Posted on 07/08/2006 6:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
London, England (LifeNews.com) -- British researchers are upset that the Catholic Church has decided it will excommunicate scientists who are involved in embryonic stem cell research. The Vatican says the research, which relies on the destruction of human life to obtain stem cells, is just as bad as abortion.
Last week, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, told an official Vatican magazine that embryonic stem cell research was "the same as abortion."
"Destroying human embryos is equivalent to an abortion. It is the same thing," he said.
"Excommunication will be applied to the women, doctors and researchers who eliminate embryos [and to the] politicians that approve the law," the cardinal said in an interview.
However, British scientists are calling this "religious persecution."
Dr. Stephen Minger, leading stem cell expert at Kings College, told the BBC, "Having been raised a Catholic I found this stance really outrageous."
"Are they going to excommunicate IVF doctors, nurses and embryologists who routinely put millions of embryos down the sink every year throughout the world?" he asked.
Professor Allan Templeton, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told the BBC that the cardinal's comments were "insensitive and unhelpful."
Meanwhile, Professor Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Chair in practical ethics at the University of Oxford, blasted the Catholic church saying the excommunication views amount "to religious persecution of scientists which has no place in modern liberal societies."
An Italian cloning scientist wants to be the first excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Professor Cesare Galli of the Laboratory of Reproductive Technologies in Cremona, the first scientist to clone a horse, said last week that the position makes the Catholic church like the Talbian in Afghanistan.
"I can bear excommunication. I was raised as a Catholic, I share Catholic values, but I am able to make my own judgment on some issues and I do not need to be told by the church what to do or to think," Galli told the London Telegraph newspaper.
Thee????
The media chose to focus its attention on abuse strictly to the Catholic Church. To them I say, "Thank you!" As noted above, the Catholic Church has since cast out the abusers and adopted a policy to prevent future predators from being ordained.
To what extent have the Protestant Churches, Muslim clerics and Jewish rabbis been scrutinized by the media or adopted similar policies?
According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.[iv] According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.[v] Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.[vi] Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.
The data on the Protestant clergy tend to focus on sexual abuse in general, not on sexual abuse of children. Thus, strict comparisons cannot always be made. But there are some comparative data available on the subject of child sexual molestation, and what has been reported is quite revealing.
In a 1984 survey, 38.6 percent of ministers reported sexual contact with a church member, and 76 percent knew of another minister who had had sexual intercourse with a parishioner.[xiii] In the same year, a Fuller Seminary survey of 1,200 ministers found that 20 percent of theologically “conservative” pastors admitted to some sexual contact outside of marriage with a church member. The figure jumped to over 40 percent for “moderates”; 50 percent of “liberal” pastors confessed to similar behavior.[xiv]
In 1990, in a study by the Park Ridge Center for the Study of Health, Faith and Ethics in Chicago, it was learned that 10 percent of ministers said they had had an affair with a parishioner and about 25 percent admitted some sexual contact with a parishioner.[xv] Two years later, a survey by Leadership magazine found that 37 percent of ministers confessed to having been involved in “inappropriate sexual behavior” with a parishioner.[xvi]
In a 1993 survey by the Journal of Pastoral Care, 14 percent of Southern Baptist ministers said they had engaged in “inappropriate sexual behavior,” and 70 percent said they knew a minister who had had such contact with a parishioner.[xvii] Joe E. Trull is co-author of the 1993 book, Ministerial Ethics, and he found that “from 30 to 35 percent of ministers of all denominations admit to having sexual relationships—from inappropriate touching to sexual intercourse—outside of marriage.”[xviii]
According to a 2000 report to the Baptist General Convention in Texas, “The incidence of sexual abuse by clergy has reached ‘horrific proportions.’” It noted that in studies done in the 1980s, 12 percent of ministers had “engaged in sexual intercourse with members” and nearly 40 percent had “acknowledged sexually inappropriate behavior.” The report concluded that “The disturbing aspect of all research is that the rate of incidence for clergy exceeds the client-professional rate for physicians and psychologists.”[xix] Regarding pornography and sexual addiction, a national survey disclosed that about 20 percent of all ministers are involved in the behavior.[xx]
In the spring of 2002, when the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was receiving unprecedented attention, the Christian Science Monitor reported on the results of national surveys by Christian Ministry Resources. The conclusion: “Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.”[xxi]
Finally, in the authoritative work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests, it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent.[xxii]
Any priest that engaged in should have been immediately excommunicated instead of being transferred to another parish where he could continue his evil deeds.
Probably, dumbass (he thought he was asking a rhetorical question, didn't he?). He don't know his religion very well.
Here Christ was using Peter's own name to emphasize the esteemed position he was bestowing upon this apostle, and some folks just lose it in the translation.
I do not find the scripture that says "ordination" is the binding or loosening being referenced.
Let us not forget that miracle that took place at the time of death wherein that veil within the 'Holy of Holies' was rent from the top to the bottom that established the direct access to each individual who would directly to Christ the Savior. No longer was it required that flesh man go through another flesh man to come before the Heavenly Father, Christ Himself became that authority.
Christ sent each of us that would that 'comforter' the Holy Spirit IF we would seek in His name.
"As multiple posters have pointed out, by their actions they have already excommunicated themselves. That the church hasn't yet acknowledged it publically matters little."
I disagree. There is much ignorance, even among catholics, concerning IVF. The Church has not publicly gone after the IVF problem like it has the embryonic stem cell research problem.
Many are unaware that IVF results in so much death. Others may be tentative about publicly opposing it because we are dealing with couples who are trying to have babies - as opposed to trying to abort them.
I have not heard one homily addressing the IVF problem. In fact I know of catholic couples who have been advised by priests that it is acceptable for them to go through with this procedure.
We need to be consistent. If excommunication is being threatened because of the destruction of human embryos...the fertility clinics have destroyed more embryos than the embryonic stem cell researchers have.
Catholics rely on a lot more that that verse. This is covered in the short form in "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn and more extensively in "Crossing the Tiber" by Stephen K. Ray. The entire question is EXHAUSTIVELY examined in "Upon this Rock"--also by Stephen K. Ray. Both authors are Protestants ministers who became Roman Catholic.
To put it in the "really" short form--the Protestants constantly tout the "Petros/petra" (Greek)language, because it can be twisted to make the verse sound like it's NOT referring to Peter. The problem is that Christ was speaking Aramaic at the time--where that "interpretation" is not possible.
You just refuse to consider the facts, don't you? Instead of considering the explanation from experts in biblical languages and the words of Christians throughout the centuries, you instead appeal to the authority of your church leaders.
It is fascinating to find out how much more you and your sources know about biblical interpretation, Aramaic, and classical Greek than the early Christians whose grandparents possibly met and talked with Christ or His apostles. It is dismaying to find out that they have been wrong since the very beginning.
We are most fortunate to have you to interpret Scripture for us (seeing as nobody is qualified to interpret Scripture but people in long robes and funny hats).
Circular reasoning.
Yes, but the Kennedy's are still bastards.
By the same token, we're dealing with a translation of his words written decades later and so we don't really have the words of Jesus to examine and analyze.
This is one of those arguments I hate because it can't be definitively resolved. People tend to believe what they want to believe even when the evidence is indisputable.
It's my personal belief that no single church has an exclusive monopoly on salvation because believing that would mean that everyone born prior to the creation of that church would have no chance. There must be something deeper that governs that issue.
And since I believe that premise, the theological disputes between various branches of Christianity seem like interesting squabbles to me, but not much more serious than that.
That's just my take, and I know it's not widely shared.
I like that idea. Perhaps they will be included at a later date.
"We are most fortunate to have you to interpret Scripture for us ..."
I have never claimed to interpret scripture.
I just believe what other Christians have believed for the last 2000 years.
If you want to believe the contrary theories that the so-called experts have come up with in the last few centuries, its your prerogative. This is America.
I have been forgiven all my sins and have Jesus in my heart. There is no need to ask forgiveness, ever again, unless I want to display my lack of faith in His Word. Being a Christian has nothing to do with being attached to one of the religions, it has everything to do with believing in the Gospel of Grace in the New Covenant. When you do your next Penance, ask yourself if Jesus did, in fact, die for all our sins, past, present, and future, and if you have actually supplicated yourself to Him as a sinner, believed that He was sent to Earth to die for us, was crucified, and rose again from the dead, and ask if you really asked Him to enter your heart to dwell within you. Then ask yourself if He is trustworthy. If He is, then your sins have ALL been forgiven and you require no ore forgiveness from God, be cause He doesn't recognize your sins any more. Read Jeremiah about the New Covenant that will come where God will forgive our wickedness and recognize our sins no more.
I use the NIV and it has the story of Barnabas, Ananais, and Sapphira, and has nothing to do with religion.
I also understand that men put the Bible together from writings and that it is the most stringently vetted book in history. Over 40 authors from many countries/nations over a period of 2500 years and it all fits perfectly together without contradicting itself. The reason so much of the New Covenant was put together so late is that the authors wanted to follow God's instructions. He told us that He would put prophets on this Earth to tell us things (MOses was the first) and that there would also arise false prophets. he said the way to know false prophets was to see if what they said would happen actually happened. He even said to kill the false ones if you caught them at it. Since much prophesy was to happen in the future, many passages had to wait to be vetted out before inclusion. While Man has made modifications, the modern Bible is pretty much intact and I believe it is as God intended. The biggest problem is that Man spends too much time with high-brow interpretations and complications instead of reading and believing the Word as it is written. If everyone had to get into all the possible nuances, not many would be intellectually capable of being saved.
Thanks for the prayers and I'll say one for you too.
God Bless
The Priest's secretary sent it - it was in the mid-60s.
Ooooh, and then let me guess, he came to your house and took your bible so you couldn't read it yourself -- oh wait, that's right, you were never allowed to have a bible in the first place, were you? And don't forget to tell about all those times you were forced to worship statues. That one's always a high point of these threads.
Not true. The apostle Paul ONLY refers to Peter in his New testament writings as "Cephas". This is sufficient proof in itself.
"This is one of those arguments I hate because it can't be definitively resolved. People tend to believe what they want to believe even when the evidence is indisputable."
Sure it can. All that is necessary is for people to look at ALL the evidence with an open mind, instead of trying to justify an untenable position. That is precisely why folks like Scott Hahn and Stephen Ray converted. If you read "Crossing the Tiber" it is pretty obvious that Ray is "ticked" at the Protestant position for not having "told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
"It's my personal belief that no single church has an exclusive monopoly on salvation because believing that would mean that everyone born prior to the creation of that church would have no chance. There must be something deeper that governs that issue.
We've had this interchange before. The Catholic Church agrees with you. As long as the "Protestant" church is truly Christian (i.e. professes the Trinitarian doctrine), then they have a claim in salvation through Christ. Unfortunately, this leaves folks like the Mormons "out in the cold". Note--they CAN still be saved, but it will be a lot harder.
"And since I believe that premise, the theological disputes between various branches of Christianity seem like interesting squabbles to me, but not much more serious than that."
Sorry, but there IS a definable Christian truth, and that is Roman Catholic. The evidence is massive and incontrovertible.
Which modern church are you refering to?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.