89 replies to this topic

[Bobby Zelmet]

Doesn't it send babies to Jesus faster?

[Griffin]

I see that the Vatican has instructed Catholics to refrain from supporting Amnesty International in future, because AI has apparently changed its stance on abortion, advocating the practice in cases of rape and incest. The reason Catholics oppose abortion is that they believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore to do anything to prevent that life continuing is tantamount to murder. My own view is that the developing embryo is part of the mother's body until parturition, especially in the early stages when it is not viable ex utero, and that the decision to allow it to develop should be hers alone, especially in cases where her power to choose has been compromised at the time of conception. I am thinking particularly of rape and abuse, even within marriage. As for aborted foetuses going to Jesus (although I am unsure whether the proposition is frivolous), the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church was that, because of Original Sin, an unbaptised infant could not go to heaven, but ended up in a place called limbo. I understand this concept has now been done away with, although I am hardly up to speed on Catholic doctrine. Babies (even full-term ones) who died unbaptised could not be buried in consecrated ground, and there were areas set aside for them outside churchyards, particularly in Ireland. There is such a plot at Glasnevin cemetery in Dublin, known as the Holy Innocents' burial ground.

[Bobby Zelmet]

griffin, on Jun 14 2007, 03:38 PM, said:

the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church was that, because of Original Sin, an unbaptised infant could not go to heaven...

The Catholic church really are a twisted bunch of sick f*****s at times, what a great way to comfort a Catholic mother who has had a miscarriage.. 'Oh by the way, your unborn baby hasn't gone to heaven because he/she was a sinner.'

[Voll]

I don't agree with the Catholic Church's stance on abortion but I can understand it. However, I do not understand its opposition to "mechanical" contraception except as a means of trying to hang on to what little control over people's lives it still has. (There must be a better word than mechanical but I can't think of one).

I think a similar desperation explains why most (all?) religions oppose gay marriage. They've lost the battle over divorce and so screwing the gays lets them feel they still have some power to control people's lives, albeit those of a small minority.

[donkey o'tay]

I think a lot of the 'protestant' sects believe that too.

[Pete]

So I take it the Catholics believe the moment the egg splits in two (divides) then that is the moment that new life begins?
I dunno, I'd have thought that there are free spirits waiting to occupy new bodies, and when they enter, thats when true life begins, and I'd say at the point of birth. I'd say the mother only incubates the foetis until it enters into an oxygen filled invirionment.

[Griffin]

The Catholic Church does permit the use of a special contraceptive pill. It's six feet in diameter, and you roll it behind the bedroom door. When I was at school, I seem to remember we were told that the church's teaching on sexual intercourse was that it was not for pleasure, but for the purpose of procreation. Whether pregnancy resulted was supposed to be in God's choosing, not ours. Clearly, then, the use of contraception is designed (in their view) to frustrate God's will, and to make possible sexual activity for pleasure alone. Was there also, I wonder, a possibility that, because the Catholic clergy, episcopacy and hierarchy were all celibate, they sought to ensure that, if their flock availed of that which was denied to them, we should not enjoy it too much? A further point - with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Italy and some South American countries, the Catholic Church has often found itself in a minority. I think in St. Helens, it was one in three, probably not an untypical ratio. If Catholics were denied contraception and abortion, while society at large adopted these practices, Catholics would eventually achieve numerical parity, and maybe even become the majority, thus increasing the wealth and influence of the church. This trend was becoming well-established in parts of Northern Ireland.

[Dave]

I don't think that you need to be religious to disagree with the availability of abortion. Similarly, you don't have to be a bible thumper to think that an idea of 'marriage' between homosexuals (in the sense of groom and groom, or bride and bride (not civil partnerships)) is ridiculous. The church relied on the old strategy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend to get by in some senses - appealing to to people's disapproval to gain converts. They don't seem to be much bothered about paedophilia though.

[Voll]

There is an old joke that claims "celibate" was a transcription error made by some tired, old, monk; the correct word was "celebrate".

[Pete]

Doesn't god say that you should love everybody? In that case its ok to get yer end away with as many women as poss. Lust, Love, whatever, its still endearment, sorta.

[Griffin]

God, no doubt anticipating your post, had that one well covered. The New Testament was, as we know, written in Greek, and there are in that language several different words for love, each conveying a different aspect of that emotion. The three main ones are eros, philia and agape, which are all liable to be translated simply as love (in modern translations) or charity in the Authorised Version. Wikipedia gives you the idea:
http://en.wikipedia...._words_for_love

[gypsygeoff]

I too was brought up a Catholic and had all the foreboding of doom if one decided to bash ones bishop and f*** the blindness.However my view on abortion is one of choice,the womans choice.I would draw the line at abortion being used as a form of contraception though.

[Griffin]

AshtonPete, on Jun 14 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

I'd have thought that there are free spirits waiting to occupy new bodies, and when they enter, thats when true life begins, and I'd say at the point of birth.

This is a lovely idea, and probably not far removed from Buddhist beliefs. But is there such a thing as a soul or spirit? Are we not simply talking about personality or consciousness, which have no actual beginning but just develop gradually as soon as there are phenomena to stimulate them, and which end at death?

[Alan]

Bobby Zelmet, on Jun 14 2007, 03:22 PM, said:

Doesn't it send babies to Jesus faster?

What makes you think he wants Heaven chocablock with skriking kids?

[mishka]

griffin, on Jun 14 2007, 04:51 PM, said:

God, no doubt anticipating your post, had that one well covered. The New Testament was, as we know, written in Greek, and there are in that language several different words for love, each conveying a different aspect of that emotion. The three main ones are eros, philia and agape, which are all liable to be translated simply as love (in modern translations) or charity in the Authorised Version. Wikipedia gives you the idea:
http://en.wikipedia...._words_for_love

agape in modern Greek is darling - agapimou being my darling. Philia is friend - as in philiamou, my friend. As the Greeks say they invented same sex 'friendships' as a method of birth control I wouldn't put too much stress on the original version of the New Testament translation from Greek to other languages. Most of the ancient Greek is the same as modern Greek - but some words took on different meanings. I can read ancient and modern Greek but the ancient Greek translation doesn't make sense sometimes, so God help us with the translation of the New Testament. All down to your own belief at the end of the day innit??