Slashdot Mirror

We do. Why do you think that we don't?

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."165

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."166

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."167 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union .... Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."168

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. the "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."82 "It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."83

---
Hodie Christus Natus Est!

We do. Why do you think that we don't?

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."165

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."166

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."167 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union .... Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."168

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. the "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."82 "It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."83

---
Hodie Christus Natus Est!

May I suggest reading Faith and Reason by Pope John Paul II.

Then you might know that, at least for Catholics, it is expected that they use their reason fully in the investigation and acceptance of their faith.

It is quite analogous to the way that scientists "blindly" accept the scientific method, but are expected to use their reason fully to understand the how the universe works.

Maybe you should take a gander at Pope John Paul II's FIDES ET RATIO (Faith and Reason) to see if you can get beyond your "mature" notion of religion. It's written from a philosophically sophisticated point of view, but I'm sure that with your maturity you'll be able to get through it.

We now can compare two belief systems.

System I

1. God created the world in 7 days.

2. Any evidence that contradicts this must not be true. Therefore, any evidence that contradicts point 1 can be explained away, whether by fossils planted as a test of faith, etc.

System II

1. There is no God.

2. Any evidence that indicates the existence of God must not be true. Therefore, any evidence that contradicts point 1 can be explained away, whether by a dream, a matrix like world, insanity, etc.

In light of the obvious similarities between your belief systems, I would recommend that you, GallopingGreen, refrain from criticizing any religious fundamentalists for their flawed thinking, at risk of serious hypocrisy. For that matter, please refrain from calling yourself a skeptic, until you are willing to critically examine all beliefs, instead of automatically rejecting any evidence against your preconceived notions.

Fortunately, I belong to a faith that believes that truth cannot contradict truth, and hence any truth in science cannot contradict truth in religion, and vice versa.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/enc yclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et- ratio_en.html
Maybe it is time to return to the concept of theology, physics, biology, etc. all representing various aspects of a search for the Truth.

Actually, I couldn't find the original news about this: It was back in the 70's or early 80's. The text of the Old and New Testament was digitised (Latin, Greek and some other sources) to find a translation that is most correct.
The text analysis was ordered and supervised by the Holy See.
The conclusion was that different wordings and differences in translation exist but still all of them are God words and those differences were human errors.
The only citation of Vatican I found is this link, especially Chater III, 11. and Ch V. 18-19.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vat ican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-v erbum_en.html

Of course the wording is just as an Oracle :->

Current pope is Benedictus XVI...
http://www.vatican.va/

After an investigation, the Judicial Affairs office decided to take action against Miner and, in an Oct. 13 hearing, found him guilty of violating university policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." As "punishment" - a term university officials say they don't like to use - Miner must write a 10-page essay in which he is required to research and explain the Roman Catholic church's position on gays and lesbians.

Now that's going to backfire, big-time. Because official Vatican doctrinal documents are much closer to the student's position than what Duquesne University is putting out.

The Catholic Church is having a doctrinal crackdown on this. No more "diversity". The Apostolic Visitation (what used to called the Grand Inquisition) of US seminaries by Vatican personnel is underway right now. Some faculty members have already been canned for deviations from church doctrine.

Fact #1 - The news conference was about the study of harmony between theology and science in a project called "Science, Theology and the Ontological Question" http://www.stoqnet.org/index_e.html.

Fact #2 - A sharp distinction was drawn by one of the cardinals between the scientific theory of evolution and the metaphysical position of "evolutionism" Evolutionism is a naturalistic philosophy referred to by the late Pope John Paul II in paragraph 54 of his document 'Fides et ratio' http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM. Evolutionism is an anti-theistic metaphysical view that says only chance and natural forces are the complete explanation for the universe and everything that exists in it. http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/#four . (Evolutionism seems to be roughly equivalent to the philosophical view of secular modernity.)

It seems my last comment got lost amongst the crowd (maybe mob is a better noun). I hope this one will not. It is probably the most important question in this entire article discussion. Please allow me to repeat the question: -------> What was the context of the comments by the Vatican officials? Does anyone know where we can find a transcript of what the Vatican officials said at this press conference? I find it hard to believe that we have so many comments posted here, and there is not a single person that actually knows what is going on. Not one human being that is posting on this slashdot discussion even knows the whole story about what the Vatican officials said? We are ripping each other apart about pieces of comments and half-quotes? A slice of a press conference has about as much fact as a severed finger has quality of life. Anyone here think facts are important? It doesn't seem like it. How sad. Context? Facts? Anyone? Links would be nice. Here's a few relevant facts that makes many of the posts in this discussion irrelevant: Fact #1 - The news conference was about the study of harmony between theology and science in a project called "Science, Theology and the Ontological Question" http://www.stoqnet.org/index_e.html. Fact #2 - A sharp distinction was drawn by one of the cardinals between the scientific theory of evolution and the metaphysical position of "evolutionism" Evolutionism is a naturalistic philosophy referred to by the late Pope John Paul II in paragraph 54 of his document 'Fides et ratio' http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM. Evolutionism is an anti-theistic metaphysical view that says only chance and natural forces are the complete explanation for the universe and everything that exists in it. http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/#four . (Evolutionism seems to be roughly equivalent to the philosophical view of secular modernity.) On the news conference transcript, I've been looking for two days and have come up with nothing. Maybe it's hidden in a digital news vault that costs $500 to access? Anybody with serious 'internet news saavy' here that can help us out? Can someone please shed some light on this discussion with some more facts? So that we can have what has been missing all along: an informed discussion. Anyone in for some quality dialogue here?

Doesn't the immaculate conception refer to the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin?

No. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that *Mary* was free of original sin. This isn't some kind of Catholic secret. Anyone can read the catechism http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/cate chism/p122a3p2.htm.

A tubal pregnancy may be aborted.

Source?

I believe the limited support for abortion comes from the right to self-defence. You're allowed to shoot back at crooks too, as long as you think they would kill you if you don't.

The fundamental difference is that the "crook" is an unjust aggressor. The Catholic Church teaches that it is not morally licit to kill an innocent bystander to save yourself, even if that person is unknowingly endangering you:

"The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing" (source: CCC 2263).

"Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion" [emphasis mine].

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2271.

Check your facts next time.

The divorce rate for the last hundred years has been within a couple of points of being 1/2 the rate of contracepting couples. Unfortunately, I don't have a chart with both sets of numbers on the same graph. The significant increase of usage began in the roaring 20s, and really took off with the Anglican church approval of contraception in 1929, which was wildly denounced in major news publications of the day such as the Washington Post, the NY Times, and most major newspapers. The pope's 1930 announcement was a follow up to this event. The text of that document can be found at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclic als/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_ en.html in which he predicted the downfall of family life if contraception became wide spread.

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

At the same time, Catholics are free, if they so choose, to believe the Bible literally -- i.e., Creationism.

As for Intelligent Design, that already got a thorough debunking from the November, 2002 session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (TOC) in the paper Science and Culture (pages 79-81). The paper labels Intelligent Design as bad science. From my own personal view of theology, I doubt that anything like Intelligent Design could ever be shown, because in that case such evidence would compel people to believe in God, which would take away their free will.

In short, Creationism alone, evolution alone, and Intelligent Design at all are all incompatible with the Catholic faith. Thus there is little prospect for Catholic parents to find a public school that teaches the origin of life in a manner compatible with the Catholic faith. That is why I am a signatory to the Proclamation for the Separation of School and State.

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

At the same time, Catholics are free, if they so choose, to believe the Bible literally -- i.e., Creationism.

As for Intelligent Design, that already got a thorough debunking from the November, 2002 session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (TOC) in the paper Science and Culture (pages 79-81). The paper labels Intelligent Design as bad science. From my own personal view of theology, I doubt that anything like Intelligent Design could ever be shown, because in that case such evidence would compel people to believe in God, which would take away their free will.

In short, Creationism alone, evolution alone, and Intelligent Design at all are all incompatible with the Catholic faith. Thus there is little prospect for Catholic parents to find a public school that teaches the origin of life in a manner compatible with the Catholic faith. That is why I am a signatory to the Proclamation for the Separation of School and State.

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

At the same time, Catholics are free, if they so choose, to believe the Bible literally -- i.e., Creationism.

As for Intelligent Design, that already got a thorough debunking from the November, 2002 session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (TOC) in the paper Science and Culture (pages 79-81). The paper labels Intelligent Design as bad science. From my own personal view of theology, I doubt that anything like Intelligent Design could ever be shown, because in that case such evidence would compel people to believe in God, which would take away their free will.

In short, Creationism alone, evolution alone, and Intelligent Design at all are all incompatible with the Catholic faith. Thus there is little prospect for Catholic parents to find a public school that teaches the origin of life in a manner compatible with the Catholic faith. That is why I am a signatory to the Proclamation for the Separation of School and State.

Let us give thanks to the FSM for this miracle.

We may NOT do evil so that good may result from it . . .

DONUM VITAE
(translated "The Gift of Life")

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION

REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY

FOREWORD

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been approached by various Episcopal Conferences or individual Bishops, by theologians, doctors and scientists, concerning biomedical techniques which make it possible to intervene in the initial phase of the life of a human being and in the very processes of procreation and their conformity with the principles of Catholic morality. The present Instruction, which is the result of wide consultation and in particular of a careful evaluation of the declarations made by Episcopates, does not intend to repeat all the Church's teaching on the dignity of human life as it originates and on procreation, but to offer, in the light of the previous teaching of the Magisterium, some specific replies to the main questions being asked in this regard. The exposition is arranged as follows: an introduction will recall the fundamental principles, of an anthropological and moral character, which are necessary for a proper evaluation of the problems and for working out replies to those questions; the first part will have as its subject respect for the human being from the first moment of his or her existence; the second part will deal with the moral questions raised by technical interventions on human procreation; the third part will offer some orientations on the relationships between moral law and civil law in terms of the respect due to human embryos and foetuses* and as regards the legitimacy of techniques of artificial procreation.

* The terms "zygote", "pre-embryo", "embryo" and "foetus" can indicate in the vocabulary of biology successive stages of the development of a human being. The present Instruction makes free use of these terms, attributing to them an identical ethical relevance, in order to designate the result (whether visible or not) of human generation, from the first moment of its existence until birth. The reason for this usage is clarified by the text (cf I, 1).

INTRODUCTION

1. BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH

The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the centre of one's reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral problems raised by artificial interventions on life as it originates and on the processes of procreation. Thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man has at his disposal ever more effective therapeutic resources; but he can also acquire new powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over human life at its very beginning and in its first stages. Various procedures now make it possible to intervene not only in order to assist but also to dominate the processes of procreation. These techniques can enable man to "take in hand his own destiny", but they also expose him "to the temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion over nature".(1) They might constitute progress in the service of man, but they also involve serious risks. Many people are therefore expressing an urgent appeal that in interventions on procreation the values and rights of the human person be safeguarded. Requests for clarification and guidance are coming not only from the faithful

We may NOT do evil so that good may result from it . . .

DONUM VITAE
(translated "The Gift of Life")

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION

REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY

FOREWORD

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been approached by various Episcopal Conferences or individual Bishops, by theologians, doctors and scientists, concerning biomedical techniques which make it possible to intervene in the initial phase of the life of a human being and in the very processes of procreation and their conformity with the principles of Catholic morality. The present Instruction, which is the result of wide consultation and in particular of a careful evaluation of the declarations made by Episcopates, does not intend to repeat all the Church's teaching on the dignity of human life as it originates and on procreation, but to offer, in the light of the previous teaching of the Magisterium, some specific replies to the main questions being asked in this regard. The exposition is arranged as follows: an introduction will recall the fundamental principles, of an anthropological and moral character, which are necessary for a proper evaluation of the problems and for working out replies to those questions; the first part will have as its subject respect for the human being from the first moment of his or her existence; the second part will deal with the moral questions raised by technical interventions on human procreation; the third part will offer some orientations on the relationships between moral law and civil law in terms of the respect due to human embryos and foetuses* and as regards the legitimacy of techniques of artificial procreation.

* The terms "zygote", "pre-embryo", "embryo" and "foetus" can indicate in the vocabulary of biology successive stages of the development of a human being. The present Instruction makes free use of these terms, attributing to them an identical ethical relevance, in order to designate the result (whether visible or not) of human generation, from the first moment of its existence until birth. The reason for this usage is clarified by the text (cf I, 1).

INTRODUCTION

1. BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH

The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the centre of one's reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral problems raised by artificial interventions on life as it originates and on the processes of procreation. Thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man has at his disposal ever more effective therapeutic resources; but he can also acquire new powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over human life at its very beginning and in its first stages. Various procedures now make it possible to intervene not only in order to assist but also to dominate the processes of procreation. These techniques can enable man to "take in hand his own destiny", but they also expose him "to the temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion over nature".(1) They might constitute progress in the service of man, but they also involve serious risks. Many people are therefore expressing an urgent appeal that in interventions on procreation the values and rights of the human person be safeguarded. Requests for clarification and guidance are coming not only from the faithful

We may NOT do evil so that good may result from it . . .

DONUM VITAE
(translated "The Gift of Life")

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION

REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY

FOREWORD

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been approached by various Episcopal Conferences or individual Bishops, by theologians, doctors and scientists, concerning biomedical techniques which make it possible to intervene in the initial phase of the life of a human being and in the very processes of procreation and their conformity with the principles of Catholic morality. The present Instruction, which is the result of wide consultation and in particular of a careful evaluation of the declarations made by Episcopates, does not intend to repeat all the Church's teaching on the dignity of human life as it originates and on procreation, but to offer, in the light of the previous teaching of the Magisterium, some specific replies to the main questions being asked in this regard. The exposition is arranged as follows: an introduction will recall the fundamental principles, of an anthropological and moral character, which are necessary for a proper evaluation of the problems and for working out replies to those questions; the first part will have as its subject respect for the human being from the first moment of his or her existence; the second part will deal with the moral questions raised by technical interventions on human procreation; the third part will offer some orientations on the relationships between moral law and civil law in terms of the respect due to human embryos and foetuses* and as regards the legitimacy of techniques of artificial procreation.

* The terms "zygote", "pre-embryo", "embryo" and "foetus" can indicate in the vocabulary of biology successive stages of the development of a human being. The present Instruction makes free use of these terms, attributing to them an identical ethical relevance, in order to designate the result (whether visible or not) of human generation, from the first moment of its existence until birth. The reason for this usage is clarified by the text (cf I, 1).

INTRODUCTION

1. BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH

The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the centre of one's reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral problems raised by artificial interventions on life as it originates and on the processes of procreation. Thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man has at his disposal ever more effective therapeutic resources; but he can also acquire new powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over human life at its very beginning and in its first stages. Various procedures now make it possible to intervene not only in order to assist but also to dominate the processes of procreation. These techniques can enable man to "take in hand his own destiny", but they also expose him "to the temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion over nature".(1) They might constitute progress in the service of man, but they also involve serious risks. Many people are therefore expressing an urgent appeal that in interventions on procreation the values and rights of the human person be safeguarded. Requests for clarification and guidance are coming not only from the faithful

The rhythm method and its more modern variants (natural family planning) are acceptable for Catholics to use.

Pope Pius IX wrote in Casti Connubii:

"[A]ny use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature."

Natural family planning is acceptable (when used for good reasons) because the sexual act isn't "deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life". Instead, one uses one's knowledge of how human fertility naturally works to avoid sex at certain times.

36. For these reasons

the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to hi

36. For these reasons

the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to hi

36. For these reasons

the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to hi

36. For these reasons

the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to hi

36. For these reasons

the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to hi

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Where are they now?

They're busy running a very big church, according to some folks.

And this from other belief systems differs... how?

i call bullshit:

The Vatican has anointed Sun Microsystems with Special Prelate status, namely, the ability to handle e-mail correspondence from the outside. Perhaps you should visit the Vatican website and read up on canonical law.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Cf. Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10], tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." [Persona Humana 8] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Cf. Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10], tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." [Persona Humana 8] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist because 'the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence' (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

Here are some writings by Pope John Paul II on this general topic:

The Meaning of Suffering in the Light of Christ's Passion - November 9, 1988

The Presence of Evil and Suffering in the World - June 4, 1986

Salvifici Doloris - February 11, 1984

Here are some writings by Pope John Paul II on this general topic:

The Meaning of Suffering in the Light of Christ's Passion - November 9, 1988

The Presence of Evil and Suffering in the World - June 4, 1986

Salvifici Doloris - February 11, 1984

Here are some writings by Pope John Paul II on this general topic:

The Meaning of Suffering in the Light of Christ's Passion - November 9, 1988

The Presence of Evil and Suffering in the World - June 4, 1986

Salvifici Doloris - February 11, 1984

Why do all people in software seem to fall into one of two sides?

It's not just software. Most people find raving ideologues more compelling than compromising centerists. See here or here for example.

I say this as one of the wishy-washy compromising centerists ... as I believe it gets more accomplished in the long run.

Homosexuality is not a religion. It is a choice you can make. ... If you feel that Religion should not have protections on this, then you should move to a different country

Generally, religion is a choice. Here are some christian options (please note -- other religions also exist):
1
2
3

Anyway, I hope I can someday live in a country where "freedom reigns from sea to shining sea". Any advice on where in the world an American such as myself can find such a country?

Probably the best qualified to help 'em out would be the p0rn sites ... somehow, I doubt NASA will accept those offers in exchange for a banner ad on Nasa.Gov ... ;-)

P.S. I noticed Slashdot is offered a Free One Day Pass (sponsored by ThinkGeek) - new revenue generator for 'em? Ironically, if you click thru on the article after getting your free one day pass, it says "Posting will only be possible in The Mysterious Future!" - a minor, but funny, typo.

Here is a very good example of a very bad user interface. This page is a recent site from the Vatican, and they porbably should have used a dynamically changing imagemap, but instead they use javascript popus.
Pontificate Page Example

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. "Will you also go away?": The Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life" and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

[..]

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

"It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered."

and St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

"Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. the power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed.... Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature."

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the br

Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the major liberal Protestant denominations believe in inerrancy -- the idea that the Bible is perfectly and literally true.

Actually, the inerrancy of the Bible is a Catholic belief. This is defended by the saints, fathers, and doctors of the Church (to their degrees of knowledge - remember, the apostles lived and died before the New Testament was collected, and the Fathers, such as Saint Athanasius , the Father of orthodoxy, though he did have access to collections of holy writings, did not have a collected Bible to read.)

The idea that the KJV (or any other Bible) dropped down from Heaven written in gold upon vellum, carried by Angels on a cloud-pillow, however, is not a Catholic belief. Nor is the idea that the meaning of the bible, or the full meaning of any given phrase contained within the Bible is immediately evident to every reader.

Think about ten years ago when the internet was new (to consumers) and how often people would have to be reminded to type in mixed case, interject "lol" or whatever emoticons they liked to indicate sarchasm, or otherwise indicate that they are not flaming, et cetera. How easy it is to misinterpret text without a "tone of voice" as a hint!

The Bible IS perfect and IS literally true, if it is a genuinely Catholic Bible.

According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, "the literal sense is that which the author intends, (ST, I,1, 10) not "Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words." (dictionary.com)

The idea that the Bible alone is sufficient to bring the knowledge of the Christian faith is not Catholic.
See 2 Peter 3:16
and John 20:30.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/index.htm
http:// www.newadvent.org/fathers/
http://www.newadvent.o rg/cathen/07271a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cat hen/05692b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02 543a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac _thisrock9 1.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
http: //www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the major liberal Protestant denominations believe in inerrancy -- the idea that the Bible is perfectly and literally true.

Actually, the inerrancy of the Bible is a Catholic belief. This is defended by the saints, fathers, and doctors of the Church (to their degrees of knowledge - remember, the apostles lived and died before the New Testament was collected, and the Fathers, such as Saint Athanasius , the Father of orthodoxy, though he did have access to collections of holy writings, did not have a collected Bible to read.)

The idea that the KJV (or any other Bible) dropped down from Heaven written in gold upon vellum, carried by Angels on a cloud-pillow, however, is not a Catholic belief. Nor is the idea that the meaning of the bible, or the full meaning of any given phrase contained within the Bible is immediately evident to every reader.

Think about ten years ago when the internet was new (to consumers) and how often people would have to be reminded to type in mixed case, interject "lol" or whatever emoticons they liked to indicate sarchasm, or otherwise indicate that they are not flaming, et cetera. How easy it is to misinterpret text without a "tone of voice" as a hint!

The Bible IS perfect and IS literally true, if it is a genuinely Catholic Bible.

According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, "the literal sense is that which the author intends, (ST, I,1, 10) not "Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words." (dictionary.com)

The idea that the Bible alone is sufficient to bring the knowledge of the Christian faith is not Catholic.
See 2 Peter 3:16
and John 20:30.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/index.htm
http:// www.newadvent.org/fathers/
http://www.newadvent.o rg/cathen/07271a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cat hen/05692b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02 543a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac _thisrock9 1.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
http: //www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

I'm pretty sure that the application would reject the images here, even though they are among the 'safest' you can get...

A Catholic is supposed to defer to the authority of the Pope when he declares an infallible decision. Such decisions are generally made on questions of theology. Indeed, in two thousand years there has been only one infallible declaration by the Pope (Mary was assumed into heaven). Yes, most Catholics tend to give the Pope's opinion weight, but it is not a requirement. There are tons of priests, bishops and indeed a whole half of the Church (Eastern Orthodox) who have disagreements with the Pope, but are still Catholic.

A Catholic believes in the sancitity of life. They are not directly supposed to be anti-abortion. For example, if not having an abortion will kill the mother, the mother is not required to sacrifice her life for that of her child.

The essence of Catholicism is contained in the Creed/Profession of Faith read each week at Mass. It doesn't mention Pope or abortion.

It is not your place to declare whether someone is Catholic. By doing so you are passing judgement. As the name Catholic (meaning 'universal') implies, the Catholic Church encompasses a huge range of people and opinions, including conflicting ones.

If you really want to understand what makes a Catholic, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's easier to read in book form. It's a pretty mind blowing document (apart from the length!) when you consider the number and quality of minds which have worked on it. It's interesting that the aforementioned 'creed' is used at the table of contents for first part of the Catechism, so that prayer really is a neat summary of what makes a Catholic.

In case you haven't twigged I am Catholic. It makes me seethe with anger to see what US (and other) religious wackos are doing in the name of Christ. I feel justified in my anger in that I equate the wackos with the moneychangers who hijacked the temple in Jerusalem for their own ends, and got driven out by an angry Jesus.

In 1992, 359 years after the Galileo trial, Pope John Paul II issued an apology, lifting the edict of Inquisition against Galileo: "Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions." After the release of this report, the Pope said further that "... Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard the relation of scientific and Biblical truths than the theologians who opposed him."

Sex that is procreative and fully giving between husband and wife is a wonderful, beautiful thing. No child should be taught that sex is a dirty, terrible thing; the child should learn, however, that it is appropriate only to a husband and wife.

I feel this is equal to teaching children that sex is wrong, since it seems the American (and maybe some other places, too) way is to make sure that kids realize that sex is a dirty, terrible thing you can only do with someone you love.

Is this the American way? Seems to me that "Heather has two Mommies" and "Queer eye for the straight girl/guy" and "who wants to marry a millionaire" and the "Sunday night sex show", not to mention most spam, seems to indicate differently.

It is not right, however, to reduce *any* activity (sex included) to a way to pass the time regardless of the consequences that might follow.

Dare you read Humanae Vitae?
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclic als/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_e n.html

Caps, vis a vis asses, are either busted, or poped.

Um, I believe you mean "popped", there, Skippy. Unless you mean to imply that the caps will be wielded by an angry Pontiff ... ;-)

Which gives one pause: how much bandwidth does God have, actually? Probably a fair amount, but yeah, I'd bet Verizon has more...