Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Conflict of beliefs

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 10 November 2008
Brian Fitzpatrick's sophistry (Government & Public Affairs, 6 November) may afford him and other progressive Catholics some peace of mind in supporting political parties or candidates whose ethos is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-life.
One might have had a speck of sympathy for his Labour affiliation were he to have indicated that its objective was to overthrow immoral policies from within. But no, the whole tenor of his article is to disparage those who simply ask: Can one support a party whose policies are increasingly secular-humanist and opposed to the law of God? Where does one draw the line? Would Mr Fitzpatrick employ such sophistry in defence of a member of a party which legislated for the termination of the lives of unwanted members of ethnic minorities?

A S FRASER

Aird Bernisdale
Portree, Isle of Skye





The full article contains 140 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 November 2008 9:21 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

James F,

East Ayr 10/11/2008 00:51:57
#1 Hugh,

"there are secular legal and ethical objections to killing people for such reasons." We all knew that.

A S Fraser is suggesting that the life of an embryo is morally equivalent to the life of an unwanted "ethnic". You haven't really offered an opinion.
2

Maximus,

Roberton 10/11/2008 09:04:06
In what particular biblical passages is the killing of unwanted members of ethnic minorities (or majorities? is it acceptable to kill unwanted members of ethnic majorities?) specifically condemned?

Morning Hugh, I hope I’m not misinterpreting your question “In what particular biblical passages …” by suggesting Jn 13:34 – To love one another as I have loved you.
3

zeno,

www.thinkhumanism.com 10/11/2008 09:40:09
A S Fraser should tell us what it he sees that is 'anti-Christian' and what, specifically, is that is wrong with 'secular-humanist' policies?
4

Maximus,

Roberton 10/11/2008 11:12:05
Hugh – this could get deep. Christian teaching, specifically Catholic teaching, as you will know displays an interconnectedness ... a bit like the ‘six degrees of separation’ game I like to play. That is to say I can link creation to marriage to Christ to the Eucharist to suffering, and so on. The interpretation of the Bible must be conducted with an appreciation of the whole of Scripture – i.e. don’t just take one passage and treat that as the motto by which to live your life.

In respect of the status of the embryo, you must also consider that science wasn’t what it is today. As such you are unlikely to see anything on Scripture or the writings of the Fathers of the Church which talk about gravity, bosons, embryos or dinosaurs (I’m being flippant here).

However what you do see is a respect for life. The Bible is implicit in its use of creation from God, man created in His image, and explicit when stating I knitred you in your mother’s womb, before the dawn of time I knew you and so on. The Fathers of the Church were explicit in their condemnation of abortion, despite debates about ‘ensoulment’.

There is a respect for all stages of life within Christianity (especially Catholicism as they also condemn contraception). This is backed up by scientific research – an embryo is a stage of human development – it is human! A life that is distinct from its mother and father, and yet dependent on its mother (just as it will be after birth for some years).

The other side the coin is suffering. Christopher Reeves and others like him, and the world in general, had/have lost the meaning of suffering. Again, Christianity is the only religion to believe in a suffering ‘messiah’ – we believe that though our suffering we are partaking in His suffering, and therefore it is an honour. This I admit is a difficult message, but it also does not deny the one who is suffering care and comfort. The Catholic heritage of hospices is proof of this.

Care and comfort however mus
5

Maximus,

Roberton 10/11/2008 11:12:21
Care and comfort however must not come at the expense of an innocent life.

I hope this helps. Also read up on the TOTB stuff I recommended in an earlier blog (www.linacre.org may also help from a bio ethics perspective).
6

truthsleuth,

10/11/2008 11:36:43
What the bible says depends upon who is reading it
When they read it
and what personal gain THEY get from their translation of it.

Ah well
Christians and their 'turn the other cheek'

most o them suffer from a stiff neck it seems.
7

Maximus,

Roberton 10/11/2008 12:49:11
Hugh, "Respect for life ..." Yes .. eternal life. This is how Catholicism sees it. Depeding on what you believe Christ did save his own life by fulfilling Scripture.

I would disagree about science being ethically irrelevant. True science supports what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years - it provides a true anthropology of the human person.

I would agree those who are unborn and have died are due moral consideration, but in all cases, even without the insiration of faith, one's reason should be guided toward the protection of life.

It is truely an interesting subject, one I believe, in accrodance with my faith, must be coherent and pointed toward an eternal life.
8

Maximus,

Roberton 10/11/2008 13:42:47
“As, Professor Robin Gill convincingly argues, it is false to imagine that the Roman Catholic Church has always maintained that from conception embryos have souls and are due the same respect as normal mature persons”

With due respect to Prof Robin Gill he starting point is incorrect. The position of the Catholic Church on abortion has never been argued from the perspective of embryo + soul = human person, it has always been embryo = human person. Hence my reference to the Augustinian debate about ‘ensoulment’. Despite this debate the Church maintained that abortion was wrong because it was understood that God had created that life, and as such was sacred. This is Biblical.
9

Maximus,

Roberton 10/11/2008 13:50:46
Hugh, you may find this useful http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.