To me, it only appears to be a partisan issue because the Democrats have so lovingly embraced abortion. There are plenty of Republicans who call themselves Catholic who should likewise be refused Communion.

"If you don't take your morality from Rome then in what sense are you Catholic?"

For myself, I would answer that by saying that the Vatican is simply wrong in its interpretation of Catholic teaching, just as SCOTUS is wrong on constitutional law with Roe v. Wade. And Dred Scott. And Plessy v. Ferguson.

Don't get me wrong. I think a plate of raw spinach would make a better president than John Kerry, and I think he is wrong about abortion, national security, and just about every other issue any sane individual cares about. But so many of the institutional Catholic Church's positions in recent years are indefensible. There is NO justification for disallowing abortion in all cases, with no exceptions for rape, incest and where the mother's life is in danger. But that's what exactly the Vatican believes. There is NO justification for opposing the war in Iraq. None. But that's exactly what the Vatican did. There is no defense for the Vatican's handling of the preist pedophilia issue. I could go on ...

I am a Catholic and proud of the Church and its 2000-year tradition. But while the Catholic faith is in my opinion the best and most accurate expression of God's wishes, the current Church leadership and interpretation of that faith has many, many holes both logically and scripturally. We who question those positions should not be penalized in this manner.

No, the Church is not a democracy, but neither should it be a tyranny, with mindless automatons blindly following the edicts of the Vatican Cuirae. If the latter was the case, then we'd still think the sun revolved around the earth.

OJ:

Your question is right on point. The difficulty as I (obviously the quintessential definition of an outsider with respect to this subject) see it is that the reasoning is very broad.

Not that it shouldn't be, but broad reasoning has broad complications.

The death penalty is every bit as much a pro-life issue as abortion. Should all politicians who fail to oppose the death penalty also be excluded?

And what of parisioners? Should they sign oaths before God eschewing contraceptives, and the death penalty?

Your rhetorical question draws exactly the right answer. However, if adhered to, it seems to me the churches would be echoingly empty.

ProCynic: How can any religion teach that abortion is ever justified? What the government should do, as far as weighing pros and cons for legality, is one thing. If you believe in a soul, I don't know where else it starts but at conception, and therefore abortion is murder.

Jeff: You're not correct regarding the Churches position as far as abortion=death penalty as a moral position. A quick google search will give you more info on that.

The question of "where does it stop?" is a serious one, but that doesn't mean that the Church needs to throw its hands up and give up on teaching morality because parishioners have become lax. The sad fact is that nearly everyone violates Church teaching regarding Communion because you're not supposed to receive it if you're in a state of grave sin, which means you need to be regularly going to Confession, which hardly anyone does.

So the question that many are asking is "when will it finally begin?"...

Jeff:

I've never understood the obsession with contraceptives. If you can count and have a little discipline you don't need them.

Brian -- There are as many Judaisms as Jews, but its not at all a stretch under Jewish law to argue that, if you must choose between the life of the mother and aborting the fetus, you are allowed to choose the life of the mother.

David: Right, I had a disclaimer in there about the life of the mother, but erased it so as not to go into various caveats and post too long. It seems to me that you need to make an effort to save both mother and child, though, and if that's not possible you are of course forced to make a choice.

Can someone point me to a case where this choice is actually forced upon you, though? Can't in most every case you get the baby out while attempting to save the mother? A near full-term baby has to come out anyway, even if it dies, and even a 4-5 month fetus can survive in the ICU nowadays. So how realistic is the dichotomy of mother vs baby?

How about the mother killing her 2 year old because he was the product of a rape? Would that be ok?

I agree with Orrin, but it leads to uncomfortable conclusions about free will, doesn't it?

I'm sure he'll respond that the freedom comes in adhering or not to the teaching. But isn't it also a question of freedom whether, as ProCynic avers, to accept the teaching in the first place?

Re David's remark on saving the baby or the mother, when I was in Catholic school, our priest spent a great deal of time on that, and, as a modern and (for a priest) humane man, he made it clear as clear that while you couldn't choose to kill the baby, the proper course would be to save the mother.

However, it very much depends who in the Church you ask, and in the 19th century, for example, Viennese women were terrified of the Catholic lying-in hospital because they knew that if the choice had to be made, they'd be killed (or allowe d to die).

So, as always, you're on your own, and moral teachers aren't worth a pitcher of warm spit when you need them.

Harry:

That's the point. You're free to ignore morality, but then you've chosen not to be Catholic.

We are always on our own. Usually, in that situation, we appreciate getting directions from those who have been there before.

brian:

William Buckley wrote a piece about twenty-five years ago on this, in which he concluded that, while abortion is a sin, murder is the wrong word. The hard truth is that we do not really consider every woman who has had an abortion to be a murderess(would you ostracize them socially and insist the law go after them), most anti-abortion types really don't want the police chasing down the parties involved in first trimester abortions, and the traditional existence of the crime of infanticide makes that judgement a little illogical. I think we could save a lot of lives by stepping back from that word.

The pro-abortionists are on the run on the issue of viability. Let's not give them an out by applying relentless rote logic here. There is a measure of mystery to this question and also a realm in which men (as opposed to women) must tread carefully and compassionately.

They aren't murderers if they genuinely don't think their children are human, just as slave owners weren't being immoral if they thought blacks subhuman. Thomas Jefferson owning slaves is excusable if they weren't human beings--sex with Sally Hemmings would not be.

Peter: As I noted, what the law should be is one issue, and is up to the people to decide by choosing the representatives who write those laws. I don't think a politician would be smart to refer to abortion as murder, since he would be talking presumably in a civil context and raise all the problems you mention. For religious leaders, there are different issues at stake...

Orrin:

Well said, but the judgment of what I imagine to be the majority of decent folk that a very early pregnancy is not "human" in the sense you mean is not one I think can be condemned a priori, as least from the perspective of the secular criminal law of general application. Breaks my heart, but I see no way out of it.

In my post above I would change the last word (compassionately) to deferentially.

Five questions for OJ:

First, if abortion is murder does that mean miscarriage is manslaughter?

Didn't St. Augustine (the primary source of Catholic moral theology) claim that the soul did not enter the feotus until "quickening", i.e. the end of the first trimester?

If the basis of Catholic sexual morality is preserrving the union between the uniative and procreative aspects of sex, why is NFP considered to be morally acceptable while ABC is not, in other words, what is the difference between a temporal barrier and a chemical or physical barrier?

And while were on the subject of birth control: the proponents of NFP claim a 98% success rate while condoms have a success rate (not breaking) of only 95%. Also, since condoms are used any time, even when a women is fertile (unlike NFP), aren't condoms MORE "open to the possibility of life" than NFP?

Since over 90% of Catholic couples reject Humanae Viatae, haven't the Church's teachings on birth control failed to meet the standards of acceptance of the "sensus fidelium", and are therefore invalid?

Mr. Duffy:

(1) If a woman engages in behavior that may cause the miscarriage it certainly could be manslaughter.

(2) Don't know. But that's not Church teaching is it?

(3) NFP may not be officially allowed by the Church, though I think the Pope has said it is.

(4) Sure.

(5) If over 90% rejected it then it might be.

Peter:

Which is why an incrementalist approach is best politically right now.

Orrin:

Yes, but is this just a matter of political practicality? In the last half-hour I've been thinking about your human/non-human dichotomy, but there are problems, especially when we think of infanticide, where humanity is not denied, except by the extreme, reductionalist secularists.

No answers, just an anger that secular, rationalist thought has left us so little room for sublety, complexity and charity.

It's not secular, rationalist thought that's blocking subtle, complex thinking.
There are plenty of crude, broad-brushed religious thinkers.

It's a personality type, or a societal norm, not any religious/secular divide.

So OJ, if miscarriage is potential manslaughter should a grand jury be called to investigate every time a woman miscarries to determine if manslaughter charges are appropriate?

Should police homicide departments have a special miscarriage unit? Could make for an interesting series: "Law and Order - Miscarriage" or how about "CSI - Miscarriage".

BTW, NFP is officially allowed by the Church to "space" the arrival of children, which for some reason isn't quite the same thing as birth control. And the church wonders why it has a reputation for being a bunch mysogynist (*), mealy-mouthed, hair-splitting Pharisees.

And you never answered my question: what is the difference between a temporal barrier and a chemical or physical barrier when it comes to breaking the union between the uniative and procreative aspects of sex?

* On a side note, I just finished reading "The Da Vinci Code". Its a fairly good murder, conspiracy mystery story - it does keep the reader guessing up to literally the last page. It is also the biggest load of historical clap trap and loony "theories" since Von Daniken's ancient astronauts. It is also blatantly anti-Catholic. But to dwell on the books obvious flaws is to miss the main point:

If the RCC was not already perceived as being anti-women, then this book would never have become a best seller. It's fuzzy theories about suppression of the "sacred feminine" are a bunch of hooeey, but it has tapped into a powerful cultural current which sees the Church as being borderline Taliban in its attitudes to women.

Mr. Duffy:

Every death is a potential murder--we seem to get by only investigating suspicious ones, no?

What's the difference between swimming and deep sea diving?

Peter:

Infanticide, even using adult clones for spare parts, will be commonly accepted practices in most of the developed world in the not too distant future. The people doing it will simply redefine such out of the human race. Good people will do it.

So your answer is "Yes, each miscarriage should be investigated as a potential manslaughter case"? Or no you prefer charges of negligent homicide?

I don't understand the swimming vs. deep sea diving comment. Please elaborate.

And you STILL have not answered my question: What is the difference between a temporal barrier and a chemical or physical barrier when it comes to breaking the union between the uniative and procreative aspects of sex?

Every death is a potential murder--we seem to get by only investigating suspicious ones, no?

The husband and wife do not truly become as one if there's a prophylactic, do they? Nor do they demonstrate any self-control if they feel they must have sex during fertile periods. I don't personally think a married couple using a condom is a sin, but have no problem with the Church opposing their use.

OK, I'll ask one more time, and please answer plainly, yes or no: Should each miscarriage should be investigated as a potential manslaughter case?

Is every death?

I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse or honestly don't understand the question. So let's try again:

Should each miscarriage be investigated as a potential manslaughter case? Or involuntary manslaughter? Or negligent homicide?

They should be treated just like any other death. How many of them are investigated?

Michael:

Good to see you back. I agree about the personalities, but my point was that because the fight for free abortion was based upon, rationalist and reductionalist, the other side had to fight on that turf. Hence the argument over viability, murder, etc. Both law and law enforcement end up getting backed into a philosophical corner and choose between polarities. There is little room left for collective turning of blind eyes and extending mercy or compassion on the basis of instinct or "feel" for a situation..

Deaths potentially caused by another person are investigated. Miscarriages are all potentially caused by the mother and would fall into this category, now wouldn't they?

Every death is potentially caused by another person. Our grandmother died in hospice whacked out on morphine. She was killed. No one investigated it.

Mr. Duffy:

The difference is intent.

Peter:

You a magnanimous man. Let us not forget that prudence, also, is a virtue.

ProCynic:

You seem a little foggy on your Church's teachings. The political judgment by the Vatican against the war in Iraq was just that: a political judgment, not binding on the consciences of Catholics. Even capital punishment does not rise to the level of abortion, as regards the claims of obedience it imposes.

Paul,

Intent has nothing to do with INVOLUNTARY manslaughter or NEGLIGENT homicide. And even if intent was applicable, how does one determine intent or lack there of without investigating each and every miscarriage as potential manslaughter?

Peter:

But I guess, as you suggest, it is hard for the virtue of prudence to operate when the rationalists have levelled every to the most barren of philosophical logic.

"If you don't take your morality from Rome then in what sense are you Catholic?"

I take it OJ has never heard of the concept of the "primacy of the informed conscious".

Mr. Duffy:

My remark about intent went back to the NFP/condoms question. Sorry for the confusion.

Mr. duffy:

No. But if you get to decide whether your own conscience is informed then it's not a moral doctrine.

Where do you live that every death is investigated?

Deaths that are potentially caused by other people are always investigated as possible homicides or manslaughters. Where do you live that they are not investigated?

OK Paul, the INTENT of NFP is to have sex without risking a child. How is that different than wearing a condom? How is a temporal barrier different than a physical barrier. In both cases the INTENT is to break the bond between the uniative and procreative aspects of sex. So why does the RCC allow NFP but not ABC?

Next to the hospital where The Wife is a doctor. Almost no deaths are ever investigated, unless they're suspicious. Seems an easy enough standard.

That's a tautology OJ, because almost no deaths are ever suspicious. A miscarriage is by definition always suspicious because the mother is alwyas potentially responsible.

Mr. Duffy:

The intent of NFP is to lower dramatically the chance (emphatically not the "risk") of having a child. It is quite different than deliberately sterile sex.

If tracking a woman's cycle each month (taking vaginal mucous temperature readings and keeping a detailed log) isn't DELIBERATE than what is?

The INTENT of NFP is to have sex without a chance of fertilization. Its proponents even boast a 98% success rate (higher than a condom's 95% rate). Yet NFP is OK but ABC is not. Why is that?

As usual, the RCC is talking out of both sides of its mouth like a bunch of hypocritcal, legalistic Pharisees. If the Church was mortally consistent, it would also ban NFP.

Mr. duffy:

All deaths are potential murders. The wheels of justice haven't ground to a halt yet.

Mr. duffy:

Tracking? Your wife doesn't pretty much know?

OJ are you really that ignorant of female biology? Kindly visit a pro-NFP website to learn more about this method and why such detailed book keeping is required.

And then go to you local commuity college and take a remedial sex ed course.

Why? I've never had an unintended pregnancy. It's not rocket science.

OJ, ALL deaths are potential murders? Now you are being delibrately obtuse.

Write back when you find a way out of this miscarraige = manslaughter logical trap created by your absolutist stand on abortion.

Because you have never answered the basic question: doesn't abortion = murder imply that misscarriage = manslaughter? Ignore the real world practicalities of police investigation and jurisprudence if you like and answer the question on a purely philosophical level.

"Both law and law enforcement end up getting backed into a philosophical corner and choose between polarities. There is little room left for collective turning of blind eyes and extending mercy or compassion on the basis of instinct or "feel" for a situation.."

It is not secularism that forced the choice between polarities, but legalism. Legal arguments have to make clear distinctions and cannot rely on the "feel" of a situation. You can't avoid the rationalist battleground of ideas if you are going to build a strong legal foundation to protect life. As OJ pointed out, instincts and feelings about human life change from one generation to the next. This is a copout. Don't blame the secularists for the failure of the religious community to draw a solid philosophical line in the sand.

OJ, I'm hapy for you that you have never had an unitended pregnancy. Now kindly answer the question: Why is NFP ok and ABC is sinful?

"Mr. Duffy:

(1) If a woman engages in behavior that may cause the miscarriage it certainly could be manslaughter."

"I don't personally think a married couple using a condom is a sin, but have no problem with the Church opposing their use."

Rober I think we are in agreement. Fir a church that espouses an eternal doctrine, the RCC has done quite a few about faces over the centuries. And you know, it's a funny thing about Church Traditions — they change over time. Over the centuries, the RCC has had the following "traditions":

a. Burning heretics (burning witches was a Protestant thing).
b. Torturing people by the inquisition.
c. Waging holy wars against Muslims in violation of its own "Just War" doctrine.
d. Committing genocide against the Albigensians (among others).
e. Promoting the corrupting sale of indulgences, a major trigger of the Protestant reformation.
f. Claiming until quite recently that there is no salvation outside of the church (at least we no longer have to believe in moral absurdities like Mahatma Gandhi burning in hell just because he was a Hindu).
g. Opposing the lending of money at interest.
h. Warning against the dread heresy of Americanism.
i. Though it has tried to mitigate (whenever it could) the abuses of slavery it never opposed it as an institution, and when slavery died it did so without benefit of clergy.
j. And though individual Popes have protected and sheltered Jews whenever possible, the church on the whole has until this century persecuted Jews or connived at their persecution (JPII recently apologized for such sins).

Mr. duffy:

Your problem seems to be with the basic teachings of the Church. That's fine, just don't be a Catholic.

OJ, isn't that like saying "I wouldn't personally own a slave but have o problem with others owning slave"?

Now then, since you personally don't think condoms are sinful, aren't you exercising your "primacy of the informed conscious" in opposition to Vatican teaching?

BTW, where did Paul go? I'd still like to see what he considers to be deliberate or intentional.

My "problem" is that the basic teachings of the Church are lacking in both logic and moral consistency.

If they were logical and consistent, they would ban NFP as well.

I'm not Catholic.

I find condoms personally objectionable, not sinful.

Robert:

Yes, it is legalistic, but that isn't where it started. An analogy is the perogative of mercy in capital crimes. Once the statisticians and social scientists started "proving" there was inherent bias, racism, etc., the whole concept had to be systemized and rationalized through committees, guidelines, etc. Bye, bye mercy.

Of course I can blame secularists. I blame them for everything :-)

Paul:

Yes, prudence is a virtue, and I don't mean to suggest everyone gets a pass because their situation is poignant. I just find the early first trimester issue one I feel a strong urge to leave to the secret, non-logical, traditional wisdom of the womenfolk while me and the boys go fishing.

Mr. Duffy:

It is a matter of will. With a condom, a couple wills that no child come by their union. With NFP, the couple does not will such a negation. They are not intervening in a natural process, but working within it.

The sneer with which you delivered yourself of the phrase "open to life" indicates to me that you are likely to see these distinctions; though I would ask that you carefully consider that fact that the human will, in Christian doctrine, is the locus of sin and redemption.

If the Church still decided secular law, then this argument would be more meaningful. As OJ points out, being a Catholic is a purely voluntary affair today. I was a Catholic until I could no longer say the Apostle's Creed with conviction (this was way before I became an atheist). If you don't accept the Church and its teachings at their stated value, then just get out. Let the people who believe in its teachings have their faith in peace.

As Jeff pointed out, such a church would have very few adherents nowadays. The Church is an anachronism, the Protestants won a long time ago. Everyone is a priest unto himself, the authority of the Church is a figurehead.

"f. Claiming until quite recently that there is no salvation outside of the church (at least we no longer have to believe in moral absurdities like Mahatma Gandhi burning in hell just because he was a Hindu). "

Daniel, I argued this point a while back, but was told by Chris (or was it Ken) that Vatican I doesn't really say what it says. Parsing of Canon Law, as with the legal testimony of presidents, is an exact science, and not for the simple-minded like you or I to undertake.

Daniel: I see you misread Vatican II. Welcome to 90% of American Catholics. The doctrine of "the primacy of the informed conscious(sic)" applies only where an issue is not dogmatically defined. Thus, one may make a decision on whether or not to support the death penalty, as there is no ex cathedra ruling against it; one may not decide whether or not to support abortion, as that has been excommunicable from the start. (Don't believe me? Ask this guy -- he's a, wait for this, theologian.)

For the record: The gravity of the sin of abortion is not such that one must commit suicide -- which is to say, commit a different sin -- to avoid it.

And I don't see the problem with fundamentally reordering society so as to stop murdering children. We undertook that kind of project once, to purge chattel slavery; surely this is as worthy.

Robert: It was I; and I'm sorry your otherwise formidable reading comprehension skills failed you that once. It surprised me, too.

One more, while I'm piling on: Daniel: You've misread history, too. But I'll leave that to the side. I have to write a law review article (er, a different one than the one I'd write if I tried this).

And OJ: Insofar as the morality has been defined by the Magisterium, the answer to your opening question, of course, is that you're not.

Gandhi will get an opportunity to accept Christ.

OJ:

But didn't I find that rip-roaring essay by Grenier blasting Gandhi as a fraud here at BrothersJudd?

Paul,

Couples that practice NFP are also WILLING not to have a child as a result of sex. They're working harder at not having a child than those who use ABC. Compared to the planning and paperwork required by NFP, wearing a condom is practically an after thought.

What is the difference between a temporal barrier and a chemical/physical barrier? Will no one answer this question?

How is the use of a calender, log book and vaginal thermometer any more "natural" than a condom? Why the double standard?

Chris, the "primacy of the informed conscience" applies to all doctrine that is not infallible, including those that have been dogmatically defined. When it was issued, Humanae Vitae was explicited stated to be non-infallible. Quite a few dogmatic doctrines (concerning slavery, lending money at interest, etc.) have changed over the centuries.

In short, Church dogma is subject to change and has often defended or promoted morally repugnant behavior. Can anyone in their right mind consider the Borgia Popes to be infallible or exemplars of moral behavior? It shows a complete misunderstanding of the concept of "informed conscience" if you equate it with being in mental lock step with Vatican dogma. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica intended quite the opposite. Informed conscience is intended to be a moral safeguard against such dogmatic abuses. Informed conscience is a get out of dogma free card, provided:

a. The reasoning is thorough and the result of long study and prayer.
b. It is not for selfish reasons but for moral reasons that a conclusion is arrived at.
c. It does not directly contradict the word of God (i.e. no amount of IC could justify cold blooded murder).

A good Catholic is not a sheep.

Daniel, there is no difference. Leave it to the professional semanticists of the Church to find distinctions where none exist. Before we had the advertizing industry, where billions of dollars are spent annually to convince people that Coke and Pepsi are as different as fire and water, such clever people had few other options for employment, and the Church paid well.

Paul:

He gets to reconsider, no?

Mr. duffy:

Again, none of that is required. There are times you have sex and times you don't. Sex with a condom is depersonalized.

"Sex with a condom is depersonalized."

That's easy for the party who won't get pregnant to say.

Neither will. If one does, and it's your wife, big deal. Kids happen.

"If one does, and it's your wife, big deal."

That's easy for the party not getting pregnant to say.

Daniel (I think it was you):

You neglected to add the sale of annulments to the list. I wonder how much Sen. Kerry had to spend get his divor... anullment?

The couple gets pregnant.

Seems to me that if anybody is qualified to give moral advice, they should be able to give a simple, clear and easily understandable instruction.

This whole long exchange seems to be based on the conception (rimshot) that you practically have to be a canon lawyer to know what to do.

Orrin has now stated, about half a dozen times, that he is indifferent to the church's teaching about sex. Fine. He evidently does not consider it a moral question. But the church does.

Therefore, as I said way up there, your moral teachers are no help, you can ignore them at your convenience and you're on your own.

Harry:

I've not said that at all.

I've said that I have no problem, with the Church's teaching, even agree with it, but I'm not of the Church...yet.

Daniel: I see there's little point in arguing with liberal Catholics; nonetheless, I note that you've twisted the doctrine beyond all recognition (by, among other things, mixing up dogmatic developments over time). The logical conclusion to your position is that, hey, there are only five or so things to which the specific imprimatur of infallibility is attached (which notably does not include transubstantiation, the Real Presence, the Apostolic Succession, the Resurrection, the nature and divinity of Christ, and so on), so anything else is up for grabs! Whee! So I guess Catholics are Unitarians who believe in the Virgin Birth, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and maybe a few other things, and who kinda have pangs of conscience from time to time? Right?

One does not need to march in lockstep with the Vatican's moment to moment morality to be a devout Catholic (we can talk death penalty all day, if you like); one does need to not trample all over the Tradition.

As for slavery, inter alia: Peter had a comment some time ago correcting your misapprehension. I'm sure he can point you to it, if you ask nicely.

And: Do I consider the Borgias moral examplars? Nope. Were they infallible? Nope -- except when they spoke ex cathedra. No human is perfect; JPII may be one heck of a guy, but he's a sinner like you and I. (I believe it was Augustine who tried that one.)

Robert: I wasn't being snide when I referred to your otherwise keen reading comprehension. I fail to understand why it's abandoned you with regard to this fairly limited area.

Harry: "Grave mortal sin," "strongly condemned," and "excommunicate by nature of the crime itself" strike me as pretty danged explicit. I mean, I guess the Catechism could say, "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!! HELL!! HELL!! IF YOU HAVE OR INDUCE AN ABORTION," but not only is that not precisely true (there's something about the power of mercy for almost any crime somewhere in there), but it's not quite the tone one uses to communicate to the faithful. Pray tell, what better language would you employ?

Chris,

As I recall, these are the passages from Vatican I in question:

"I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law,
truly and properly so called,
instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and
necessary for salvation,
though each person need not receive them all."

"This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure [2] that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God."

I don't recall your exact reasoning for saying that when the document states that salvation is impossible outside of the Catholic faith and without the Catholic sacraments, this doesn't mean that non-Catholics cannot be saved.

The majority of Catholics, for many decades after Vatican I believed that it meant exactly what it said. Both my mother and father were taught that anyone who wasn't a Catholic was going to Hell. That is the plain language way to interpret what the document says, just as the plain language way to interpret Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" claim is that he was denying any sexual activity with her.

My reading comprehension is based on the "Occam's Razor" rule: if there is a plain, clearly expressed meaning to a document, and a overly-convoluted, indirect and hidden interpretation relying on multiple meanings and semantic gymnastics, I go for the plainly expressed interpretation.

Robert: The problem is that you're making a priori assumptions that are frankly incorrect, then applying Occam's Razor. (Anyway, William of Ockham was a heretic; why apply his Razor here?) The Catholic Church historically does not call itself the Catholic Church, except in the proper noun form. When those documents refer to the small-c catholic church, they refer to the Universal (which is what catholic means) Church of Christ, of which the Catholic Church is merely the best representative. There would have been no need for a bull of excommunication against the Orthodox Church (which could be, and which has been, revoked) if the statement you quote referred to the spiritual organization based out of Rome.

That many misunderstand the statement is a failure of catechesis, not of intent or wording.

Chris,

There are only three dogmas that have been formally declared in ex cathedra to be infallible:

the original declaration of infallibility
the Immaculate Conception
The Assumption of Mary

Anything and everything else can and should be subject to review in accordance with the strict rules for utilizing the "primacy of the informed conscience". For example, if the rabid right-wingers manage to get the so called fifth Marian mystery (Mary is co-redemtrix with her Son)established as formal dogma, I for one would have no trouble concluding that the Church has comitted blasphemy.

Only Jesus saves.

As for slavery, the following is a summary of the Church's teaching concerning slavery and how they evolved over the centuries:

1839: Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Supremo Apostolatus that he admonishes and adjures "in the Lord all believers in Christ, of whatsoever condition, that no one hereafter may dare unjustly to molest Indians, Negroes, or other men of this sort;...or to reduce them to slavery..." The operative word is unjustly. The Pope did not condemn slavery if the slaves had been captured justly. Roman Catholic Bishops in the Southern U.S. determined that this prohibition did not apply to slavery in the U.S. To their credit, various other popes did order or otherwise influence the emancipation of slaves that they considered to be unjustly enslaved.

1866: The Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement in support of slavery. In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution. It responded that:

"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." [Instruction 20, June 1866]

1888: Brazil became the last country in the Western hemisphere to abolish slavery. The Roman Catholic Church reversed its stance "from the affirmation to the condemnation of slavery." Pope Leo XIII sent a letter to the Brazilian Bishops saying that "from the beginning, almost nothing was more venerated in the Catholic Church...that the fact that she looked to see a slavery eased and abolished...Many of our predecessors...made every effort to ensure that the institution of slavery should be abolished where it existed and that its roots should not revive where it had been destroyed." This statement does not agree with the historical record. Previous church documents clearly stated that slavery was quite permissible, as long as the slave was a non-Christian and the slave's captors were fighting in a just war.

1917: The Roman Catholic church's Canon Law was expanded to declare a that "selling a human being into slavery or for any other evil purpose" is a crime.

Those pre-19th century Church statements against slavery don't condemn slavery per se. They condemn "unjust" enslavement, particularly of fellow Christians. Non-Christians remained fair game. When slavery finally died it did so without benefit of clergy.

Chris,

There are only three dogmas that have been formally declared in ex cathedra to be infallible:

the original declaration of infallibility
the Immaculate Conception
The Assumption of Mary

Anything and everything else can and should be subject to review in accordance with the strict rules for utilizing the "primacy of the informed conscience". For example, if the rabid right-wingers manage to get the so called fifth Marian mystery (Mary is co-redemtrix with her Son)established as formal dogma, I for one would have no trouble concluding that the Church has comitted blasphemy.

Only Jesus saves.

As for slavery, the following is a summary of the Church's teaching concerning slavery and how they evolved over the centuries:

1839: Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Supremo Apostolatus that he admonishes and adjures "in the Lord all believers in Christ, of whatsoever condition, that no one hereafter may dare unjustly to molest Indians, Negroes, or other men of this sort;...or to reduce them to slavery..." The operative word is unjustly. The Pope did not condemn slavery if the slaves had been captured justly. Roman Catholic Bishops in the Southern U.S. determined that this prohibition did not apply to slavery in the U.S. To their credit, various other popes did order or otherwise influence the emancipation of slaves that they considered to be unjustly enslaved.

1866: The Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement in support of slavery. In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution. It responded that:

"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." [Instruction 20, June 1866]

1888: Brazil became the last country in the Western hemisphere to abolish slavery. The Roman Catholic Church reversed its stance "from the affirmation to the condemnation of slavery." Pope Leo XIII sent a letter to the Brazilian Bishops saying that "from the beginning, almost nothing was more venerated in the Catholic Church...that the fact that she looked to see a slavery eased and abolished...Many of our predecessors...made every effort to ensure that the institution of slavery should be abolished where it existed and that its roots should not revive where it had been destroyed." This statement does not agree with the historical record. Previous church documents clearly stated that slavery was quite permissible, as long as the slave was a non-Christian and the slave's captors were fighting in a just war.

1917: The Roman Catholic church's Canon Law was expanded to declare a that "selling a human being into slavery or for any other evil purpose" is a crime.

Those pre-20th century Church statements against slavery don't condemn slavery per se. They condemn "unjust" enslavement, particularly of fellow Christians. Non-Christians remained fair game. When slavery finally died it did so without benefit of clergy.

Mr. duffy:

Slavery isn't immoral per se, only in particular iterations. For instance, the enslavement of cattle is not immoral.

Daniel: (1) You're leaving out a lot of bulls in the sixteenth century on. But like I said, I suspect this is a futile argument.

(2) So Christ's divinity is subject to review? The resurrection? The Real Presence? The Apostolic Succession? The Eschaton? I apologize; you're not a liberal Catholic, you're a heretic. Pardon the misunderstanding.

(3) As a rabid right-winger, I can firmly attest that the folks pushing for the Fifth Marian Dogma are not on my end of the pew. Unless the phrase "right-winger" means something other than what it self-evidently does, and means something along the lines of "people with whom I disagree, regardless of the nature of their beliefs," in which case, the phrase means what many liberals mean when they say "unconstitutional."

(4) As it happens, I'd agree that the Co-Redemptrix "Dogma" would be heretical. Then again, one Pope at a time...

So, Chris, am I to conclude from the Church's clear moral teaching that I can, or cannot keep a slave?

The Church's stand on abortion is one of very, very few examples of unambiguous moral teaching.

My parents were taught that if they did not send me to Catholic school, they would go to hell.

That was certainly clear enough, but was it moral enough?

Harry:

It is, of course, moral to keep a slave, but usually illegal.

Harry:

"Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. the right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order."

Oh, and Daniel:

"IV. Erroneous Judgment

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct."

(Emphasis added.)

Oh and Chris,

Obviously you missed this phrase from my last post:

'in accordance with the strict rules for utilizing the "primacy of the informed conscience".'

These rules were clearly stated in the post before my last one:

a. The reasoning is thorough and the result of long study and prayer.
b. It is not for selfish reasons but for moral reasons that a conclusion is arrived at.
c. It does not directly contradict the word of God (i.e. no amount of IC could justify cold blooded murder).

In following the above rules I can avoid the errors of judgement described in the catechism. Now even though you may love to see me roasted at the stake (I wonder what Jesus would say about that?), I can't see where I'm a heretic.

Furthermore, let's consider Humanae Vitae (explicted declare to not be infallible when it was issued), which is rejected by over 90% of Catholic couples in regards to the use of ABC. Are over 90% of Catholic laity heretics? Or is this a clear case of the magesteria being in conflict with the sensus fidelium, therefore rendering the teaching invalid?

Chris,
The failure of the catechesis has been very widespread on this point, it doesn't seem that the church hierarchy did much to correct the errors of the priests in this regard. Even conceding your point (which I don't), you haven't refuted Daniel's original charge, that a Hindu like Gandhi cannot be saved, unless the catholic church includes non-christian faiths as well.

But back to the text. The following passages contradict your contention that other Christian faiths can be included under the umbrella of the catholic (small c) church.

"And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of general councils,
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.
Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .

This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. "

Robert:

Everyone gets a second bite at the apple, so to speak, at the Second Coming. Presumably even Gandhi when he greets Christ will acknowledge Him, no?

Mr. duffy:

You've yet to show any evidence of a or b:

a. The reasoning is thorough and the result of long study and prayer.

b. It is not for selfish reasons but for moral reasons that a conclusion is arrived at.

Simply not to have a child is obviously a selfish reason, even if we're 100% agreed a sensible one. Morality isn't about being sensible.

OJ, where does it say that? I've always been taught that it is the state of your soul at the moment of your death that will determine if you acheive salvation or not. If that is the case, then what is the point of faith? Even doubting Thomases like me can get saved in that scenario.

Of course you can. Why do you think your doubts make any difference?

Daniel: Did I say anything about roasting anyone at the stake? I always thought charity, mercy, and, to a lesser extent, hot iron pokers were the appropriate tools used to bring heretics back into the fold. And as for Christ's reaction to casting out heretics, I can quote Scripture on that all night long, and I don't think you'd love the results.

You're missing one of the key components of the informed conscience: You can't willy-nilly over Church teachings in so doing. Sorry.

You have a fundamentally skewed, and either deliberately, or sadly, lacking view of what the Tradition means. A thing may be integral to the Faith, and therefore defined beyond the conscience's ability to improperly adjudicate it, without having the imprimatur of infallibility attached to it (a dogma that only explicitly dates from the late 19th Century). Since this is about abortion, and since you seem to think this is some last minute addition by the Vatican, as one example, type in "Didache+abortion" in a Google search. That is how far back it goes. It is as integral to the faith as the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. It reflects a view of the world and human life that cannot be divorced from Catholic teaching, now matter how determined the conscience to do so. But, as you apparently haven't been Catholic for a while, I guess it doesn't matter.

The reason, by the way, that you would be a heretic is that, applying your rules, you'd necessarily be able to void at least the Apostolic Succession, and, if memory serves, the Doctrine of the Real Presence. This is not exhaustive; but it is enough.

And: In answer to your question about the 85-90%: Probably, and with some of them, almost certainly. But like I said before, one Pope at a time.

Robert: Without getting into the Gandhi point (which I wasn't even addressing), that doesn't negate my point. So the Pope is the head of the Church; so? So denying this "endangers" one's salvation; it is not dispositively the end of the game. (If they meant, "terminates one's chance of salvation, but for recanting," they'd say that.) And like I said, were my points not so, a bull of Excommunication against the Orthodox Churches would be a redundancy. (And if not, why not excommunicate explicitly the other denominations, unless they convert?)

One other point: Catholic priests, bishops, and, yes, Popes, were engaged in Ecumenical councils with other Christian faiths within ten years of the end of Vatican I. Either they were not clear on what you perceive to be the clear meaning of their own words, or they may have believed there was a productive end to be gained by interacting with the other Christian Churches -- and, gasp! treating them as such.

Chris,

The standard fate of heretics was to be burnt at the stake. I'm disappointed that that fact went right over your head. And I wasn't asking about Christ's reaction to the CASTING OUT of heretics, but their being burnt alive. So I'll ask again, what would Jesus say about burning people alive?

And I never claimed to be rejecting the teachings of the Church willy nilly. Hellooooo! That's why I listed the strict rules for the use of informed conscience. Either you're deliberately ignoring this or this too went over your head. IC should never be used lightly (though conservative like you believe it should never be used at all), and the conscience is always informed in light of Church teachings. BUT CHURCH TEACHINGS CAN BE MORALLY WRONG! Which is why the exercise of the informed conscience is a necessary doctrinal safeguard and the teachings of the magesterium must pass muster with the sensus fidelium to be valid teachings.

And why would theses rules NECESSARILY cause me to reject Real Presence, etc.?

As for respecting tradition, why should I respect the following traditions and teachings (repeated from up thread):

a. Burning heretics (burning witches was a Protestant thing).
b. Torturing people by the inquisition.
c. Waging holy wars against Muslims in violation of its own "Just War" doctrine.
d. Committing genocide against the Albigensians (among others).
e. Promoting the corrupting sale of indulgences, a major trigger of the Protestant reformation.
f. Claiming until quite recently that there is no salvation outside of the church (at least we no longer have to believe in moral absurdities like Mahatma Gandhi burning in hell just because he was a Hindu).
g. Opposing the lending of money at interest.
h. Warning against the dread heresy of Americanism.
i. Though it has tried to mitigate (whenever it could) the abuses of slavery it never opposed it as an institution, and when slavery died it did so without benefit of clergy.
j. And though individual Popes have protected and sheltered Jews whenever possible, the church on the whole has until this century persecuted Jews or connived at their persecution (JPII recently apologized for such sins).

As for being a Catholic, I attend every Sunday I possibly can and raise my children in the faith. So don't presume to judge me.

And as for Humanae Vitae, are you off your nut? Are you really claiming that the vast majority of Catholics (the actual number is 90% to 95%) are heretics and going to Hell? If so, the Church is doing a lousy job of saving souls.

Mr. duffy:

He'd have been down with it--He scourged the money-lenders Himself and said He came with a sword. Indeed, all the things you list seem quite compatible with His moral teachings except for indulgences.

Daniel: This is why I don't argue with Church liberals and heretics.

Let me try this one more time: I was joking about the hot pokers, and understood the burning reference. Just so we're both on the same page, if memory serves, heretics could also be beheaded, drawn and quartered, and drowned. Burning is so thirteenth to fifteenth century.

I imagine Christ would have differing reactions to differing executions. I imagine he was quite serious about the millstone around the neck of those who hurt the little ones; I would therefore suppose that burning heretics who perform or support abortions would probably not receive a jaundiced eye. As I'm not Christ, I wouldn't presume to speak for Him; but I think we can maybe take his words kinda seriously.

Note that I said you'd necessarily be able to void a host of doctrines; not that you'd have to. Although, one might make the logical leap that you've voided at least a few. One might also make the leap that you were so incensed with what I wrote that you didn't carefully read it.

The Albigensians weren't a racial group.

The litany above is, let's say, somewhat historically misinformed. But that's beyond the scope of this comment.

Sensus fidelum is not a trump on Tradition. It is a safeguard against sudden departures from the Tradition.

If you re-read my point about the 85-90%, you'll note that I think some portion are almost certainly heretics (and, should they die in that state, going to Hell). Hey, I think I'm going to Hell (although I hope and pray I'm wrong), so it's not like I'm tossing stones here. (In fact that goes to your question about judging: I anticipate being judged; therefore, I have no problem judging.) As for the rest, insofar as they wander into heresy, yes: They're heretics. Whether they're going to Hell or not is God's call, not mine. But I imagine the distinction is over your head.

Fundamentally, you have a weirdly Protestant worldview, and you're trying to make its square peg fit in the Catholic Church's doctrine. It doesn't match.

Mr Duffy:

Why, why, why is the Catholic Church perpetually called upon to answer for medieval sins dissected through a modern moral microscope? Apart from the American heresy (which, actually, is ecumenical dogma up here), and a very ambiguous, controversial slavery argument, you are railing against the Middle Ages on all but anti-semitism.

Chris, as usual with the Church, you want to have it both ways -- in the same post, forsooth.

First you quote meaningless (because never used by the Church) prattle about individual integrity, then you cite (where it counts) canon law about bowing to the authority of the church.

Which is it?

I see Orrin has thrown out Pascal's Wager, which surprises me. If I can make a quick backtrack once I see Jesus, then no point in trying to do his bidding down here.

I think Pascal's Wager silly, so that's one of the few things we are agreed upon.

Giordano Bruno would probably laugh to hear that burning heretics was "so 15th century." He was burned at the beginning of the 17th.

It might be a bitter laugh.

Peter, I don't know about anybody else, but I harp on past sins of the Church because I was raised to believe it was "one, holy, catholic and apostolic," and explicitly universal and unchanging.

That turned out to be a lie, like everything else the Church taught me, but, hey, I'm playing their rules.

Also, I'm cheerfully ready to accuse the Church of current offenses, of which there are plenty.

We have here been asked about giving communion to politicians. But somehow nobody asked about giving communion to bishops who run child sex rings.

Millstones around necks, indeed.

Harry:

We've been down this road many times before. Are you suggesting you would have been happier or at least more respectful of the church if it had maintained all dogma, practices, structures and rules since the Middle Ages and had never changed or evolved anything in response to changing empirical knowledge or experience? Do you really interpret "unchanging" to mean the medieval popes set everything in stone?

Your analolgy to abortion would be perfect and rational if the Catholic bishops were out there preaching the acceptabilty of pederastry and fighting legal efforts to outlaw it. As they are not, it is sort of wanting--big time.

Gee, Harry, I'm sorry. I guess I sold out to silly ideas about the fundamental comatabilty of human dignity and integrity, and a morally well-ordered life. Then again, I don't take An ye do no harm, do as ye would to be the whole of the law.

Let me square the circle, so to speak: It is fully possible to allow free human choice, and to argue -- yes, it can be done! -- that man can only be truly free when his freedom to choose is within ordered liberty. I, sadly, am not up to that argument; google Michael Novak and you should come up with the right stuff.

Simply because some choices are inherently error does not mean that one's freedom is constrained by being reminded of this fact.

Peter, yes, I would respect the Church if it had stuck to its guns. I'm playing by their rules. The way I was brought up in the Church, the moral teachings were invariable and were not subject to increasing empirical knowledge.

That's my point about Thomism. Having taken its stand, the Church wimped out when increasing empirical knowledge made it look ridiculous.

That's why I respect Orrin. He disregards empirical knowledge and sticks to his guns. If that makes him ridiculous in some eyes, he can stand the guff.

The Church never had to declare that the Sun moved around the Earth. Once it did so and was willing to enforce its opinion by killing people, it had either to stick to it or lose all moral authority.

And that's my answer to Chris. I don't have any problem with the concept of ordered liberty or living according to personal rules of integrity.

I just don't see any evidence that the Catholic Church -- or any other theism -- provides a reliable guide to what that is.

And everybody agrees with me, whether they pretend different or not. Nobody follows the same moral rules as their great great grandparents did.