide that you should sit down and not save either of them because that would entail the death of the other. Correct?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Did I say that the Vatican has makes no mention of biology, or that the Catechism does not contain any chapters pertaining to biology?

I dont think I did. In fact I think I might have acknowledged somewhere that it does have many chapters discussing biology and bio-ethics.

What I did say, however, was that the Vatican teaches as if biology does not advancing at such rapid pace, the Vatican should discuss the implications of new discoveries.

Conrau: "I just feel that since science is advancing at such rapid pace, the Vatican should discuss the implications of new discoveries."

If you check out the links I gave you, you will find that this is exactly what they do.

Pontifical Academy of Science:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/index.htm


Here's a list of the scientific disciplines the Pontifical Academy engages in:

1. ASTRONOMY

2. CHEMISTRY

3. EARTH AND ENVIRONMENT SCIENCES

4. LIFE SCIENCES

4.1 BOTANY

4.2 AGRONOMY

4.3 ZOOLOGY

4.4 GENETICS

4.5 MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

4.6 BIOCHEMISTRY

4.7 NEUROSCIENCE

4.8 SURGERY

5. MATHEMATICS

6. APPLICATION OF SCIENCE

7. PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF SCIENCE (EPISTEMOLOGY)

8. PHYSICS

9. OTHER DISCIPLINES

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_10111999_disciplines_en.html


The implications and consequenses of the scientific developments are studied. If you check out the site I gave you, you will undoubtedly find contributions dealing with this issue.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Conrau: "I just feel that since science is advancing at such rapid pace, [b]the Vatican should discuss the implications of new discoveries."

If you check out the links I gave you, you will find that this is exactly what they do.

Pontifical Academy of Science:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/index.htm


H eck out the site I gave you, you will undoubtedly find contributions dealing with this issue.[/b]

But they are ultimately just paying lip service to science.

Tell me, would they ever reject or revise a bit of supposedly infallible doctrine if scientific evidence indicated that it was false?

If not, then they are really just abusing science, trying to get the best of both worlds. They use it to bolster their doctrine when the two are in accord, but never allow for the possibility that the same scientific principles that lead to those bolstering discoveries might also lead to other discoveries that call for a doctrinal revision.

Originally posted by Halitose
It's not like you to go off half-cocked. What does the very concept of "survival of the fittest" imply? The species that didn't survive were obviously "unfit" to survive. For all your blustering I'd have though an intelligent fella like you would have made sense of it.

Racism, of course, long predated Darwin, but allow me to quote a paragraph from his b ...[text shortened]... tions pathetically inappropriate and unsubstantiated. Contrary to the TOE? I think not.

Dr. Scribbles has already demolished your ignorant conception of "survival of the fittest". This misunderstanding is repeatedly parroted by Fundamentalist critics of Darwin. I'd have thought that someone like you would make some kind of effort to actually have a mimimal understanding of a theory before trying to critique it, but obviously I was wrong.

Please give a page cite for the paragraph "quoted" from Descent of Man.