Where faith and politics meet
While one local politician has firmly nailed his colours to the mast on the morality of homosexuality, Cardinal Keith O’Brien is demanding Scottish politicians do likewise on the issue of abortion. In a sermon to mark the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act, he will instruct his members not to vote for pro-abortion politicians and the Church may exclude Roman Catholic politicians from Communion if they vote for pro-abortion measures. The BBC correspondent claims that past Church criticism of the Labour Party on the issue may already have had some electoral impact (Realplayer reqd). The comments have been described as “threatening” and “inflammatory”.
Yes, we really have progressed well since the Canaanites burned their children to their gods Molech and Ashtaroth.
Well, so say the Israelites anyway. You have to remember that the Book of Joshua is basically an apologia for the ethnic cleansing of the Caananites – yes, God told us it was our land, I’ve heard that one before.
If OutRage! or the Countryside Alliance or the CBI or the TUC or the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors give advice to their members on a particular political issue are we going to get all hot and bothered about their comments as if somehow they’re a threat to democracy?
The separation of church and state has always been seen as somewhat different; but depending on the issue, I might get hot and bothered. It’s not like it’s a secret that I think that in an era of post-ideological politics, the power of pressure groups to set the terms of political debate can be worrying.
‘Other religions and organizations were targeted specifically because of the ease by which such people could come in to contact with children without any suspicion of their true motives.’
Fair point Justin but it’s the manner in which the RC church dealt with these people that is the issue. They were tested and found to be not only wanting, but entirely corrupt.
Can you seriously imagine the trauma faced by an abused child who is not even believed by his supposed moral guardians? Whose parents are condemned for even suggesting that such practices occurred?
It is fairly clear that much of this appalling behaviour sprang from pure arrogance — the knowledge that such a powerful and unquestioned organisation could get away with virtually anything, and the notion that as ‘the one true church’ they somehow had spiritual right on their side. To coin another phrase; ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ It is up to all citizens and govts to ensure that NO religious organisation commands this level of power, and that is precisely why religion must be seperated from politics. The sorry and miserable tale of 20th century Catholic Ireland is but one example.
I can appreciate you not wanting to defend the indefensible, but with judgements and behaviour as widespread and wrong-headed as this, the entire hierarchy and moral fabric of the organisation has to be called into serious question. I doubt anyone can be blamed for taking any subsequent RC statements on morality with a very large pinch of salt.
‘The inaction of those in authority should not be seen as a rewriting of what the RC Church is.’
Not only inaction but in many cases action deliberately designed to thwart the legal process, spread the problems to other areas and treat members with complete contempt. I would contend that this behaviour was the logical result of an entirely undemocratic and unregulated patriarchal organisation.
‘All men are born equal ipso facto, abortion is wrong.’
Your statement is a contradiction. It merely states that men are BORN equal. Abortion occurs before birth. See my 11.46am post yesterday for clarification of my viewpoint.
‘“Lifeâ€, in these circumstances, is only valued as a commodity where an individual with a God complex, makes a judgment based on their “prediction†of another’s likely life choices.’
The final choice on any termination lies with the mother. In cases of rape, incest, severe handicap etc, what she needs is practical medical advice, not hysterical religious outbursts.
‘This one-size-fits-all mentality has given us a society where arrogance rules and notions of “right†and “wrong†are entirely fluid.’
That’s a rather rich statement given your robust defence of the RC church, perhaps the most arrogant organisation in history.
Do you seriously believe that this church has the monopoly on right and wrong? Were they right about the sun orbiting the earth? Were they right to condemn pain control during birth? Are they right to condemn contraception? Are they justified in their fear of women priests? Is divorce really wrong in all circumstances? Is child abuse to be an issue of expediency? And is abortion really wrong in all circumstances?
Justin all issues are open to change and debate. Something that may be considered infallible in the 6th century may be entirely irrelevant in the 21st. The RC church are the perfect example of supposed moral guardians falling very far from grace. Religious ideas should certainly be introduced to the mix of any moral debate, but they must not be allowed to dictate it’s outcome.
GLC,
“…They were tested and found to be not only wanting, but entirely corrupt…â€
Who were? Every priest, bishop and cardinal? Did the declared theological basis of the Church openly condone such actions? Of course not. “They†the individuals were in deed corrupt but “it†the Church was not.
“Can you seriously imagine the trauma faced by an abused child who is not even believed by his supposed moral guardians?â€
Yes.
“..such a powerful and unquestioned organisation could get away with virtually anything…â€
Precisely why it has been targeted by such chillingly calculating people.
“It is up to all citizens and govts to ensure that NO religious organisation commands this level of power…â€
Is it not hypocritical to suggest that religious organizations should be restricted yet tell “citizens†what they should do? The Church IS the people and it is the people who have come together in their shared belief. There is arrogance in telling people what they should believe and what they should do! The Church declares it’s beliefs and invites people who share those beliefs to listen and adhere to what it says. It is not alone in this respect. Most religions operate this way. If you don’t share those beliefs, people know what they can do.
If “Abortion occurs before birth†does “life†begin after birth?
“The final choice on any termination lies with the mother.†Why?
Hysterical anti-religious outbursts will not benefit the mother either. Clear information about all the options available to the mother will help her make an informed decision. When determining if a person should live or die, the mother should be understand all shades of opinions, if she is to be able to make an informed decision herself.
I do defend the RC Church as an organization but the vigor of my argument would be equally robust if we were discussing the FPC, the Brownies, the Scouts, teachers etc because society has suffered equally as a result of secular thinking. It’s holier than thou attitude has left people afraid to challenge anything they view as wrong. People of the third generation are left fearful of the young. Nobody dare tell parents that their children are behaving incorrectly. Everybody is “right†and nobody is “wrongâ€. In short, everything goes!
“Do you seriously believe that this church has the monopoly on right and wrong?â€
The Church is a made of people with shared beliefs. People say “this is what we believe†and if they disagree, they are free to go in a different direction. In this respect, the Church does not claim a monopoly on right or wrong but it does acknowledge the notion of “right†and “wrongâ€.
Were they right about the sun orbiting the earth?
Who are “they�
Were they right to condemn pain control during birth?
When did “they†do this?
Are they right to condemn contraception?
For the people who share the RC belief of a life giving GOD, yes.
Are they justified in their fear of women priests?
The issue of women priests is not based on fear.
Is divorce really wrong in all circumstances?
No.
Is child abuse to be an issue of expediency?
Why would you need to ask such a question?
And is abortion really wrong in all circumstances?
Yes.
I agree that religious ideas should not be allowed to “dictate†the outcome of any political debate but all the major religious views deserve and have a right for their voice to be heard. Their voice is the voice of the people. Any organization can become infiltrated to the core with corrupt self-serving officials but not even they define that organization. What they do in secret is just that, “in secretâ€. This is because it does not reflect the core beliefs of that system. All organizations should learn from what went wrong within the RC Church but I am sure it is not the only organization to have, with hindsight, acted without the best interests of the abused.
‘The final choice on any termination lies with the mother.†Why?
Because it’s her body Justin — she is the incubator. The medical profession is the realist. The church is merely the dogmatist.
‘Were they right to condemn pain control during birth?
When did “they†do this?’
I suggest looking up Wikipedia for exact dates. Trust me it happened in the mid 19th century.
‘The issue of women priests is not based on fear.’
What else would you base it on? The old chestnut about the 12 disciples being men? Get a grip. I would suggest that had women priests been in place 50 years ago, the church would not be in half the mess it’s in over never-ending clerical abuse cases.
‘And is abortion really wrong in all circumstances?
Yes. ‘
Sorry Justin I don’t have time to answer all your points, fascinating though some are.
I chose this one in particular as it demonstrates the main thrust of your thinking.
To deny abortion in ALL circumstances can only be described as entirely inhuman.
Let’s just take a couple of examples:
A woman is informed that if she continues with her pregnancy, both her and the baby will die. If she has a termination, she will live. Where’s your right to life in that scenario?
A 12 year old girl is raped by her father and becomes pregnant. In addition to rape, incest and loss of parental trust, you’re asking this child to go through with a full-term pregnancy.
Your total inflexibility on this issue will inevitably lead to:
A. Back-street abortions, many resulting in death and serious injury, including infertility.
B. Severely handicapped children, many institutionalised for life, in physical and mental conditions which would be deemed cruel when applied to even a household pet. Do you really think that bringing a person into a world where they will have no quality of life whatsoever is a humane thing to do?
C. Suicides of women trapped in situations beyond their control.
I’m not an advocate of abortion on a whim or as a form of contraception, but neither would I dictate to every woman in every circumstance that an abortion is out of the question. To do so is frankly unspeakable.
On a side issue, do you ever find it curious that the churches (with the RC church in particular) seem to have such a fascination with sexual matters? Homosexuality, abortion, contraception….
Do we find such a stance being taken against, say, army recruitment? Most army personnel are expected to take life as part of the job description — do we find the RC church citing ‘preservation of life’ as a reason for not joining? Or if we’re honest, is it just women and gays they have a downer on?
I think Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society,made a good point about the cardinal’s remarks.
He said: “The cardinal is entitled to make his views known but there is an implied call to Catholic politicians and health workers to place Catholic doctrine above the wishes of the electorate. This is undemocratic and unacceptable.”
Teach
I think that Saint Thomas Moore, ex Lord Chancellor of England and saint of the Catholic Church, made a good point when he said;
“God save us from men who can act against their own conscience”.
GLC,
“Because it’s her body†is not a logical justification for a mother to terminate a baby. Such a specious argument would, in theory, allow a mother to take the life of her child if the mother was in need of a major organ and it was possible to transplant it from the child to the mother.
“The medical profession is the realist. The church is merely the dogmatist.â€
This is purely opinion and not “factâ€. You own criticisms of the RC Church might lead many to view you as being the dogmatist. The medical profession is no better placed to express views on morality than any other profession.
I don’t doubt that the Church condemned pain control during birth, however I would question who and when this was as I imagine it occurred quite some time ago. Few would (or could) argue that atrocities were carried out in the name of the RC Catholic Church, however, it is my contention that these wrong doings do not redefine what the Catholic Church is. The atrocities carried out in the name of German Nationalism during the Second World War does not, in itself, define the German people of today.
You ask what else would the issue of women priests be based on if not fear. From accounts in the bible, the person “Jesus†was not afraid to challenge the norms of society. There is a strong argument to which questions why women were not chosen, particularly when other social norms were being challenged. This is just one reason. I have to say that I personally don’t accept it though it does show that the role women play in the Church is not based simply on “fearâ€.
To deny abortion in ALL circumstances can only be described as entirely inhuman.
Wrong.
“A woman is informed that if she continues with her pregnancy, both her and the baby will die. If she has a termination, she will live. Where’s your right to life in that scenario? â€
I do not have the time at present to look for the figures (though I will make time in the coming weeks) but I have read many times over that the percentage of times a “life and death†situation has been used for an abortion is almost nil. I will post further on this particular point when I have the figures to quote but I know even the pregnancy advisory centres now acknowledge that this number is diminishing due to medical advances.
“A 12 year old girl is raped by her father and becomes pregnant. In addition to rape, incest and loss of parental trust, you’re asking this child to go through with a full-term pregnancy. “
A person’s view or opinion of when a unique life begins lies at the heart of this point. For many people, there are two potential tragedies in this situation. The harm done against the girl and the potential for that resulting baby to be denied it’s right to life. All men are born equal, ipso facto, all life is of equal value; a point I made on a previous post.
â€On a side issue, do you ever find it curious that the churches (with the RC church in particular) seem to have such a fascination with sexual matters? Homosexuality, abortion, contraception…. “
No. Sadly such matters are now commonplace in this ever-increasing secular society we live in.
I would be happy to continue writing but it is late! To sum up, firstly the RC Church (or any other organization for that matter) is not defined by it’s rogue, self-serving members, no matter how numerous they may be. Secondly, life is an ageing process that begins as a unique entity, at conception and no one has the right to take the life of another
Well said Justin!!
I couldnt put it better myself!!
Abortion is wrong – it is the destruction of a life no matter what and noone has the right to determine differently!
I know alot of people who when choosing who to vote for in recent elections voted in accordance with the parties stance on abortion and I know alot of organisations who actively sought by way of writing to all the leaders of the parties (in the South) the parties views on the subject in order to decide who to support.
Even if the Cardinal doesnt advise Catholics not to vote for a Party or individual who supports abortion – the voters themselves – if they are true to their Catholicism – will make the decision not to!!
It is heartening to see that this subject is of such interest/importance to some of you Politicos!
“If OutRage! or the Countryside Alliance or the CBI or the TUC or the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors give advice to their members on a particular political issue are we going to get all hot and bothered about their comments as if somehow they’re a threat to democracy? ”
Advice is one thing – issuing instructions is rather different. Depends on whether they use threats. Is it even legal to threaten MPs?
What happens if the hierarchy starts telling Catholic Judges and catholic members of juries they will be excommunicated if they don’t make “acceptable” rulings and verdicts?
Maggot,
“What happens if the hierarchy starts telling Catholic Judges and catholic members of juries they will be excommunicated if they don’t make “acceptable†rulings and verdicts?â€
I see two aspects to the point your raise. Firstly the right of self-governance for an organization and secondly, an organisation’s right to offer a critical analysis of actions carried out in the public domain.
It must be remembered that an organised religion like the RC Church is made up of people who subscribed to a set of fundamental shared beliefs. If an individual is unable to share in that believe system, it is not primarily a mysterious hierarchy that is excludes them from that organisation but the person’s own conscience. I might buy all the jerseys and go to all the matches of a team but if, in the privacy of my own heart, I don’t ever want them to win, am I really a supporter? Of course not, as my outward support is merely superficial. In this respect, there is nothing intrinsically wrong in the RC hierarchy telling or rather “advising†people of how a particular difficult issue is viewed. This is particularly important when difficult social and moral issues are being debated in public or when any actions taken by public figures are viewed to be representative of the broader public view.
”Abortion is wrong – it is the destruction of a life no matter what and noone has the right to determine differently!”
I take it then that anyone who holds the above view would also hold the view that war and capital punishment is wrong.
Justin — I don’t get much time online during the week so that explains the delay in reply.
‘The atrocities carried out in the name of German Nationalism during the Second World War does not, in itself, define the German people of today.’
It would if the Nazi regime were still in place, undemocratic and unregulated.
‘Homosexuality, abortion, contraception…. “
No. Sadly such matters are now commonplace in this ever-increasing secular society we live in.’
Hello? These ‘matters’ have been commonplace for centuries, and well before biblical times.
Homosexuality (an entirely different debate I’ll accept) is, contrary to what many religionists assume, not a ‘lifestyle choice’. Many many people suffered and were unjustly persecuted and even murdered for the sexuality they were born with. Fortunately being gay is considerably more acceptable in many enlightened countries today, and it is vitally important that superstitious dogma is not allowed to turn back the clock on this, and other issues.
As for contraception, being ‘commonplace’ today, why on earth shouldn’t it be? Do we really want a return to huge poverty-stricken families, women chained to the kitchen and massive overcrowding?
And that’s before we mention the condoms and AIDS debate (again an issue for another day).
I note you side-stepped the issue of army recruitment being a ‘non-issue’ for the RC church.
Why for instance do the RC church not regard it as a sin for there to be ‘free movement’ of people throughout countries — surely denying asylum to many Africans is tantamount to a death sentence through starvation?
The more RC diktats / teachings / advice (delete as applicable) are studied, the more obvious it becomes that they are aimed primarily at women.
And why not? The Bible itself features some real crackers, including a raped woman having to marry her attacker and a father expected to give his daughter over for the sexual pleasure of others.
Should we perhaps be surprised that the RC church expects women to be baby machines, to refrain from abortion in every circumstance and to remain in abusive and miserable marriages for life?
Meanwhile, men get off pretty damn lightly. Unless they’re gay, there’s no particular problem with ‘wasting precious life’ by having one off the wrist as often as required for instance. I’d wager a few quid that if men had the babies and women did the ‘five knuckle shuffle’, they’d be the ones in the dock for ‘spilling seed.’
”but I have read many times over that the percentage of times a “life and death†situation has been used for an abortion is almost nil.”
You may well be right Justin, but your inflexible stance still prevents abortion even in this rare case.
”A person’s view or opinion of when a unique life begins lies at the heart of this point.”
Well actually it’s the law of the land that determines the times and circumstances for legal abortion, but if there are no documented cases of a foetus surviving outside the womb at less than 12 weeks, it’s fair to assume that at this point the foetus remains part of the mother’s body as opposed to a viable seperate entity.
How far do you want to take this scenario? Surely RC clergy are depriving children of life by abstaining from marriage? Surely mastrubation is a heinous sin — spilling God’s seed for selfish pleasure? Surely even using the rhythm method is cheating God of more children?
From a purely common-sense perspective, the planet’s population is rising at huge and clearly unsustainable levels. China did not introduce a one child per family policy for the fun of it.
Ireland for one has only very recently emerged from a poverty-stricken 10+ children per family scenario into a present where children have an immesurably better quality of life. Would you prefer a sustainable prosperous way of life or an over-populated nation teetering on the brink of collapse?
I’m well aware that abortion is a highly emotive issue and there are powerful arguments on both sides. I appreciate that posters like yourself and BOM feel passionately on the subject.
However adopting an Ian Paisley ‘never never’ stance will quite simply never win you the argument or the legislation. Secularism, as you disdainfully refer to it, is about choices within limits — religious dogma is about inflexible diktats without debate or hope of repeal.
That, I would suggest, is just one reason why the RC church is becoming increasingly irrelevant. A huge portion of it’s so-called members are flouting and ignoring even the most basic rules. It must change or atrophy. Does the RC hierarchy prefer an archaic slide into oblivion or a compassionate church in touch with it’s membership?
Why do people rely and believe so much in the bible. It’s suppose to be the word of god but it’s riddled with historical and geographical innaccuracies, as well as the rest. Why don’t committed and devout christians check this out. Are they afraid in case doubts about their faith might be aroused?
Life is really more about fate and less about faith.
People should get real FFS.
Greagoir — you’re right about the ‘fate’ statement.
Fate can be extremely random and unfair, and perhaps understandably, many people feel the need for a guidebook of sorts. The need to ‘know’ that some higher being is running things, rather than human life being a series of random events is almost universal.
On the surface, rather like a child having an imaginary friend, there really isn’t any harm in this. But when the ‘imaginary friend’ starts to lay down rules and interfere with other people’s lives, problems begin to occur and those who prefer some actual proof behind their legislation need to stand up and be counted. The notion that morality cannot exist without religious dogma is both arrogant and nonsensical.
The logical conclusion to unfettered religious power is the Taliban regime.
That’s why religious dogma must not be allowed to interfere in the arena of government.
GLC,
What I have written in defense of the RC Church on this thread would equally apply if I were writing about the FPC, the Scouts, the Brownies, the teaching profession etc As a practicing Catholic myself, I have no problem debating the Church and it’s theology with you though I wonder if this is the right thread for such a big topic. You could always ask Mick to set a thread going which would look specifically at the theological and structural make-up of the RC Church?
Your “critique†of the Church does not hold up because, with respect, you appear to be exceptionally ignorant of what it means “to be a Catholicâ€.
You are confusing your own “beliefs†with “factsâ€.
“…The more RC diktats / teachings / advice (delete as applicable) are studied, the more obvious it becomes that they are aimed primarily at women…â€
and
â€â€¦the RC church expects women to be baby machines…â€
Of course this is not the true. I forget who said “the less people know, the more loudly they’ll defend it!†People who make claims like this must only get their “knowledge†and “understanding†of RC theology from the likes of “The Sun†or “The Mirrorâ€. Much has been written about the role of women in the Church. Like many organizations, it is dynamic in so far as it is forever changing and adapting to the times in which it finds itself and that may mean changing how it views the role women play. In “The New Testamentâ€, Jesus was not afraid to challenge the social norms of that time. He stopped the crowd from stoning the prostitute but He did not choose a woman as one of the twelve. Why He did this is open for theological debate but it suggests that there is a deeper moral basis for how the Church views the role of women.
â€â€¦actually it’s the law of the land that determines the times and circumstances for legal abortion…â€
Of course it is but “who†decides the law of the land? Surely it’s us, the people and “how†or rather “why†do we decide on certain rules? Surely it’s because we want a better society for everyone to live in. This raises the issue of “right†and “wrong†and the estimated five million baptized Catholics in GB have a right to have their voice heard.
â€â€¦A huge portion of it’s so-called members are flouting and ignoring even the most basic rules…â€
Figures? Proof? Evidence?
â€â€¦the RC church is becoming increasingly irrelevant…â€
“1,114,966,000â€, hardly a small figure is it? It represents approximately one-sixth of the world’s population. If the views of so many people actually are becoming “increasingly irrelevantâ€, it would be very worrying in deed. However I suspect you are wrong. Though I have no figures to back this up, I get the impression that there are more people of faith in the world than there are without. Either way, it seems misguidedly arrogant to adopt an “I am right and everybody else is wrong.†Kind of attitude.
On the issue of “abortionâ€, I can only reiterate the very straightforward premise of my argument which is, each individual is equal and holds an equal right to “lifeâ€. As an individual’s “life†begins in it’s own unique form at conception, I feel comfortable holding the “inflexible stance “ that all abortion is wrong. I believe some things are “right†and some things are “wrongâ€. Abortion is wrong.
â€â€¦if there are no documented cases of a foetus surviving outside the womb at less than 12 weeks, it’s fair to assume that at this point the foetus remains part of the mother’s body as opposed to a viable seperate entity…â€
Wrong. This makes “abortion” sound like little more than having an ingrowing toe nail removed. The chillingly cold “logic†of this would suggest that a person’s right to exist depends on his or her own ability to function, in the biological sense, autonomously! If this were the case it would make a nonsense of the hippocratic oath. Our biology means that the foetus depends on the mother to protect it and help it develop. In the early stages of it’s existence, the foetus depends entirely on the mother. However even in those early stages, it has unique qualities that have never been before and will never be again. It is as unique then as it can ever be. I would like to know from supportres of “abortionâ€, when, in their view, does a person become “a personâ€? When do the rights of an individual come into effect? Is it as GLC seems to be suggesting, when a person, though possessing unique DNA,, can function independentlt on their own?
‘Your “critique†of the Church does not hold up because, with respect, you appear to be exceptionally ignorant of what it means “to be a Catholicâ€.’
Heh heh oh dear Justin. I’m not about to reveal my personal details but my knowledge and experience of the RC church is considerably greater than you seem to think.
â€â€¦the RC church expects women to be baby machines…â€
Of course this is not the true.”
So let’s see now. The RC church dictates that contraception is wrong, abortion is wrong and divorce is wrong. Assuming that most RC men have a normal sex drive, involving sex let’s say two or three times a week, this is inevitably going to result in pregnancy after pregnancy. And that’s exactly what happened in Ireland up until a few decades ago. Families of 10, 12 even 16 were commonplace. Very very few women would choose double figures as the ideal family size — this occured purely because of RC ‘teaching.’
You still think RC women weren’t expected to be ‘baby machines’?
â€â€¦A huge portion of it’s so-called members are flouting and ignoring even the most basic rules…â€
Figures? Proof? Evidence?”
See above — if the majority of RCs are not flouting the rules, how do you explain the much smaller family sizes these days?
Why did Catholic ROI recently vote for divorce? Why are mass attendances so sharply down?
‘Like many organizations, it is dynamic in so far as it is forever changing and adapting to the times in which it finds itself and that may mean changing how it views the role women play.’
Fascinating Justin. How has the RC church changed in say the last 50 years?
The operative word in your statement is ‘MAY’. Are there any signs of women priests?
‘He stopped the crowd from stoning the prostitute but He did not choose a woman as one of the twelve. Why He did this is open for theological debate but it suggests that there is a deeper moral basis for how the Church views the role of women.’
No it doesn’t! Jesus was around 2000 years ago — choosing a woman as a disciple would have been entirely unacceptable in those times. You could make an equally robust argument that since all the disciples had beards and were of middle-eastern appearance, that modern priests must comply with those rules also.
The RC hierarchy simply don’t want a woman about the place.
‘This raises the issue of “right†and “wrong†and the estimated five million baptized Catholics in GB have a right to have their voice heard.’
Only five million? That’s less than 10% of the population.
If those five million decide that abortion is not for them, then fair enough, no-one is going to force them to have one. But equally they must allow the remaining 90+% to make their own choices.
‘Though I have no figures to back this up, I get the impression that there are more people of faith in the world than there are without.’
You’re absolutely correct Justin. Faith is a human need for most people and that’s fine. The problem is that there are many different faiths. How can you ever reconcile Catholicism, Islam & Scientology for instance?
Faith is by definition just that, faith. It can’t be proved, and in the case of scientology, can literally be created and grow amazingly quickly in very modern times from one sci-fi author.
However actual laws of the land need to be formed and altered on a sober and realistic rather than archaic and one-sided basis.
‘Is it as GLC seems to be suggesting, when a person, though possessing unique DNA,, can function independentlt on their own?’
That’s my personal opinion Justin. As I accepted earlier, abortion is a highly emotive subject, but slamming the door on abortion in every single case is most definitely not the answer.
‘Either way, it seems misguidedly arrogant to adopt an “I am right and everybody else is wrong.†Kind of attitude.’
Absolutely true Justin, but unfortunately the church you defend does exactly that.
’Your “critique†of the Church does not hold up because, with respect, you appear to be exceptionally ignorant of what it means “to be a Catholicâ€.’
“…my knowledge and experience of the RC church is considerably greater than you seem to think…â€
“Knowledge†is one thing may be but “understanding†is an all together different matter. You are, with respect, confusing your opinion of the Church with the actual facts and merely endless vituperation, constantly restating an ill informed opinion does not strengthen your argument.
â€â€¦The RC church dictates that contraception is wrong…â€
Wrong. The Church holds the view that contraception is wrong. There is a difference. As I have already tried to point out, “The Church†IS the people; a people with shared beliefs. If people find themselves at odds with those views and beliefs, they are able to disassociate themselves from the Church as, in that case, they wouldn’t be able to subscribe to the shared view. This is why fallacious arguments suggesting the Church “dictates†what people believe are, at the very least, wrong and at worst ignorant of what it means to be a Catholic.
Assuming that most RC men have a normal sex drive, involving sex let’s say two or three times a week, this is inevitably going to result in pregnancy after pregnancy. And that’s exactly what happened in Ireland up until a few decades ago. Families of 10, 12 even 16 were commonplace. Very very few women would choose double figures as the ideal family size—this occured purely because of RC ‘teaching.’
You still think RC women weren’t expected to be ‘baby machines’?
I asked you for the figures, proof and evidence to back up your claim that â€â€¦A huge portion of it’s so-called members are flouting and ignoring even the most basic rules…†but all you offered was supposition and bland references to changes in social behavior. How many is “a huge portionâ€? I doubt very much that high birth rates on the African continent and in South America are the result of people who, due to the poor availability of condoms, are just too lazy to limit the number of children they have. Clearly there are bigger socio-economic reasons for this.
“Why did Catholic ROI recently vote for divorce?
RC doctrine accepts that there circumstances for divorce/marriage annulments.
â€Why are mass attendances so sharply down?â€
Now in our Western secular society, an “anything-goes†mentality seems to prevail and I would argue, society is all the worse because of it. As I have already said, I am of the opinion that some things are “right†and some things are “wrong†but the arrogance of the “anything-goes†mentality allows as many “rights†and “wrongs†as there are people on the planet! It allows people to abdicate their responsibilities. Such “relativism†allows people an easy, lazy way of taking responsibility for their actions.
â€â€¦How has the RC church changed in say the last 50 years?†/ “Are there any signs of women priests?â€
50 years? Why not longer? It responds to the social changes of the time it finds itself in. The RC Church of 2007 is clearly not the same RC Church of 1007 and I don’t doubt that the Church of today will be very different from what it will be in 3007. Within the Church, there are many who support the ordination of women and I for one, believe it will happen. As a side point, I think the question of “married priestâ€, be they male or female, is a more challenging issue for the Church as I think it would challenge Catholic theology to a much greater extent than the ordination of women ever would.
continued….
â€â€¦choosing a woman as a disciple would have been entirely unacceptable in those times..â€
My point precisely! Stepping in front of an angry crowd armed with stones and ready to attack the woman for perceived wrong doings shows that Jesus was not afraid to challenge the masse and tell them that what they were doing was wrong. So if He was prepared to risk His own safety for what He believed in this instance, surely it makes sense to ask why He saw fit to challenge this particular social norm and not that of having a woman as one of the Twelve. People will ultimately form their own theological conclusions from this but it would be hard to suggest that it was simply a matter of Him “not wanting a woman about the place†if he was prepared to challenge some of the social norms of the day that related to women – how very “Norn Ironâ€!
â€â€¦Only five million? That’s less than 10% of the population. If those five million decide that abortion is not for them, then fair enough, no-one is going to force them to have one…â€
10% of the population represents no small voting bloc when you consider the turn out is around 60% in GB elections; (just over seventeen million of all those registered to vote). It is interesting to note that in the GB general election in 2005, the turnout was “only five million†voters lower than it was in 1997! The Catholic voice has a right to be respected and heard without being belittled by those who hold a different view.
â€â€¦But equally they must allow the remaining 90+% to make their own choices….â€
Do you really think that all Catholics vote for the same party? Furthermore, do you think that on contentious and emotive issues, Catholics have no political allies who share the same view? Your posts on this thread might suggest you hold an over simplistic world view such as “Catholics†against “the non believing world†but the reality of the matter is somewhat different.
â€â€¦Faith is a human need for most people…â€
I agree, though I would go one step further and say “faith†(whatever that may be) is a spiritual need for all people.
â€â€¦How can you ever reconcile Catholicism, Islam & Scientology for instance?â€
Many (if not most) of the larger world religions are monotheistic and share their common beliefs.
â€â€¦Faith is by definition just that, faith. It can’t be proved…â€
Nor can it be disproved. (but I’m sure you guessed I was going to say that didn’t you?)
Science and Religion are seeking the same goals of “truth†and “understandingâ€. Science looks for the answers in trying to tell us “howâ€, for example “How†the universe came in to existence. Religion looks for the answers in trying to tell us “whyâ€, for example, “Why†the universe was created, “Why†our biology functions the way it does.
â€â€¦However actual laws of the land need to be formed and altered on a sober and realistic rather than archaic and one-sided basis…â€
It appears that you have little faith in mankind. I am of the opinion that the laws of the land should reflect the views and beliefs of the people it serves. There are laws that I am uncomfortable with, but if that is the majority view, then so be it. I know that moral correctness is not achieved through some kind of numbers game but that is how democracy works.
I can respect your view, despite being diametrically opposed to it. However, people are able to accept or reject the RC Church view on anything, so it sounds bizarre that you should suggest it adopts an “I am right and everybody else is wrong.†kind of attitude.’†Furthermore, it seems equally bizarre, (and more than a little chilling) that some one would feel justified in taking the life of another person, particularly in circumstances such as abortion. If a person possesses unique DNA, it means just that, they are “uniqueâ€. I believe the rights of any individual must be upheld, regardless of how old that person is or how dependant on others they may be. “Abortion†shows itself to be the simplistic, selfish and immoral answer to a difficult issue where there are conflicting rights.
“…it is a matter for serious concern that some people today deny the universality of human rights, just as they deny that there is a human nature shared by everyone. To be sure, there is no single model for organizing the politics and economics of human freedom; different cultures and different historical experiences give rise to different institutional forms of public life in a free and responsible society. But it is one thing to affirm a legitimate pluralism of “forms of freedom”, and another to deny any universality or intelligibility to the nature of man or to the human experience. The latter makes the international politics of persuasion extremely difficult, if not impossible.â€
Pope John Paul II,