But it would be cool to have a good, free Exchange client. I've tried Ximian Connector, but Evolution often crashes for me with Connector installed. I've tried the WebDAV/Exchange/IMAP thingie in Korganizer, but it never has imported schedule items properly for me.
My initial impulse after reading your message was not to respond because it seems clear that you are unlikely to be interested in anything that I should say. First, however, I should ask you to examine whether you really know what the Church teaches and why. If you "don't give a shit" about what the Church says, then I presume it's because you actually (a) know what the Church teaches and (b) why she teaches it. If not, then you may find that you've wasted your time arguing the wrong way, unless you're just way smarter than about everyone else and you've managed to figure everything out by yourself.
Second, I say this because what you wrote suggests that you don't really know much about the Church. You seem, for example, to lump Catholics in with the Protestants, for whom the sole rule of faith is the bible. One of the main points that the Catholics make against the Protestants is that it's silly to base everything on a book, because the book has no ability to interpret itself. If, however, God did become man and establish a visible, historical, permanent, authoritative organization that will last until the end of time, then that organization is the Church. The Church put the bible together, decided which writings belonged and what order they would go in. It's all about where the real authority lies. Jesus trained the apostles and instilled in them a divine Tradition that the Church has kept alive. This Tradition instructs and informs, allows the proper interpretation of scripture, and is itself an independent revelation of truth.
I don't expect you to believe all of a sudden that I am anything but a deluded fool. You would have to do some research and make an effort in order to arrive where I have arrived, for better or worse. Believe me, there was a time when I had thoughts similar to those that you expressed above. I would, however, at least like for you to have a clearer idea of what my tradition is and where I'm coming from.
Despite the irreverent tone, the basic thrust of your comments is a good one. You see Christians as a bunch of idiots who believe a bunch of bullshit for no good reason whatsoever. I challenge you to imagine, however, that there is a deep truth in Christianity, a truth that even many idiots, many of them Catholic, can vaguely see. There might actually be a few intelligent persons, some Protestant, among the throngs of idiots. Don't be distracted by the idiots, Catholic or Protestant.
Did you know that the official teaching of the Church is that if your conscience leads you to disagree with the Church, then it's right for you to follow your conscience instead of the Church? To follow the Church against your conscience would be a mortal sin worthy of eternal damnation. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
To get back on topic, my point is that if you made an effort, you might be able to inform your conscience so that what the Church teaches will seem right to you, even if the teaching is inconvenient because you're infertile but desperately want a child of your own anyway.
The subjective morality of an act depends on the intent of the actor. One ought ever to do as one's conscience instructs. If one's conscience is properly formed, then one will not wish to destroy a human embryo. If a human embryo dies a natural death, then that is one thing, but if the human embryo dies because death is intended by one who should be a protector, then that is another thing entirely. The willful discarding of unwanted embryos, the Church claims, is objectively immoral. After implantation, if too many embryos implant successfully, the process of sacrificing one fetus in order to make safer the gestation of the those remaining is similarly wrong.
Your point about the comparability of the implantation success rate for in vitro fertilization versus natural fertilization is a good one. The most objectionable aspects of in vitro fertilization are, however, (1) that the standard practice increases over and above the natural method both the apparent necessity of and the certain tendency toward willful abortion, and (2) that even when an abortion seems unnecessary, the objectification of the embryo tempts parents to select one to be saved and others willfully to be destroyed. There are other objections, but these, I think, are the gravest.
If every fertilized egg has a soul, then why does God let half of them die?
Everyone dies, but not every death is directly the result of an immoral act. One should not willingly be a party to an immoral act.
If a couple gets drunk, has sex, and gets pregant with a child they don't want, does the Church oppose that?
The Church's position on sex is that it should occur only in marriage; further, the Church teaches that a couple should be married only if they desire children. So, yes, the Church opposes drunken sex between a pair of individuals who do not desire children. Once a child has been conceived, though, the Church teaches that the innocent and defenseless unborn child is not to be held responsible for the act of immorality that led to the child's unfortunate circumstance. The child is certainly not to be sentenced to death. Upon discovering the pregnancy, the parents are indeed called to lift themselves up and do better than they have before, not only for each other but also for the child.
If a couple sacrifices (yes, it is a sacrifice) their time, money, energy, health, and sanity to have a child that they want more than anything else in the world, why would the church oppose that?
How many times has a person sacrificed "time, money, energy, health, and sanity" to do achieve a selfish or immoral end? Sacrifice does not necessarily make a goal worthwhile. Primarily, the Church opposes the willful destruction of what ought not to be destroyed. Secondarily, the Church opposes a practice that increases the probability of such willful destruction. Tertiarily, the Church opposes anything artificial having to do with sex, but that's a whole other thread. (The Church is all about natural sex, and lots of it where appropriate.) One must remember that neither is having children a right (it is a privilege and a grave responsibility) nor is having children something for which one ought to strive by way of bringing many children into existence and then destroying the unwanted ones.
I wrote a response under the "Catholicism" thread a few minutes ago.
I surveyed the responses to this posting, and it is disappointing that no Catholic seems to have given a response. I suppose that everyone who cares to respond is a materialist with some vague notion that what constitutes a human life worth defending is only to be found in the development of the body. It seems unpopular to believe that what gives the human person a free will, a conscience, and the ability to apprehend a concept is both a body and an immaterial soul. If one does admit, however, that the human soul exists and that in fact its very presence in the body is the reason for which man has inalienable rights, then one has to wonder when the soul is infused into the body. Not only is the idea of human right tied up with the idea of human soul but so too is the notion that every human person is an end of creation, a reason for which the universe exists. If an embryo is already infused with a human soul that, unconsciously on its part at first, somehow plays a part in directing the formation of the body and mind, then the embryo is already an end of creation and a person in that sense. An end of creation is not to be used or abused by another man, for the embryo has some right to develop.
I don't think that the Church has proclaimed an infallible teaching on the timing of the infusion of the human soul, but she does have an official, as-yet fallible teaching, to which as a matter of discipline Catholics are bound. Of course, even if a teaching is infallibly proclaimed, a Catholic is not bound by that teaching if his conscience leads him not to believe, but in that case he must also not try to convince others of his private view.
It is certain that the Church has consistently opposed abortion throughout history, and the current teaching on ensoulment at conception is perfectly consistent with her historical opposition.
There is no Catholic dogma on this issue.
The Church does have official teaching that is based on the idea that the innocent and the defenseless ought to be protected, but I do not believe that ensoulment at conception has been infallibly proclaimed. I nevertheless admit that some religious conservatism is based on Catholic dogma, but that's good. The "spirit that burnt Bruno and threatened Galileo" was certainly not based on Catholic dogma; it was rather the result of sinfulness and ignorance on the part of men who should have known better. Many had obviously forgotten the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.
In any event, it is clear that in the case of Galileo, if he had but claimed all along that the Copernican model was one of several hypotheses that could account for the widely accepted data, then there really wouldn't have been a problem. Today we have grown accustomed to the fact that every scientific theory is wrong, at least in the details. But Galileo wanted greedily and pugnaciously to claim ownership of the absolute truth for himself. Patience on Galileo's part would have allowed the peaceful accumulation and dissemination of data that would, as we now know, have ruled out the Ptolemaic model.
As for resistance to Hitler, the Catholic bishops (and some of the Lutherans) were among the only institutional representatives actually to stand up to the Nazis in the 1930s. The bishops were certainly not acting against the wishes of the pope. You should read what Albert Einstein himself wrote in praise of the Church during that period.
Do you argue that human life is not sacred? You might disagree that an human embryo counts as human life, but surely it is not sickening for someone who does agree to act on his belief. Clearly such action must not itself be violence, which the action itself aims to prevent, and the Church does not advocate the slaying of abortionists.
We should focus on the fact that the fundamental disagreement is between, on the one hand, materialism, according to which everything that exists is matter, and, on the other hand, the view according to which the very basis for inalienable human rights is the integral association between the material human body and the immaterial human soul. According to the second view, the human soul, unlike the soul of a mere animal, continues to exist even after the death of the body, and this soul is what enables the human person to have a free will, a conscience, and the ability to apprehend concepts.
Slashdot Mirror
But it would be cool to have a good, free Exchange client. I've tried Ximian Connector, but Evolution often crashes for me with Connector installed. I've tried the WebDAV/Exchange/IMAP thingie in Korganizer, but it never has imported schedule items properly for me.
I'm not complaining, just wishing.
My initial impulse after reading your message was not to respond because it seems clear that you are unlikely to be interested in anything that I should say. First, however, I should ask you to examine whether you really know what the Church teaches and why. If you "don't give a shit" about what the Church says, then I presume it's because you actually (a) know what the Church teaches and (b) why she teaches it. If not, then you may find that you've wasted your time arguing the wrong way, unless you're just way smarter than about everyone else and you've managed to figure everything out by yourself.
Second, I say this because what you wrote suggests that you don't really know much about the Church. You seem, for example, to lump Catholics in with the Protestants, for whom the sole rule of faith is the bible. One of the main points that the Catholics make against the Protestants is that it's silly to base everything on a book, because the book has no ability to interpret itself. If, however, God did become man and establish a visible, historical, permanent, authoritative organization that will last until the end of time, then that organization is the Church. The Church put the bible together, decided which writings belonged and what order they would go in. It's all about where the real authority lies. Jesus trained the apostles and instilled in them a divine Tradition that the Church has kept alive. This Tradition instructs and informs, allows the proper interpretation of scripture, and is itself an independent revelation of truth.
I don't expect you to believe all of a sudden that I am anything but a deluded fool. You would have to do some research and make an effort in order to arrive where I have arrived, for better or worse. Believe me, there was a time when I had thoughts similar to those that you expressed above. I would, however, at least like for you to have a clearer idea of what my tradition is and where I'm coming from.
Despite the irreverent tone, the basic thrust of your comments is a good one. You see Christians as a bunch of idiots who believe a bunch of bullshit for no good reason whatsoever. I challenge you to imagine, however, that there is a deep truth in Christianity, a truth that even many idiots, many of them Catholic, can vaguely see. There might actually be a few intelligent persons, some Protestant, among the throngs of idiots. Don't be distracted by the idiots, Catholic or Protestant.
Did you know that the official teaching of the Church is that if your conscience leads you to disagree with the Church, then it's right for you to follow your conscience instead of the Church? To follow the Church against your conscience would be a mortal sin worthy of eternal damnation. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
To get back on topic, my point is that if you made an effort, you might be able to inform your conscience so that what the Church teaches will seem right to you, even if the teaching is inconvenient because you're infertile but desperately want a child of your own anyway.
The subjective morality of an act depends on the intent of the actor. One ought ever to do as one's conscience instructs. If one's conscience is properly formed, then one will not wish to destroy a human embryo. If a human embryo dies a natural death, then that is one thing, but if the human embryo dies because death is intended by one who should be a protector, then that is another thing entirely. The willful discarding of unwanted embryos, the Church claims, is objectively immoral. After implantation, if too many embryos implant successfully, the process of sacrificing one fetus in order to make safer the gestation of the those remaining is similarly wrong.
Your point about the comparability of the implantation success rate for in vitro fertilization versus natural fertilization is a good one. The most objectionable aspects of in vitro fertilization are, however, (1) that the standard practice increases over and above the natural method both the apparent necessity of and the certain tendency toward willful abortion, and (2) that even when an abortion seems unnecessary, the objectification of the embryo tempts parents to select one to be saved and others willfully to be destroyed. There are other objections, but these, I think, are the gravest.
If every fertilized egg has a soul, then why does God let half of them die?
Everyone dies, but not every death is directly the result of an immoral act. One should not willingly be a party to an immoral act.
If a couple gets drunk, has sex, and gets pregant with a child they don't want, does the Church oppose that?
The Church's position on sex is that it should occur only in marriage; further, the Church teaches that a couple should be married only if they desire children. So, yes, the Church opposes drunken sex between a pair of individuals who do not desire children. Once a child has been conceived, though, the Church teaches that the innocent and defenseless unborn child is not to be held responsible for the act of immorality that led to the child's unfortunate circumstance. The child is certainly not to be sentenced to death. Upon discovering the pregnancy, the parents are indeed called to lift themselves up and do better than they have before, not only for each other but also for the child.
If a couple sacrifices (yes, it is a sacrifice) their time, money, energy, health, and sanity to have a child that they want more than anything else in the world, why would the church oppose that?
How many times has a person sacrificed "time, money, energy, health, and sanity" to do achieve a selfish or immoral end? Sacrifice does not necessarily make a goal worthwhile. Primarily, the Church opposes the willful destruction of what ought not to be destroyed. Secondarily, the Church opposes a practice that increases the probability of such willful destruction. Tertiarily, the Church opposes anything artificial having to do with sex, but that's a whole other thread. (The Church is all about natural sex, and lots of it where appropriate.) One must remember that neither is having children a right (it is a privilege and a grave responsibility) nor is having children something for which one ought to strive by way of bringing many children into existence and then destroying the unwanted ones.
I wrote a response under the "Catholicism" thread a few minutes ago.
I surveyed the responses to this posting, and it is disappointing that no Catholic seems to have given a response. I suppose that everyone who cares to respond is a materialist with some vague notion that what constitutes a human life worth defending is only to be found in the development of the body. It seems unpopular to believe that what gives the human person a free will, a conscience, and the ability to apprehend a concept is both a body and an immaterial soul. If one does admit, however, that the human soul exists and that in fact its very presence in the body is the reason for which man has inalienable rights, then one has to wonder when the soul is infused into the body. Not only is the idea of human right tied up with the idea of human soul but so too is the notion that every human person is an end of creation, a reason for which the universe exists. If an embryo is already infused with a human soul that, unconsciously on its part at first, somehow plays a part in directing the formation of the body and mind, then the embryo is already an end of creation and a person in that sense. An end of creation is not to be used or abused by another man, for the embryo has some right to develop.
I don't think that the Church has proclaimed an infallible teaching on the timing of the infusion of the human soul, but she does have an official, as-yet fallible teaching, to which as a matter of discipline Catholics are bound. Of course, even if a teaching is infallibly proclaimed, a Catholic is not bound by that teaching if his conscience leads him not to believe, but in that case he must also not try to convince others of his private view.
It is certain that the Church has consistently opposed abortion throughout history, and the current teaching on ensoulment at conception is perfectly consistent with her historical opposition.
There is no Catholic dogma on this issue. The Church does have official teaching that is based on the idea that the innocent and the defenseless ought to be protected, but I do not believe that ensoulment at conception has been infallibly proclaimed. I nevertheless admit that some religious conservatism is based on Catholic dogma, but that's good. The "spirit that burnt Bruno and threatened Galileo" was certainly not based on Catholic dogma; it was rather the result of sinfulness and ignorance on the part of men who should have known better. Many had obviously forgotten the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.
In any event, it is clear that in the case of Galileo, if he had but claimed all along that the Copernican model was one of several hypotheses that could account for the widely accepted data, then there really wouldn't have been a problem. Today we have grown accustomed to the fact that every scientific theory is wrong, at least in the details. But Galileo wanted greedily and pugnaciously to claim ownership of the absolute truth for himself. Patience on Galileo's part would have allowed the peaceful accumulation and dissemination of data that would, as we now know, have ruled out the Ptolemaic model.
As for resistance to Hitler, the Catholic bishops (and some of the Lutherans) were among the only institutional representatives actually to stand up to the Nazis in the 1930s. The bishops were certainly not acting against the wishes of the pope. You should read what Albert Einstein himself wrote in praise of the Church during that period.
Do you argue that human life is not sacred? You might disagree that an human embryo counts as human life, but surely it is not sickening for someone who does agree to act on his belief. Clearly such action must not itself be violence, which the action itself aims to prevent, and the Church does not advocate the slaying of abortionists.
We should focus on the fact that the fundamental disagreement is between, on the one hand, materialism, according to which everything that exists is matter, and, on the other hand, the view according to which the very basis for inalienable human rights is the integral association between the material human body and the immaterial human soul. According to the second view, the human soul, unlike the soul of a mere animal, continues to exist even after the death of the body, and this soul is what enables the human person to have a free will, a conscience, and the ability to apprehend concepts.