Catholic Readers discussion
Promotions, own books, etc.
>
New post in my blog on popular science
Carmen, you are not only not in “full communion” with the Catholic Church, regardless of the rites you may have participated in, you’re not in communion with her at all. You have separated yourself first with regard to the ‘one faith’, the ‘one mind’ of the Church, refusing to conform your mind to hers, and you have here, for all to witness, separated yourself with regard to charity, suggesting such a spurious malice that a pro-life advocate would favor anything so reprehensible as the rape of a 10 yr. old, or the market value of an embryo. Both your spirit and words, as expressed here, lack any resemblance whatsoever to the holy truth of Catholic Faith. St. Thomas defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in those who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas.”
Manuel wrote: "I am a computer scientist and a doctor in communicat..."
Thank you, Manuel, for sharing your background with me. I started out studying engineering and computer science. My husband of 50 years has an amazing career in marine engineering. So I definitely understand your point of view.
With that said, I should note that my philosophical interests center around Nietzsche's work 'On the Genealogy of Morals' and his criticism of Social Darwinism that was becoming vogue at that time. One hundred and fifty years later, many are still questioning the idea of natural selection and social engineering.
Manuel wrote: "I was comparing chicken..."Dear friend,
If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you stick with the question of what it means to be human. Anyone who has studied evolution knows that humans are mammals. And chickens are NOT mammals.
Susan wrote: "Carmen, you are not only not in “full communion” with the Catholic Church, regardless of the rites you may have participated in."May I suggest you read about Cardinal McElroy and his criticism of Catholics who use the word "communion" to promote a political agenda.
Manuel wrote: "Carmen: My interest is more on the morality of producing "test-tube" babies for profit ..."I am happy, Manuel, that we both question of morality of certain reproductive freedoms. We also seem to agree that the death penalty is a pro-life issue.
This is a good starting point.
It might be best to just drop this current discussion. This thread isn't meant to be a place for heated argumentative and/or disrespectful discussions. Also, some of the opinions expressed here are dangerously askew from our Church's teaching. At the risk of opening myself up to an attack, I thought I might suggest that this discussion be laid to rest.
Michelle wrote: "It might be best to just drop this current discussion..."Thank you, Michelle, for your input. But Manuel and I are both adults and can decide for ourselves whether we wish to continue the discussion or not. You are free to join the discussion if you would like. But your suggestion that we stop is not appropriate.
Carmen wrote: "Manuel wrote: "I was comparing chicken..."Dear friend,
If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you stick with the question of what it means to be human. Anyone who has studied evolution knows that humans are mammals. And chickens are NOT mammals."
I am sorry, Carmen, but this comment is frivolous and shouldn't have been used in a reasoned debate. Therefore, I'm endorsing Michelle's suggestion and closing this debate.
Manuel wrote: "Carmen wrote: "Manuel wrote: "I was comparing chicken..." ."Yes, I agree. The entire chicken debate can be called "frivolous." And a discussion about abortion rights can set off lots of emotions, especially in Spain due to the historical connection to the Catholic Church.
Be blessed.
Latest post in my blog on popular science:Science and hate for religion: a personal anecdote
https://populscience.blogspot.com/202...
Manuel wrote: "Latest post in my blog on popular science:Science and hate for religion: a personal anecdote
https://populscience.blogspot.com/202..."
Beautifully written and argued! I love it!
Please allow me some further discussion on your three points:
1) "Man is the cause and responsible for human acts, which can be good or bad."
The words "Man" and "Human" raise philosophical and ethical questions. Let's not get into another 'chicken and egg' discussion. Can we agree that philosophy and ethics cannot be discussed through science?
2) "Entities or social institutions such as the Government, the Church or a University, made up of groups of human beings, which can be jointly responsible for their actions."
If we can agree that the question 'what is human' is philosophical, then we can talk about the philosophy of sociology, etc.
3) "Abstract entities such as science and religion, which cannot be assigned moral responsibility, but should not be used to justify our actions, which should be judged according to their consequences."
If we can agree on the above two points, then I'd like to talk about your third point.
No, Carmen, we cannot agree because our concept of what it means to be human is different. Mine is based on science and faith, which both assert that a human individual starts at the zygote.Faith: The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Science: Nicolás Jouve, top geneticist and bioethicist in Spain, has read our previous debate and stated that he endorses everything I said.
So please stop trying to drag me to another pro-abortion discussion.
By the way, you never answered my second question to you in comment #397 in this thread:
How can you conform your ideas about abortion with the teaching of the Church, which calls abortion "an abominable crime"?
Manuel wrote: "No, Carmen, we cannot agree because our concept of what it means to be human is different. .."Please try to put your bias against me aside so we can focus on what we agree on: The Fifth Commandment.
Paragraph 2270 of the CCC that you quote states the verse from the Prophet Jeremiah that I originally quoted: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you and before you were born I consecrated you."
So again, God's knew of humanity long BEFORE the zygote.
As I stated before, science and faith are separate topics. Yes, from a science perspective, life begins with the fertilized egg. But our faith states clearly that Our Creator had plans for that human being long before the invention of science. Because of that faith, I believe that birth control is also unethical.
Please give me a direct answer to this question: Are you against abortion?
Manuel wrote: "Please give me a direct answer to this question: Are you against abortion?"Oh, for heaven sake! I am AGAINST birth control!!!!!
How in the world do you conclude that someone who is ethically against birth control can in any form of the imagination not also be against abortion?
As I stated before, try to put your irrational biases aside so we can begin an intelligent conversation.
Then how do you explain this: a) In comment 391 in this thread, you wrote: But not so with Homo sapiens and mammals. Unlike the chicken egg, the embryo remains dependent and connected to the mother, and therefore not considered an individual organism until after birth. You stated that in mammals and humans embryos are NOT individual organisms. This is a typical abortionist fallacy, which you apparently believed.
b) In comment 396 you wrote: Well, snakes leave their eggs in the sun to incubate them. So nature can provide heat. But human embryos CANNOT survive more than a week without the mother. This is another typical abortionist argument.
c) In comment 398 you said: so-called "pro-life" advocates are okay with raping 10 year-olds and forcing them to carry the rapist's child to term. One has to ask if the market value of the embryo might be a factor. You appeared to be advocating for abortion for pregnant raped girls and attacking pro-lifers. Other members of the group understood it that way.
d) In comments 397 and 413 I asked you a question: How can you conform your ideas about abortion with the teaching of the Church, which calls abortion "an abominable crime"? You never answered the question, not even to say that you are against abortion.
You are slippery as an eel. That's why I had to ask you a direct question. Now you are denying that you are abortionist. If this is true, why didn't you say it before? How can we believe you after so many opposite inklings you have given?
I am certain that, if the moderator of this group were available, this debate would have been stopped long before.
Manuel wrote: "Then how do you explain this: "a) In comment 391 in this thread, you wrote: But not so with Homo sapiens and mammals. Unlike the chicken egg ...."
So you return to your crazy notion that there is no difference between a chicken and a human being. Well, I understand science and know that human beings are MAMMALS, not chickens. That does NOT in any way, shape or form prove an ethical position.
"b) In comment 396 you wrote: Well, snakes leave their eggs in the sun to incubate them. ..."
Yes, I also know the difference between snakes and chickens. And again, that has NOTHING to do with ethics.
"c) In comment 398 you said: so-called "pro-life" advocates are okay with raping 10 year-olds and forcing them to carry the rapist's child to term. ..."
If you actually want to talk ethics, you have to address the BIG ethical question presented to the pro-life movement about this 10 year-old rape victim. US President Biden had to intervene to stop the violence being promoted against this poor child and her doctors.
"d) In comments 397 and 413 I asked you a question: How can you conform ...You never answered the question, not even to say that you are against abortion."
I will REPEAT AGAIN, I am ethically against birth control.
"You are slippery as an eel ..."
Your name-calling is uncalled for.
"I am certain that, if the moderator of this group were available ..."
To have an intelligent discussion, you only need intelligence, not a moderator. As I suggested before, you have to give up this crazy notion that fertilized chicken eggs raise ethical questions.
Carmen, you are stating that you are opposed to birth control, while at the same time you seem to be a proponent of abortion. This is not a political debate forum. This is a Catholic Reader thread. Please stop trolling the threads with your political agenda! This is causing me a lot of discontent, and I would be surprised if I were the only one. You just brought up politics in my thread that was to ask about our moderator. What did my question have to do with politics?
Please read the rules for this group. Antagonism and disrespect of our Church's teachings as well as other members is completely unnecessary, and goes against the whole feel of this group. For me this group was always a pleasant oasis for fellow Catholics to "mingle". Now it's turning into a contentious political platform. Please cease this behavior in the interest of peace.
And I agree: had our moderator seen this thread she would have stopped this long before it had gotten to this point.
Michelle wrote: "Carmen, you are stating that you are opposed to birth control, .."Yes, I've made it very clear I am ethically against birth control.
I have also stated clearly that I don't see chickens as human beings.
So let's start again and base the conversation with those facts.
From our group rules, please read the following:"Catholic Readers is intended, in the main, for Catholics - Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Others are welcome to join in discussions if they refrain from expressing ideas and opinions which are contrary to the Church's teaching, Apostolic Tradition, and Scripture."
Michelle wrote: "And you wish to continue..."I cannot "continue" something that hasn't begun.
I wish to begin an intelligent conversation that connects 'Popular Science' to ethical questions of the day.
Michelle wrote: "From our group rules, please read the following:"Catholic Readers is intended, in the main, for Catholics - Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome."
Are you stating that we cannot discuss popular science because science is not "in communion with the Bishop of Rome?"
Not at all. Your arguments for abortion are in direct violation with our Church's teachings, and therefore are in violation of the group rules.
Michelle wrote: "Not at all. Your arguments for abortion..."How does my belief that chickens are not mammals and much less human argue in favor of abortion?
Carmen wrote: "Manuel wrote: "Then how do you explain this: "a) In comment 391 in this thread, you wrote: But not so with Homo sapiens and mammals. Unlike the chicken egg ...."
So you return to your crazy notio..."
Again, you are not answering my questions with direct answers, but slipping away by holding to irrelevant words. When I said you were slippery as an eel I was not calling you names, but describing what you do.
Look, as I've said before, I am not interested in following this conversation. I won't answer any of your comments again.
Manuel wrote: "Then how do you explain this: a) In comment 391 in this thread, you wrote: But not so with Homo sapiens and mammals. Unlike the chicken egg, the embryo remains dependent and connected to the moth..."
Manuel wrote: "Carmen wrote: "Manuel wrote: "Then how do you explain this:
"a) In comment 391 in this thread, you wrote: But not so with Homo sapiens and mammals. Unlike the chicken egg ...."
So you return to y..."
Carmen wrote: "Manuel wrote: "Then how do you explain this:
"a) In comment 391 in this thread, you wrote: But not so with Homo sapiens and mammals. Unlike the chicken egg ...."
So you return to your crazy notio..."
Manuel wrote: "Then how do you explain this:
a) In comment 391 in this thread, you wrote: But not so with Homo sapiens and mammals. Unlike the chicken egg, the embryo remains dependent and connected to the moth..."
Carmen, the Church has responded to the BIG ethical question regarding the 10 yr old (impregnated) rape victim. She refuses to respond to violence against 1 person with violence against another. There are 2 innocent children involved in this scenario. Violence against the unborn child will not heal the violence against the 10 yr old. Both are God’s children and God will provide the needed healing when healing is entrusted to His truth and love.
Violence in the case of self-defense MAY be an exception, but does not apply to the above situation. “Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception.” CCC 2271
Manuel wrote: "Carmen wrote: "Manuel wrote: "Then how do you explain this: But not so with Homo sapiens and mammals. Unlike the chicken egg ...."
So you return to y..."
Manuel wrote: "When I said you were slippery as an eel I was not calling you names, but describing what you do."
Again, your statement is not only name-calling, but also inflammatory and a lie.
Susan wrote: "Manuel wrote: "Then how do you explain this: a) In comment 391 in this thread, you wrote: But not so with Homo sapiens and mammals. Unlike the chicken egg, the embryo remains dependent and connec..."
Thank you for your input. But Pope Francis has been clear that our BIG ethical issue is climate. He is clear that without a healthy planet, the mother of the any future child will not survive. And if mothers die in the first few months of pregnancy, the embryo will also die.
Sorry for posting to the wrong person. I’m not very posting savvy.I would agree that climate is a big issue, as is immigration and many other concerns, but I was addressing your comment that the Church needed to respond to the raped and pregnant child situation, specifically. She has. Of course the maternal solicitude of the Church embraces the life of the planet as well as each person. Sick planet, sick humanity.
I would add that the pope, any pope, is not the Church. He is a member and servant of the Church.
Susan wrote: "Sorry for posting to the wrong person. I’m not very posting savvy.I would agree that climate is a big issue, as is immigration and many other concerns, but I was addressing your comment that the C..."
Thank you, Susan, for the clarification.
I must stress that I never said the Church needs to respond to the tragic case of the 10 year-old rape victim. I was merely responding to Manuel's defense of the political pro-life movement, which is different in every country. He insists on whatever is going on politically in Spain must also be happening throughout the Catholic world. I disagree with that assessment. But I can respond with the "big" issues facing the political pro-life movement here in the US.
Now, the important issue as I see it: Our Holy Church. I agree that Pope Francis is not the Church. But he is presently leading us in what is important to our global Church. And he has made in clear that the health of our planet affects everything, including immigration and many other concerns.
Thank you for listening.
I live in the U.S. as well, Carmen. Pro-life is pro-life. It's not ambiguous or subjective to one's resident country.
Michelle wrote: "I live in the U.S. as well, Carmen. Pro-life is pro-life. It's not ambiguous or subjective to one's resident country."Even within the US, the political issues differ from state to state. The US Supreme Court has recently ruled against a uniform law defining abortion rights. This has created political division within the US.
With that said, Pope Francis has made it clear that the Church presently sees climate as the prominent pro-life issue. Issues around affordable healthcare for pregnant women is important, but there are different viewpoints as to how best apply the healthcare.
I see now that “pro-life” can imply, in this forum, a specific political movement in favor of the abolition of abortion which varies from place to place, or it can simply be the universal stance of the Church with regard to life in all its manifestations and phases, including the issue of abortion. The pope is in the latter, as am I, and as I inferred Manuel’s responses to your comments to be. You are right in that you didn’t say to him, “the Church” needed to address…but rather “you”. My mistake. There are so many disputes among people all claiming to be in the Church of “one mind”, “one faith”, “one Lord”, that I see discussions like this to be important, and transparency and clarity of position necessary, without which no gains toward truth can be made. And if truth isn’t the goal, then discussion is pointless.
Susan wrote: "I see now that “pro-life” can imply, in this forum, a specific political movement in favor of the abolition of abortion which varies from place to place, or it can simply be the universal stance of..."Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have to repeat your wise advice: "And if truth isn’t the goal, then discussion is pointless."
Manuel's responses to my comments are NOT based on truth. I have never disagreed with Church teachings, Our Holy Father, nor the Truth. But I do disagree with Manuel and his insistence that there is no biological difference between chickens and human beings. I don't agree with Manuel's conclusion that the human pregnant mother is no more than an eggshell created to protect a zygote.
Latest post in my blog on popular science:Andy Weir and the Hail Mary Project
https://populscience.blogspot.com/202...
Manuel wrote: "Latest post in my blog on popular science:Andy Weir and the Hail Mary Project
https://populscience.blogspot.com/202..."
Oh boy, Manuel ....
You do know that every time you post a commentary on your viewpoint of what is Catholic, I will have my own thoughts on the subject. You and I represent two very different perspectives.
Hopefully, God willing, you will someday be open to what can be a fascinating discussion.
Manuel wrote: "Latest post in my blog on popular science:Andy Weir and the Hail Mary Project
https://populscience.blogspot.com/202..."
As a science fiction fan, I found this article fascinating! I haven't read this book, but the readers in my SFFBC have given it accolades. I had avoided it because of the title; I was afraid that it would be offensive. Thank you for this article!
Michelle wrote: "As a science fiction fan, I found this article fascinating! I haven't read this book, but the readers in my SFFBC have given it accolades. I had avoided it because of the title; I was afraid that it would be offensive. Thank you for this article!"I have been informed that the title "Hail Mary" refers to a special baseball move, which I wasn't aware about. However, I have found a web where Andy Weir himself states that the combination "Hail Mary" and "Grace" was his own wink to Catholics, although his intention wouldn't be offensive.
Manuel wrote: "Michelle wrote: "As a science fiction fan, I found this article fascinating! I haven't read this book, but the readers in my SFFBC have given it accolades. I had avoided it because of the title; I ..."I think it's a football move. It always bothers me to hear Hail Mary used so ridiculously! That's why I had avoided the book. I'll have to consider it now!
Michelle wrote: "I think it's a football move."You are right! It's American Football, not baseball. But apparently (I wasn't aware) it refers to a desperate move made in the last moments of the match. In the context of the novel, the title is appropriate, for sending the ship in an interstellar journey is really a desperate move made in the last moments of human life on the Earth.
Speaking of fiction, I remember when I was young reading The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and crying my eyes out over Aslan. Then my mother told me that he was symbolic for Jesus' Death and Resurrection. I explained the same to my children when they were young when they read it.
Michelle wrote: "Manuel wrote: "Michelle wrote: "As a science fiction fan, I found this article fascinating! I haven't read this book, but the readers in my SFFBC have given it accolades. I had avoided it because o..."Hi, Michelle. I know it as a football saying too, but I like to hear it because it plops a spiritual reference right in the middle of a big game when (potentially) millions of people can hear it. It's also begins the Hail Mary prayer. Well played, Lord! Now I must read Manuel's article.....
Sheila wrote: "Michelle wrote: "Manuel wrote: "Michelle wrote: "As a science fiction fan, I found this article fascinating! I haven't read this book, but the readers in my SFFBC have given it accolades. I had avo..."That's a good way to look at it, Sheila! I'll have to look at it this way myself...
Manuel wrote: "I have been informed that the title "Hail Mary" refers to a special baseball move, which I wasn't aware about."Interesting that you, Manuel and Michelle, are having this discussion on the day the Catholic world is celebrating the birth of Mary the Mother of Jesus ... actually, it is kinda sad ...
Latest post in my blog on popular science:Time travel and matter transfer
https://populscience.blogspot.com/202...
Manuel wrote: "Latest post in my blog on popular science:Time travel and matter transfer"
Your blog does NOT belong under the titles of 'Catholic' NOR 'Science.'
1) CS Lewis was an atheist turned Anglican, and NOT a Catholic.
2) Literature is fiction. Science is NON-fiction.
As always, I welcome dialogue based on Catholic Teachings and/or science.
Carmen wrote: "Manuel wrote: "Latest post in my blog on popular science:Time travel and matter transfer"
Your blog does NOT belong under the titles of 'Catholic' NOR 'Science.'
1) CS Lewis was an atheist turned..."
Carmen, you just like to cause controversy...lol
CS Lewis was an Anglican but I believe a High Church Anglican, which is sometimes referred to as Anglo-Catholic. They are very close to Catholicism. Lewis was even close friends with well known Catholic JRR Tolkein. Lewis is supposed to be very close to Catholicism with the possible exception that he has qualms on the Marian doctrines. That said, Lewis may be closer to Catholicism than some Liberal Catholics.
Carmen, when you have time, please look at:You Tube ‘’On the Power of Fiction” Lewis Tolkien
It’s about 14 minutes long and gives the reader an insight into the beautiful friendship the two men shared and also into Lewis’s deep commitment to Christianity. The way Lewis lived his life and the depth of his spiritual writings have led thousands to Christ.
Catholic Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
Time and Man (other topics)The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (other topics)
The Fifth Level of Evolution (other topics)
La Vida En Otros Mundos (other topics)
Carbon-14: The Shroud of Turin (other topics)
Manuel: Here we seem to agree in one thing: producing "test-tube" babies for profit is immoral. However, your attack against so-called "pro-life" advocates is unjust.
Why do you want to kill the rapist's child? Is it guilty of some crime? The only guilty person in this context is the rapist, not the child. If anyone wants to kill someone, it would be better to kill the rapist.
However, I am also against the death penalty. So my opinion in a case like this is that the rapist should be physically castrated (to make it impossible for him to repeat his action), and perhaps sending him to jail for some term. But applying justice to innocent persons (like the child) seems to me unjust.