Arrogant IVF

[Gob]

I hope he keeps it up, this sort of stupid and wrong pronunciation by the ex-Nazi may make intelligent Catholics question the medieval attitudes of their church.

The Pope today urged infertile couples to shun IVF and insisted that sex between a husband and wife was the only acceptable way of conceiving.

Pope Benedict XVI said artificial methods of getting pregnant were simply 'arrogance' as he spoke at the end of a three-day Vatican conference on infertility in Rome.

He told scientists and fertility experts that matrimony was the 'only place worthy of the call to existence of a new human being'.

The Pope reiterated the Church's stance against artificial procreation, telling infertile couples they should refrain from trying to conceive through any method other than conjugal relations.

'The human and Christian dignity of procreation, in fact, doesn't consist in a "product", but in its link to the conjugal act, an expression of the love of the spouses of their union, not only biological but also spiritual,' Benedict said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1nQjpIeJW

[rubato]

Not just 'can' but 'must'.

Yeah, we heard it already.

Pity, the RC church running out of innocent natives to lie to and inflict with horror.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

the ex-Nazi

The Pope was never a Nazi.

[Gob]

near enough

Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth—as membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after December 1939—but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings, according to his brother. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and killed during the Action T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics. In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer, (Air force child soldier). Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household.

[Scooter]

That the Pope would choose to reiterate longstanding church teaching against IVF is nothing but doing his duty. But I am curious why the condemnation of IVF is never carried over to election time by bishops of the Church. We are always being told by Catholic bishops that good Catholics should not vote for candidates who support any of: abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research. Abortion and euthanasia I completely get; the Church sees both as a form of murder (although abortion seems to have been elevated to a form of supermurder, carrying ecclesiastical penalties and requirements for absolution far more extreme than for those who have murdered a person already born). But the Church's very public opposition to same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research around election time appears much more politically calculated than theologically based.

Obviously the Church opposes same-sex marriage, having made its position very clear (I am, in the words of the current pope, when he was head of the Inquisition, "objectively disordered"). And so in every election year the bishops will be out in force telling the flock that they should not take communion if they vote for a candidate who supports same-sex marriage. Which causes me to wonder, why isn't the same command issued wrt voting for candidates who support remarriage after divorce? Does not the Chuch view those marriages invalid, just like SSM? One would believe so reading the Catechism, which says that anyone who remarries after divorce is to be refused the sacraments. And yet, never in my lifetime do I remember any church official telling people not to vote for candidates who support remarriage after divorce.

The same inconsistency occurs with embryonic stem cell research and IVF. There can be no eSCR without IVF, as the only other source of embryos would be abortions, and no researcher is going to go there. It is IVF that results in discarding the embryos to use in eSCR. Then why, when election time comes around and eSCR always makes it into the Forbidden Four, is IVF given a pass?

The answer is that the Church is more interested in playing politics than it is at putting forth a coherent theology. They know that support for both remarriage after divorce and IVF is far more widespread than for SSM and eSCR. They fear looking ridiculous by condemning the former and so compromise theological integrity by focussing solely on the latter.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes - fairly put Scooter, I think.

That old story might apply -

"Your church is full of hypocrites"

"Yes but there's always room for one more!"


Meade

[dgs49]

Re-marriage after divorce is a tricky question. The Church doesn't recognize civil marriages, and often grants annulments to those who are divorced (it takes a bit of work). Grounds for an annulment are generally that a real marriage never existed for one reason or another, and I have the impression that the burden of proof varies over time, depending on who is in Peter's Chair.

I personally find it odd that the Vatican would sponsor a symposium on infertility,then condemn the medical actions, technology, and procedures that infertile couples use to try to have kids. I thought having kids was the whole point of getting married. I gave my wife fertility shots at one point for about six months, but nothing ever came of it. Guess we're going to hell.

Damn.

Literally.

[Scooter]

There is nothing "tricky" about remarriage after divorce. It is considered invalid AND adulterous, because the original marriage still exists. The Catechism is very clear on the subject - any Catholic who contracts a marriage after divorce is forbidden from receiving the sacraments. There can be nothing clearer than that.

The question would be why the Church makes such a big deal about politicizing same-sex marriage and completely ignores a candidate's stand on remarriage after divorce. And the only answer is, because they know they would look like complete Neanderthals by pushing that line too hard.

[dgs49]

The Catholic Church is only one of THOUSANDS of religious and religious-affiliated groups that have campaigned against state recognition of same-sex marriage. The LDS church is largely credited with winning the ballot initiative in California a few years ago, eh? The Church has a legitimate and broadly held concern that by "normalizing" these relationships the institution itself will be harmed in the long run. God knows the institution is on life supports now - illegitimacy is pandemic among almost every demographic group except college educated Whites.

As for remarriage after divorce, it is indeed "tricky" as a public policy issue because whether someone was truly married is something that cannot be factually ascertained by any outsider. Marriage is a voluntary, knowing commitment that is often compromised by a lack of complete understanding by one spouse about the intentions and motivations of the other. NO ONE can condemn someone else for divorce and re-marriage because NO ONE outside that specific relationship can possibly know all the details of the first marriage (or in Newt's case, marriages).

Was one spouse a closeted homosexual, just getting married to satisfy his meddlesome mother? Did one of them lie about his intention to have kids? Did one spouse get married with the intention of continuing one or more now-adulterous relationships after the marriage? No outsider knows. I know examples of all three in my own scope of friends and family. All resulted in divorce (and ultimately, the wronged spouses got remarried).

This is why the Catholic Church does not condemn politicians who, for example, are divorced and remarried (e.g., Ronaldus Maximus).

[Scooter]

Different churches opposes same-sex marriages for their own reasons. I am addressing the specific inconsistency of the Catholic Church being so vocal about its opposition to same-sex marriage but not about remarriage after divorce, which it considers gravely sinful.

And this:

As for remarriage after divorce, it is indeed "tricky" as a public policy issue because whether someone was truly married is something that cannot be factually ascertained by any outsider. Marriage is a voluntary, knowing commitment that is often compromised by a lack of complete understanding by one spouse about the intentions and motivations of the other. NO ONE can condemn someone else for divorce and re-marriage because NO ONE outside that specific relationship can possibly know all the details of the first marriage (or in Newt's case, marriages).

is crap. The Church has a process for determining whether a marriage is valid or not, it is called annulment, and unless and until one is obtained, the original marriage is valid and another cannot be contracted. And further:

Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" - the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as vaild, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (London: Geoffrey Chapman - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999), p. 369

This is Roman Catholicism 101. Everyone knows you cannot contract a new, vaild marriage without first annulling the old one. Why are you being so obtuse about it? Does it pain you so much to have it demonstrated that the Church's public positions are as much about cold political calculations as they are about theology?

[dgs49]

Am I being obtuse or are you simply refusing to accept reality because you have a bug up your ass about the Catholic Church?

The annulment process is for those who wish to remain in the formal good graces of the Church. There are those whose initial "marriage" was not valid for any one of a number of reasons (some examples cited above), but they are not concerned about formalizing the annulment. These people may get a civil divorce and re-marry in a civil ceremony, or simply make vows to one another privately. When they do so, they cannot consider themselves practicing Catholics and they may not receive the Eucharist (but of course many do anyway). They could not get absolution in confession without promising to become celibate until such time as an anullment is granted.

But neither the Church nor anyone in it can say whether such people are living in sin, in God's eyes, as the Church clearly recognizes. All they can control is their own formalities.

The Church doesn't condemn PEOPLE it condemns sin. As you very well know.

[Crackpot]

Blow it out your ass Dave mu Grandmother was excomunicated from her church because she dared marry someone who was eastern Orthodox. (she remained faithful to her death) The RCC has a long history of imposing and ignoring its "rules" on a whim.

[Scooter]

Am I being obtuse or are you simply refusing to accept reality because you have a bug up your ass about the Catholic Church?

You are being obtuse, because you don't want to acknowledge the very obvious double standard projected by the Church on questions of marriage at election time. It makes a lot of noise about same-sex marriage and absolutely none about remarriage after divorce, when both are considered gravely sinful.

There are those whose initial "marriage" was not valid for any one of a number of reasons (some examples cited above), but they are not concerned about formalizing the annulment. These people may get a civil divorce and re-marry in a civil ceremony, or simply make vows to one another privately.

And if they do so, the Church considers it to be gravely sinful, which is the only relevant fact to the point I am making. The Church sees this mockery of the sacrament of marriage going on in abundance, but has naught a word to say about it when dictating to the faithful how they should be judging the positions taken by candidates. But they have a LOT to say about forbidding Catholics to vote for candidates who support same-sex marriage. Hypocritical double standard, and the only reason is that the Church knows it would be dismissed as completely out of touch for condemning a practice that has become commonplace. The Church is sacrificing its theological integrity for the sake of maintaining its political influence.

But neither the Church nor anyone in it can say whether such people are living in sin, in God's eyes, as the Church clearly recognizes.

It's not about judging whether individuals are living in sin; it's about a precept held by the Church for two millenia (the indissolubility of marriage) that is quietly ignored while condemning same-sex marriage, for no reason other than political expedience.

The Church doesn't condemn PEOPLE it condemns sin. As you very well know.

And one sin it condemns is remarriage after divorce. Except it has nothing to say about that when it gets on its soapbox about same-sex marriage.

I realize now that you are understanding this or are trying to twist it to say that I am saying that the Church should be condemning individual candidates for the personal marital situations. This has nothing to do with that. The Church says a few things about marriage. One is that divorce after remarriage is prohibited. Another is that same-sex marriage is prohibited. The Church has been very public about instructing the faithful that they should not vote for candidates who support same-sex marriage. All I am saying is that they should be just as public about instructing the faithful that they should not vote for candidates who support the ability to remarry after divorce. But they don't because they are hypocrites.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't wish to make light of a painful and difficult situation Dave, but given:

I gave my wife fertility shots at one point for about six months, but nothing ever came of it

One can't help but suggest maybe it was the wrong point?

And I think you're on the wrong point here too. Scooters highlighting a discrepancy between a church position that urges the faithful NOT to support a candidate whose portfolio includes support for homosexual marriage but that same church does not suggest that the faithful should also NOT support a candidate who has been divorced/remarried/etc.

IF the one is a sin and so is the other, then there is no difference between them in the eyes of God and the Roman church should be consistent in its advice on political matters as regards its theology, he says. All sins are equally offences against God and there are not big ones and little ones and some that we can just pretend don't exist - altho the Roman church may disagree there. I see that you wrote that the RC handling of annulments may be more or less difficult depending on who is the Pope at the time.... which IMO bears a strong affinity to what Scooter has written. He made a fair point. I think and stated it fairly.

OTOH a protestant should have no problem with a dual view. An ongoing continuing sin is in a different case to a past sin which has been forgiven by virtue of Christ's death and resurrection if a person has come to faith since it occurred. It may even be different to the case of a past sin which was once and done with, even if the person has not become Christian. That is, a divorce was a single (ha ha not intentionally punnish) act which cannot be altered or disavowed in the case of a remarriage. I cannot now "repent" of my divorce AND get rid of Lynn AND remarry my first wife. The first is right, IMO; the second and third are unthinkable (for at least three people).

OTOOH a counter argument which might have some merit is that voting for a candidate who happens to have been divorced is not at all the same thing as voting for a candidate who advocates the legitimacy of homosexual marriage. The first is a decided issue - divorce in a secular society has been legalised - that horse done left the barn a long time ago. A divorced candidate is not advocating any "change" in law or in societal practise as relating to the "sin" of divorce. Voting for that candidate does not endorse his personal history of relationships. But voting into office a person who vows to change the law does endorse the making of that change.

In the end, the Roman church has as much right to be hypocritical and human as do the rest of us hypocritical humans, I suggest
Meade

[Scooter]

Scooters highlighting a discrepancy between a church position that urges the faithful NOT to support a candidate whose portfolio includes support for homosexual marriage but that same church does not suggest that the faithful should also NOT support a candidate who has been divorced/remarried/etc.

Not quite. Re-write the second part as "...that same church does not suggest that the faithful should also NOT support a candidate who supports the ability to remarry after divorce (IOW a candidate who does not say that the law should be changed to prohibit remarriage after divorce)" and you will have it right. Once again, it's not about the personal situations of the candidates, it's about the positions which they hold, and the Church's reaction (or lack thereof) to them.

OTOOH a counter argument which might have some merit is that voting for a candidate who happens to have been divorced is not at all the same thing as voting for a candidate who advocates the legitimacy of homosexual marriage. The first is a decided issue - divorce in a secular society has been legalised - that horse done left the barn a long time ago. A divorced candidate is not advocating any "change" in law or in societal practise as relating to the "sin" of divorce. Voting for that candidate does not endorse his personal history of relationships. But voting into office a person who vows to change the law does endorse the making of that change.

See above.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes OK I see thanks for the clarification - but since no candidate whatever would propose a law that divorced people should not be allowed to marry, are you not simply suggesting that the Roman church should advise all its communicants to vote for nobody whatever? It would seem to be a foolish consistency. . .

Of course, churches in the USA are enjoined from promoting Candidate A vs Candidate B. They can discuss only issues - not persons. But is not "remarriage after divorce" in fact a non-issue? Candidates don't propose a law to ban lying, or coveting, or worshipping of images either.

Is there an example of a candidate who did advocate a ban on remarriage - running against a candidate who did not - and the church suggested that a vote for a ban on remarriage should be the gating factor in any given race (not that one particularly but generally - to avoid the law)?

If there were a choice of two candidates, both of whom did not advocate a ban on remarriage but one of whom advocated the legalization of homosexual marriage, should an RC general position be to cast a pox on both houses? Or to cast a vote against the issue that is "live" and thereby not support the promotion of "sin"?

I would think that what a person does intend to do is more relevant than what no-one intends to do

It's an interesting proposition

Meade

[Scooter]

Yes OK I see thanks for the clarification - but since no candidate whatever would propose a law that divorced people should not be allowed to marry, are you not simply suggesting that the Roman church should advise all its communicants to vote for nobody whatever?

And if no candidates were anti-abortion, how would the Roman church advise people to vote? Perhaps if the Roman church were courageous enough to take a stand on remarriage after divorce, it would find candidates courageous enough to make it their mission to ban it.

Of course, churches in the USA are enjoined from promoting Candidate A vs Candidate B. They can discuss only issues - not persons. But is not "remarriage after divorce" in fact a non-issue? Candidates don't propose a law to ban lying, or coveting, or worshipping of images either.

The Roman church has decided to make marriage an issue in its political propaganda. I am merely suggesting that it needs to focus on where 97% of the violations of its teachings on marriage are occurring, and not just on the 3%.

If the Church decided to get into the political debate condemning only certain types of lying, or only the coveting of land but not of livestock, or only the worship of images of one religion and not another, then I would be saying the same thing: be consistent or be labelled hypocrites.

I would think that what a person does intend to do is more relevant than what no-one intends to do

Then I guess that's where we differ. I would think that the sin that is orders of magnitude more prevalent deserves more attention than the one that is far less common.

[Gob]

It all started on Saturday at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, where friends and family had gathered to say goodbye to Johnson’s mother, who died last week after a brief illness.

“I was in the first pew, in the first seat next to my mother’s coffin,” Johnson said.

Just a few minutes before the funeral began, Father Marcel Guarzino, who was presiding over the service, apparently learned that Johnson was involved in a romantic relationship with another woman.

“I am a lesbian,” she said.

A lifelong Catholic and former Catholic school teacher, she says she hadn’t even considered that her sexual orientation would be a problem with Father Marcel until she stepped forward to take communion.

“He said, `I cannot give you communion because you live with a woman,’” she said.

Though shaken by Father Marcel’s actions, Johnson says she tried to compose herself to give her mother the dignified funeral she deserved. A few minutes later, she began her eulogy.

“At which time, Father Marcel left the altar and didn’t return until I finished my eulogy,” Johnson said.

According to Johnson, the story gets even worse. After first refusing to give her communion and then walking off the altar when she was giving her eulogy, Father Marcel refused to accompany Johnson and her mother’s body to the cemetery in Aspen Hill. Instead, she was told that Father Marcel had suddenly become ill.

“No other family should have to suffer what we did from this man,” Johnson said.

In a written statement, the Archdiocese of Washington conceded that Father Marcel acted improperly, saying, “Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/02/2 ... se-im-gay/

[dgs49]

Let's organize a few thoughts here:

(1) The RC Church vigorously opposes politicians who (let's just call it) are "pro-choice." The Church has excommunicated individual politicians who profess to be Catholic and whose official duties included the facilitation of abortion. Because in the eyes of the Church, abortion is evil, in all cases, including the oft-cited though extremely rare instances when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape. All cases. Period. Whether you are Catholic or not.

(2) The RC Church opposes state recognition of gay "marriages," and uses what little political influence it has to further that position. Sodomy between people of the same gender is sinful in all cases, whether you are Catholic or not.

(3) Jesus (the) Christ, the titular founder of the RC Church is believed to have said that one who divorces and remarries is committing adultery, since the divorce is not effective to end the original marriage. (But see Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, re, "fornication").

(4) Taking that section literally, the RC Church, AS A HUMAN INSTITUTION, teaches that one who remarries after divorce is an adulterer, AND CANNOT BE A ROMAN CATHOLIC IN GOOD STANDING while in this situation.

(5) The RC Church does not recognize civil marriages. One who has had a civil marriage and been divorced by the State can usually get married in the Church without much flack (provided they go through the other preparatory steps).

(6) The RC Church has NEVER taken the position that civil authorities ought not be able to grant divorces and permit re-marriages. What non-Catholics do is of no concern to the church. Or even what Catholics do through the offices of the STATE is of little concern. Their only position is that one cannot be a Catholic in good standing after re-marriage.

(7) If a politician (a) was married in the RC Church, (b) got divorced, (c) got remarried, then (d) claimed publicly to be a member in good standing of the Church, then SOMEONE within the Church - probably the local Bishop - would publicly state that the said politician is full of shit, and is not truly a member in good standing of the Church.

But the Church really doesn't give much of a shit what non-catholics ("Heathens") do with their marriages, divorces, children, and so forth. Just like It doesn't care whether they go to church regularly and still profess to be good Christians (WJC), commit serial adultery (WJC), or smoke, drink, and think bad thoughts.

It's actually quite a stretch to expect the Church to condemn non-Catholics for being divorced and remarried. The Church simply takes no position on the matter.

[rubato]

Let's organize a few thoughts here:"... What non-Catholics do is of no concern to the church. Or even what Catholics do through the offices of the STATE is of little concern. Their only position is that one cannot be a Catholic in good standing after re-marriage.
...
It's actually quite a stretch to expect the Church to condemn non-Catholics for being divorced and remarried. The Church simply takes no position on the matter.

So the church is not required to limit health care for employees to that which conforms to church dogma?

yrs,
rubato