Nihil Obstat Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I guess its the whole thing about - we can't do something wrong even for a "good end"? I read that we can't sin even out of wanting charity for another - because God should come first I think.. It should be a neutral or good act. Is it true if something is wrong in itself it can't be turned to good through a better intention? Some acts have decreased gravity depending on intent though... Or theres less culpability through lack of choice. What would be the best thing to do with these frozen embryos that already exist? You nailed it. We can never do something morally wrong even for the sake of some other good end. For an act to be good, the moral object must be good. If the moral object is evil, no circumstances or intentions can redeem it. If you are interested in that, I would highly recommend reading Veritatis Splendor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 You nailed it. We can never do something morally wrong even for the sake of some other good end. For an act to be good, the moral object must be good. If the moral object is evil, no circumstances or intentions can redeem it. If you are interested in that, I would highly recommend reading Veritatis Splendor. that makes sense the only thing that confuses me is how this applies to exceptions that the Church does accept. For example: - soldiers killing each other in war (I understand the idea of "just war" though - that not all wars are justified, and should be the last case scenario if nothing else works... and it's better to injure a person in self defense than to kill them.. but still it's not considered quite like murder because the intent is to preserve own life or lives of others, and there's little choice given.) - charity on Sunday - this is more clear, it's not objectively wrong to work, only on Sunday, but charity makes it non-work activity... do I understand correctly? - same with breaking a fast for charity - it's not evil in itself to eat, only the situation makes it wrong, but here the situation is based on charity so it is turned to good. But the first one I'm more confused about, because it's not a "good thing" to take a life. How does self defense change this situation? I don't mean to change the topic.. just clarify I'm basically trying to understand how the case with IVF is different... I completely accept the Church teaching on IVF and contraception though. I just don't understand how the two examples are similar / different. If war is bad (consequence of sin) but not actual murder because of the situation and intent, why is IVF still very sinful for ANY intention? (though specific level of culpability might change depending on situations, knowledge, choice, intent, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotpink Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 But the first one I'm more confused about, because it's not a "good thing" to take a life. How does self defense change this situation? I don't mean to change the topic.. just clarify I'm basically trying to understand how the case with IVF is different... I completely accept the Church teaching on IVF and contraception though. I just don't understand how the two examples are similar / different. If war is bad (consequence of sin) but not actual murder because of the situation and intent, why is IVF still very sinful for ANY intention? (though specific level of culpability might change depending on situations, knowledge, choice, intent, etc). As Maggye has stated for IVF "snowflake babies" the sin has already been committed. The church hasn't made a clear decision on how to handle this complicated situation. Some say that implantation is ok becuase they are human. Others say we must let them die naturally. We can be clear that the making of the embrios is a sin, it's what to do after that. For me it's like they say on marital separation. Being separated isn't a sin by itself. Often it's a reaction to the others' sin of abuse, gamling, addiction. But going out and hooking up would be. It would add a sin to a sin. So if the sin is simply creating the embrios then fostering them is not wrong. But if the sin is creating embrios and another sin of shooting them into the uterus then it would be wrong. Heavy stuff. And while adoption is not a treatment for infertility, I know twin women who chose 2 different paths. One did IVF and had premature twins (insanely common in IFV). One is fine (advanced even) but the other has disbalities. Her sister chose to adopt over ivf, ironically also twins....abandoned chineese orphans. As these chilren grow into adults I cannot help but to love all of them, yet i often pause to wonder at what cost did all of these kids come by...and what price all pay for the sins of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 It is wrong. Less wrong certainly than destroying the embryo. But wrong nonetheless as it perverts the intimate union between a married couple. Thats like, your opinion man. The Church hasn't said either way: the-case-for-embryo-adoption-open-or-shut-by-rome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 This thread needs to stop being a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Found out in my news feed that a few of the victims were named and Fox News had them on to discuss their molestation. Terrible. I AM mad now that the media is exploiting this story from the perspective of the victims. I wish they could have remained anonymous but of course people would go after them as well for publicity. But who knows, maybe the victims wanted to speak out. In this case,it was 3 of Josh's sisters. They said during the fox interview that they blame the media and love their brother etc...which is not an unexpected response. I dont judge them for how they feel in this case because their experiences are personal. But I do judge Fox News. One of the girls was crying during the interview because of everything in the media which is the only thing I didnt like. I dont like that this has all been dug back up and put in their faces. Shame shame shame on Fox News for interviewing them. But at the same time, a sex offender should be listed publicly for the safety of others. It is very unfortunate that the Duggars lead such a public lifestyle. Celebrity scandals are never private so they shouldnt have expected it to be such. Edited June 4, 2015 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 What does anyone think about how this sheriff broke the law by revealing these sealed juvenile documents? Why isn't there any backlash against her for having broken the law for publicity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) I dont know much about laws with those things, but I believe since the case was so old, it was no longer able to be held against him which is why he isnt facing any charges etc. Someone can correct me if Im wrong. Im also pretty sure there is some law or something that states all child molesters or sex offenders need to be listed in a public registry for public safety. Edited June 4, 2015 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotpink Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 What does anyone think about how this sheriff broke the law by revealing these sealed juvenile documents? Why isn't there any backlash against her for having broken the law for publicity? Might be someting of the sort. Also, because of "family sources" that were very open and verifiable...and the fact that when he was 14 he only had 5 sisters...it wasn't rocket science to figure out who they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgnatiusofLoyola Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 As far as I remember, InTouch Magazine requested the Duggar documents under the Freedom of Information Act. I assume that if a law enforcement agency is required to release documents under the FOIA, then the sheriff had no choice but to release them. The documents did remove all the names of minors, which I assume is required under the law. However, since Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar's names were part of the document, it wasn't hard to figure out the rest. After the documents were released, the youngest victim, who is still a minor, asked a judge to have the documents destroyed in case the document was ever released without deleting the names of the minors. The judge complied, and the documents were destroyed a few days after their release. I seriously doubt the sheriff did anything illegal--if anything, she might have been prosecuted under the FOIA if she had not released the documents. (I am not very familiar with the FOIA.) Note: Only four of Josh's victims were his sisters. In the interview last night, the Duggars said the fifth victim was a babysitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 And apparently the babysitter was asleep and didn't know it had happened? This story is so strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotpink Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 And apparently the babysitter was asleep and didn't know it had happened? This story is so strange. It is really strange....but then again who exactly to you call to watch your kids when you have a a dozen? It's not like you can call the college kid from across the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I dont really know what to think. I was reading more of the interview with the family and the girls and I dunno. I dont want to hate on the girls who were molested, but they have such an odd view. They dont seem concerned about molestation fears for others and simultaneously condemn the media for blowing this out of proportion, minimize what he did to them, but also still claim to be victims. I dunno. Its just all so weird. Half of me understands their reaction I mean, he is their son/brother, of course they still love him etc and Im sure finding that out about your son is very shocking and difficult. but I dont understand the minimization of what he did or the blatant disregard for getting him help. I do find a mild sense of irony in the fact they were only angry about the virility of the case and not the case itself when their entire life is based in the public eye. Cmon people, what did you expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatitude Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I dont really know what to think. I was reading more of the interview with the family and the girls and I dunno. I dont want to hate on the girls who were molested, but they have such an odd view. They dont seem concerned about molestation fears for others and simultaneously condemn the media for blowing this out of proportion, minimize what he did to them, but also still claim to be victims. I dunno. Its just all so weird. It's not weird at all. Minimisation is a very common reaction among abuse victims. In fact, it's common for them to take it even further and idolise their abuser while denigrating themselves - thinking of the abuser as practically perfect and assuming that they must have done bad things to deserve what happened. I saw it all the time in the child and adolescent psychiatric unit where I used to work. We all received specialist training in how to respond to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotpink Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I dont really know what to think. I was reading more of the interview with the family and the girls and I dunno. I dont want to hate on the girls who were molested, but they have such an odd view. They dont seem concerned about molestation fears for others and simultaneously condemn the media for blowing this out of proportion, minimize what he did to them, but also still claim to be victims. I dunno. Its just all so weird. Half of me understands their reaction I mean, he is their son/brother, of course they still love him etc and Im sure finding that out about your son is very shocking and difficult. but I dont understand the minimization of what he did or the blatant disregard for getting him help. I do find a mild sense of irony in the fact they were only angry about the virility of the case and not the case itself when their entire life is based in the public eye. Cmon people, what did you expect? I agree with beaitiude... ...they came off more like brainwashed victims than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now