| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harasment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| All life sacred?; Catholic approach to this | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Saturday, 4. July 2009, 19:58 (770 Views) | |
| John Sweeney | Saturday, 4. July 2009, 19:58 Post #1 |
|
We are used nowadays to the Church saying " All human life is sacred" and this is used as an argument against stem cell research, contraception, abortion, euthanasia and increasingly, although more hesitantly, against war. As far as I can see this approach is comparatively new to Catholicism. I don't mean individual components of the doctrine are necessarily new--although some are--but rather that the all -encompassing nature of the doctrine is new. In effect , the mantra " All life is sacred " is comparatively new. Am I right in saying this is a fairly modern manifestation and if so why has it developed? John Edited by John Sweeney, Saturday, 4. July 2009, 20:10.
|
 |
 
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 4. July 2009, 20:18 Post #2 |
Administrator
|
John I don't know if you are right in saying it, bit if the Church is laying more stress on these issues, I suppose it is because there are relatively new ethical questions. When was stem cell research first carried out? When was legalisation of euthanasia first called for, by elected legislators, in the governing body of any largely Christian country? The Church has always taught that it is wrong to abort babies, or to kill people who are ill. We hear more about it nowadays. |
  Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Saturday, 4. July 2009, 20:31 Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
John, I think you will find that the idea of the Sanctity of Human Life has been around for quite a while. Genesis 1:26-28 26* Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, If being created in the image of God is not sacred then well I think there is something amiss And to affirm his love for us Romans 5:8 8* But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Thus perpetuating the idea of the sanctity of life. I could find many other biblical references such as the commandments but I think these two will illustrate the point. I think you have to go back and rethink your idea that the Sanctity of Human life is a new theology or philosophy or idea of the church. The sanctity of life is at the heart of our relationship with God. |
|
|
|
| John Sweeney | Saturday, 4. July 2009, 22:10 Post #4 |
|
Penfold No dispute that the sanctity of human life idea has been around for some time. , as you say. However, my point is that this all-encompassing idea was not expressed so trenchantly in previous times. I would say from looking at the records that the emphasis on this started about 30 years. previously, for example, it is hard to trace a speech or document by a Pope which stresses this whereas now the Pope and the hierarchy mention it in almost every address. It is also interesting that the last part in this argument--opposition to all wars--is still an uneasy part of the jigsaw although the Vatican has set a good example her. John |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 4. July 2009, 22:54 Post #5 |
|
Administrator
|
30 years ago we became aware of the escalation in the murder of millions of unborn babies. Does the Catholic Church condemn ALL wars? I understood the Church dd not condemn wars that come under the concept of "A Just War". No doubt Penfold will be able to give useful input, due to his military ministry. |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 5. July 2009, 01:06 Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
Then again, I might not, Rose. I have already tried to answer John's question and apparently failed. |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 5. July 2009, 09:07 Post #7 |
|
Administrator
|
Penfold, I was referring to one specific issue, war. Does the Church say it is invariably sinful to go to war, even to defend a nation from attackers? I have seen this discussed on forums, there is so much confusion. The way it seems to me, if war is invariably evil, it is a sin to join the armed forces in any capacity other than medical and chaplaincy. |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| OsullivanB | Sunday, 5. July 2009, 10:00 Post #8 |
|
The sanctity of life is in Genesis very shortly after The Fall. The Mark of Cain was imposed to protect him from the capital punishment he arguably merited. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 5. July 2009, 10:51 Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
This thread is about the semantics of the use of the phrase ‘All Life is Sacred’ It has been my experience in this forum that when engaged in such debates it soon becomes clear that while I am talking about “apples and pears” others are talking about “apples and couples.”  
|
|
|
|
| John Sweeney | Sunday, 5. July 2009, 10:59 Post #10 |
|
Rose I did say that I thought the inclusion of war in the all life is sacred stance is less certain than the other components. It seems to me that from John Paul 11's time there has been a marked move towards a Vatican condemnation of all wars although there has been no announcement of a change of policy away from the traditional "just war" teaching. John |
|
|
|
| Bob Crowley | Sunday, 5. July 2009, 12:23 Post #11 |
|
In ages past the church had no trouble with capital punishment, burning at the stake, torture, crusades to Jerusalem, and the like. It reflected the society in which it found itself. One generation it will make harsh dogmatic statements saying that the Catholic Church is the only way to salvation, with the Portuguese missionaries in Goa and Spanish missionaries in South America forcibly converting the natives to the church with the sword, and in another generation it will join in the modern move towards tolerating other faiths. That's why I'm cynical about the infallibility bit - the church is alway affected by the surrounding culture. I think however the enormous death toll of two world wars and the Soviet experience, combined with modern technology, have pushed the church into a position of trying to defend the value of human life in this world. At one time the church favoured ecomonic development in just about all areas, but then suddenly found itself being dragged along with the tide on climate change, environmental concerns and the like. The church by and large is not original, but adapts to the age it finds itself in. Right from the very beginning Paul had to drag a recalcitrant Peter, the first Pope, out of a Jewish mindset regarding circumcision and possibly other Jewish laws of the time, and this kind of forced editing has gone on ever since. In fact, the doctrine of Papal Infallibilility itself was a knee-jerk reaction to modernism and the accompanying revolutions, which the Church couldn't cope with in the 19th century. In the Middle Ages, the Church was against usury. That was the reason Jews became such a powerful business influence since they were prepared to charge interest for loans. Nowadays it has bank accounts of its own and has no problem with income from interest for its own investments. One more of its infallible doctrines, I suppose? |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 5. July 2009, 14:03 Post #12 |
|
Administrator
|
John, looking back to the birth of the first test tube baby, Louise Brown, in 1976, few people grasped why the Church spoke out against the procedure. I can see now why the Catholic Church takes its stance. As a result of being on Catholic discussion forums I learned that one baby is born by In Vitro Fertilisation several unborn babies are destroyed. None of us expected abortion to ever be on its current scale. Few would have thought the day would come when euthanasia would be discussed, regularly, by the media and politicians. In the United Kingdom, contraceptive devices other than condoms were available on prescription only, and restricted to married couples. Now, probably most Catholic couples, married or not, see no harm in contraception, even when there is no grave reason to regular birth. Any one of us can be asked to make a decision about turning off life support from a loved one. We need guidance, when is it right and when is it wrong? We are open to so many secular influences, I do not think the Church has changed any teachings, her representatives are speaking out more often because we are all in danger of being influenced by subtle persuasion. As for "all life is sacred" was that not always been taught in our schools and in parishes? Regarding war, the Church does not argue against war, it lays down conditions for a just war, when armed defence is the only option. The Church has not changed her stance. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2302 to 2317. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P81.HTM |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| John Sweeney | Sunday, 5. July 2009, 16:04 Post #13 |
|
I agree with Bob. Rose, I agree with almost all you say. I do not say that Church has changed her stance on most of the components of the pro-life campaign. I do think it has only recently been brought forward as a coherent all-encompassing policy and it is only very recently in Church terms that the anti all war and against capital punishment components have come to the fore. John |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 5. July 2009, 17:11 Post #14 |
|
Deleted User
|
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations. (Jeremiah 1:5) All Human life is sacred because it comes from God and humans are the temple of the Holy Spirit and possess an immortal soul, which is formed at the moment of conception as a gift from God independently of genetic or evolutionary influences. In other words one may share certain physical characteristics with your parents and siblings but your soul is unique. This teaching of the church is found in the writings of such scholars as St Thomas Aquinas but it was not until the advent of Darwinism that it was seriously challenged and so since the 19th century the Church has given greater energy to producing documents and teachings to help defend this long held principle. It has always upheld the principle that Human Life is sacred and has addressed the issue of abortion and euthanasia in very early times.
The phrase “All Human Life is Sacred” is perhaps a modern expression of this long held principle and as a principle it applies to all aspects of Human Life. In 1940 Pius XII spoke out against eugenics and euthanasia as it offended the divine and natural Law. The principles of the Just War theory as enshrined in Catholic Doctrine and forming the basis of the principles of the Geneva Convention and various UN Charters are those which were defined by St Thomas Aquinas. He was not the origin of the principles which predate Christianity by many generations and have their roots in ancient Greek and Chinese philosophies, but his work codified the principles in a form that was easy to grasp and teach. We still adhere to these principles today but with the manufacture of modern weapons it is increasingly difficult to envisage a situation where a proportional response can be made and if some weapons are used there can be no doubt that the destruction cause would be disproportionate to any possible gain (I do not wish to speculate on particular case within this thread). One should also consider that since 1914 Europe and much of the World has been engaged in two World Wars and a Global Cold War and since 2001 a “War on Terror” which mean that probably not since the middle ages and the crusades has the church had to address the issue of warfare on such a large scale, the same principles apply. At my graduation from Cranwell the reviewing officer asked me why he needed Padres on his budget and I replied because the day he went to war without us he was in the wrong war, I have played an active part in conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. Indirectly I have been involved in Northern Ireland (being a Catholic priest from Northern Ireland it was decided not to send me there on active duty), Chad, Mozambique, Cyprus and Sierra Leone. In all cases I wish a better way could have been found to bring about a resolution of differences but so far I am still putting on my helmet and body armour and going forward to support the troops. (Please if you wish to debate war and its consequences open a different thread and I may answer or attempt to answer your enquiries but I will not debate particular cases, I may reveal information inadvertently which could harm my colleagues or aid the enemy in some way.) Until the rise of Darwinism, Communism and the Nazis few would have questioned the Sanctity of Life but since these movements and other secular societies have emerged it has become increasingly necessary for the church to express openly and unequivocally what had previously been implicit. This as Rose has pointed out is why we are perhaps hearing the phrase “All Human Life is Sacred” proclaimed and reiterated so often today, but as to whether it is a new phrase or one resurrected from past documents I have not got the time to check for most of the relevant texts are still in Latin or Greek or some other foreign language and since this is only a friendly discussion forum please forgive me if I do not go to the lengths of scholarship that would be required of a doctrinal thesis. |
|
|
|
| Joe Valente | Sunday, 5. July 2009, 20:29 Post #15 |
|
"One more of its infallible doctrines, I suppose?" Bob, Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I suggest you check the Church's definition of infallibility. |
| What doth it profit a man if he gains the whole world but suffers the loss of his soul | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » | |
1:12 AM Nov 8