Heh, some medieval theologists were likely more liberal about whether fetus is a human than some of Catholics who will soon announce pre-fertilized eggs as sacred
Acquinas deemed fetus a human after set amount of time passed, and of course male fetus matured quicker according to him.
"and of course male fetus matured quicker according to him."
Well, the Thomas Aquinas thing has a point; in the past, the Catholic Church has attempted to use science (or at least natural philosophy) to determine when abortion is or is not okay. Now, they've kinda dropped that in favor of pure theology.
Mind you, I think that the tail is wagging the dog here. "Life begins at birth" slots quite neatly into a more general Catholic moralism, where sex is a good thing when done between a husband and a wife with the possibility of procreation, and a sin otherwise. But you don't hear about the "no contraception" and "no premarital or extramarital sex" positions. Nobody cares to comment on them because they're seen as utterly dead horses; everyone broadly but shallowly agrees that adultery is bad (and nobody cares about the Church position on it), and premarital sex and contraception are broadly fine with everyone except grumpy old men. Abortion and homosexuality? Those are actual firing lines; even though abortion isn't going anywhere, it's still able to rile up its defenders like virtually nothing else.
But I do think that abortion is mainly where it is in the Catechism because the Church's theology wants to support a particular vision of sexual morality, and it's only under such a magnifying glass because of its power as a rallying point.
edited 22nd Sep '13 7:38:19 PM by Ramidel
" broadly fine with everyone except grumpy old men"
Not as much as you might think. Alot of people don't have sex before marriage, thankfully. Despite popular culture as a whole going to shit there's a number of us who stick to our guns.
and even people that do, often time's it's because of peer pressure rather than personal choice. Personally I think peer pressure to do something that could get you a serious disease is much worse than peer pressure that might make you be a bit more careful.
I'm baaaaaaackThis is judging by standard of different times. Vatican II is "liberal" at their time. It is definition of "liberal" that move. Before Vatican II Church having Latin language Mass, pray that Jews should be converted, having hereditary nobility at Vatican government, and see non-monarchical government with doubt. And at the time Vatican II gay rights movement barely exists and apartheid still working in SA. judging Vatican II by standard of 2013 is unfair.
And Pope Benedict is actually one of the most liberal priest at that time, granted he fail to change with time, but a lot of old people also retain belief and taste of their youth. He doesn't always considered "conservative".
@Joesolo: Yes, but the point is that it's not a point of view that will get any press or notice. Even in the morally rather-conservative United States, people aren't going to start lynch mobs against sexually active young men (yes, Double Standard noted), or even consider it their business to talk about it, and trying to ram abstinence down kids' throats has been widely laughed at. The moral norm that a person should (which is the key word) be virginal until marriage is gone; it's a life choice, not something that it's polite to try to press on others.
By contrast, in the abortion debate, the expected position of a pro-lifer is "you shouldn't murder a fetus." The pro-life movement considers it perfectly acceptable to attempt to persuade and impose their views on others. And so it's a lot easier for the Catholic Church to preach on abortion than on abstinence, and it gets a lot more press when they do.
I wasn't doubting that Vatican II was a step forward. I was pointing out that, of the five Popes we have had since its conclusion (Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis), Paul was mildly moderate, JPI reigned for 33 days, JPII and Benedict were generally very conservative in doctrinal matters, and Francis is as yet unknown. So the liberal effect of Vatican II was rather short-lived.
Yes, and? His was a conservative papacy. Also, I'd dispute that he was necessarily one of the most liberal. He was a reformist when it came to the role of the papacy, but he had a rather conservative reaction to the Marxist student movement during the late 1960s, when he was a professor at Tuebingen.
Schild und Schwert der ParteiHe also can't just up and decide "suddenly contraception is okay guys!" In order to make such a vast doctrinal jump - which would be far beyond the changes of Vatican II - he would need another ecumenical council at the very least. I suppose he could sit down and say "I'm speaking ex cathedra", thus invoking papal infallibility. But, the thing is, nobody's ever really done that in such a massively controversial way.
Indeed, the last clear example of a Pope invoking infallibilitynote was Pope Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus, which affirmed that Mary was "assumed" bodily into heaven when she died rather than decay and rot like us plebs. The last disputed example - proclaimed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - was JPII's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, an apostolic letter reserving the priesthood for those with willies and Y chromosomes. If Francis invoked it to make unilateral alterations to doctrine, there would be an almighty row, it would be the most autocratic thing any Pope has ever done, and there might well be some theological jumping-through of hoops to negate it. It could well lead to schism.
Vatican defrocks and excommunicates rebel priest Father Greg Reynolds for his support of women priests and gay marriage.
The punishment was written under the authority of Pope Francis, and presumably was approved either tacitly or explicitly by him.
edited 24th Sep '13 2:53:01 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei...I have kind of mixed feelings on this.
On the one hand, Reynolds was asking to get his ass kicked over this; hell, even he admitted as much. According to Hart, he was laicized and ignored that, and excommunicated for continuing to act as a priest when he's been laicized. Whether he's right or wrong, this move is only openly stating something that's been the case in fact.
On the other hand, this is a sharp turn from the tone we've come to expect from His Holiness. Secret Inquisitorial hearing, cutting his payout without any explanation, failing to give a reason in the document...it's blatantly obvious that this was an exemplary purge. Which I think was the plan on Reynolds' part anyway; incite the Church to come down hard on him and become a martyr at no real cost to him.
It reeks of how I'd run The Purge, and I'm not Pope Francis. Francis trying to rule by fear goes against the tone he's been trying to set from the beginning of his papacy.
The Pope was giving the Vatican staff rope and a chance to panic, and he's shortly going to revoke the excommunication, say that he had never authorized that, and authorize a full payout to the ex-priest. And he'll use that as an excuse to kick some ass around the Vatican as well.
edited 24th Sep '13 3:14:44 AM by Ramidel
or it might be something similar to what the main character from fiddler on the roof went through(i forget his name), he goes along with some changes from tradition but eventually one of his daughters takes and action that is just too far(in his view), and he completely cuts her off. note This guy was one of those trying to turn "the ship" on a dime, and he was going against the church and breaking the rules. He wasn't supposed to be acting as a preist at this point, that was the warning. He then went completely against that. If he expected anything less than what he got, well, I don't know.
edited 24th Sep '13 7:10:17 AM by joesolo
I'm baaaaaaackIt's an instructive moment, though. Lately, the most ignorant and least responsible journalists have misinterpreted Francis's words as making him a different sort of Pope than he actually is. Now, Reynolds is far closer to being the priest that they're wishfully portraying Francis as—and Francis just excommunicated him! Not that that's likely to put any sense into them.

^ Um, "eschatology" has nothing to do with the status of a fetus as a person... That's the branch of theology concerning the end times or the final events in the history of the world or of humankind. I think you want "dogma" note there.