we aren't muslimes, we won't cut her head off if she wants to leave... seeyalaterbye
Posted on 08/01/2018 9:10:58 AM PDT by Morgana
Fine. Quit lying about being Catholic ... go find the "First Church of Baby-killing and Faggotry". You'll be right at home.
On the one hand, foundationally, Baptism is one’s initiation into the Catholic Church. In that bare-minimum sense, even people validly baptized in other churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Evangelical, whatever) are certainly -— but imperfectly -— members of the Catholic Church in the baptismal sense.
But a member of the Catholic Church "in practice"? "In good standing"? Check it out:
https://tinyurl.com/Catholic-standing
You have to be a baptized believer who has not apostatized or been excommunicated, in a state of grace, who accepts the faith of, and is living in obedience to the precepts of Jesus Christ, as He teaches us through the Catholic Church.
If one can't make a distinction in practice between any person who has baptismally entered the Catholic Church, vs being a practicing Catholic in good standing, vs being an ex-Catholic, post-Catholic or anti-Catholic, then we shall have to accept all the moral and creedal ideas expressed by every purported Christian or post-Christian in the history of the world, as Catholic teaching. Even those of Frances Kissling, even Creflo Dollar, even John Hagee, even you!
This shows you the imbecility of refusing to make distinctions.
I would be delighted to answer any other questions.
I didn't say it was incorrect. I said it was irrelevant.
Thirteenth century embryology is not Catholic doctrine, any more than 1,000 BC cosmological astrophysics is Catholic doctrine.
Even Catholic Canon Law, although related at many points to moral doctrine, is not Catholic moral doctrine.
With a little more familiarity with the subject, I am hoping you will be able to avoid these category mistakes.
we aren't muslimes, we won't cut her head off if she wants to leave... seeyalaterbye
Ya'll need to get your ducks in a row on this issue....among others.
Are we reading the same text??
22“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23“But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. Exodus 21:22-25 NASB
And we have the commandment against murdering. It is a blanket statement.
THOU SHALT NOT MURDER.
It's pretty clear to this ol'boy.
Scripture doesn't even contain a clear definition for what is meant by "life." The earliest, Genesis 2:7, is seemingly clearest. The first human became a “living being” (nefesh hayah, “a living breath”) when God blew into its nostrils and it started to breathe. Human life begins when you start breathing, biblical writers thought. It ends when you stop. That’s why the Hebrew word often translated “spirit” (ruah) — “life force” might be a better translation — literally means “wind” or “breath.”
I really cannot believe I am reading this from you.
It seems the Roman Catholic will go out of their way to NOT let the truth of Scripture speak to them. But this is what happens when Scripture is not the source of your truth.
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the One who formed you from the womb, ‘I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone . . .'" (Isaiah 44:24, NASV).
15But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased. Galatians 1:15 NASB
"For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works and that my soul knows well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed, and in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them" (Psalm 139:13-16, NKJV).
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:5, NIV).
Mary understood biology enough to know when a man and woman had sex a baby was usually the end result. Hence her question to Gabriel as to "how" she was going to have a baby as she had not had sexual intercourse with a man.
But from that you cannot get a principle about not killing the unborn, since they do not begin to have air-breathing pulmonary capacity until after they are born.
Wow. Mrs. D, I've always questioned the Roman Catholic understanding of the Scriptures.....but you're confirming what has been long suspected. Ya'll really have no idea on how to read the texts in context.
That's one reasons why taking the time to define things, and to analyze the relationship between fact and law, is so important.
No. It should be pretty clear from the texts.
On the other hand, Judge Noonan's extremely detailed analysis of the legal and moral evaluation of abortion through the ages, shows that Catholic opposition to abortion is as near as you can get to a principle or norm of justice that can be formulated exceptionlessly.
Depending on how you define abortion....as with seemingly all things Roman Catholic.
Rome cannot say, as much as you want to be able to, they have always opposed abortion from conception. That's been a latter development for Rome.
But you and Frances Kissling have your own ideas about that. Carry on. Don't let brilliant and superb scholarship deter you. You can always find dissenters, if there's a sufficiently strong motivation for dissent.
You now commit a mortal sin in for a second time attempting to equate me with Kissling in assuming, incorrectly, she and I are arguing the same position. Consider, per Roman Catholic, though not NT teaching, you've committed a mortal sin...are now without benefit of Heaven until you can see your priest, confess, perform penance and then attend Mass.
But in all of this discussion I've uncovered this little gem...should you wish to continue to appeal, in error, to Aquinas.
He opposed the Immaculate Conception on the grounds that a being (Mary) does not have a rational soul at conception.
www.University of Notre Dame School of Law.com page 101...footnote 75
75 That a being does not have a rational soul at conception formed a principal objec- tion for him to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which he denied, IN LIBROS SENTENTIARUM 3.1.1: she was "sanctified" in the womb, but "when it definitely was, is uncertain."
This is but one reason why Christianity rejects Rome's claims to "Sacred Tradition." The ECFs ya'll lean on are all over the place on the issues near and dear to Rome.
Convert Catholics typically were baptized under the auspices of some other Christian community (e.g. Baptist) before they were received into the Church by Confirmation, but their previous baptism is recognized as valid: they are not re-baptized.
Those ducks are in a row!
However, ex-Catholics, post-Catholics and anti-Catholics are not allowed to post in the Catholic Caucus, although it can get dicey because some people, like yourself, are not very forthcoming about what "faith community" they are actually part of.
I didn't say it was incorrect. I said it was irrelevant.
Why? Because it contradicts your position on this topic?
Thirteenth century embryology is not Catholic doctrine, any more than 1,000 BC cosmological astrophysics is Catholic doctrine.
Even Catholic Canon Law, although related at many points to moral doctrine, is not Catholic moral doctrine.
In the Roman Catholic Church, canon law is the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the Church's hierarchical authorities to regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law#Catholic_Church
Is not the Canon Law what ya'll go by? Roman Catholics appeal to it all the time.
The Second Vatican Council had reason to consider abortion spe- cifically in relation to family planning. In its pastoral constitution, Joy and Hope, on the Church in the modem world, the Council had affirmed the duty of responsible procreation, of conscientious decision making by spouses as to how many children they should have. The Council had also affirmed that conjugal love was "perfected" in conjugal intercourse. It then had recognized that there might well be a conflict between the expression of love and responsible parenthood. 152 The Council, carefully refraining from a decision on con- traception, did not attempt to solve the conflict. It did observe, however, "These are those who presume to offer to these problems indecent solutions; indeed they do not shrink from killing." In response to such solutions, the Council declared, "Life from its conception is to be guarded with the greatest care. Abortion and infanticide are horrible crimes.
In this declaration the Council made several doctrinal advances. For the first time contraception was treated differently from abortion. A line was drawn, with contraception on one side, abortion and infanticide on the other. Certain commands on contraception were specified as being for "children of the Church." The teaching on abortion, in contrast, was in a document otherwise addressed to "all men of good will." Abortion was condemned; no final judgment was made on all forms of contraception. Beyond these distinctions, an amendment, specifically made and adopted, added the words "from its conception."' 1 5 4 In-this way the Council sharply marked off the status of the conceptus from the status of spermatozoa and ova. Finally, the declaration was the first statement ever made by a general council of the Church on abortion; its judgment, promulgated by Paul VI on December 5, 1965, represented a commitment by the Catholic bishops of the world to care from conception.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=nd_naturallaw_forum
pages 120-121
I'm sure you're aware that's a Free Republic Religion Forum decision.
I seriously hope you're not leaning on that to say ya'll don't claim former Roman Catholics.
You're starting to get a little desperate in your arguments, Mrs. D.
I've told everyone which faith community I'm a member of....Christian...a follower of Jesus Christ.
I’m not entirely sure why this matters so much. Maybe the specifics of Catholic teaching changed as we learned more and more about the development of the child, but the idea of the sanctity of life remains, right?
Maybe I’m missing something...?
The claim of the RCC is they've always opposed abortion. But that comes down to how you define abortion and when life begins.
Roman Catholics would have us believe they've always opposed abortion from conception...as that is the their modern position after V2. However, history shows that is not the case.
I argue that Rome's position on this issue...and others...has changed. And this from the church that claims they've never changed and have been doing things the same way the Apostles did.
That just is not the case and negates the RCC position on "Sacred Tradition" being equal to Scripture.
Thomas' opposition to the Immaculate Conception should be the Roman's first clue their equating "Tradition" to be equal to Scripture to be in error. Yet they persist with this.
Scripture does not change....but Roman Catholic theology does.
However, that text in its various translations is not perfectly perspicuous. The RSV has it as follows:
When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
The Hebrew gives even less indication for a live birth (rather than miscarriage), as you can see here (LINK):
"And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (etc.)
Notice it refers to hurting the woman and the only reference to the baby is that "the fruit depart," without using the Hebrew words for child, infant or baby.
For this reason, even religiously observant Hebrew-speaking Jews who generally disfavor abortion, do not consider it the same as murder. I was intrigued by a recent article in Haaretz about a Jewish Pregnancy Aid organization in Israel being criticized by religious Jews for being too pro-life. Here's the story (LINK)
Here's an excerpt:
"The statements about abortion being the same as murder “are irresponsible with respect to human distress. Rabbis everywhere, from every stream of Judaism, have known how to weigh considerations of the life of the fetus against the life of the mother...and the slogan ‘Abortion is Murder’ is neither rabbinical law nor Judaism. ... Taking our Torah in the direction of Christian Catholic canon law is a terrible mistake.”
Catholic canon law interprets abortion as murder. Torah Judaism does not.
The Wycliffe Bible makes it even more definite that the death of the baby merits only a fine, and not a life-for-life retribution:
If men chide, and a man smiteth a woman with child, and soothly he maketh the child dead-born, but the woman liveth over that smiting, he shall be subject to a fine, as much as the woman’s husband asketh (for), and as the judges deem (appropriate).
Some (Protestant) commentators remark that if it had referred to the injury of a live-born baby (rather than the woman),it would not have mentioned "tooth for tooth" because babies do not have teeth; likewise it would have referred to "the baby's father" rather than "the woman's husband" if it was the baby's injury they were concerned about.
I am not claiming that there is any ill-will in this translation; I am only saying that the Bible in Hebrew and in some of its oldest Christian translations (e.g. Wycliffe) does not say beyond debate that killing a baby before birth is murder.
That, historically, is the Catholic interpretation.
Which you and I both apparently share.
So, good. We've got that in common.
The Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is a sin. The only way philosophical inquiries about embryology would make any difference, would be if there were a scientific dispute about whether they were dealing with a living human embryo, or not.
In terms of historic Christianity, the resolution of the embryological question did not make a moral difference, inasmuch as even if it were "just" contraception, it would still be a sin, intrinsically wrong, and forbidden.
Many (but not all) Protestants will still dispute about this, since, for instance, some think that the hormonal Pill is OK because it "only" blocks ovulation or it "only" blocks fertilization; whereas the Catholic (historic Christian) understanding is that direct sabotage of the transmission of life is morally objectionable, whether it occurs before, during, or after fertilization.
I am not sure the FR Religion Forum is strictly governed by Canon Law (!) ("That's a joke, son") but I am using that as an illustration that the term "Catholic" --- like most words --- can cover several, slightly differing semantic fields.
You'll never quite grasp this until you distinguish the range of recognized usages.
Context is your friend.
Dictionaries help, too.
With the following qualifier....this was not opposing abortion from the moment of conception as Rome currently defines it.
Further, Rome only dogmatically defined this at V2....so there were no dogmatic proclamations against abortion prior to this thus calling into question the statement the "Catholic Church" has always taught abortion is a sin.
Many (but not all) Protestants will still dispute about this, since, for instance, some think that the hormonal Pill is OK because it "only" blocks ovulation or it "only" blocks fertilization; whereas the Catholic (historic Christian) understanding is that direct sabotage of the transmission of life is morally objectionable, whether it occurs before, during, or after fertilization.
And again Rome is in contradiction of itself on this as they sanction contraception through NFP.
Well, you did have a different understanding based on your post as reproduced below as you were attempting to argue abortion was not mentioned in Scripture as a means to somehow diminish Scripture on this topic.
But Scripture doesn't define what is meant by "abortion" because Scripture does not even contain the word "abortion" or any term equivalent to it. In the singular instance of the expulsion of a pre-viable child as the result of an act of violence, the penalty assessed is not the penalty for murder, but the penalty for property loss (Exodus 21:22-25).
In other words, you now have an Evangelistic understanding of the text in question.
Catholic to you means the Roman Catholic Church.
To Christians it means the universal church of those who follow Christ.
Again, in debating with Roman Catholics a set of agreed upon definitions is required as Rome likes to redefine common words to sometimes mean other than what they are.
I did not say Moral Law and Canon Law are unrelated. I said they are not identical.
For instance: consider ecclesiastical property laws. These are related to and influenced by, but not the same as, secular laws relating to bequest, fiduciary trust, the extent of obligations to the common good which override private ownership, accountability, the suitability of using sacred spaces (e.g. the chancel) for secular purposes (e.g. a concert), etc., etc., and etc.
Much of this is not explicitly spelled out in the Ten Commandments, but is the result of reflection on many different circumstances and contexts.
Some of it can change as circumstances change.
If you're actually interested, you could look at this: Moral Theology and Canon Law.
I must say *I* am not particularly interested. Meh. Most of it has nothing to do with me, personally
Analogy: it's like a Homeowners Association or a POA: if I don't even own property, I have no direct interest in becoming an expert on the CCR's and By-Laws of a residential subdivision.
It doesn't relate to me. It's not my job.
Thanks be to God.
The Catholic Church has been using these terms in a variety of languages for a millennium before the English Language even came into existence.
We certainly have the right to define these words when we're talking about Catholicism.
Surely you can see that.
Ya’ll need to get your act together on this stuff. Rome has so many conflicting writings there is no way the average Roman Catholic can keep up with what’s what.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.