I'm not Catholic and I often criticize the Roman Catholic Church and its leaders over doctrinal disagreements, but I'm very pleased to read that the Vatican is denouncing the evils of abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia in the strongest terms I can imagine.
[Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] listed these as abortion clinics, which he called "slaughterhouses of human beings," euthanasia, and "parliaments of so-called civilized nations where laws contrary to the nature of the human being are being promulgated, such as the approval of marriage between people of the same sex ..." ...After denouncing "abominable terrorism" such as that carried out by suicide bombers, he condemned what he called "terrorism with a human face," and accused the media of manipulating language "to hide the tragic reality of the facts."
"For example, abortion is called 'voluntary interruption of pregnancy' and not the killing of a defenseless human being, an abortion clinic is given a harmless, even attractive, name: 'centre for reproductive health' and euthanasia is blandly called 'death with dignity'," he said in his address.
It's important to speak up and confront evil, not only to save the victims but also to save the perpetrators. No one is beyond God's grace and mercy, but unless people recognize their need they will never accept them.
Good for the Vatican. They have as much of a right to be wrong on certain things (like homosexuality, for example) as anyone else.
I agree completely. Part of the problem is the good people often think that it is good enough to just be good, and they don't consider the importance of fighting evil.
And if we are to accept such behavior because "They are born that way!" then we must accept the actions of Cho at VT.
II: Not true. The *big* difference is the harm caused by Cho at VT.
Cho's evil was visible and dramatic, but not really that big compared to the larger but less visible evils that the Vatican is discussing.
"laws contrary to the nature of the human being are being promulgated, such as the approval of marriage between people of the same sex ..."
The Vatican is hardly qualified to comment authoritatively on "the nature of the human being".
Mark, who would you propose as being more authoritative?
Ben,
I wouldn't propose any group or organization exclusively, but when it comes to understanding the nature of life forms (including the human life form), the very broad field of biology is quite informative. For more insight into the nature of humans, specifically, you can look to sociology and psychology as a way of understanding more.
Are any of these "authoritative"? That depends on how much precision and/or accuracy you're looking for. If you prefer to deal in absolutes, science isn't going to be of much use.. because the natural world (of which we are a part) is anything but absolute.
I've spent quite a lot of time studying psychology, and I can assure you that psychologists as a group have far less insight into human nature than the Pope. Psychology in academia suffers the same limitations as other social sciences: Its starting premises are so limited by political and social pressures that there are very few conclusions at which it can safely arrive. Larry Summers found this out when he suggested that some sex differences might not be the result of social conditioning. That sort of question is simply unacceptable within the social science belief system, and so the question must be rejected and the questioner punished.
Of course, the Vatican also has foundational beliefs that it considers to be beyond question. But think that those tenets are less narrow and more useful than the tenets of social science, especially on moral issues.
You should note, Ben, that I referred to the sciences themselves.. not how they're used or applied by certain people.
I thought that science was whatever scientists say it is. That has certainly been the claim in every ID/evolution debate I've ever read: ID isn't science because scientists reject. (Except for the scientists who don't reject it, whom we will try to silence and disgrace.)
Now you're saying that ordinary people on their own can do science without special academic blessing? If you're on a school board, then you might have just violated something in the Constitution!
Seriously, nothing in science is going to address the morality of abortion, homosexuality, or euthanasia, because that isn't what scientists think about. But it's what the Vatican spends a lot of time thinking about. I don't know of anyone comparable on the Left, because they generally deny that morality even exists, or that there are any difficult moral questions. The only notable liberal philosophers I know of are way out in left field, like Singer or Dawkins. Maybe you can suggest a saner influential liberal philosopher or theologian.
Don't build strawmen, Ben. You didn't really think science is whatever scientists say it is.
Science, as practiced by scientists around the world, is a diverse environment. The pigeon-holing of it that you do does not diminish the viability of its processes and methodology for understanding what the true nature of the natural and physical world is.
The Vatican can think about whatever it wants to think about. That still doesn't make it an expert on "the nature of the human being". That's not a purely moral matter. The Vatican can address the part that is moral, in the way it sees fit, but when doing so they shouldn't assert that judgement as being the whole instead of simply a part.