Adoption

[kafka]

You are definitely on to something Slappo.

Conte has an interesting take on all of this. I'll try to find his ideas and post them tommorrow. Not in the mood tonight.

Edited May 16, 2009 by kafka

[CatherineM]

This is what DP says about frozen embryos:

[quote]19. With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them? Some of those who pose this question do not grasp its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in some countries that require cryopreservation centers to empty their storage tanks periodically. Others, however, are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving it.

Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously
unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and result in their
destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for
research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable.

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a
treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial
heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; this practice
would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

[b]It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, Praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above. [/b]

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of 'frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.

The freezing of oocytes

20. In order avoid the serious ethical problems posed by the freezing of embryos, the freezing of oocytes has also been advanced in the area of techniques of in vitro fertilization. Once a sufficient number of oocytes has been obtained for a series of attempts at artificial procreation, only those which are to be transferred into the mother’s body are fertilized while the others are frozen for future fertilization and transfer should the initial attempts not succeed. In this regard it needs to be stated that cryopreservation of oocytes for the purpose of being used in artificial procreation is to be considered morally unacceptable.[/quote]

At the end of the emphasized part above, it says, "presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above." I think that refers back to the, "The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature." [url="http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf"]SOURCE[/url]

I hadn't heard of anyone interpreting this to mean that prenatal adoption was okay. After reading it again, it could have been written stronger, but so could a lot of Vatican documents in my opinion. It would be very interesting to have your moral theology prof's interpretation to compare with mine.

[Socrates]

Holy Mother the Church teaches that adoption is a great evil gravely contrary to the natural law.

Orphaned children should be left to the wolves.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kafka' post='1868295' date='May 15 2009, 08:56 PM']You are definitely on to something Slappo.

Conte has an interesting take on all of this. I'll try to find his ideas and post them tommorrow. Not in the mood tonight.[/quote]
What's his ideas on Hillary not winning that election?

Does that throw off the rest of his astonishing predictions? Will the Arabs still nuke NYC next year?

And could you get me the link to that site again? - I'm afraid I forgot it. I forget how many more times Christ was supposed to return; was it three or four times? (Seems Conte, in his wisdom said His Second Coming wouldn't leave much of a lasting impression on people.)

I wish to feast more on Conte's amazing prophecies so I won't be led astray by shams and amateurs like Scott Hahn or the Pope.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1868307' date='May 15 2009, 06:29 PM']What's his ideas on Hillary not winning that election?

Does that throw off the rest of his astonishing predictions? Will the Arabs still nuke NYC next year?

And could you get me the link to that site again? - I'm afraid I forgot it. I forget how many more times Christ was supposed to return; was it three or four times? (Seems Conte, in his wisdom said His Second Coming wouldn't leave much of a lasting impression on people.)

I wish to feast more on Conte's amazing prophecies so I won't be led astray by shams and amateurs like Scott Hahn or the Pope.[/quote]

Come on, at least use charity.

[Slappo]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1868299' date='May 15 2009, 06:10 PM']I hadn't heard of anyone interpreting this to mean that prenatal adoption was okay. After reading it again, it could have been written stronger, but so could a lot of Vatican documents in my opinion. It would be very interesting to have your moral theology prof's interpretation to compare with mine.[/quote]

I e-mailed him asking for his take on it, or if I was mistaken in what I heard at our seminar. I agree that it definitely could have been worded stronger and an actual statement as to why it is wrong would have been lovely .

My seminar teacher could have been giving the opinions of some theologians and not the interpretation of Dignitas Personae. I'm anxiously awaiting his reply!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1868307' date='May 15 2009, 09:29 PM']What's his ideas on Hillary not winning that election?

Does that throw off the rest of his astonishing predictions? Will the Arabs still nuke NYC next year?

And could you get me the link to that site again? - I'm afraid I forgot it. I forget how many more times Christ was supposed to return; was it three or four times? (Seems Conte, in his wisdom said His Second Coming wouldn't leave much of a lasting impression on people.)

I wish to feast more on Conte's amazing prophecies so I won't be led astray by shams and amateurs like Scott Hahn or the Pope.[/quote]
Oops, looks like Conte took down his remarkable prophecies for 2008 and 2009 from his website.

Looks like 2010 should still be quite an eventful year though:[quote]In the year 2010 A.D.

* April 2nd, 2010 (Good Friday), the Day of Repentance = the Warning of Garabandal = the First Secret of Medjugorje
* April 4th, 2010 (Easter Sunday), the Day of Consolation = the Second Secret of Medjugorje
* May 13th, 2010 (Ascension Thursday), the Day of Healing = the Miracle of Garabandal = the Third Secret of Medjugorje
* It is a year of great success for the prolife cause
* Pope Benedict XVI suggests building three places in Jerusalem, a Temple, a Church, and a Mosque, so that the three religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, can worship in peace in the City of Peace. (But it does not happen soon; instead there is war.)
* The Jews decide to build the Third Temple of Jerusalem
* There is war, insurrection, and coups among the Arab/Muslim nations of the Middle East and northern Africa. Extremist leaders fight against more moderate leaders, and the extremists win. If they cannot win by coups and insurrections, then one Arab nation attacks another in outright war.
* The war and the insurrections and coups end within the same year that they began. Then the leader of Iran and the leader of Iraq will have much power and influence over the other Arab/Muslim nations, all of which will be led by extremists.
* the holy Pope Benedict XVI dies.
* the holy Pope called 'Peter the Roman' by St. Malachy is elected. I think that he will be Cardinal Arinze and that he will take the name Pope Pius XIII.

* New York City will be struck by a nuclear bomb (not a missile; not a dirty bomb) sometime between June 1, 2010 and Dec 31, 2010, inclusive
You will make them like an oven of fire, in the time of your presence.
The Lord will stir them up with his wrath, and fire will devour them.
* World War 3 begins as a result of the nuclear attack on New York City
* World War 3 is the first horseman of the apocalypse and the first of the Seven Seals.
* World War 3 is a war in which the Arab/Muslim nations of the Middle East and northern Africa invade and conquer all of Europe, parts of Eastern Europe, parts of Scandinavia, and the northern part of Africa above the equator.
* The Arab forces will be unstoppable, except that they can be held above the equator.
* To the soldiers who will fight for the Allies in World War 3, I tell you sincerely:
The Arab forces can be stopped above the equator in Africa.[/quote]
Holy Balls of Redemption!

Edited May 16, 2009 by Socrates

[Slappo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1868325' date='May 15 2009, 07:56 PM']Oops, looks like Conte took down his remarkable prophecies for 2008 and 2009 from his website.

Looks like 2010 should still be quite an eventful year though:
Holy Balls of Redemption! [/quote]

Dear Socrates,
These are all ad hominem's.
Sincerely,
Slappo


PS: Although I do agree that they are ridiculous and can be very dangerous. I also agree that certain erroneous works give reason to carefully and prayerfully scrutinize other works by the same author.

[kafka]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1868307' date='May 15 2009, 10:29 PM']What's his ideas on Hillary not winning that election?

Does that throw off the rest of his astonishing predictions? Will the Arabs still nuke NYC next year?

And could you get me the link to that site again? - I'm afraid I forgot it. I forget how many more times Christ was supposed to return; was it three or four times? (Seems Conte, in his wisdom said His Second Coming wouldn't leave much of a lasting impression on people.)

I wish to feast more on Conte's amazing prophecies so I won't be led astray by shams and amateurs like Scott Hahn or the Pope.[/quote]
you are acting like an idiot.

His works will find their time and fruition when God desires if he does.

Edited May 16, 2009 by kafka

[kafka]

here is Conte's post I was referring too:

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

The problem here is that surrogate motherhood, while generally illicit as it is most often practiced, is not intrinsically evil. Therefore, there may be some circumstances and intentions by which surrogate motherhood is moral.

Artificial procreation is intrinsically evil, but saving frozen embryos from certain death (after these embryos were illicitly created by other persons) is obviously not intrinsically evil, since it is an exercise of love of neighbor to save an innocent person from certain death.

The problems associated with saving these embryos are substantial, and there are various morally illicit acts that must be avoided (including culling, formal cooperation, and immediate material cooperation).

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

The term adoption is useful because some of the reasons for generally condemning surrogate motherhood are that the prenatal child is not the genetic child of the couple, but no one thinks that adoption of a born child is immoral for that same reason. Therefore, embryo adoption is not intrinsically evil.
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...n-life_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...n-life_en.html[/url]

Since the CDF states that the intention (first font of morality is good), and since the act itself with its moral object is not intrinsically evil, the morality of the act depends upon the moral weight of the good and bad consequences.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.

Notice that the CDF states that 'there seems to be' rather than a more definitive statement. This leaves open the possibility for faithful dissent from this point.

If frozen embryos can never be morally implanted, there would be no way to save their lives and they would certainly all die. There is a limited length of time during which an frozen embryo can be stored and then successfully thawed and implanted. If left in storage indefinitely, all such embryos will die.

In the third font of morality, the good of saving an innocent human person from certain death is one of the most weighty circumstances possible. Although the difficulties in saving such embryos are substantial, and there are a number of possible negative consequences as stated by the CDF in the two above cited documents, since there is no other way to save the lives of these hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos, the moral weight of the good consequnces outweighs the bad, and so the act is moral.

Frozen embryo adoption is moral, as long as formal cooperation, immediate material cooperation, culling (implanting excess embryos and then killing some to obtain the desired number), scandal, and any other sins are avoided.

Edited May 16, 2009 by kafka

[kafka]

[url="http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=23967#post23967"]http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/showth...23967#post23967[/url]

yes. This Conte is much more.

[MithLuin]

So, the Church says "don't do it," but we can still do it?

[kafka]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1868490' date='May 16 2009, 12:39 AM']So, the Church says "don't do it," but we can still do it?[/quote]
you are asking the wrong question. The question is when does the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church under certain conditions in accord with the Holy Spirit) teach infallibly, and when does the Magisterium teach non-infallibly (meaning with a limited possibility of error as in this case).

[Slappo]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1868299' date='May 15 2009, 07:10 PM']I hadn't heard of anyone interpreting this to mean that prenatal adoption was okay. After reading it again, it could have been written stronger, but so could a lot of Vatican documents in my opinion. It would be very interesting to have your moral theology prof's interpretation to compare with mine.[/quote]

This is from my moral theology professor that taught seminar. He's got his doctorate and teaches at FUS.

Marcus, I do not see prenatal adoption as being forbidden here in art. 19, but it does say that the idea is "problematic." in my mind I do not think this is saying that this idea could not be used in the future but that at the present time we need more information and reflection on this matter. The document raises cautions about this issue, but it does not formally make a definitive judgment against it.

Marcus I hope this helps.

Fr. Donald Frinsko, T.O.R.
Instructor of Theology



That's what I was basing my arguments off of. Hope that helps a little.