Pope makes saint of woman who died after refusing abortion

quote="doglover"]No, but I do expect them to come out of the dark ages. [/quote]

In some sense, they have.
John Paul II condems all terrorist acts, child soldiers, sexual abuse (specially by priests), the war in Iraq, the Israeli fence and neoliberalism.
It is a far cry from Pious XII blessing the tanks of Mussolini.

In some other sense, they haven't.
The Catholic church stance on homosexuality, divorce, birth control, women priests, embryo cloning or euthanasia tells us so.




The problem is that it always breaks the church walls, it is impossible that it does not influence society. More so, when the religious association is so powerful.
Religions are to be respected, but boundaries must be set so that the
influence of the churches (religious associations) is limited.

I beg to differ MOU. I have a problem with a religion who's philosophy is to look the other way and condone the sexual molestation of children. Child molestation and it's effects leave a legacy of hell and degredation on society and especially the abused child who is condemned to a life of guilt and pain.

I also have a major problem with any religion that views women as second class citizens in the 21st century.

Spirituality to me means "beyond ego," and I can't see how abandoning your children because of your belief, is a spiritual act. It seems like the woman could only think of her self.

It reminds me of a woman who, some years age, charged into a courtroom during a trial and shot to death the man who had sexually molested her child. Somehow, she couldn't get past her own need for revenge and realize that she was abandoning her child at the time the child needed her the most.

She left 3 children... that is not comendable.

Despite that, I'm not surprised that the Pope would do something like this. I agree that he should come out of the dark ages.

I really hope that someday, women are cared for and respected the way they should be.

I see this as yet another step towards the downfall of Catholicism.

I agree with your comments 100%.

fbaezer is right - all Catholic history is filled with Popes supporting criminals and nazis. Current Pope did huge step forward. He is also right that religion often breaks church walls. But that's different topic, and that's something every society has to deal with.


As for others, okay, I respect your opinion. I just think that everybody has right for his or her own choice. I may agree with you that I don't understand why woman would like to be a part of religion where she is second class citizen, BUT if she wants too then it's ALSO her choice.
After all there are very few if any Catholic countries where religion is forced in a way it is or was forced in some other religions. Women in Afghanistan had no choice (this is not against Islam but rather this particular country), women in Poland, Italy or Croatia don't have to be religious, they will have no problems neither in family nor in society. So, if they still want to be part of it - as I said - that's also part of FREE CHOICE.

It sounds to me a bit like if feminist would call women that WANT to be houseviwes or just to take care of their kids idiots. No, they're not. If you fight for someone to have right to be president, truck driver, priest or leader of UN then you have to give this same person right to be housewife.

Also, with all due respect, I find it pretty weird that someone is fighting for right for abortion and in the same time is not giving women right to give birth. It was her choice, she was not forced by anyone.

I agree with this completely. I had no problem with the woman chosing to do what she did, but I had a problem with the Pope making her a saint.

well in that part we agree.

I'm not a feminist, though, in case anyone thought that.

BBB,

To start off, I'm a practicing Catholic. I know about John Paul II's canonizations and that he has declared more saints than any other pope in history. I can see from the comments in here that most of you have a foggy understanding of the canonization process as well as Church teaching on a variety of issues. I don't blame any of you because Catholics have not done a good job in teaching their faith over the last 50 to 100 years. That is changing.

First off, a number of comments have been made concerning the so called "Dark Ages." Also there seems to be common agreement that the Church somehow still resides in them. Yet wasn't that period of history called dark precisely because important information was presumed to be held back from the common man? If so can any of you making these assertions tell me exactly what the Church actually teaches on any of the issues brought up? I suspect not and assume it is not the Church who has withheld that information since Her teachings are all found in one book called The Catholic Catechism (published 1994). We also have other official sources that are easily tapped on the internet at www.vatican.va and www.ewtn.com (encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, letters to the laity, articles and news from the Roman curia, etc...).

As for Mrs.Gianna Beretta Molla, she was not canonized because she gave her life for the child in her womb. No, that was yet another indication of the holy life she had lead up to then, which in fact is why any person, man, woman or child, is declared a saint. It is correct that there must be miracles involved after their death but only in order to confirm the life of sanctity that person lead. The important factor is the person lived out Church teaching in a holy manner and never taught heresy. And yes, of course we still have an "advocatus diaboli" whose job it is to find fault with the peron's life. While the Church ultimately depends upon the Holy Spirit to confirm each canonization through the Roman Pontiff, God still uses human agencies to carry out the actual process. This is because God is the Author of human reason and all other human faculities and works through them when performing miracles, the sacraments or in the canonization procedure.

An interesting note: The Church still has the much malaligned Office of Inquisition (another "dark" secret) which has been renamed to the Office for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. It's purpose has always been to see that authentic teaching is dispensed and not heresy or partial truth. Contrary to popular belief that office never damned anyone but rather excommunicated as a means to warn the person their soul was in danger. It was the civil government and questionable Catholic leaders and lay who committed the horrible acts the Inquisition is accused of which we all agree were crimes. Never has any official Church document or teaching advocated torture or taking the life of any person regardless of their belief. Nor have most Church officials given their consent for such acts. Unfortunately what has been taught in relation to this subject in our school books is mostly historic fiction or exaggeration.

In fact I submit that while the acts we all condemn during the Inquisitional period of human history were atrocious what is being applauded today is even worse. We have endorsed by law the murder of innocent and helpless children while still residing in their mother's womb. At least those who were murdered during the "dark ages" had a voice to cry out for help. The child in the womb cannot be heard to scream for it's life which is why someone else must speak up for them and it seems to be only those in the prolife movement who do so. Even those who died in Nazi death camps or on slave plantations had a voice if not feeble. Likewise for other issues mentioned here including the redefinition of marriage (so called "gay marriage"), homosexuality (specifically the act of sodomy), divorce (specifically remarriage within an already VALID marriage), birth control (artificial), women priests, embryo cloning and euthanasia. There is a teaching regarding each of these very important issues and I suspect not one of you could recite them to me accurately. I agree with all of them because I understand the how and why for the teaching which is rooted in the dignity of every human person as well as God's ordering of His Church. If you ask me I can explain further.

As for the often repeated phrase "separation of church and state," I have yet to find it in the Constitution of the United States OR it's foundational document, the Declaration of Independence. This is because it is NOT there! In fact the phrase was coined by Jefferson in a letter he wrote the the Danberry Baptist Congregation. And to your suprise you should note he never intended it to mean what is today proposed as it's definition. Our founding Fathers came from another country where the situation was the civil government ursurped the Church's authority. It was King Henry VIII who took over the Catholic Anglican Church making it his Church of England. This caused the cry of alarm to ring out for especially Protestants who came to this country not wanting this situation repeated under the new government they were forming. Unfortunately, due the ignorance of most people within our contemporary culture, we think the opposite is true. That they wanted to keep the Church and religion from interfering with government as some have stated here. This is a fallacy and has degraded over time to a complete wall being built between religious and government/public activities. Never in their wildiest dreams had our founding Fathers intended government to be without religious influence since they themselves were religious to some degree, more or less. The truth is they were asked questions like "What sort of government do you propose?" ...to which Jefferson replied "A Republic, if you can keep it!" And how did they propose it be kept? The reply again was we must be governed by "a moral and religious people" if we intend to keep our new form of government. Bar a common moral sentiment from government and you will have Nazi Germany all over again.

You can find these and many other statements with strong religious connotations in the writings of the founding Fathers. The important point for me is that allowing men and women of religious persuation to influence our government policies in no way prevents atheists, agnostics, deists or even irreligious from maintaining influence also. It seems unjust for anyone to insist religious beliefs must be checked at the door of public office since even the non-religious have beliefs which influence their decisions and actions. It seems to me rather, that every man's opinions should be laid at the table of political discussion in order that we determine fairly which IS the best by popular vote. It also seems fair to me that the president (or any other office) be occupied by the best qualified man (or woman!) without exclusion for religious belief (Catholics were traditionally barred from office, especially the presidency, until John F. Kennedy was elected) OR for irreligious belief. For this to work we must allow everyone to discuss freely their own views and again this seems only fair since our favorite mantra in this country is "freedom of speech." Yet routinely Christian and especially Catholic voices are truncated from or misrepresented in public debate by the popular media. When we decide as a people whom to choose for a given office we EXCLUDE the others and this is the basis of our political system. This is the only government censorship which is sanctioned by our political process. What we base this censorship on must be well understood to be the ethical views and moral actions of the candidates being chosen. Otherwise the office of presidency can easily be filled by the shoes of a dictator under democratic approval. This to me would seem to nullify our our whole political process. In the end we vote in the kind of person we want whether he be moral or immoral, a saint or a tyrant.

Concerning statements on the Church's teaching for abortion: Simply put, we can do no harm. In other words one can never take an innocent life in order to save another. This is one of the ways people try to justify procured abortion. We can do what Mrs.Gianna Beretta Molla did, offer her life for the sake of her child. Contrary to what was said here no one has to offer their life for another nor is it a sin to leave other children without a mother in this situation. Actually it has always been considered courageous by rational men and women when someone gives their life for another. It has always been called love. Are their any exceptions to the rule prohibiting abortion? No! In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where the child implants in the flopian tube, which would surely kill the mother if it were allowed to continue, removing the child is considered a moral act. Why? Because the intent is not to directly harm the child but to remove the defective organ, the uterus. That the child dies is a secondary and undesired affect of the operation so this type of "abortion" is not considered wrong. Any abortion where the child's death is directly willed is always immoral and most abortions today fall into this category. Abortion's illicitness does not revolve around any person's belief but around the fact that the fetus (Latin for little one or tiny child) is a human person. Science recognizes this when it attempts to push back the time when a premature born baby can be saved. We also know that the complete DNA structure of an adult is present at even the earliest stages of life, called embryonic. Philosophically human life begins at the moment of conception when the sperm permeates the egg. Pre-scientific philosophers argued exactly when a soul was infused in a person but they all agreed it was wrong to kill a person at any stage of human life. They presumed one cannot shoot into the bushes until they know in fact the object is not human. Theologically we are taught God directly infuses a soul at the moment of fertilization and even the pagan Greek philosophers recognized this when they taught it is the soul that animates the body. There is no reason for anyone in our scientifically oriented culture to believe otherwise except that the our schools and the media withhold this information. In my lifetime they've shown the "product of conception," an aborted fetus, once on TV, while each of us has seen literally thousands upon thousands of depictations of murder and blood shed through the movies and news each year. We have a double standard for what is allowed to be shown in public which is not rational.

So much for freedom of speech! One of the sobering things I've realized over the last ten years of practicing my Catholic faith is that in our current culture of "tolerance" the only permissable prejudice remains against the Catholic Church. Yet, I've found few if any hate the Church or Her teachings but rather a badly distorted caricature of it. So I'd dare say that what most of you reject in this room is not Catholic teaching but something else. All the Church's teaching has been constant thoughout the over two-thousand years She's existed and can be summed up with two words: love and life! This is the Golden Rule in the words of holy scripture... "love God, love others." I dare any of you to find an official document of the Church that states otherwise precisely because I know it cannot be found. And maybe you don't understand the "saintliness of a woman leaving her four children motherless in the name of religion" because that's not what she did. Nor is it why she was canonized as I've said earlier. The reason she allowed her life to be taken we've traditionally called charity or selfless love. It seems the common attitude today is to reject anything traditional as antiquated, unenlightened or as has been said here, their "philosophy is coming from dark ages." Nevertheless the Church teaches we cannot pit one human life against another. The child's life does NOT take prescidence over the mother's life. That it is "reasonable that the mother's life is preeminent" is the current societal misconception propagated by a one-sided media steered by powerful anti-life groups with money making interests. Human life is equal at the level of nature meaning each person's value is intrinsic to their imaging God and not some changing "quality of life" put forth by proabortion or euthanasia ideologies. All human life is sacred which is why the Church officially condemned the murder of slaves, Jews, and even abortion "doctors." We cannot presume to take one person's life in order to save another (without their permission) which is exactly why the Church condemns things like human cloning and genetic manipulation for research or medical therapy. The Church's teaching on the sanctity of all human life is uniform and I challenge anyone to provide evidence otherwise. She condemns both abortion and sexual misconduct whether or not She is perceived to handle devient priests in the way we like. The Church has produced Mother Theresa's and St. Maximillian Colby's while our culture produces Jack Kevorkians and Hitlers. The Church condemns the immoral acts of SOME of Her priests (less than one percent of men in the priesthood has committed sexual crimes) while treating them no less human than their victims! The Church seeks to make us more fully human and not degrade our humanity with euphemisms like "my body, my choice." This is something our world does not understand because it rejects Christ's teachings and again... in most cases because it probably never understood them. Our society propagates the Hollywood mentality of the superhero eradicating all persons considered to be evil villians while the Church teaches all human beings are both sinful and deserving of our love. She balances this reality of love with justice AND mercy... both necessary for the sustenance of a civil society.

Sincerely, TCB

I beg to differ MOU. I have a problem with a religion who's philosophy is to look the other way and condone the sexual molestation of children. Child molestation and it's effects leave a legacy of hell and degredation on society and especially the abused child who is condemned to a life of guilt and pain.

I also have a major problem with any religion that views women as second class citizens in the 21st century.

doglover,
I also have a major problem but with this continuing misrepresentation of the Catholic Church you present. She not only does not treat women as second class citizens but She alone upholds their dignity first as human persons. Then as women who should be treated with the care of a delicate flower and not as some guy in a dirty machine shop who hangs them on a wall for his gratification. For this is how our culture ultimately wants to treat women when it lifts up sexual promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality and abortion as virteous behaviors to be desired. The Playboy/Hustler mentality prevails in this culture which continues to teach women should be treated as objects of mens sexual fantasies. (If you don't believe me type a woman's name or body part in your computer and see exactly what you get) It also teaches women are only equal when they not only are treated as men but act like them. I submit women on work crews along the road and in combat as example of this. Of course the Church you put down condemns this whenever it robs a woman of her dignity and while seeing women who look like men using a jack hammer might not fit this prohibition, those in combat do, because it is a woman who is to be protected and a man who should protect. The Church teaches that a woman's manifest dignity lies in her femininity which is intrinsic to her nature as a human being who is female. The Church teaches she should express this in a manner consonant with her gender, that is as the one to be protected and charished by a man. She should dress herself in moderation, not in a Puritanical sense, nor as the pornographer displays. Rather her dress and manner should point to her character which comes from inside and not without. In light of this Pope John Paul II has said the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much but too little! Abortion leaves women with the whole responsibility for having and raising children, or the always evil choice of killing the child in utero to circumvent this responsibility. The man is then free from his responsibility to provide for both and continue seeking pleasure alone. A woman's beauty lies in the fact she alone can bear children and nurture them on her breasts. Our culture is blind to this inalterable difference between men and women and no amount of cosmetic surgery can change our innate gender because it goes as deep as the soul, which is expressed through our body. Contraception and abortion rob a women of the one thing men cannot participate in making her less than human since to be fully human is to use one's bodily faculities to their fulliest. This does not mean having as many babies as possible as some contend but merely to remain open to the possibility of children. At the same time no woman can impregnate herself and thus it takes two to procreate. A man is not complete without a woman. The two are compliments and not enemies of each other contrary to radical feminist teaching. Life is always the natural fruit of love and love always supports life... it NEVER unjustly ends life it or does harm. Prostitution and homosexual acts seek to severe the connection between life and love leaving one with neither. True and lasting happiness come only when we are fully alive or in other words when we do not lessen or prevent those powers intrinsic to our nature. Human sexuality was meant to unite a man and woman and bring new life into this world in imitation of the Designer of that nature who loves the human species so much that He took on their nature.

Abortion is an abuse of children our society has yet to recognize just as was slavery of Negros and the mistreatment of other ethinic groups. Yes, there have been priests who abuse children yet the Church not only does not ignore them, but has teachings against their behavior, which those same priests should have been teaching as well as practicing. BUT! Our culture does ignore it's own guilt in this same area and has no coherent teaching on human sexuality. Nor does any other religion have an unchanging teaching on the nature of men and women and what is proper to their relationships. And I dare say the numbers of those who molest children and women is much greater than in our society at large than within the Church during any period of history. The Church does not dismiss Her member's guilt with slogans like "my choice" or "my right." On the contrary She has a very distinct voice whom all recognize and because most are not in agreement they attack. She alone supports the victims who are deemed undesirable and labeled "unwanted" or "unplanned." She alone stands against this idea that one's "quality of life" is not good enough to be protected by law against harm. She fights against so called "mercy killing" of the elderly, handicapped or terminally ill. She alone speaks up for the lone children whose only crime is that they reside in a mother's womb. She alone shouts out against child pornography when others claim this is a "free speech" or "rights" issue. She alone disciplines Her members by excommunication when other voices shout "unfair treatment!" She has a sacramental system where people can go get their sins forgiven while the world simply denies a sin. She also gives out penances whereas the world psychoanalyzes away crime. She teaches moderation in all things except love for God and man. The world teaches love thyself and take whatever you want even if by force as examplified by the terrorist acts of September 11th, 2001 or the judical branch reversing legislative orders concerning homosexual unions.

It's interesting to note that this Church you accuse of demeaning women has elevated one woman to a status second to only one other person who was considered to be God. Mary, mother of Jesus has always been venerated above the other saints and is considered to be Queen of Heaven and Earth. Along this same line the Catholic Church has made approximately 6 persons doctors of the Church, among them are three women: St. Theresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux, and St. Edith Stein. This is the Church's highest honor after the blessed Mother Mary's status. I ask you now to explain how a church that treats women the way you say it does can give these women it's highest honors? How exactly can women martyr's be canonized along side men if She is so prejudiced against them? How can this Church's teaching produce women like Mother Theresa who willingly submitted herself to the work no other person would do... that was "to serve the poorest of the poor?" And how is it that so many hospitals were started by women whom this Church formed? And why are there so many parishes and saints with women's names if this Church is so disrespectful of them? I suspect you make the same mistake as our society which equates human worth with what we do. This is why our culture insists women must be dewombed and men castrated by birth control to be equal. Contraception has become the norm which effectively neuters a person leaving them only partially human yet the mindset tells us it's a virtue to use. In fact many advocates would have us believe we are less human without birth control and irresponsible toward the environment. Population control is thus forced on the world's populas (by our ignorance and deliberate misinformation) in order that we protect nature by preventing and killing human beings already in existence. This behavior is in fact the prescription for exactly what is undesired, the destruction of our environment. It can only be saved by teaching people to live responsible lives starting with teaching children to clean up their room, adults to take care of their property, business owners their businesses. There has never been a child denied conception who has taught those living to take care of their world. Instead the irresponsible act of contraception has reinforced humanity's natural tendency toward selfishness. Smaller populations, and worse yet, less and more immature people, are the cause of our enviromental problems where they exist. More people means more hands to take care of our earth. More virtue instilled in these persons means more who will care about our world and nature. And the Church, rightly so, has always encouraged us to prevent bad behavior and not prevent people. Human worth is priceless precisely because as the Church teaches life is a gift from God. We don't cause it... we have no right to take it. We have a duty to protect, support and heal lives when illness strikes. The "defectives" Margaret Sanger would have us prevent or abort are said to be sacred by the Church and their life should be inviolable. Only this Church which you claim "views women as second class citizens in the 21st century" has insisted down throughout the centuries that abortion is wrong. Isn't it interesting that in China, with it's One Child policy, girls who are routinely aborted. Again the Church says this is an unnecessary evil! What is wrong with our world is not that the Church teaches against our welfare but that Her teachings are not known accurately nor heeded when they are. Enemies of the Church should be your enemy too if you are truly concerned with the good of all women, born or preborn. You should also have a problem with those "who's philosophy is to look the other way and condone the sexual molestation of children" whether in their mother's womb or not as well as the abuse of adults... even if they have no religion at all! Do you? Or maybe you think tearing apart a child in the womb is safe? Maybe you've bought the lie that a baby burned to death by saline abortion feels nothing? Or maybe you were never told this? Will your anger include all who harm women in all the Devil's cunning ways?


Sincerely, TCB

It seems quite clear to me that the rise in number of canonizations reflects at least in good part political problems of the Church. It has recently canonized its first Mexican Indian saint, Juan Diego (whose very existence is controversial), in order to resist the massive inroads of Protestant proseltyzing in Mexico. Mother Teresa was a fund raiser, not much else, as far as I'm concerned. She was self-sacrificing, but no more so than many low profile nuns I known who have never been acknowledged by the Church as has high profile Mother Teresa and her order. Next, they'll canonize a pedophiliac priest for resisting his urges. Well, THAT might be valid. In any case, just about every corner of the world is now going to have a saint to identify with. Great recruitment and retention strategy if you ask me.

ratjaws, we weren't talking about child abusing. Child abusing is criminal act and no religion or institution can be allowed to do it.
We talked about stuff that is not violation of human rights if all persons in it agree with it.
And you can't mix actions of some Catholic priests with what exactly this religion is preaching. Nowhere in Bible you will find something about child abusing being okay.

There are numerous examples of what in Catholic Church I dislike and found ridicoulous, but these are not violations of human rights (even when it comes to homosexuals, because they are giving opinion, which they have right to give).

Quote:
Not only Catholics but I think most who believe an unborn child is a human life would have problem killing that child. It is not so much any religious dogma as a deep seated reverence for life.

I think it is all a matter of priorities. No matter what a person's views, pro or con, on the humanity of a fetus, I believe that a person who is already born takes precedence over a being who has not been born yet. Therefore, when it is a ife and death decision, either the mother or the fetus, I think that it is only reasonable that the mother's life is preeminent.


Phoenix,
This is the common misconception among the secular world about the Catholic understanding of the abortion issue. We cannot pit the child in the womb against it's mother anymore than we could a one year old against either of it's parents. Both are alive, both are human, both are persons, both are innocent of any crime and both deserve the exact same protection under any good law. As I've explained before in other words we can never seek to harm the fetus that the mother may live. On the contrary we must work to save them both and if in the process one should die, even if it be the child in the womb, that implies no immoral act on the mother or doctor's part. I described what looks like an exception to this rule in another post but actually it is not. In an ectopic pregnancy it's not the fetus who endangers the mother's life but the condition of the pregnancy. When a surgen removes the placenta because the baby implanted in the wrong place the baby (at the fertilized ovum stage) dies as a secondary and undesired affect of the operation. It is not a directly willed harm that causes the child to die so the act is moral unlike in procured abortion. In the majority of abortions the object is to kill the child which is why it is always immoral. In other cases than this where the woman's life may be endangered both the child and mother can be saved. We end up with a premature baby as opposed to a dead baby which is the intent of "legal" abortion in this country. This whole evil procedure will be stopped when a majority of people recognize the difference and demand procured abortion be made illegal.

As for "the humanity of the fetus" if what grows in a woman's womb is not a person from the moment of it's conception then it is never a person. That is the ultimate question which can and must be answer in the affirmative. This question, as I have indicated before, is a theological, philosophical and scientific matter whereas each discipline can address some part of the question, altogether they provide the clearest and most complete answer. There is absolutely no question about the humanity of the fetus since a beaver is a beaver and a beaver begets like nature. This is to say the offspring of any creature always has the nature of it's parents. This follows in that we cannot breed between unlike genera. We can cross one breed of dog with another and obtain a third mixed breed dog but we cannot cross a dog and a cat. Likewise when two human beings come together the result is always another human or nothing at all. If it is living, if it grows, then it MUST be human or it would not live and grow. To be simply human without being a person is impossible and it is our personhood that makes us greatest in the animal kingdom. Our personality so to speak is rooted in our intellectual nature and our ability to think rationally. Intelligence is a spiritual act because in knowing a flower we become that flower or unite with it only in a mode different from the materiality of that flower (in the mode of knowing). Knowledge cognitively speaking is an act where we "ingest" the object known and become it without ceasing to be human. No rock, plant or lower animal is capable of doing this. We cannot put a thought or knowledge under a microscope and analyze it because it is spiritual. Because of our intelligence we are able to self-reflect which no other animal can do.

So thought is a spiritual power which no non-human animals possess and therefore implies an immortal soul. Our soul, since it cannot decay or be divided makes it unable to die so we say it is immortal. This immortality inherent in our nature gives the human person a dignity infinitely higher than any other animal, which cannot be debased. Human life is therefore sacred and inviolable. It is by virtue of our spiritual soul that we consider the sanctity of human life true. Furthermore we cannot create human life nor should we ever take it except under the conditions our Creator has inscribed on our conscience. Those conditions fall under defense of self, family, friends and group, tribe or nation. These conditions can only be identified where there is an aggressor involved. There is such a thing as a just defense and a just war but it is important to note that even though abortion advocates use the mother's life as defense for their position it cannot apply here because the unborn child is never the aggressor. As I've said before, it's a physiological condition that causes a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy or any other abnormal condition within pregnancy. It is the medical condition that must be treated and not the child who should be killed. The ectopic pregnancy is therefore a special condition which must be treated to protect the mother's life with a secondary effect that the fetal child will die. If there were a better way to operate on this type of abnormality all parties involved would be happy just as when doctors are able to save a premature born child at an earlier and earlier age.

The key in Catholic moral thinking is that both person's are treated alike. We attempt to protect both lives even if that should fail in one or both cases. Death is an unfortunate inevitable condition for all human beings but should never be considered a good means to an end. Death is something to be avoided at all reasonable costs. Death from abortion is not the same as a natural death which even in the case of euthanasia is justified. I mean by this that so called "mercy killing" is also never a moral act but no one is required to use extraordinary means to stay alive. This means that all medical interventions can be avoided (such as a lung machine) if they unnecessarily prolong a person's life. At the same time food and water are not medical interventions rather necessary ingredients for sustenance of life. The point here pertinent to the abortion issue is that any means of directly killing a patient is always immoral such as Jack Kevorkian's "death machine" or drug injections. Allowing one to die naturally at the right time by withdrawing extraordinary medical equipment is not to be considered euthanasia and is therefore licit. Likewise in case of danger to a mother's life allowing the baby to die is not the same thing as directly causing it's death by some deliberate act such as an aspiration vacuum machine or saline injection. The difference is subtle yet clear.
Quote:
At the same time I will not presume to judge a woman who chooses the life of her child over her own. (Foxfyre)
I would. I think Foxfyre, that on this issue, we need to agree to disagree!

Phoenix, on the issue of abortion we cannot "agree to disagree." Abortion is always and everywhere an evil to be avoided. And as Foxfyre also said well; "Pro life advocates do see an unborn child as a human life who at some point, even within the womb, is capable of feeling, experiencing, and, for all we know, thinking. Therefore, to these people, it is morally wrong to knowingly damage the child with alcohol, certain drugs, improper diet, etc. It would follow that they would certainly see it as morally wrong, even murder, to intentionally take the life of that child." The only problem I have with this statement is the implication that abortion is a moral issue only to those that believe. To the contrary it is a moral issue concerning every human being and it is that precisely because all human acts are moral in nature. This is because we are intellectual creatures, being with a conscience. We were meant to judge our acts and always choose the greatest good. That is our nature. To say in this issue of life or death we can "agree to disagree" is to degrade the life of those in danger of death. Especially an unjust death for justice enters the picture where there is innocense. The child in the womb can have no guilt for any crime because it is unable to commit one let alone reflect. And while Foxfyre was correct in asserting prolifers consider the fetus "capable of feeling, experiencing, and, for all we know, thinking," it is a secondary point. That the fetus is a person is all that is required for us to protect it's life with our own. Still, on this point while the fetus is unable to show it's ability to think it is nevertheless capable of thought because that is the nature of the thing, so to speak. A two-week old infant does not manifest the same ability to think as an adult but it does not follow it is not human. Nor should we assume they don't have the capacity to think. That capacity simply needs to develope. Why should we think less of the two-week old fetus? Again, and this has been my main point all along, the nature of a being does not change at some point in it's developlment rather it becomes more clear, as with an acorn which given enough time, eventually blossoms into a tree quite unlike the form it originated from. While a zygote may not look anything like a full grown adult, the seed contains all that is necessary to produce the adult form. If not it could never become what it is to become.

Sincerely, TCB

Quote:
ratjaws, we weren't talking about child abusing. Child abusing is criminal act and no religion or institution can be allowed to do it.
We talked about stuff that is not violation of human rights if all persons in it agree with it.
And you can't mix actions of some Catholic priests with what exactly this religion is preaching. Nowhere in Bible you will find something about child abusing being okay.

There are numerous examples of what in Catholic Church I dislike and found ridicoulous, but these are not violations of human rights (even when it comes to homosexuals, because they are giving opinion, which they have right to give).
MyOwnUsername,
Child abuse was brought up by doglover, whose text I cited in my reply. Abuse in general was brought up by others like fbaezer. I think both sides of this issue have been argued but what I'm concerned with is pitting the Catholic Church's stance on abortion against the priest abuse of children (or adolesent boys). My main point here was that the former refers to the Church's teaching, doctrine, and the latter to particular member's behavior. I also pointed out the Church teaches against both abortion and all forms of child abuse. In fact abortion is yet another form of child abuse that is almost always deadly so applies to the topic at hand. The Church is consistent in Her moral teaching and always will be even though some of Her members may choose to disregard them in what they teach or worse yet in how they act. One cannot discount Church teaching based upon Her member's acts. In fact, Christ, who instituded the Church, said of the Pharisees who were some of the biggest hippocrates in His time, to "DO as they say... NOT as they do!" Again my point is this prescription still stands, don't commit abortion because it's just as wrong as any other form of child abuse or abuse of human beings in general. Our culture (maybe I should say our cultures since you are in Croatia) is rife with excuses why we should allow abortion and keep it legal yet the Catholic Church remains firm in Her stance against it and always will even though She may stand alone. Furthermore even if every single human being stood up and agreed abortion was a good that would still not make it any less evil than it is. Abortion is a form of murder that solves no problem but rather introduces a new one complete with it's associated guilt. Likewise for all other forms of child abuse even by priests of which you seem to have the impression I condone. I, like you, can use scripture to support my stance against all forms of abuse and murder including the above.
As for violation of human rights, no one has a right to sin. Homosexuality, according to Catholic teaching is not a sin but the act one commits called sodomy is. Nor is the temptation to that "life style" a sin. Sin is in the will and one can be tempted by any number of evil desires but not give in to them. Nevertheless it is a sin to tempt others to sin so the pro-homosexual movement which has become stronger across the world is a an act of sin for those who participate in it. To violate another person's human right is also to sin so it matters not whether the homosexual lifestyle is a "right." Of course we all have opinions but that can never dismiss moral absolutes. The trick is to match our opinions, which you correctly say we all have a right to, with what is morally right. What is morally right is always a good for the human person. The converse is when our opinion is morally wrong it goes against our good and those around us. Morality is universal contrary to popular opinion and it is so because we all can be harmed by the same kinds of acts since we are all of the same human nature. To argue otherwise is to merely show one's self deeply confused. I also submit to you that the opinions we hold manifest the formation of our conscience and so they cannot make one neutral in the moral order. We all have an obligation to form our conscience properly as the Church teaches. Not to do so when one is able can mean one has sinned.

What goes on in our world where it concerns the acceptance of abortion and homosexual behavior is wrong and this will never change no matter who says it has. Another point I have been trying to make is that both of these acts are contrary to our nature because they are against life. Sodomy renders a couple's conjugal act sterile while abortion takes an innocent and helpless person's life. Neither are condoned by our Creator or any good religion. It's interesting to note that not only the Church teaches against sodomy but so does Judaism and the Muslim faith. Muslims also reject contraception and this is one of the reasons they are so prolific. This will be ultimately why their religion is so successful if and when they take over the world, because as the family goes so goes the world! You should seen in this that contraception is also anti-life which is why the Church rejects all three.

=======================================
Quote:
It seems quite clear to me that the rise in number of canonizations reflects at least in good part political problems of the Church. It has recently canonized its first Mexican Indian saint, Juan Diego (whose very existence is controversial), in order to resist the massive inroads of Protestant proseltyzing in Mexico. Mother Teresa was a fund raiser, not much else, as far as I'm concerned. She was self-sacrificing, but no more so than many low profile nuns I known who have never been acknowledged by the Church as has high profile Mother Teresa and her order. Next, they'll canonize a pedophiliac priest for resisting his urges. Well, THAT might be valid. In any case, just about every corner of the world is now going to have a saint to identify with. Great recruitment and retention strategy if you ask me.

JLNobody,
Maybe so? Maybe the Pope is canonizing more saints today because we have an even greater need for true models to follow. Surely Hollywood actors gave this up a long time ago when the majority of them decided to embrace the different ideologies floating around out there. The funny thing is most actors can imitate people with solid characters but sadly don't live them. And those who spend their lives writing and broadcasting news give us few good models too. They seem to be concentrated on making a profit as opposed to making a better society, never mind reporting in a balanced manner. Where else do our models come from... history? Well teachers seem to have dropped the ball too since they started giving in to historical revisionism. Don't take me wrong! Not all in these groups are bad role models but generally speaking good ones are hard to find. So thank God for the holy Father's inspiration to make more saints from every culture available to us for our imitation.

The way you speak about Juan Diego and Mother Teresa makes me wonder what your criteria is for a good person! I'm amazed one can dismiss "self-sacrifice" so easily without giving any suitable substitute. By the way Jaun Diego is our mascot for prolife work since the image he bore of the blessed Mother showed her to be pregnant. I wonder if this talk of "politics" is maybe your way of beating around an anti-life bush you stand behind? As for the Pope leaving out so "many low profile nuns" his intent is not to list all who are in heaven but the most noteable who lead examplary lives here on earth. If you have suggestings for whom Pope John Paul II should pick why don't you write him and maybe we'll have yet another good model for our time? Heaven knows we need all we can get. And finally I think that might be a good thing for an "ex-pedophiliac priest" to be canonized but I don't think it will every happen... even though that priest repent and slip into heaven. After all the canonization process is meant to pick "the cream of the crop" so our models are spotless. The Church holds up not the least common denominator for our scrutiny but one who showed holiness all throughtout their life thereby we have something high to aim for. It's our world that tries to reduce everyone to animals and in the process gives us a society which acts lower than them! I say to aim for heaven is a better strategy than to play politics with human lives and souls

Sincerely, TCB.

Ratsjaw, when you say that "Maybe the Pope is canonizing more saints today because we have an even greater need for true models to follow" are you suggesting that when there is less need for models the Pope lets potential saints go unrecognized/uncanonized?. Is the Pope legitimately recognizing saints only because of a pragmatic need for them? Sounds a bit cynical to me.
Sincerely,
JLNbody

ratjaws, if the Catholic Church fantasizes as you do about women, it does indeed consider them second-class citizens.

Exactly what do women need to be "protected against," and why do you think that we are incapable of protecting ourselves? We are not "delicate flowers" but strong human beings.

Bearing babies until minds and bodies are exhausted is inhuman. Denying women control over their own bodies is inhumane (the rhythm method is simply not reliable enough for many women). and there is nothing wrong with having sex for fun, not procreation.

Yes, the church venerates Mary and a few female saints, but it also bars women from being priests.

You have a lot of misconceptions about abortion. Most are done within the first few weeks of pregnancy and kill an embryo, not a person. IMO, a fetus becomes a person only when its brain develops to the point that consciousness might be possible, after about 24 weeks of gestation.

You say that souls cannot decay nor be divided. Did you know that a fertilized egg can split into two embryos up to 10 days after conception? Does God then divide the egg's soul, or does he add one? What about the 2/3 of fertilized eggs that fail to grow into babies? Do they have souls? What about the 15% that are miscarried? Does God recycle these rudimentary souls, or simply decline to ensoul eggs that he knows will not make it? If so, embryos that he knows will be aborted might not have been given souls.

Women do not choose abortion because they are evil, but because they are the only ones who are qualified to decide exactly when and to whom they want to bear children. God has proven time and time again that He cannot be relied on to make the best choices for them.

Terry, your points are all on the mark. One of the absurdities of this issue is the Church's theologically arbitrary notion that, not just life, but the person begins at the moment of conception. This has caused great mischief for humanity, as seen most recently in the condemnation of stem cell research. I should think that if the Church wants to survive through the 21st century it will have to catch up with scientific and humanistic progress, rather than try to block them and drag us back toward the Dark Ages. By the way, the Church's most salient characteristically is its manichean dualism. It defines the world in terms of oversimplistic and opposed absolutes.

What a crock.

Love God, fear the church.

Sums it up nicely.