Christian Discussion Thread III

[Blasveck]

Exactly. No killing unless killing is inevitable. I'm pretty sure the church allows for abortion if mother's life is in danger. It's still viewed as a tragedy though.

The Church provides no exceptions, abortion is intrinsically disordered against life.

Isn't that, y'know, contradictory?

[Grand Longueville]

The Church provides no exceptions, abortion is intrinsically disordered against life.

Isn't that, y'know, contradictory?

No.

[Blasveck]

If I understand the terms correctly. Doctrines cannot change. Dogmas can be changed.

Not so, dogmas are held to be immutable, they cannot be changed. Doctrines, too, cannot be changed, but doctrines can change in emphasis and style.

Shouldn't dogmas and doctrines be able to adapt?

[Blasveck]

Isn't that, y'know, contradictory?

No.

Even if the mother's life is in danger?

Isn't that disordered against life?

[Grand Longueville]

Not so, dogmas are held to be immutable, they cannot be changed. Doctrines, too, cannot be changed, but doctrines can change in emphasis and style.

Shouldn't dogmas and doctrines be able to adapt?

Yes, and they do; this adaption is done through emphasis and style. Likewise, some arguments are accepted. Celibacy, which is neither doctrine nor dogma, adapts as new arguments for it are found and thought of.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Exactly. No killing unless killing is inevitable. I'm pretty sure the church allows for abortion if mother's life is in danger. It's still viewed as a tragedy though.

The Church provides no exceptions, abortion is intrinsically disordered against life.

Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and of the child.

It is one of the finest and most noble aspirations of the medical profession to search continually for new means of ensuring the life of both mother and child. But if, notwithstanding all the progress of science, there still remain, and will remain in the future, cases in which one must reckon with the death of the mother, when the mother wills to bring to birth the life that is within her and not destroy it in violation of the command of God - Thou shalt not kill - nothing else remains for the man, who will make every effort till the very last moment to help and save, but to bow respectfully before the laws of nature and the dispositions of divine Providence." Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, November 26, 1951. (15)

I stand corrected.

[Dangelia]

Not so, dogmas are held to be immutable, they cannot be changed. Doctrines, too, cannot be changed, but doctrines can change in emphasis and style.

Shouldn't dogmas and doctrines be able to adapt?

No. Christ resurrected on the third day and went to heaven forty days later. That will never change that's dogma. Doctrine can be given knew definitions that doesn't contradict previous doctrines buts explains in more detail. Such as what the first few Ecumenical Councils did.

[Grand Longueville]

No.

Even if the mother's life is in danger?

Isn't that disordered against life?

No, it isn't disordered against life. If anything it is nature at work. Now, while the Church holds such an instance to be tragic, the murder of a baby is held to be inexcusable, it isn't an option.

[Blasveck]

Even if the mother's life is in danger?

Isn't that disordered against life?

No, it isn't disordered against life. If anything it is nature at work. Now, while the Church holds such an instance to be tragic, the murder of a baby is held to be inexcusable, it isn't an option.

Seems rather...why would the mother's life matter less? If God gave man the tools to save another's life shouldn't he use them? Better one life than two, right?

[Blasveck]

Shouldn't dogmas and doctrines be able to adapt?

No. Christ resurrected on the third day and went to heaven forty days later. That will never change that's dogma. Doctrine can be given knew definitions that doesn't contradict previous doctrines buts explains in more detail. Such as what the first few Ecumenical Councils did.

Certainly. But with change comes a change in attitudes towards certain doctrines and positions.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No, it isn't disordered against life. If anything it is nature at work. Now, while the Church holds such an instance to be tragic, the murder of a baby is held to be inexcusable, it isn't an option.

Seems rather...why would the mother's life matter less? If God gave man the tools to save another's life shouldn't he use them? Better one life than two, right?

See the quote I posted by Pope Pious XII, though I personally agree. In my mind I equate it to triage.

[Grand Longueville]

No, it isn't disordered against life. If anything it is nature at work. Now, while the Church holds such an instance to be tragic, the murder of a baby is held to be inexcusable, it isn't an option.

Seems rather...why would the mother's life matter less? If God gave man the tools to save another's life shouldn't he use them? Better one life than two, right?

The mother's life isn't held less. Life is life and they are both life. God gave man the tools to save lives, but does not ordain those tools to be used to save by killing.

[Blasveck]

Seems rather...why would the mother's life matter less? If God gave man the tools to save another's life shouldn't he use them? Better one life than two, right?

See the quote I posted by Pope Pious XII

I did, and unless I misread, it seems to be an 'all or nothing' position.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Seems rather...why would the mother's life matter less? If God gave man the tools to save another's life shouldn't he use them? Better one life than two, right?

The mother's life isn't held less. Life is life and they are both life. God gave man the tools to save lives, but does not ordain those tools to be used to save by killing.

That was beautifully put.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

See the quote I posted by Pope Pious XII

I did, and unless I misread, it seems to be an 'all or nothing' position.

It kind of is really.

[Blasveck]

I did, and unless I misread, it seems to be an 'all or nothing' position.

It kind of is really.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the matter then.

Though, that last bit concerning 'nature and divine providence' strikes me in some odd way.

Isn't disease and whatnot a matter of divine providence?

Or is this a misunderstanding on my part?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Apparently, Pious spoke at length on this.

"Deliberately We have always used the expression 'direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,' 'direct killing.' Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions - granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies." Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, Nov. 26, 1951. (17)

[Grand Longueville]

It kind of is really.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the matter then.

Though, that last bit concerning 'nature and divine providence' strikes me in some odd way.

Isn't disease and whatnot a matter of divine providence?

Or is this a misunderstanding on my part?

It is a misunderstanding, yes. Why do you think disease would be Divine Providence?

[Grand Longueville]

The mother's life isn't held less. Life is life and they are both life. God gave man the tools to save lives, but does not ordain those tools to be used to save by killing.

That was beautifully put.

I demand you place that in your signature.

EDIT: Right below above Luther.

[Blasveck]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the matter then.

Though, that last bit concerning 'nature and divine providence' strikes me in some odd way.

Isn't disease and whatnot a matter of divine providence?

Or is this a misunderstanding on my part?

It is a misunderstanding, yes. Why do you think disease would be Divine Providence?

Does that whole 'God's Will' come into play? That every naturally caused death somehow is of his intention or doing?

I might be confusing Catholic doctrine with Protestant doctrine, to be honest. I'm not entirely familiar with either, as I haven't found the time to refresh my memory.

[Grand Longueville]

It is a misunderstanding, yes. Why do you think disease would be Divine Providence?

Does that whole 'God's Will' come into play? That every naturally caused death somehow is of his intention or doing?

I might be confusing Catholic doctrine with Protestant doctrine, to be honest. I'm not entirely familiar with either, as I haven't found the time to refresh my memory.

As applied to God, Providence is God Himself considered in that act by which in His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized. That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and in particular that man should glorify Him, recognizing in nature the work of His hand, serving Him in obedience and love, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God. This (disease) would not be providential, I don't think.

As to your question, God makes manifest His will through the Church. Though, His will is not easily discerned.

[Blasveck]

Does that whole 'God's Will' come into play? That every naturally caused death somehow is of his intention or doing?

I might be confusing Catholic doctrine with Protestant doctrine, to be honest. I'm not entirely familiar with either, as I haven't found the time to refresh my memory.

As applied to God, Providence is God Himself considered in that act by which in His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized. That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and in particular that man should glorify Him, recognizing in nature the work of His hand, serving Him in obedience and love, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God. This (disease) would not be providential, I don't think.

As to your question, God makes manifest His will through the Church. Though, His will is not easily discerned.

Does he manifest his will through other 'methods' than the church?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It is a misunderstanding, yes. Why do you think disease would be Divine Providence?

Does that whole 'God's Will' come into play? That every naturally caused death somehow is of his intention or doing?

I might be confusing Catholic doctrine with Protestant doctrine, to be honest. I'm not entirely familiar with either, as I haven't found the time to refresh my memory.

God has a much more hands off role than we'd like. God doesn't cause car accidents, he doesn't send tsunami's and hurricanes, nor does he give disease. Rather he gives us comfort and strength, so we can endure these horrible things. That's not to say he doesn't kick out some miracles here and there.

The whole "God's Will" I think comes more from, once you have done all you can do, (that is morally acceptable) it must be left in God's hands, to do act or not act as he will.

You also have to remember, Christian Doctrine doesn't portray death as the ultimate horrible thin.. Life must be preserved sure, but death is but the greatest of all events, for we remove our mortal coil and join God in heaven.

[Grand Longueville]

As applied to God, Providence is God Himself considered in that act by which in His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized. That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and in particular that man should glorify Him, recognizing in nature the work of His hand, serving Him in obedience and love, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God. This (disease) would not be providential, I don't think.

As to your question, God makes manifest His will through the Church. Though, His will is not easily discerned.

Does he manifest his will through other 'methods' than the church?

I don't believe so, no. The Church, founded by God, is the primary (only) outlet for which the Will of God can be discerned.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Does he manifest his will through other 'methods' than the church?

I don't believe so, no. The Church, founded by God, is the primary (only) outlet for which the Will of God can be discerned.

Well, there are miracles are there not?