Corruption and Opulance in the Church

[MikeyLove]

From www.saint-mike.org:

Corruption and Opulance in the Church

Question:

I was recently in a debate in which I beleive I gave a rather poor showing, so I'd like to have some help if the topic were to be broached in the future.

How does one defend the Church in light of the current abuses? What I am referring to are the priest child abuse scandal, etc. How does one defend celibacy in light of these abuses?

Also, how does one also defend the opulance of the Church? It is one of the richest organizations in the world with priceless masterpieces everywhere, yet it preaches the values poverty and selflessness. One of the examples given was the opulance that the local archbishop lives in (a multimillion dollar high rise).

I took the position that the church may have corrupt elements but that comes from being a very old buracracy. I said that every organization goes through periods of relative decadence and the Church is fallible in matters of buraucratic administration and efficiency and therefor mistakes are to be deplored but not unexpected. I also stated that loyalty in the Church was, and needs to be, to the faith of the church. The people who left the church after the abuse didn't "get it." Apastolic tradition is still valid before as well as after and the same is true of Christ's message. He responded by saying, in effect, "by their fruits you shall know them." So, could you help give me some ammunition to help defend this in the future? I honestly beleive he's overstating his case as far as corruption is concerned, but I don't have enough facts to prove it.

Thanks in advance.

Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM

Dear John:

The first thing to remember is the these arguments are false arguments made by unthinking people who are bigots. Remember the source of such ignorant arguments.

With that said, the issue of celibacy has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with sexual abuse. The FACTS are that most child abusers are MARRIED MEN.

Among professionals the 66% of the perpetrators come from the professionals of (in this order) psychiatry, psychology, and social work. This is according to a study by the Wisconsin Psychological Association.

The same study found that only 11% of those in the profession of clergy have molested. Now ANY percentage other than ZERO is too much, but the point is that the largest problem of molesting children is not priest (only 1 1/2 percent of priest have sinned in this way), nor is it clergy; it is the Mental Health Profession.

Who do children end up going to for help once they are molested by clergy? Social workers, psychologist, and psychiatrist (the largest group of professions who molest children).

Secondly, the Church does not teach that molesting children is a good thing. Those priests (who by the way are mostly NOT pedophiles, but homosexuals with teenage boys) committed SIN against the children, against the Church, and against God. The Church does not support sin.

Maybe 1 1/2 percent of priest have sinned in this fashion. A handful of bishops have sinned in covering it up perhaps. There are about half a million bishops and somewhere around 4-5 million priests. In the United States the figures I think are around 46,000 priests and around 428 Bishops and Cardinals. There is a better statistical probability that there is a higher percentage of child molesters in the families of these people who attack the church than there is among priests.

The Church herself cannot be blamed for the sins of its people any more than I can be held responsible for my great, great cousin who was a horse-thief and tarred and feathered and run out of town. Those priests and bishops who committed the sin are responsible for that sin.

As for the "opulence" of the Church and its riches, there is nothing to defend since the Catholic Church is NOT even close to being the richest organization in the world and is NOT opulent. I use to be a member of a Baptist Church that had a budget of $4,000,000 and that was only ONE parish. The Baptist Church down the road had a budge of $20,000,000. Keep in mind these are 1976 dollars.

The artwork at the Vatican are not assets of the Church to use as it pleases to buy expensive steaks or something. That artwork is held in trust in the Vatican museums. Like ANY museum its holdings are in trust to the public. To sell off those holdings is as stupid as any other museum selling its holding so that the hungry can eat for a few days. As the old cliche says, it is better to teach a person how to fish than to give him a fish; to give the hungry food for a week has no meaning against teaching people to fish or farm whereby they can feed themselves for life.

If the Vatican would sell all of these holdings, the hungry of the world will be fed for about one week, and the world will be deprived of the art auctioned off to private collectors and museums scattered throughout the world.

Jesus said that the poor will always be among us. It was Judas who criticized Jesus for what he thought was "opulence". Jesus chastised Judas.

If we are to construct great buildings for kings and presidents, should not God be given a great building? God thinks so. Take a look in the Old Testament when poverty and hunger was about 1000 times worse than today. Despite the hunger and poverty God directed the building of a great and expensive Temple.

Those who make this argument are ignorant of the Bible, and worse, are usually hypocrites. At the same time they are attacking the Church on this, they are spending $20+ on Internet Access (something utterly unnecessary), on coffee, soda pop and meat and other lovely foods while at the same time people are starving, even here in the United States. Think of all the hungry who would be fed for a couple days if all the bigots got off the Internet, gave-up smoking and drinking, sold their boats, move to a low income areas for a cheap house, etc. and spent the saving on feeding the poor. Until they do that, I shall not throw my pearls before swine.

The fact is that the Catholic Church is the NUMBER ONE charity in the world helping the poor. The fact is that nearly all of the great vestments, marble floors and statues are DONATED to the Church by private citizens. The fact is that we can honor God by giving God the best we can offer and at the same time help the poor.

I live on less than $400 per month and I still find the money to support a girl in India whose family makes less than $100 per month. Almost 20% of their income comes from me. Once can do both.

I might add that the apartments of the Pope are small and not that comfortable from what I understand. Until recent years much of the Vatican was falling apart. But let us not confuse the bigots with the facts.

For the most part, I would advise NOT arguing with dingbats who make such stupid arguments. St. Paul tells us to not involve ourselves in unproductive argumentation.

In addition, we need to remember Proverbs:

Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."

[gingentleman]

Here are some things to consider about the Catholic church...

1. The art in the Vatican and the Vatican vaults only belongs to the church because it was stolen in the first place. Often considered heretical or dangerous for the general population to view, the church simply sent agents to confiscate it. This was certainly a device used for social control of the masses. The church maintains that its population of the faithful are not in the best position to think for themselves on matters of faith and questions of importance; instead, the masses must be told what to think and how to think it.

2. It is utter hogwash to try and suggest that members of the mental health community are pedophiles and child-abusers, simply because the church wishes to direct attention away from the ever-growing problem with its own priests and sexual abuse of children. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

3. Shall we talk of corruption, the acquisition of wealth, and the use of power and bloody force to oppress and visit tyranny on those who oppose the church? The church has a long and reprehensible history of war and bloodshed on any who oppose it. The acquisition of wealth for the ruling members of the church is legendary. I have often marveled at the homes and chauffeur-driven limousines of the bishops and cardinals , in comparison to the many, many poor in the church districts.

4. Let us look at further social control imposed on the members of the church...birth control. Even though it is a scientifically-proven fact that our planet is becoming over-populated to the point of dire consequences, the catholic church still maintains it is a sin to use birth control. From a societal-control standpoint, it is easy to understand the church forbade birth control early on, in order to increase its numbers. But to continue with this standpoint in the modern era is ludicrous and harmful. Also consider the fact that the greatest numbers of church members live in developing nations or poor nations where poverty is rampant and the quality of life is extremely low, and you have another heinous thing for the church to answer to.

[MikeyLove]

Here are some things to consider about the Catholic church...

1. The art in the Vatican and the Vatican vaults only belongs to the church because it was stolen in the first place. Often considered heretical or dangerous for the general population to view, the church simply sent agents to confiscate it. This was certainly a device used for social control of the masses. The church maintains that its population of the faithful are not in the best position to think for themselves on matters of faith and questions of importance; instead, the masses must be told what to think and how to think it.

2. It is utter hogwash to try and suggest that members of the mental health community are pedophiles and child-abusers, simply because the church wishes to direct attention away from the ever-growing problem with its own priests and sexual abuse of children. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

3. Shall we talk of corruption, the acquisition of wealth, and the use of power and bloody force to oppress and visit tyranny on those who oppose the church? The church has a long and reprehensible history of war and bloodshed on any who oppose it. The acquisition of wealth for the ruling members of the church is legendary. I have often marveled at the homes and chauffeur-driven limousines of the bishops and cardinals , in comparison to the many, many poor in the church districts.

4. Let us look at further social control imposed on the members of the church...birth control. Even though it is a scientifically-proven fact that our planet is becoming over-populated to the point of dire consequences, the catholic church still maintains it is a sin to use birth control. From a societal-control standpoint, it is easy to understand the church forbade birth control early on, in order to increase its numbers. But to continue with this standpoint in the modern era is ludicrous and harmful. Also consider the fact that the greatest numbers of church members live in developing nations or poor nations where poverty is rampant and the quality of life is extremely low, and you have another heinous thing for the church to answer to.

Okay, prove it! People who disparage the Church are a disgrace to Humanity and to God.

[Nemothepanda]

Okay, prove it! People who disparage the Church are a disgrace to Humanity and to God.

More like only just the Church.

[gingentleman]

'' People who disparage the Church are a disgrace to Humanity and to God. ''

I think humanity would not agree, considering how many disparate religions exist, and compete in their claims that theirs is the only 'true' faith. As to god, whose god are you referring to? I make no claims to speak on behalf of mine...are you presumptuous enough to do so for yours? And do you think it likely your god would approve of your trying to insist your religion is the only one to value? It does not appear to me that you closely follow the original tenets of your own religion.

As to proving anything, [Text: Removed] Have a lovely day.

[Telstra]

How does one defend celibacy in light of these abuses?

You can't defend celibacy. It is against nature.

[palbert]

You might work on bringing your accounts receivable up to date.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thre...=1#post8624267

[Spensed]

Okay, prove it! People who disparage the Church are a disgrace to Humanity and to God.

I have some sympathy with staying with the Catholic Church, if one is a Catholic, for various reasons. But there are very good reasons to disparage the Church on a number of issues, e.g. AIDS deaths in Africa arising from the Church's teaching on contraception, which, in the developed world, many Catholics completely ignore with the Church's tacit collusion.

For me, the wealth of the Papacy is indefensible and not something Christ or St Peter would tolerate.

If the hierarchy wanted to, it could easily rationalize contraception (almost happened), married priests and women priests and, indeed, homosexual sex and marriage and make the Church and the priesthood more inclusive. I suspect that the Church will eventually see reason on all those issues.

While, as I understand it, there is no automatic relationship between celibacy and pedophilia, you'd have to be a fool to leave your children supervised by a Catholic priest in circumstances where sexual abuse might occur. Not a happy situation, but one created by the Church's own responses to sexual abuse, suppress the facts, move the priest to another parish, play legal hardball with the victims.

It's hardly a disgrace to God and humanity to disparage the Church on these issues or to point out that the sanctimony and self-satisfied arrogance displaced in Bro. Ignatius' answer above has little, if anything, to do the forgiveness and charity required by Jesus.

[johaninsc]

*subscribes to thread...*



and Mikey...would you please post a link to the article? and not the homepage

I have no idea were to look

[tigerfan482]

The Church is a group of humans that are just as corrupt and fallible as any other group of humans. I'm not surprised at all by the opulence and abuse that goes on within the church. What bothers me most about them though is that they hide their hate and intolerance behind a veil of "love"("love the sinner but not the sin" type of thinking.) They also display a level of hypocrisy that rivals that of the Republican Party (that just happens to have a high concentration of highly religious people). I would venture to say that more people have been killed throughout history in the name of religion than anything else. They preach ideas like the Golden Rule and "love thy neighbor" but then turn around and fight against rights for various groups they disagree with. I view organized religion as just another social group that preaches hate and fear in order to impose their views on anyone who doesn't agree with them. The only thing they're better at is their recruitment drives.

[swerve]

Wasn't the whole "celibacy" thing for the priests a COST-CUTTING measure rather than ANYTHING theological...

I always thought it was because it SAVED the Catholic church money -- since they didn't have to support FAMILIES associated with the Priests...

Am I wrong???

[Mariatenebre]

Okay, prove it! People who disparage the Church are a disgrace to Humanity and to God.

As far as I am concerned your god and Church are some of the most ignorant personality figures in the world. The crimes of the Catholic Church have already been shown and proven such as the persecutions of disbelievers, hoarding of wealth and sheltering of child molesters as well as the ban on birth control which greatly causes pain. It is also sexist, unscientific and homophobic.

[Text: Removed]

[Coward92]

The Church is a group of humans that are just as corrupt and fallible as any other group of humans. I'm not surprised at all by the opulence and abuse that goes on within the church. What bothers me most about them though is that they hide their hate and intolerance behind a veil of "love"("love the sinner but not the sin" type of thinking.) They also display a level of hypocrisy that rivals that of the Republican Party (that just happens to have a high concentration of highly religious people). I would venture to say that more people have been killed throughout history in the name of religion than anything else. They preach ideas like the Golden Rule and "love thy neighbor" but then turn around and fight against rights for various groups they disagree with. I view organized religion as just another social group that preaches hate and fear in order to impose their views on anyone who doesn't agree with them. The only thing they're better at is their recruitment drives.

I agree with everything you said, except for the "red" part.
Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people.
Politicians initiated wars. The World Wars were not started by religious reasons either, but we know that they cost the most human lives in any of the wars that we know of.

[Queerwitch]

I actually went through a phase last summer where I was reconsidering Christianity, and thought about becoming Roman Catholic as well as returning to my Eastern Christian roots. Didn't happen. I'm no Bible scholar, but I do recall a passage about good trees bearing good fruit and bad trees bearing bad fruit. Child molestation and its cover-up, crusades and inquisitions, sexism and homophobia are bad fruit. I empathize to a degree with those who remain in the church and are holding it accountable and fighting for change. However, anyone who would defend a blatantly corrupt organization that has contributed to untold human suffering (all while daring to be God's mouthpiece on earth), has completely lost my respect.

[MikeyLove]

I actually went through a phase last summer where I was reconsidering Christianity, and thought about becoming Roman Catholic as well as returning to my Eastern Christian roots. Didn't happen. I'm no Bible scholar, but I do recall a passage about good trees bearing good fruit and bad trees bearing bad fruit. Child molestation and its cover-up, crusades and inquisitions, sexism and homophobia are bad fruit. I empathize to a degree with those who remain in the church and are holding it accountable and fighting for change. However, anyone who would defend a blatantly corrupt organization that has contributed to untold human suffering (all while daring to be God's mouthpiece on earth), has completely lost my respect.

The Institution isn't what is corrupt...It is the Human beings who are sinners just as the rest of humanity is. Christ never promised a Rose Garden in the governance of the Institution. He knew that Popes, Bishops, Priests and Religious will not be as perfect as we want them to be. So, remember that it is the not so perfect human beings who govern the Church.

[MikeyLove]

As far as I am concerned your god and Church are some of the most ignorant personality figures in the world. The crimes of the Catholic Church have already been shown and proven such as the persecutions of disbelievers, hoarding of wealth and sheltering of child molesters as well as the ban on birth control which greatly causes pain. It is also sexist, unscientific and homophobic.

[Text: Removed]

You mean the crimes of the imperfect Human beings who Govern the Divinely Instituted Catholic Church. The Church itself isn't the problem.

[MikeyLove]

Wasn't the whole "celibacy" thing for the priests a COST-CUTTING measure rather than ANYTHING theological...

I always thought it was because it SAVED the Catholic church money -- since they didn't have to support FAMILIES associated with the Priests...

Am I wrong???

It is theological. It never was a cost cutting scheme.

[MikeyLove]

I agree with everything you said, except for the "red" part.
Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people.
Politicians initiated wars. The World Wars were not started by religious reasons either, but we know that they cost the most human lives in any of the wars that we know of.

Since we are all sinners in the eyes of God, it is the actions of sinners killing sinners, not Religion, and yes, Mankind did not know what we know today. The Catholic Church through the Late Blessed John Paul the Great before his death in 2004, had asked God's forgiveness for the Sins of the past, asking in the name of the Church. He repeated that at the wailing wall in Jerusalem.

[Gros Morne Guy]

Mikey,
Rather than a rather blind and naive defense of the Church, like Fr. Ignatius Mary gives, and which is totally unconvincing, you need to give an honest critique.

As you say, there are dishonest and corrupt individuals in the hierarchy of the Roman Church, and it is an old and entrenched bureaucracy. Therein lie many of the problems. And these problems should not be excused or defended.

As to opulence, grand cathedrals, art, and music give a vision and foretaste of the transcendence of God, and is nothing to be ashamed of. (Indeed, the Roman church falls short in comparison with Eastern Orthodoxy). Vast art collections, grand episcopal palaces, first class travel, etc., are not defensible, and, though criticized by many within since Francis of Assisi, have persisted. (I give Sean Cardinal O'Malley of Boston a lot of credit for selling his palace and living in a small apartment adjacent to the cathedral in a less desirable neighborhood; of course, he is a Franciscan). As to wealth itself, a good case can be made that having an endowment to provide for ongoing ministry to the poor is better than spending everything for temporary relief ("the poor will always be with you").

As to the abuse scandals, I don't think the conduct of the hierarchy can be defended. They have consistently covered up and shown more concern for their own status and reputation, than for the victims. All churches, not just Rome, have problems with sexual abuse by clergy; the difference is that most other churches have, at least in recent years, dealt with it more honestly and with much more concern for the victims.

[johaninsc]

The Institution isn't what is corrupt...It is the Human beings who are sinners just as the rest of humanity is. Christ never promised a Rose Garden in the governance of the Institution. He knew that Popes, Bishops, Priests and Religious will not be as perfect as we want them to be. So, remember that it is the not so perfect human beings who govern the Church.

You mean the crimes of the imperfect Human beings who Govern the Divinely Instituted Catholic Church. The Church itself isn't the problem.

so, if these people who govern the church are just as imperfect as the rest of us, shouldn't they be held accountable and be prosecuted for their crimes in a court of law...just like the rest of us ?

[FirmaFan]

so, if these people who govern the church are just as imperfect as the rest of us, shouldn't they be held accountable and be prosecuted for their crimes in a court of law...just like the rest of us ?

Here's something to wrap one's head around - If they are just as sinful and imperfect as the rest of us, how can we determine if their teachings that we are all sinful and imperfect are true and accurate?

[johaninsc]

good point, Firma

[johaninsc]

Mikey, could you post a reply to the question I asked in post#20, please ?

[MikeyLove]

so, if these people who govern the church are just as imperfect as the rest of us, shouldn't they be held accountable and be prosecuted for their crimes in a court of law...just like the rest of us ?

It is happening with the retired Cardinal Archbishop of LA and it has been in the news this past week!...google it.

[johaninsc]

It is happening with the retired Cardinal Archbishop of LA and it has been in the news this past week!...google it.

I did..and thanks

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...rld&id=8976575

found this part interesting from the link :

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias ordered the diocese to turn over the files Thursday without blacking out the names of top church officials who were responsible for handling the priests.

The judge gave the archdiocese until Feb. 22 to turn over the files, but they were released in less than an hour after she signed the order.

While the church left the names of church leaders intact, as specified, they removed names of victims, witnesses and priests who weren't accused. In some instances, whole sections were removed, including paragraphs of newspaper articles and efforts to black out other names even included the bylines of reporters and the phone number of the district attorney's office.

still sounds like they're still trying to cover things up

[MikeyLove]

I did..and thanks

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...rld&id=8976575

found this part interesting from the link :



still sounds like they're still trying to cover things up

You're welcome!

It could very well be, and it could also be 1 of 2 things going on, and one of them you'd have to understand the 1983 code of canon law, and the other involving the what is in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America.

1. They are exercising the 5th amendment I think it is.
2. They are trying to exercise the seal of the sacrament of Penance, ie; what is said in the confessional involving all parties, including the Cardinal.

[MikeyLove]

I did..and thanks

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...rld&id=8976575

found this part interesting from the link :



still sounds like they're still trying to cover things up

A fight breaks out between the two Prelates in Los Angelas, as Roger Cardinal Mahony fights back at his successor, Archbishop Gomez:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot....with-this.html

[mitchymo]

People who disparage the Church are a disgrace to Humanity and to God.

Yet still less so are athesist/agnostics. Its the men of the church that bring the greatest shame to God*, as its THEM who supposed to represent him**.

Its easy to say that the institution is NOT what is corrupt, and that it is just human beings, so we should what?, cut them some slack?, despite them being representative of utter hypocrisy. Are we to forget that the pinnacle of the faith, centred in Rome, is guilty of covering up their staff's indiscretions? Or how about being complicit in War crimes? How about preaching messages that victimise a section of society despite ALL being God's children?
The opulance in the church, may not be as excessive today as in the past (not that i'm privvy to that for a fact), but it encapsulates perfectly that the church is not representative of 'greatness', lest greatness be a material thing. As greatness, akin to godliness, is held vested in the immaterial possessions we own, our souls, the churchmen should be living far from decadent means, towards near-poverty and living true to their beliefs. Most of us know full well the fact that the church is just like a business, those at the top are well-off, those at the bottom have generally cleaner souls for not failing to practice what they preach, devoid of the kind of corruption and shame that is bound to manifest within an organisation with a long long history of....corrupt and shameful practices.
Great leaders create top-down change, yet within the church, its a bottom-up strivance to push the church in the direction that it should be going.
If God* thinks i am a disgrace to humanity and himself**, then i feel very sorry (well, actually i don't, but i'm trying to convey a message here) for those who claim to be closer to him** than i would ever. I'm not letting him** down nearly half as much.

* assuming God exists
** knowing that gender may not be applicable, and he** may be a unicorn.

[Mariatenebre]

You mean the crimes of the imperfect Human beings who Govern the Divinely Instituted Catholic Church. The Church itself isn't the problem.

No I mean the doctrines of the Church which causes terrible harm to humanity.

[MikeyLove]

No I mean the doctrines of the Church which causes terrible harm to humanity.

List all the Doctrines you are saying that Harms Humanity? oh, and quote the sources please.

[Mariatenebre]

Very easy for one the Church is exceedingly homophobic and believes that homosexuals can not have natural sex and intimacy. This is harmful to homosexuals as psychology shows that denial of one's sexuality is not healthy. The Church is also wrong about homosexuality being caused by original sin and being immoral as science shows that it is caused by nature and is beneficial.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
The Church also has many repressive sexist doctrines against women. For instance women are denied equality of the priesthood, they wish to deny women the right to abortion even though science has proven that fetuses/embryos/clusters of cells are not lives.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...h_and_abortion

The Catholic Church is against birth control which due to this has helped the spread of AIDS and STDs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio..._birth_control

The Catholic Church also teaches the doctrine of inherited guilt or original sin which says that we are all cursed for the actions of two people.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

There are far more evils advocated by the Church this is just a small piece.

[Coward92]

they wish to deny women the right to abortion even though science has proven that fetuses/embryos/clusters of cells are not lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...h_and_abortion

Science has never proven such a thing, actually it has proven quite the opposite. Every single cell is alive, because every single one of them shows all the activities that are related to a living organism.
A cell is the singlemost basic living thing. The cells in a fetus are omnipotent cells, meaning that they can develop into any human cells. They also show all attributes of a living organism.

You have no proof.

[FirmaFan]

Science has never proven such a thing, actually it has proven quite the opposite. Every single cell is alive, because every single one of them shows all the activities that are related to a living organism.
A cell is the singlemost basic living thing. The cells in a fetus are omnipotent cells, meaning that they can develop into any human cells. They also show all attributes of a living organism.

You have no proof.

Let's, for the sake of argument, grant you your position - a fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, is a complete 100 percent human being, entitled to all the rights and privileges of every other human being.

Now, that being said, there is one thing that makes a fertilized egg different from every other human being - they require the mother's body for their survival. The mother must use her own body to sustain the life of another. Does the rights of the fertilized egg trump the rights of the mother who may not want to use her body to sustain another life? Can you think of any other instance in which someone is forced against their will to sacrifice their bodily autonomy in order to sustain the life of another individual? Call a fertilized egg a full person all you want, it does nothing to strengthen the argument against abortion; in fact, by defining it as a person, it does just the opposite.

I am, by no means, pro-abortion. I am, however, pro-choice. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who actually likes the idea of aborting a pregnancy. I am pro-choice because of the respect I have for the rights of a person to their own body.

Now, removing our hypothetical scenario, science has traced the development of an embryo from conception to gestation in great detail. There is a point before which the cluster of cells could never, in any circumstance, be defined as a person. The complete lack of a nervous system, for one, would make any cluster of cells absolutely NOT a person. They would be no more a person than would the cells you scrape off your nose when you scratch it be a person.

[MikeyLove]

Very easy for one the Church is exceedingly homophobic and believes that homosexuals can not have natural sex and intimacy. This is harmful to homosexuals as psychology shows that denial of one's sexuality is not healthy. The Church is also wrong about homosexuality being caused by original sin and being immoral as science shows that it is caused by nature and is beneficial.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
The Church also has many repressive sexist doctrines against women. For instance women are denied equality of the priesthood, they wish to deny women the right to abortion even though science has proven that fetuses/embryos/clusters of cells are not lives.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...h_and_abortion

The Catholic Church is against birth control which due to this has helped the spread of AIDS and STDs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio..._birth_control

The Catholic Church also teaches the doctrine of inherited guilt or original sin which says that we are all cursed for the actions of two people.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

There are far more evils advocated by the Church this is just a small piece.

You have chosen your resources quite well, and I still have to disagree with you on many issues as stated in those resources. Yes, I still struggle with some of the issues concerning the "Behavior". There is absolutely nothing wrong with having these struggles, and they are between me and my God, and none else except through the confessional. I will not have a Woman over me in any form of supposed authority, especially one who turns the Blessed Mother Mary into a Goddess. This is my last and final communication with you on these boards. Thank you for the fun.

[Coward92]

Let's, for the sake of argument, grant you your position - a fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, is a complete 100 percent human being, entitled to all the rights and privileges of every other human being.

Now, that being said, there is one thing that makes a fertilized egg different from every other human being - they require the mother's body for their survival. The mother must use her own body to sustain the life of another. Does the rights of the fertilized egg trump the rights of the mother who may not want to use her body to sustain another life? Can you think of any other instance in which someone is forced against their will to sacrifice their bodily autonomy in order to sustain the life of another individual? Call a fertilized egg a full person all you want, it does nothing to strengthen the argument against abortion; in fact, by defining it as a person, it does just the opposite.

I am, by no means, pro-abortion. I am, however, pro-choice. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who actually likes the idea of aborting a pregnancy. I am pro-choice because of the respect I have for the rights of a person to their own body.

Now, removing our hypothetical scenario, science has traced the development of an embryo from conception to gestation in great detail. There is a point before which the cluster of cells could never, in any circumstance, be defined as a person. The complete lack of a nervous system, for one, would make any cluster of cells absolutely NOT a person. They would be no more a person than would the cells you scrape off your nose when you scratch it be a person.

No.
Please don' assume that I said something I didn't say, I only said that the cluster of cells in the womb is alive. Whether it is a person or not is up for interpretation.

No-one, however, can deny that it is a living organism. It is basic science. I am not taking sides here, I am only stating facts, because there are some grave mistakes here. Mariatenebre said that fetuses/cells etc are not lives. This is a false assumption.

I didn't respond in order to reflect to the moral adjudication of abortion, I merely corrected something she said.

Mariatenebre claimed that science has proven that a fetus is not alive.
I disagree, because science would obviously never claim such a thing.

[FirmaFan]

No.
Please don' assume that I said something I didn't say, I only said that the cluster of cells in the womb is alive. Whether it is a person or not is up for interpretation.

No-one, however, can deny that it is a living organism. It is basic science. I am not taking sides here, I am only stating facts, because there are some grave mistakes here. Mariatenebre said that fetuses/cells etc are not lives. This is a false assumption.

I didn't respond in order to reflect to the moral adjudication of abortion, I merely corrected something she said.

Mariatenebre claimed that science has proven that a fetus is not alive.
I disagree, because science would obviously never claim such a thing.

See, you are saying 2 different things about Mariantenebre's claim. There is a difference between saying something isn't a life and saying something isn't alive. I don't think anyone doubts that the cells are alive, but what she said was that they are not "lives". Maybe it's just a matter of a simple semantic misunderstanding, but, usually, in this context, giving something the attribute of "life" implies a characteristic of personhood, as opposed to "alive", which, in the simplest terms, is merely the ability to carry out biochemical processes. Mariantenebre was denying the attribute of "life" to those cells, hence her claim:

science has proven that fetuses/embryos/clusters of cells are not lives

--note that she did not say that the cells weren't alive.

I apologize for my inference about your opinions on this subject, but, as you were opposing Mariantenebre's claim about cells being life, my response seemed appropriate; however, it seems you are responding to a claim about the cells being alive - I believe that to be an error with regards to Mariantenebre's actual position, though. Seems to me we both misunderstood the positions of another.

[HoodedRat]

I will not have a Woman over me in any form of supposed authority,

Wow!

I sure hope you never come into conflict with a female police officer or judge.
'I'm sorry, you are a women, I do not respect your supposed authority over me'.

especially one who turns the Blessed Mother Mary into a Goddess.

No one turned Mary into a Goddess; rather, it was the Catholic Church who co-opted the ancient concept of the Great Mother Goddess and demoted her to the role of Mary. However, the notion of 'The Mother of God' gives away her true origin.

[zoltanspawn]

Yes, I still struggle with some of the issues concerning the "Behavior". There is absolutely nothing wrong with having these struggles, and they are between me and my God, and none else except through the confessional.

Well, and between all of us when you put them on a public message board intended for discussion...as in this very post. And, as in every post which includes a personal reference to being gay, no matter how much official catholicism wants to erase our presence in the world. And, as in the other posts in which you personally discuss your take on sexuality.

Other than that your "behavior" is between you and your god.

[Coward92]

See, you are saying 2 different things about Mariantenebre's claim. There is a difference between saying something isn't a life and saying something isn't alive. I don't think anyone doubts that the cells are alive, but what she said was that they are not "lives". Maybe it's just a matter of a simple semantic misunderstanding, but, usually, in this context, giving something the attribute of "life" implies a characteristic of personhood, as opposed to "alive", which, in the simplest terms, is merely the ability to carry out biochemical processes. Mariantenebre was denying the attribute of "life" to those cells, hence her claim:



--note that she did not say that the cells weren't alive.

I apologize for my inference about your opinions on this subject, but, as you were opposing Mariantenebre's claim about cells being life, my response seemed appropriate; however, it seems you are responding to a claim about the cells being alive - I believe that to be an error with regards to Mariantenebre's actual position, though. Seems to me we both misunderstood the positions of another.

The fetus is a living organism, because it is growing and developing, and through the contructive co-operation of the cells something greater (a human) is being created. It is, however true, that the embryo is uncapable of developing on its own, thus it can't be called an independent being, and if you separate the embryo from the womb, the embryo will stop developing.

You however stated that being alive requires more than developing and growing. You are right there. Being alive is like being awaken, being aware of our environment and our surroundings. This is the best metaphore I can come up with in your language.

Let's see if the Embryo/fetus does possess awareness and human qualities:
-An embryo has undeniable human qualities, like its genetic material, potential to develop into a sentient being, vulnerability and mortality. Nobody can deny this 4 human quality, because they apply to every single human being without exception. Based on theese attributes the embryo is a human (Only the genetic code would be enough to consider it human from a scientific point of view, but our societies agree in that humans are sentient beings, who are mostly flawed and everybody dies.)
-Awareness: Depending on stage of development the embryo possesses we can measure different degrees of awareness. The embryo has no awareness whatsoever only in the stage where it's nervous system is nonexistent.That stage however is very brief. It can be theorized that with the appearance of the primitive nervous system, comes a degree of awareness even without organs to sense the environment with, but nobody can prove it, and we can't prove that it is not true either.

If the embryo does indeed possess a degree of awareness, than it is alive at least as much as my cat. If it doesn't it has a potential to "become alive" with time.

Now let's see what happens if we remove the embryo from the womb:

If the embryo is developed enought to have a heart (and it takes only a month to happen) then the heart will keep pumping and the cells will scream for oxygen. The primitive muscle tissues will be twitching. The embryo is capable of feeling the sensation we describe as pain, because the pain-sensors are among the first ones that are being developed along with the skin. If the embryo is removed from the womb, it will suffocate, but not the way we would describe it. We know what it is to breathe. The embryos lungs are not developed enough at the time.

That was the scientific part.

By this time I have learned not to pass judgements, but I think people must be aware of what actually is happening.
What I want is that if someone decides to have an abortion, let that decision be the hardest motherfucking decison that she ever has to make.
I want people to realize what an abortion means.
I want people to take abortions seriously.
I want people to feel the weight of such a decision.
I want people to know, what the cost of their decisions is.
I want people not to take this lightly.
And I want people not to make the same mistake twice. Or at least not the mistake that leads to an abortion.

Because even though it may not be a person, or it may not be entirely human, if it wasn't important, there wouldn't be two sides fighting over the subject for centuries. As a scientist, I can tell that every abortion is a waste of a unique specimen. Sometimes neccessary. It is everyone's right to make the decision. But with rights come responsibilities. And if you don't take the responsibilities, you are not worthy of your rights.
And I am not saying that abortion is always bad. Sometimes it is neccessary. But it should always be a last resort.
Life is important. Do not degrade it. Do not turn it into currency. Do not turn it into a token you can exchange for comfort. It is your right, but I think you should not do it.

[ludolfo]

When abortion was illegal do you think women would worry what some men thought about the rightness of their decision from their own perspective? No, they would seek out an abortion and many had to suffer back-street abortions where they could become seriously injured and even die from incompetent and dirty procedures.

In this world where some people make such a big deal about aborting unwanted fetuses they usually seem very quiet about the dire poverty, and other forms of abuse many impoverished and unwanted and abandoned children have to endure. But then isn't it the Christian mentality that makes such a fuss about abortion? So again we look at their myth and we see that they think the soul is individual and comes from nothing and this life is all or nothing, or heaven or hell, and that it is GOOD women suffer in childbirth and children and people should suffer in this "veil of tears". Their saviour Jesus suffered, (I have read that sadistic film The Passion of Christ was the biggest ever box office hit! Even I --who has seen Goodfellas, and other very violent films haven't been able to watch all of the torture scenes in that film) and thus suffering is seen as some kind of virtue. Isn't this what celibacy is all about? That through suffering one comes to the love of Jesus etc etc. Isn't this part of the fear and shame of sexual pleasure?

[Coward92]

When abortion was illegal do you think women would worry what some men thought about the rightness of their decision from their own perspective? No, they would seek out an abortion and many had to suffer back-street abortions where they could become seriously injured and even die from incompetent and dirty procedures.

In this world where some people make such a big deal about aborting unwanted fetuses they usually seem very quiet about the dire poverty, and other forms of abuse many impoverished and unwanted and abandoned children have to endure. But then isn't it the Christian mentality that makes such a fuss about abortion? So again we look at their myth and we see that they think the soul is individual and comes from nothing and this life is all or nothing, or heaven or hell, and that it is GOOD women suffer in childbirth and children and people should suffer in this "veil of tears". Their saviour Jesus suffered, (I have read that sadistic film The Passion of Christ was the biggest ever box office hit! Even I --who has seen Goodfellas, and other very violent films haven't been able to watch all of the torture scenes in that film) and thus suffering is seen as some kind of virtue. Isn't this what celibacy is all about? That through suffering one comes to the love of Jesus etc etc. Isn't this part of the fear and shame of sexual pleasure?

I don't care for excuses.
I already stated that I believe in the freedom of chioce, and I won't deny anyone the right to choose abortion.
But I want everyone to take responsibility.
That is the only thing I want, and I think it a very reasonable demand.

[zoltanspawn]

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who actually likes the idea of aborting a pregnancy.

Oh, not that hard pressed.

I very much like the idea of aborting pregnancy before the embryo develops too much of a nervous system. Human overpopulation is causing a mass-extinction of species. Amongst other problems we author, that alone makes abortion a likable imperative.

[MikeyLove]

The fetus is a living organism, because it is growing and developing, and through the contructive co-operation of the cells something greater (a human) is being created. It is, however true, that the embryo is uncapable of developing on its own, thus it can't be called an independent being, and if you separate the embryo from the womb, the embryo will stop developing.

You however stated that being alive requires more than developing and growing. You are right there. Being alive is like being awaken, being aware of our environment and our surroundings. This is the best metaphore I can come up with in your language.

Let's see if the Embryo/fetus does possess awareness and human qualities:
-An embryo has undeniable human qualities, like its genetic material, potential to develop into a sentient being, vulnerability and mortality. Nobody can deny this 4 human quality, because they apply to every single human being without exception. Based on theese attributes the embryo is a human (Only the genetic code would be enough to consider it human from a scientific point of view, but our societies agree in that humans are sentient beings, who are mostly flawed and everybody dies.)
-Awareness: Depending on stage of development the embryo possesses we can measure different degrees of awareness. The embryo has no awareness whatsoever only in the stage where it's nervous system is nonexistent.That stage however is very brief. It can be theorized that with the appearance of the primitive nervous system, comes a degree of awareness even without organs to sense the environment with, but nobody can prove it, and we can't prove that it is not true either.

If the embryo does indeed possess a degree of awareness, than it is alive at least as much as my cat. If it doesn't it has a potential to "become alive" with time.

Now let's see what happens if we remove the embryo from the womb:

If the embryo is developed enought to have a heart (and it takes only a month to happen) then the heart will keep pumping and the cells will scream for oxygen. The primitive muscle tissues will be twitching. The embryo is capable of feeling the sensation we describe as pain, because the pain-sensors are among the first ones that are being developed along with the skin. If the embryo is removed from the womb, it will suffocate, but not the way we would describe it. We know what it is to breathe. The embryos lungs are not developed enough at the time.

That was the scientific part.

By this time I have learned not to pass judgements, but I think people must be aware of what actually is happening.
What I want is that if someone decides to have an abortion, let that decision be the hardest motherfucking decison that she ever has to make.
I want people to realize what an abortion means.
I want people to take abortions seriously.
I want people to feel the weight of such a decision.
I want people to know, what the cost of their decisions is.
I want people not to take this lightly.
And I want people not to make the same mistake twice. Or at least not the mistake that leads to an abortion.

Because even though it may not be a person, or it may not be entirely human, if it wasn't important, there wouldn't be two sides fighting over the subject for centuries. As a scientist, I can tell that every abortion is a waste of a unique specimen. Sometimes neccessary. It is everyone's right to make the decision. But with rights come responsibilities. And if you don't take the responsibilities, you are not worthy of your rights.
And I am not saying that abortion is always bad. Sometimes it is neccessary. But it should always be a last resort.
Life is important. Do not degrade it. Do not turn it into currency. Do not turn it into a token you can exchange for comfort. It is your right, but I think you should not do it.

I think that it would be very helpful if People look up on Youtube and watch the Video called "Silent Scream".

[FirmaFan]

Oh, not that hard pressed.

I very much like the idea of aborting pregnancy before the embryo develops too much of a nervous system. Human overpopulation is causing a mass-extinction of species. Amongst other problems we author, that alone makes abortion a likable imperative.

I much rather like the idea of proper education and birth control. Abortions would still be inevitable, and sooner rather than later is preferred, but better still is not having to do it in the first place because proper precautions were taken. It's quite ironic that the very thing that would decrease the number of abortions (birth control) is also the very thing that many religious institutions fight to prevent, second only to actual abortions.

[johaninsc]

You have chosen your resources quite well, and I still have to disagree with you on many issues as stated in those resources. Yes, I still struggle with some of the issues concerning the "Behavior". There is absolutely nothing wrong with having these struggles, and they are between me and my God, and none else except through the confessional. I will not have a Woman over me in any form of supposed authority, especially one who turns the Blessed Mother Mary into a Goddess. This is my last and final communication with you on these boards. Thank you for the fun.

what?...are you going to put Maria on ignore?

to me, you're coming across as someone who is unable to put up anything of substance, so it's time to stick the fingers in the ears and say "LA-LA-LA I can't here you"

this is a discussion board..we discuss things

childish games have no place in this particular forum

I will not have a Woman over me in any form of supposed authority

sounds like you don't have much respect for women

[palbert]

It's Mikey. He's still trying to find his savior. Will take a while.

[zoltanspawn]

I much rather like the idea of proper education and birth control. Abortions would still be inevitable, and sooner rather than later is preferred, but better still is not having to do it in the first place because proper precautions were taken. It's quite ironic that the very thing that would decrease the number of abortions (birth control) is also the very thing that many religious institutions fight to prevent, second only to actual abortions.

Education and birth control are more practical than abortion, but from a strictly ethical point of view I don't prefer them to abortion. I find all this agonizing over a totally mindless, sense-less chance of later personhood bewildering. (I tend to think it's rooted in some unexamined notion that people literally have souls.)

We should feel quite light-hearted and carefree about early term abortions. They are doing nothing but good for the world.

[zoltanspawn]

I think that it would be very helpful if People look up on Youtube and watch the Video called "Silent Scream".

And wash it down with some facts from Planned Parenthood. Linkage:

Although riddled with scientific, medical, and legal inaccuracies as well as misleading statements and exaggerations, The Silent Scream is still wildly popular with anti-abortion zealots.

[Benvolio]

In the balance, the church does more harm than good. It is still forbidding the use of contraceptives, not for any moral or rational reason, but because decades ago it rejected them as a knee jerk reaction, and has been trying to think up a reason ever since. It is monstrous evil that causes very poor people to have large families which they cannot support. Third world Catholic countries have huge percentages of the desperately poor with no chance of improvement. Many clergy encourage immigration to the US, and the church here offers sanctuary or at least preferential help.
Every generation of the church has some monstrous evil to apologize for.
It makes a joke of the Popes' claim of infallibility. The biggest moral issue of our time in Catholic countries is contraception because it causes massive poverty and suffering AND destruction of the environment. The earth cannot support infinite population.BUT the Pope has never invoked his alleged infallibility on faith and morals on the question of contraception. He only invokes it on silly irrelevancies like the immaculate conception, upon which he is certain he cannot be shown to be wrong. What a joke.

[HoodedRat]

sounds like you don't have much respect for women

Much like the Catholic Church.