Overdue response to Jeff

Jeff,





Great picture- sounds like everyone had a good visit.


Monica already gave some answer to your questions, but I would like to add a bit of my own perspective.


The most thought-provoking to me was the question about pre-birth baptism, because it was something I had never considered before. Coming at it from a pure-reason standpoint, here's what I think: The purposes of Baptism are two-fold- the child is both born again into God's kingdom and welcomed as a contributing member of Christ's body on earth, the Church. Logistically, it is hard to be a contributing member when one hasn't been born yet! But, spiritually, I believe the child is already a member. In fact, I would say that an unborn child is closer to God than any of us are, having just been created, i.e, having just been with the Creator. This might start to sound a little hokey, but many believe that children are more aware of the presence of angels, whether from their comparitve innocence or from not having blocked such possibilities from their minds by worldly reason. (In Scripture, we are told that John leapt in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice.) In any case, a child floating in his mother's womb with nothing but her heartbeat and the recent memory of God's loving gift of life to keep him company knows nothing but life, and so knows God very well, indeed, without having been baptized.



I think Monica presented the case for the soul being born when life begins at conception, so I won't add to that. I do believe this, not only because I believe the logic to be sound, but also because in areas that it is hard to understand with the limitations of human perception I find it helpful to trust the words of those with better prayer lives than me. For the sake of argument, though, let me back-track slightly and say: even if you cannot 100% prove that life begins at conception, can you say with 100% certainty that it does not? I do not think anyone can claim to KNOW that it does not. Supposing that Christians are wrong and that human life begins at, say, the first breath of air, the price of our error will have been the emotional trauma, social ostracization, and yes, occasional death, that accompanies unwanted pregnancies. I do not take these things lightly. However, they pale in comparison to the price of the error of supporting abortions if life does, in fact, start at conception. 48 million lives is more than the estimated 47 million civilian deaths in WWII- and the number of abortions is still growing. From a "utilitarian" perspective, if you cannot say with 100% certainty either way, would it not be best to play it safe?



As for the Church's view on artificial insemination, my understanding is that fertility methods are not discouraged as long as they handle life responsibly. My lay understanding is that in many methods they intentionally overshoot the number of eggs they need to fertilize to increase the odds that one "takes". The extras are then left to die in test tubes or, once inside the mother, aborted. So, what may seem like a beautiful development at first glance can actually be quite dark upon further inspection- one life coming at the cost of ten. If the 48 million aborted were allowed to live, thus making adoption more available, infertility would not be as traumatic as it is now.



In the Church's eyes, the goal is not rampant promulgation of the species, believe it or not. With regards to life, the Church hopes to treat every life that God has created with respect and dignity. It is true that Christian families are often larger because of our understanding of sexuality, but with regards to abortion issues, it is not in our agenda to push this understanding of sexuality onto unbelievers. The "get your rosaries off my ovaries" slogan highlights the misunderstanding- I really could care less about her ovaries; it's the life that they have produced and she is threatening that forces me to act.

As for forced baptism, I don't think there is anyone in this family who would say that's a good idea. For one thing, it's hard to imagine this happening without it being militant. Although the past is pocked with shameful aberrations, at her purest the Church never promotes violence. Also, I see respect for the differing conclusions that non-believers reach as part of the respect for life. It is a Christian's duty to make the Word available to as many people as possible, but never to force the Word upon someone. Monica's reference to the catechism help explain how this does not exile people who earnestly seek God outside of the Church.

It is well past my bed-time, so I will stop there. A few of your questions are left unanswered, Jeff. It's a large can of worms you opened!