Conforming Your Beliefs To Church Teaching

[veritasluxmea]

the same say someone can acknowledge that a snowball is not a snowman. when do many snow balls become a snowman? i dont know, but that doesn't mean the snowball is a snowman.

 

there's something to the idea that no snowball ive ever seen is self replicating to turn itself into a snowman. but still, you could realistically make the snowball v snowman distinction.

Yeah, that's an example of the facts/values split. According to that line of thinking, human bodies are in the biology realm (facts) and therefore not subject to ideas like personhood (values). Science can confirm a human body, a fact, but can't make claims on values like personhood or having a soul. That's why no one can agree. 

 

(Again, that's not what I think is true- I'm just stating how that line of thinking works.)

Edited August 25, 2014 by veritasluxmea

[Credo in Deum]

Yeah, that's an example of the facts/values split. According to that line of thinking, human bodies are in the biology realm (facts) and therefore not subject to ideas like personhood (values). Science can confirm a human body, a fact, but can't make claims on values like personhood or having a soul. That's why no one can agree. 

 

(Again, that's not what I think is true- I'm just stating how that line of thinking works.)

 

Science can confirm personhood since everyone has a unique DNA fingerprint.  We are given this DNA fingerprint at the time of conception.  Therefore we are a human person when we are conceived.  This is not something that can be argued.  To say we are not persons until we express opinions and ideas is dangerous, since people will be able to take abortion further and even go as far as killing infants since they cannot express thoughts and ideas.  

 

 

I know you believe personhood is when we are conceived.  I'm just responding with my thoughts.  

[KnightofChrist]

Yeah, that's an example of the facts/values split. According to that line of thinking, human bodies are in the biology realm (facts) and therefore not subject to ideas like personhood (values). Science can confirm a human body, a fact, but can't make claims on values like personhood or having a soul. That's why no one can agree. 

 

(Again, that's not what I think is true- I'm just stating how that line of thinking works.)

 

Eh, human and person are always synonymous and that only seems to be questioned when a movement needs justification to enslave, abuse or kill another group of humans.

[veritasluxmea]

Yes, I know it's horrifying and has terrible implications and consequences, but technically *if* the facts/values split were true then one could support the belief that we do not know for sure when personhood, or getting a soul, happens, since we can not verify it by science. The idea that conception/personhood go together is still only a belief from the values realm, not a scientific fact. 

 

Basically we need to stop splitting facts/values. 

[Credo in Deum]

Basically people need to stop acting like there is an option to split the two.  Again science shows us that we get our own unique DNA fingerprint at the time of conception.  This is sciences way of showing us we have person-hood when we are conceived.  Person-hood has never and will never be something we should tolerate as being debatable. 

[KnightofChrist]

Yes, I know it's horrifying and has terrible implications and consequences, but technically *if* the facts/values split were true then one could support the belief that we do not know for sure when personhood, or getting a soul, happens, since we can not verify it by science.

The idea that conception/personhood go together is still only a belief from the values realm, not a scientific fact. 
 
Basically we need to stop splitting facts/values.

I think we need to through out the primitive idea that human and person are separate things. Because it splits a person/human in two. Just as it would be to argue Homo sapiens and human are separate things. Edited August 25, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Person-hood has never and will never be something we should tolerate as being debatable.

 

"has never"?

 

wasn't the idea that it wasn't murder until quickening, according to catholics, back in the day?

 

it may have been that that was just when the person got a soul, i don't know. when a person gets a soul could still be debated, if that was the case. but my understanding was that something has changed in teaching.

 

i do know it was still a sin, abortion, even before quickening. just not a mortal sin?

[dairygirl4u2c]

historical views of abortion

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

 

 

St. Jerome (circa 340 - 420) wrote in a letter to Aglasia:

"The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs"

 

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote ₇ that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law.

 

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):

He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."
 

Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.

Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days (about 17 weeks) into pregnancy.

 

[Credo in Deum]

historical views of abortion
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm


St. Jerome (circa 340 - 420) wrote in a letter to Aglasia:
"The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs"

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote ₇ that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law.

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216): He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.
Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.
Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days (about 17 weeks) into pregnancy.

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=383314&language=en

[KnightofChrist]

historical views of abortion
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm
 

Any independent and reliable sources for any of that?

[dairygirl4u2c]

that link just seems to say 'it's always been a grave sin', which no on disputes. if you asked even those popes and st augustine, they'd probably draw the person v life distinction.

 

 

i think the fact that the above post draws the distinction about 'values' etc shows that there's something to the idea. that poster is almost entertaining the idea that one can draw a distinction. people would be putting down and ostraciszing thatp oster if that poster was to say something like like in regards to black and white distinction or homo sapien v human disctinction. that people don't treat that poster in such a negative way shows that even they are entertaining the idea to some degree.

 

(and when the one poster says it is primitive to draw those distinctions, he is probably just retaliating the way he feels retaliated against when people accuse him of not abiding by science. )

[dairygirl4u2c]

it a generally reputable site. and even that EWTN link which specifically references the link doesn't draw issue with the credibility, just to point out that it's always been a sin to abort. if there was something regarding the credibility that ewtn link would have drawn that criticism.

[KnightofChrist]

So is that a no, you do not have an independent and reliable source?

[KnightofChrist]

You should read the link by the USCCB I posted earlier that explains why NFP isn't contraception. For your convenience, I'll just post the link again: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/awareness-week/upload/Why-NFP-Differs-from-Contraception-JPII.pdf

 

When someone wants to believe lies there is little that can be done about it.

[KnightofChrist]

 It isn't an anti-Catholic twisting , it is a simple fact, don't get your undies in a bunch over it.

 

I stated a fact, you are repeating lies and falsehoods. Not having sex is not contraception. Comparing NFP to Abstinence would be more truthful than comparing it to contraception.