Why the Catholic church can't ignore science(newscientist.com)
newscientist.com
Why the Catholic church can't ignore science
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126947.200-why-the-catholic-church-cant-ignore-science.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
10 comments
Interesting that Dr. Krauss chose to say IVF is "decidedly pro-life." Is a medical intervention pro-life if it results in the birth of one child but the death of four to engineer that birth?
Precisely. The Catholic Church does not hold that artificially conceived humans are less then human, or 'lack souls.' The problem is that the opposite is true, several human beings are made and killed for every child that is born, using IVF.
If you don't believe that a conceived embryo is yet a human person, that is one thing, but if you do, as the Catholic Church does, you can't help but oppose IVF.
Dr. Krauss clearly doesn't understand the position he's critiquing.
Precisely. The Catholic Church does not hold that artificially conceived humans are less then human, or 'lack souls.' The problem is that the opposite is true, several human beings are made and killed for every child that is born, using IVF.
If you don't believe that a conceived embryo is yet a human person, that is one thing, but if you do, as the Catholic Church does, you can't help but oppose IVF.
Dr. Krauss clearly doesn't understand the position he's critiquing.
I'd say, if you find yourself writing an article about how you don't need to bother to understand someone, that's a sign you should stop writing and start reading.
Well put.
Dr. Krauss even said that he didn't need to bother to understand theologians in the article itself: "I began my lecture with the somewhat glib remark that it was important for the theologians to listen to me, but not as important for me, as a scientist, to listen to them."
Dr. Krauss even said that he didn't need to bother to understand theologians in the article itself: "I began my lecture with the somewhat glib remark that it was important for the theologians to listen to me, but not as important for me, as a scientist, to listen to them."
[deleted]
Let me try to draw an analogy.
There are people who sincerely believe "meat is murder." In other words, that killing an animal capable of experiencing terror and pain is wrong in the same way that killing a human being is wrong (though perhaps different in degree, or not). There are other people who, while willing to eat meat, find the conditions that animals live in before they are killed deplorable and would prefer to eat the flesh of an animal that at least gets to experience a more dignified existence before its death.
Now, because the first group advocates a more restrictive standard and takes issue with the second groups willingness to eat meat, is the first group responsible for undue suffering of animals because they fail to acknowledge the reality that people will continue to eat meat?
Yes, this analogy is very inexact in comparison to the positions of monogamy vs. condom use in preventing AIDS. But the general principle is that someone advocating a higher standard is not responsible for others failing to live up to a lesser standard. So, if the Catholic Church advocates monogamy, that does not make them responsible for people not at least using condoms failing that. The only argument left is that the Catholic Church should make gradations in their arguments (condoms bad compared to monogamy, but not as bad as non-monogamous unprotected sex).
(Not a direct response to the article, but to other comments spread throughout this thread. Instead of picking just one to attach this comment to, I'm putting it at the top level.)
There are people who sincerely believe "meat is murder." In other words, that killing an animal capable of experiencing terror and pain is wrong in the same way that killing a human being is wrong (though perhaps different in degree, or not). There are other people who, while willing to eat meat, find the conditions that animals live in before they are killed deplorable and would prefer to eat the flesh of an animal that at least gets to experience a more dignified existence before its death.
Now, because the first group advocates a more restrictive standard and takes issue with the second groups willingness to eat meat, is the first group responsible for undue suffering of animals because they fail to acknowledge the reality that people will continue to eat meat?
Yes, this analogy is very inexact in comparison to the positions of monogamy vs. condom use in preventing AIDS. But the general principle is that someone advocating a higher standard is not responsible for others failing to live up to a lesser standard. So, if the Catholic Church advocates monogamy, that does not make them responsible for people not at least using condoms failing that. The only argument left is that the Catholic Church should make gradations in their arguments (condoms bad compared to monogamy, but not as bad as non-monogamous unprotected sex).
(Not a direct response to the article, but to other comments spread throughout this thread. Instead of picking just one to attach this comment to, I'm putting it at the top level.)
If the Church simply advocated monogamy, then the analogy would hold. But it advocates monogamy and prohibits condom use. It even prohibits condom use between two married people, even if one of them has HIV. The closest equivalent in your analogy would be if the "meat is murder" people said "You shouldn't eat meat. But if you do, make sure the animal suffers first."
I'm always puzzled by this argument. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that it is wrong to for unmarried people to use a condom while having sex, it teaches that t is wrong for unmarried people to have sex. The condom rule only applies to married people, there is no rule as to whether people who are already disregarding its teachings should be allowed to use condoms.
Do you have a cite for that? I couldn't find anything reliable clarifying the issue.
Just my old 'Sunday school' classes.
It's just generally not debated for same reason we don't debate whether Hitler should have killed the Jews 'humanely.'
It's just generally not debated for same reason we don't debate whether Hitler should have killed the Jews 'humanely.'
It makes a difference though. If people interpret all condom use as being a sin, then there is a chance they will not use them in non-marital sex, so the policy (or possibly just the lack of clarity in the policy) may still lead to increased HIV infections.
I agree that in the case of monogamous couples using condoms, the analogy breaks down. The analogy holds, though, for non-monogamous sex, I think.
It depends on whether the prohibition on condoms does indeed increase the spread of HIV in non-monogamous sex. If it does, then the combined monogamy+no comdoms policy causes more HIV infections than a simple monogamy policy. Therefore the no condoms policy is a cause of spreading HIV. This would be equivalent to the suffering caused by vegetarians demanding that animals farmed for food should be made to suffer. They can be praised for their vegetarianism, but should still be held accountable for the suffering they cause.
Ermm, the Catholic Church doesn't ignore science. In fact it even funds science! http://vaticanobservatory.org/ You would think that a science journalist would know that.
What I like about the Catholics is their position that science and religion are pursuing the same (one) truth. So they aren't scared of it. That's a very different response than is given in certain protestant sects, especially down in the Southern states of the US.
The fringe protestant sects of the Southeast are the American animists, the lowest common denominator of populism and religion. Their practices are often used as examples by the anti-religious left because of their untempered boldness in opposition to some results of science. However, they do not represent the whole of religious experience, and they could not, given that the scientific advances of the last thousand years have coincided with a deeply religious world. And, it should be noted that the scientific knowledge of the rural poor is probably below average anyway, before taking religion into account.
I'm actually impressed at the reasonableness of the discussion so far on this thread. Geeks often bristle at the mention of religion, largely due to the anti-intellectualism mongered by some of those rural protestant sects. The last time there was a thread on an article mentioning religion, the discussion quickly turned hostile and the article was deaded. This time, things went better due to the early appearance of reasonable and calm voices. Color me impressed.
The ability to discuss a religious topic in a calm and rational manner is a hallmark of intellectual maturity, especially on the internet.
Edit: Nevermind. This article went dead too, despite the good quality of the discussion thread. It looks like there is no place for religion on Hacker News. Maybe that's a good thing.
I'm actually impressed at the reasonableness of the discussion so far on this thread. Geeks often bristle at the mention of religion, largely due to the anti-intellectualism mongered by some of those rural protestant sects. The last time there was a thread on an article mentioning religion, the discussion quickly turned hostile and the article was deaded. This time, things went better due to the early appearance of reasonable and calm voices. Color me impressed.
The ability to discuss a religious topic in a calm and rational manner is a hallmark of intellectual maturity, especially on the internet.
Edit: Nevermind. This article went dead too, despite the good quality of the discussion thread. It looks like there is no place for religion on Hacker News. Maybe that's a good thing.
The is a good reading regarding similarities of religion (especially ancient east philosophies) and modern science. If anyone is interested take a look at F.Kapra's book "Dao of physics".
I've read it on my philosophy class in uni. After it I see much less contradictions.
This is a very very inflammable subject and I'll try to not step on anybodies (sp?) toes, but at some fundamental level the two are mutually exclusive.
For the church to chip in to scientific questions is like having someone that does not play poker getting involved as a referee.
I'm sure they have a lot to say about ethics questions, maybe even some valid points. But ultimately, when the Pontiff is ill he's going to go to a doctor, not rely on prayer alone, when a doctor is ill he's going to see a doctor, not pray at all (other than maybe that his collegue is sober during surgery).
One of the greatest tragedies of our time is happening right now in Africa, and if it was up to the Catholic church it would be a lot bigger than it is already. (HIV/AIDS spread because of a lack of / refusal to use condoms).
I honestly wished that these so called 'spiritual leaders' would recognize the limitations of their knowledge and act accordingly, they might even win back some of the respect they've lost.
For the church to chip in to scientific questions is like having someone that does not play poker getting involved as a referee.
I'm sure they have a lot to say about ethics questions, maybe even some valid points. But ultimately, when the Pontiff is ill he's going to go to a doctor, not rely on prayer alone, when a doctor is ill he's going to see a doctor, not pray at all (other than maybe that his collegue is sober during surgery).
One of the greatest tragedies of our time is happening right now in Africa, and if it was up to the Catholic church it would be a lot bigger than it is already. (HIV/AIDS spread because of a lack of / refusal to use condoms).
I honestly wished that these so called 'spiritual leaders' would recognize the limitations of their knowledge and act accordingly, they might even win back some of the respect they've lost.
But ultimately, when the Pontiff is ill he's going to go to a doctor, not rely on prayer alone, when a doctor is ill he's going to see a doctor, not pray at all
This is stunningly nonresponsive to the issue and is, regrettably, par for the course in these discussions.
We're Catholics. We like medicine. Flu shots are wonderful things! We like killing people a lot less. In vitro fertilization requires the creation and destruction of many, many embryos. Well over seven per attempt, when everything goes right, although the denominator is not really relevant to our reasons for disliking it.
The debate on whether an embryo is a person or not (in the moral personhood sense) is not an open-and-shut question of "science", and if a little humility about the limitations of knowledge is appropriate, it is probably also appropriate for those whose advocacies necessitate the destruction of life.
If flu shots required stabbing an African in the belly to produce, Catholic moral doctrine concentrates more on the immorality of stabbing the African in the belly and less on the exact flu-shots-per-African ratio (or Africans-per-flu-shots ratio).
One of the greatest tragedies of our time is happening right now in Africa, and if it was up to the Catholic church it would be a lot bigger than it is already
Nobody has ever died due to an overly strict adherence to Catholic teaching about sexual morality. Really, think about it.
Then go the next step: if blaming the Catholic church for deaths in Africa for opposing condoms is logically sane, then it must also be the case that condoning sex outside of marriage kills Africans. Which, I rush to mention, is inane.
This is stunningly nonresponsive to the issue and is, regrettably, par for the course in these discussions.
We're Catholics. We like medicine. Flu shots are wonderful things! We like killing people a lot less. In vitro fertilization requires the creation and destruction of many, many embryos. Well over seven per attempt, when everything goes right, although the denominator is not really relevant to our reasons for disliking it.
The debate on whether an embryo is a person or not (in the moral personhood sense) is not an open-and-shut question of "science", and if a little humility about the limitations of knowledge is appropriate, it is probably also appropriate for those whose advocacies necessitate the destruction of life.
If flu shots required stabbing an African in the belly to produce, Catholic moral doctrine concentrates more on the immorality of stabbing the African in the belly and less on the exact flu-shots-per-African ratio (or Africans-per-flu-shots ratio).
One of the greatest tragedies of our time is happening right now in Africa, and if it was up to the Catholic church it would be a lot bigger than it is already
Nobody has ever died due to an overly strict adherence to Catholic teaching about sexual morality. Really, think about it.
Then go the next step: if blaming the Catholic church for deaths in Africa for opposing condoms is logically sane, then it must also be the case that condoning sex outside of marriage kills Africans. Which, I rush to mention, is inane.
Opposing condoms leads to a higher (STD) infection rate, teen pregnancies and it leads to humanity breeding out of control, the Catholic church is on record as opposing condoms.
As for the church being a teacher of sexual morality that is probably an even more inflammatory subject than this one already is.
As for the church being a teacher of sexual morality that is probably an even more inflammatory subject than this one already is.
Non-monogamous sex leads to a higher STD infection rate, too, and many atheists are on record supporting non-monogamous sex. If people were to fully adhere to Catholic doctrine, there would be even less risk of infection than if people were to fully adhere to the doctrine of using condoms but otherwise leaving their sexual behavior unchanged.
Newsflash:
"Almost all Americans have sex before marrying, according to premarital sex research that shows such behavior is the norm in the U.S. and has been for the past 50 years.
The new study shows that by age 20, 75% of Americans have had premarital sex. That number rises to 95% by age 44."
Source: http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20061220/premari...
It's just that the doctrine isn't working, and it never has. Teaching people about condoms doesn't increase non-monogamous sex ratio's (those are high already), but it does increase condom usage. The guilt and exceptionally "sex-negative" culture that's been fostered in Western Culture, a large part due to Christianity, has caused us tremendous problems through sheer ignorance of human sexuality.
Unfortunately, it's often the women who are at the most at risk, even those in monogamous relationships (women are at a much higher risk of AIDS infection) as it's statistically the male who cheats and in many societies the ability to divorce is limited. This doesn't even touch on the power birth control and condom usage has given women in fully monogamous relationships to properly and effectively plan their pregnancies.
Oh, and should this even be hackernews?
The new study shows that by age 20, 75% of Americans have had premarital sex. That number rises to 95% by age 44."
Source: http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20061220/premari...
It's just that the doctrine isn't working, and it never has. Teaching people about condoms doesn't increase non-monogamous sex ratio's (those are high already), but it does increase condom usage. The guilt and exceptionally "sex-negative" culture that's been fostered in Western Culture, a large part due to Christianity, has caused us tremendous problems through sheer ignorance of human sexuality.
Unfortunately, it's often the women who are at the most at risk, even those in monogamous relationships (women are at a much higher risk of AIDS infection) as it's statistically the male who cheats and in many societies the ability to divorce is limited. This doesn't even touch on the power birth control and condom usage has given women in fully monogamous relationships to properly and effectively plan their pregnancies.
Oh, and should this even be hackernews?
"Almost all Americans have sex before marrying, according to premarital sex research that shows such behavior is the norm in the U.S. and has been for the past 50 years."
I do not think the Catholic Church is unaware of this information nor does it dispute its veracity. I don't think you really believe that the Catholic Church is "sex negative," either. They strongly favor the association of sex with procreation, which is different than being against sex altogether. It is a minority viewpoint, but aren't minority viewpoints valuable and worth examining to see if society has gone too far in the opposite direction?
I also find it odd you see Western Culture as "sex negative." I would be surprised if you could name more than a couple popular Western TV shows or movies that endorse anything like the Catholic viewpoint on sex. Or did you mean something else by "sex negative?"
I do not think the Catholic Church is unaware of this information nor does it dispute its veracity. I don't think you really believe that the Catholic Church is "sex negative," either. They strongly favor the association of sex with procreation, which is different than being against sex altogether. It is a minority viewpoint, but aren't minority viewpoints valuable and worth examining to see if society has gone too far in the opposite direction?
I also find it odd you see Western Culture as "sex negative." I would be surprised if you could name more than a couple popular Western TV shows or movies that endorse anything like the Catholic viewpoint on sex. Or did you mean something else by "sex negative?"
"Sex-Negative" is a term sociologist/anthropologists often use to describe different societies. I picked the term up from reading some of Helen Fisher's talks/papers about sex and romantic love (http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/helen_fisher.html).
Here is a really poor wiki definition of "sex negative" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-negativity).
"Sex negativity" is more about a lack of tolerance of different forms and viewpoints of sexuality.
I don't think that upon reading the Catechism or looking at a history of the Catholic Church and it's view on sex/sexuality you come away with a very comfortable view of the actual sex act. Part of this may be due to the fact that those that wrote the doctrine were suppose to be chaste. It's interesting reading how the Catholic Church changed it's early viewpoint from allowing priests to marry early on, to outlawing it (in all but a few loopholes, such as getting the "calling" after you are married).
Most of the doctrine seems to view sex as some unfortunate necessity for procreation, not something to be celebrated by itself. It's never been that comfortable with sex for pleasure. This is in stark contrast to let's say the Greek/Roman societies before the rise of Christianity.
However, I feel like the word itself is partly biased because it assumes that a "sex-negative" viewpoint is bad and a "sex-positive" viewpoint is good (similar to the atheists movement to call atheism "brights"... which makes it seem like everyone else is dims) instead of using more neutral definitions.
Here is a really poor wiki definition of "sex negative" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-negativity).
"Sex negativity" is more about a lack of tolerance of different forms and viewpoints of sexuality.
I don't think that upon reading the Catechism or looking at a history of the Catholic Church and it's view on sex/sexuality you come away with a very comfortable view of the actual sex act. Part of this may be due to the fact that those that wrote the doctrine were suppose to be chaste. It's interesting reading how the Catholic Church changed it's early viewpoint from allowing priests to marry early on, to outlawing it (in all but a few loopholes, such as getting the "calling" after you are married).
Most of the doctrine seems to view sex as some unfortunate necessity for procreation, not something to be celebrated by itself. It's never been that comfortable with sex for pleasure. This is in stark contrast to let's say the Greek/Roman societies before the rise of Christianity.
However, I feel like the word itself is partly biased because it assumes that a "sex-negative" viewpoint is bad and a "sex-positive" viewpoint is good (similar to the atheists movement to call atheism "brights"... which makes it seem like everyone else is dims) instead of using more neutral definitions.
On the other hand, high levels of pre/extra-marital sex also correlate strongly with higher levels of STD infection. The Catholic church is pretty strongly against that too.
The problem is that in our society, it's unavoidable that people engage in pre/extra marietal sex. This is why abstinence based sex education lead to higher teen pregnancy (since they still have sex just without condom) and why one should just be pragmatic and condone the use of condoms...
One of the greatest tragedies of our time is happening right now in Africa, and if it was up to the Catholic church it would be a lot bigger than it is already. (HIV/AIDS spread because of a lack of / refusal to use condoms).
Incorrect. If it were up to the Catholic Church, which it is not, the AIDS epidemic would be far smaller than it is. Why? Because if everyone adhered to the teachings of the Catholic Church, no one would have sex outside of marriage, which means HIV simply could not spread. It'd be gone within a generation.
But people don't want to not have sex outside of marriage, because that requires self-control, and that's hard.
As Chesterton put it: The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
Incorrect. If it were up to the Catholic Church, which it is not, the AIDS epidemic would be far smaller than it is. Why? Because if everyone adhered to the teachings of the Catholic Church, no one would have sex outside of marriage, which means HIV simply could not spread. It'd be gone within a generation.
But people don't want to not have sex outside of marriage, because that requires self-control, and that's hard.
As Chesterton put it: The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
I don't think not having sex outside of marriage is all about self-control. Your statement assumes that it is outright wrong to have sex before you're married, when in reality there is nothing wrong with it other than the false construct that some people of the world have chosen to follow.
So assuming that it is perfectly natural to desire sex from the time that you are sexually mature (way before most people get married), which most likely relates back to our natural instincts of both pleasure and survival, why should you admonish someone for simply acting on it?
A catholic telling the world that they must wait for marriage before having sex is just as ridiculous as someone of the islam faith telling the world that they can't drink alcohol. Both are personal beliefs that are nothing more than constructs of the faith that they chose. If everyone in the world followed both of those rules strictly, a lot of problems would disappear... but that is unreasonable to ask, and arguably unjustifiable. So the question becomes, if people are going to have sex, how can we minimize the problems associated with this perfectly natural and desirous act? One of the cheapest solutions is condoms, which the church has publicly come out against... and as a result, they've had a directly negative impact on the STD transfer rate in Africa (and the world in general).
So assuming that it is perfectly natural to desire sex from the time that you are sexually mature (way before most people get married), which most likely relates back to our natural instincts of both pleasure and survival, why should you admonish someone for simply acting on it?
A catholic telling the world that they must wait for marriage before having sex is just as ridiculous as someone of the islam faith telling the world that they can't drink alcohol. Both are personal beliefs that are nothing more than constructs of the faith that they chose. If everyone in the world followed both of those rules strictly, a lot of problems would disappear... but that is unreasonable to ask, and arguably unjustifiable. So the question becomes, if people are going to have sex, how can we minimize the problems associated with this perfectly natural and desirous act? One of the cheapest solutions is condoms, which the church has publicly come out against... and as a result, they've had a directly negative impact on the STD transfer rate in Africa (and the world in general).
[deleted]
So, because your followers do not 'follow' your advice on one section you put in to place a measure that might get them into very serious health throubles ?
That is exactly why I think the Catholic church is simply a bunch of old men living in the past. Any human which really has humanities best interest at heart would recognize the realities on the ground and adapt. With the church history as I know it that will take another 300 years and we'll get some lame apology.
AIDS/HIV and other STD's are a huge problem in Africa, if people are not going to follow your edicts you may as well make sure that they do so in the healthiest way possible rather than to oppose the one measure that might stop this tragedy from happening.
The fact that abstinence/monogamy (which the church supports) would go a long way to stemming the epidemic does not give the church a free pass on their 'no condoms' policy.
have a read here:
http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/health/Sex-Rights-in-Af...
And for extra credits:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids
That is exactly why I think the Catholic church is simply a bunch of old men living in the past. Any human which really has humanities best interest at heart would recognize the realities on the ground and adapt. With the church history as I know it that will take another 300 years and we'll get some lame apology.
AIDS/HIV and other STD's are a huge problem in Africa, if people are not going to follow your edicts you may as well make sure that they do so in the healthiest way possible rather than to oppose the one measure that might stop this tragedy from happening.
The fact that abstinence/monogamy (which the church supports) would go a long way to stemming the epidemic does not give the church a free pass on their 'no condoms' policy.
have a read here:
http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/health/Sex-Rights-in-Af...
And for extra credits:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids
"So, because your followers do not 'follow' your advice on one section you put in to place a measure that might get them into very serious health troubles?"
The Catholic Church, to the best of my knowledge, is not running any African government nor coercing them to adopt any specific policy. They have opinions, yes, but are not responsible for the actions or inactions of others.
"you may as well make sure that they do so..."
If you cannot coerce them out of non-monogamous sex, neither can you coerce them into the use of condoms. It is all, equally, attempts at persuasion. Just because the Catholic Church has a more challenging standard does not make it impossible for people to use condoms.
The Catholic Church, to the best of my knowledge, is not running any African government nor coercing them to adopt any specific policy. They have opinions, yes, but are not responsible for the actions or inactions of others.
"you may as well make sure that they do so..."
If you cannot coerce them out of non-monogamous sex, neither can you coerce them into the use of condoms. It is all, equally, attempts at persuasion. Just because the Catholic Church has a more challenging standard does not make it impossible for people to use condoms.
"if people are not going to follow your edicts you may as well make sure that they do so in the healthiest way possible"
I'm not sure I understand, so I want to make this clear. Are you saying that "If people do not wish to follow the Church's teaching, the Church should make sure they not-follow-the-teaching in the healthiest way possible?"
Suppose a friend wants to commit suicide. You say that suicide is bad, and she shouldn't commit it. But she says well, I'm not going to follow your advice -- so you should help me commit suicide in the healthiest way possible! How do you reply?
I'm not sure I understand, so I want to make this clear. Are you saying that "If people do not wish to follow the Church's teaching, the Church should make sure they not-follow-the-teaching in the healthiest way possible?"
Suppose a friend wants to commit suicide. You say that suicide is bad, and she shouldn't commit it. But she says well, I'm not going to follow your advice -- so you should help me commit suicide in the healthiest way possible! How do you reply?
If they are going to commit suicide, I'd of course try to convince them not to and provide them all the help they can get. It's not really a proper analogy as there is a healthier way to have sex (even if you think it is immoral) and it's hard to find a healthy way to commit suicide as it involves the termination of your health.
However, if they do commit suicide, and they proposed that they wanted to do it by blowing themselves up on a schoolbus; or doing it peacefully alone at their house; I'd be much more against the schoolbus example as it takes other lives with it (and thus is less healthy to society). I'd say I think suicide is a terrible thing, do everything I could to help or convince them otherwise, but ultimately if someone really wants to kill themselves they can and will. I'd advise them that if they are going to do it, they should hurt as little people in the process as possible. I think not telling them that suicide bombing is worse than suicide alone in your home would be rather immoral. As much as I need to convince them not to commit suicide, I need to convince them almost more they shouldn't commit suicide and in the process kill other people.
To make the analogy fit a bit better we are going to assume that the person having sex and the person who wants to commit suicide aren't suffering from some psychological disorder (which puts both situations on a bit different grounds).
Also remember having sex with condoms is equivalent of trying to commit suicide with a gun that has a very very very low percentage of killing you (I'd argue driving your car to work has a much higher percentage of killing you, than having safe sex, where you and your partners are responsible and get tested regularly for STD's) and sex brings with it pleasurable benefits that suicide does not.
So in review, poor analogy.
However, if they do commit suicide, and they proposed that they wanted to do it by blowing themselves up on a schoolbus; or doing it peacefully alone at their house; I'd be much more against the schoolbus example as it takes other lives with it (and thus is less healthy to society). I'd say I think suicide is a terrible thing, do everything I could to help or convince them otherwise, but ultimately if someone really wants to kill themselves they can and will. I'd advise them that if they are going to do it, they should hurt as little people in the process as possible. I think not telling them that suicide bombing is worse than suicide alone in your home would be rather immoral. As much as I need to convince them not to commit suicide, I need to convince them almost more they shouldn't commit suicide and in the process kill other people.
To make the analogy fit a bit better we are going to assume that the person having sex and the person who wants to commit suicide aren't suffering from some psychological disorder (which puts both situations on a bit different grounds).
Also remember having sex with condoms is equivalent of trying to commit suicide with a gun that has a very very very low percentage of killing you (I'd argue driving your car to work has a much higher percentage of killing you, than having safe sex, where you and your partners are responsible and get tested regularly for STD's) and sex brings with it pleasurable benefits that suicide does not.
So in review, poor analogy.
Excellent dissection of my analogy.
I think where we differ is that I'd argue to the theoretical friend that she should not commit suicide, and I wouldn't try the 'in the alternative, if you do decide to kill yourself at least don't kill anyone else' reasoning, if only because I would feel that it would undermine my main point of fervently trying to dissuade her from committing suicide.
I think where we differ is that I'd argue to the theoretical friend that she should not commit suicide, and I wouldn't try the 'in the alternative, if you do decide to kill yourself at least don't kill anyone else' reasoning, if only because I would feel that it would undermine my main point of fervently trying to dissuade her from committing suicide.
So, that was exactly my point wasn't it. If they are going to do it anyway then make sure they do it in the best way possible, which is to use a condom. But the Catholic viewpoint as made public by the holy see on down is that you should not be using condoms, period. Whether or not that is pre- or extra- marital does not enter in to the question.
My take on that is because this is simply a way to offset the ratio of Catholics : non-Catholics, if you forbid the Catholics to use condoms then in the long term there will be more of them. I'm not sure how that tallies with being 'pro life', because if you really were 'pro life' then those lives at risk from infection would count just as much or more as those lives not yet conceived.
My take on that is because this is simply a way to offset the ratio of Catholics : non-Catholics, if you forbid the Catholics to use condoms then in the long term there will be more of them. I'm not sure how that tallies with being 'pro life', because if you really were 'pro life' then those lives at risk from infection would count just as much or more as those lives not yet conceived.
Understandable, that's why there is the debate about teaching kids about condoms in school. Does teaching them about sex education and condom usage undermine the argument that you shouldn't have sex? I feel like at least here we can look at some scientific data to reach a conclusion (that with the suicide example, we wouldn't be able to).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071001/ "In a study of 35 sex education programs around the world, the World Health Organization found there is no evidence that comprehensive programs encourage sexual activity.
The study also concluded that abstinence-only programs are less effective than comprehensive classes that include abstinence and safe-sex practices such as contraception and condom use."
At the same time it reminds me of a scene from the movie "Mean Girls" a comedy about the American High School where the gym teacher (who somehow in most high schools is also the "health teacher") uncomfortably states:
"Don't have sex, because you will get pregnant and die! Don't have sex in the missionary position, don't have sex standing up, just don't do it, OK, promise? OK, now everybody take some rubbers."
However, if having sex puts you at a high risk of infinite punishment forever (instead of infinite reward forever) it sort of changes the argument which is why the two sides have difficulty even discussing the topic. It's also why there are claims that after more and more studies show that sex education doesn't increase promiscuity (but it does reduce STD and teen/unwanted pregnancy rates), and the documented failures of abstinence only education, that even then many Christian groups will always say the studies are flawed. This is because the question was never open to debate in the first place, it was a divine infalliable law and we just need to keep running the tests until we get the predetermined correct answer. That's sort of where I see people arguing that many Christian groups are opposed to science. They love science, as long as it agrees with them (the same can we said for many secular liberals as well as Larry Summers found out).
I also think the Catholic church will reverse it's position on contraception for married couples within my lifetime. They sort of semi already have the steps to do that when they endorsed Natural Family Planning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning)
"Having sex at an infertile time in a woman's life (such as pregnancy or post-menopause) is also considered acceptable, since the infertile condition is considered to be created by God, rather than as an act by the couple." (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/docume...)
I always thought that was rather arbitrary that you could have sex for pleasure only, but only during infertile times to prevent pregnancy, which we can measure rather accurately today due to advanced technology that we couldn't do very well in the past, because that's part of the human cycle and thus part of God's plan. However, doing the exact same sex-for-pleasure while preventing pregnancy act by using a piece of technologically simple latex that also protects against STI's is an awful sin.
However, due to the vast pluralism of viewpoints in society and our governments responsibility to not endorse any set religion, they suppose to consider the heaven/hell side of the argument in it's policy decisions. It should of course allow others to consider it independently, and thus we have an opt-out program with our sex education.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071001/ "In a study of 35 sex education programs around the world, the World Health Organization found there is no evidence that comprehensive programs encourage sexual activity.
The study also concluded that abstinence-only programs are less effective than comprehensive classes that include abstinence and safe-sex practices such as contraception and condom use."
At the same time it reminds me of a scene from the movie "Mean Girls" a comedy about the American High School where the gym teacher (who somehow in most high schools is also the "health teacher") uncomfortably states:
"Don't have sex, because you will get pregnant and die! Don't have sex in the missionary position, don't have sex standing up, just don't do it, OK, promise? OK, now everybody take some rubbers."
However, if having sex puts you at a high risk of infinite punishment forever (instead of infinite reward forever) it sort of changes the argument which is why the two sides have difficulty even discussing the topic. It's also why there are claims that after more and more studies show that sex education doesn't increase promiscuity (but it does reduce STD and teen/unwanted pregnancy rates), and the documented failures of abstinence only education, that even then many Christian groups will always say the studies are flawed. This is because the question was never open to debate in the first place, it was a divine infalliable law and we just need to keep running the tests until we get the predetermined correct answer. That's sort of where I see people arguing that many Christian groups are opposed to science. They love science, as long as it agrees with them (the same can we said for many secular liberals as well as Larry Summers found out).
I also think the Catholic church will reverse it's position on contraception for married couples within my lifetime. They sort of semi already have the steps to do that when they endorsed Natural Family Planning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning)
"Having sex at an infertile time in a woman's life (such as pregnancy or post-menopause) is also considered acceptable, since the infertile condition is considered to be created by God, rather than as an act by the couple." (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/docume...)
I always thought that was rather arbitrary that you could have sex for pleasure only, but only during infertile times to prevent pregnancy, which we can measure rather accurately today due to advanced technology that we couldn't do very well in the past, because that's part of the human cycle and thus part of God's plan. However, doing the exact same sex-for-pleasure while preventing pregnancy act by using a piece of technologically simple latex that also protects against STI's is an awful sin.
However, due to the vast pluralism of viewpoints in society and our governments responsibility to not endorse any set religion, they suppose to consider the heaven/hell side of the argument in it's policy decisions. It should of course allow others to consider it independently, and thus we have an opt-out program with our sex education.
[deleted]
> One of the greatest tragedies of our time is happening right now in Africa, and if it was up to the Catholic church it would be a lot bigger than it is already. (HIV/AIDS spread because of a lack of / refusal to use condoms).
In all fairness, the Catholic Church does a lot for people in 3rd world countries (I live in an African country and they provide a lot of services). As an example, the school and hospital system in such poor countries as Lesotho was at a time almost 100% CC run and funded. The CC has probably the most extensive hospital system in Africa – and this provides medical service to thousands of people.
Some abstinence programs did work (for instance in Uganda which uses an ABC approach). On the flipside of the coin some programs promoting just condom use were huge failures (a good example is the “Love Life” program that was partially funded by the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation – a lot of money went down the drain there). The best program (IMHO) is probably an ABC type program that promotes both.
In all fairness, the Catholic Church does a lot for people in 3rd world countries (I live in an African country and they provide a lot of services). As an example, the school and hospital system in such poor countries as Lesotho was at a time almost 100% CC run and funded. The CC has probably the most extensive hospital system in Africa – and this provides medical service to thousands of people.
Some abstinence programs did work (for instance in Uganda which uses an ABC approach). On the flipside of the coin some programs promoting just condom use were huge failures (a good example is the “Love Life” program that was partially funded by the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation – a lot of money went down the drain there). The best program (IMHO) is probably an ABC type program that promotes both.
You're completely right. I wish religions were focused on morals, on reasonable morals, instead of opposing science in some aspects.
And I believe that spreading the idea that condoms are bad was not just a big mistake the Church made and possibly will admit later on, it's a crime against humanity. I don't have anything against religions, I'm a believer myself, but misinforming people and putting them in danger is something we don't think of as completely wrong enough.
And I believe that spreading the idea that condoms are bad was not just a big mistake the Church made and possibly will admit later on, it's a crime against humanity. I don't have anything against religions, I'm a believer myself, but misinforming people and putting them in danger is something we don't think of as completely wrong enough.
"I wish religions were focused on morals, on reasonable morals, instead of opposing science in some aspects."
I do not think the article successfully makes the case that the Catholic Church is opposing science, at least not in the particulars cited. He does not say that the Catholic Church has disagreed with any of the particulars of the mechanisms behind IVF, only that they have moral objections to it.
He does seem to be implying that the fact he practices science gives him the right to dictate morality to the rest of us, or something like that. If that is not what he is saying, I don't think he has much of a point at all.
I do not think the article successfully makes the case that the Catholic Church is opposing science, at least not in the particulars cited. He does not say that the Catholic Church has disagreed with any of the particulars of the mechanisms behind IVF, only that they have moral objections to it.
He does seem to be implying that the fact he practices science gives him the right to dictate morality to the rest of us, or something like that. If that is not what he is saying, I don't think he has much of a point at all.
I've flagged this and encourage everyone, both believers and non-believers to do the same.
Because we all know the old joke about arguing on the internet.
And in addition to that many of us have seen what religious arguments on the internet did to reddit.
The story itself may be a perfectly fine, but I encourage everyone to keep HN a religious debate free zone.
Because we all know the old joke about arguing on the internet.
And in addition to that many of us have seen what religious arguments on the internet did to reddit.
The story itself may be a perfectly fine, but I encourage everyone to keep HN a religious debate free zone.
This is my first post on HN (waved reddit good bye today).
The problem is not religious arguments - the problem is ranting and not reasoned debates (recently Reddit's Palestinian / Atheism / GOP bashing / Obama posts became intolerable).
This discussion seems civil and well thought out. A good example is dominik's post above – it is pretty well reasoned and factual post and is non-inflammatory it is a good post (even though I am not Catholic).
It is not the nature of the argument that destroyed Reddit it is the way in which it was done. And this can happen with any topic not just Religion.
The problem is not religious arguments - the problem is ranting and not reasoned debates (recently Reddit's Palestinian / Atheism / GOP bashing / Obama posts became intolerable).
This discussion seems civil and well thought out. A good example is dominik's post above – it is pretty well reasoned and factual post and is non-inflammatory it is a good post (even though I am not Catholic).
It is not the nature of the argument that destroyed Reddit it is the way in which it was done. And this can happen with any topic not just Religion.
Hey, welcome aboard!
Reddit religion is sickening. As an avowed atheist I can't stand to read the atheism subreddit - it's far one shallow and one-sided than any similar religious bigotry, and that's really, really hard to achieve.
I'm really glad to be reading the debate here. Both sides are being calm and reasonable, which I love. It's proof that the Internet can be civil.
Reddit religion is sickening. As an avowed atheist I can't stand to read the atheism subreddit - it's far one shallow and one-sided than any similar religious bigotry, and that's really, really hard to achieve.
I'm really glad to be reading the debate here. Both sides are being calm and reasonable, which I love. It's proof that the Internet can be civil.
I sympathize with this. Amazingly, though, this has been a relatively civil discussion.
The Catholic Church is enormous, it moves slowly. Comparisons with Galileo are more than a little extreme. The Church's position on IVF is fairly benign. In the US, it's not much of issue at all. Religions can preach whatever they want, until it becomes a political problem then science can keep moving forward.
As for listening to religion-- sometimes it can be helpful. The problem with Catholicism and Christianity in general is that it has coexisted with western science for hundreds of years. There isn't much left to share on either side. The points of contention now are really rather minor. Contrast with Tibetan Buddhism, which had long been isolated from western science, and there are many interesting ideas to share.
As for listening to religion-- sometimes it can be helpful. The problem with Catholicism and Christianity in general is that it has coexisted with western science for hundreds of years. There isn't much left to share on either side. The points of contention now are really rather minor. Contrast with Tibetan Buddhism, which had long been isolated from western science, and there are many interesting ideas to share.
Until recently, natural philososphy was a subdivision of theology.
There is always going to be a disconnect between the Catholic Church and science, simply because science is interested in the real world, the Church is interested in dualism, i.e., subjugating the physical (i.e. real) world to an imaginary spiritual/Platonic world. Maybe scientists and church people can get along on a personal level and that is great, I know a few myself, but there is always going to be a disagreement of approach. In science there is a desire to understand the actual material world, and make use of it, and not denigrate it or subjugate it to some kind of Platonic world. Why do you think the Catholics hate sex so much, to a point that they would rather have AIDS spread than for people to use protection? It is simply that that sex is an act purely of and for the material world, indeed, it is almost a celebration of the material world, and they hate sex because they hate the material world. I know a lot about Catholicism, in fact I am sorry to say I flirted with it myself when I was younger and still clinging to the fading meme of the god delusion in my mind. Again, I am not saying we can't have a beer with these people, they can be nice and good people and all that. I am saying there is a fundamental difference of approach, one approach that values the actual, real world, and the other that seeks to subjugate, and finally destroy it, just like their gnostic cult ancestors wanted. The material world is good or it is evil. Science says it is good, the Catholics say it is evil. Between these polarities there is little compromise. Simple as that.
What you describe as the Catholic viewpoint isn't the Catholic viewpoint... instead it looks to be a variety of Manichaeism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeanism#Theology
Catholics don't view the body as evil -- they view the body (and thus sex) as good. As for science, it doesn't make moral pronouncements, so it can't view the body as good or evil -- those are moral terms, not scientific terms.
Catholics don't view the body as evil -- they view the body (and thus sex) as good. As for science, it doesn't make moral pronouncements, so it can't view the body as good or evil -- those are moral terms, not scientific terms.
There's often a disconnect between the "catholic viewpoint" and the tones and reality that the theological doctrine is actually preached. Historically, Catholicism has not had a very positive outlook on human sexuality. Sex is great, but only if it is used exclusively for procreation. Anything that deviates from that, or sex for any purpose other than procreation, is seen as immoral. I think it's hard to argue for a positive view of human sexuality if you think masturbation is a sin.
Just take a look at the Catechism: "2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138 "
Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Just take a look at the Catechism: "2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138 "
Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
The key lies in the phrase "mutual self-giving."
Catholics see sex as a mutual gift of self between spouses. Through the language of their bodies, the husband tells the wife "I am yours," the wife tells the husband "I am yours."
As a gift, it is necessarily permanent. It's more than impolite to give a gift and then ask for it back. It's also exclusive -- you don't give someone a gift and then take it back and give it someone else -- the original recipient would rightly be aggrieved at such a turn of events ("Hey, you said that was mine!")
While all of marriage subsumes this gift of self, sex forms the act -- the sign -- signifying the gift. Sex is a physical expression, in the concrete language of the body, of the mutual self-gift that the husband and wife made to each other in marriage. The human reproductive organism consists of two persons: a man and a woman. Their union thus not only signifies their mutual gift of self to each other, but also serves as a creative act, a procreative act that generates life. Thus sex is both unitive and procreative, or in vernacular alliterative, both babies and bonding.
All that leads the Church to say that "the deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose."
Catholics see sex as a mutual gift of self between spouses. Through the language of their bodies, the husband tells the wife "I am yours," the wife tells the husband "I am yours."
As a gift, it is necessarily permanent. It's more than impolite to give a gift and then ask for it back. It's also exclusive -- you don't give someone a gift and then take it back and give it someone else -- the original recipient would rightly be aggrieved at such a turn of events ("Hey, you said that was mine!")
While all of marriage subsumes this gift of self, sex forms the act -- the sign -- signifying the gift. Sex is a physical expression, in the concrete language of the body, of the mutual self-gift that the husband and wife made to each other in marriage. The human reproductive organism consists of two persons: a man and a woman. Their union thus not only signifies their mutual gift of self to each other, but also serves as a creative act, a procreative act that generates life. Thus sex is both unitive and procreative, or in vernacular alliterative, both babies and bonding.
All that leads the Church to say that "the deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose."
That is an eloquent expression of a beautiful idea, and I'm not even Catholic.
Absolutely. This is a common misconception of Christianity. Unfortunately, Christians themselves can be just as prone to this misconception as others.
I know this will be voted down, but the catholic church will ignore science because it threatens their very existance as an organisation.
To put it into terms that are less dividing (religion does that), here is a scenario that happened a few years ago. The US invades Iraq.
The Iraqi Information Minister is famously quoted as saying "There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!", despite at the time the incredible overwhelming proof that there was. Photo and Video footage is pretty conclusive evidence suggesting that there was.
You just can't change some people thoughts on subjects, they will believe what they want to believe... like Bishop Bernard Fellay (he's a holocaust denier) who's excommunication from the church was recently rescinded.
Fellay can believe in a man rising from the dead nearly 2000 years ago, but has trouble believing the Nazi's did some mean stuff only 60 years ago*
*joke shamelessly stolen from Stephen Colbert.
To put it into terms that are less dividing (religion does that), here is a scenario that happened a few years ago. The US invades Iraq.
The Iraqi Information Minister is famously quoted as saying "There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!", despite at the time the incredible overwhelming proof that there was. Photo and Video footage is pretty conclusive evidence suggesting that there was.
You just can't change some people thoughts on subjects, they will believe what they want to believe... like Bishop Bernard Fellay (he's a holocaust denier) who's excommunication from the church was recently rescinded.
Fellay can believe in a man rising from the dead nearly 2000 years ago, but has trouble believing the Nazi's did some mean stuff only 60 years ago*
*joke shamelessly stolen from Stephen Colbert.
How is the Church "ignoring science"?
She may analyze science and apply her moral reasoning and reach a conclusion that some scientists don't like -- but that's hardly ignoring science.
She may analyze science and apply her moral reasoning and reach a conclusion that some scientists don't like -- but that's hardly ignoring science.
How is the Church "ignoring science"?
Well how about the continual opposition of safe practises (condom use) even when they've been scientifically proven to help increase the quality of life for the general population (prevention of STD transmission).
I'm not against the church in general, I think people should be allowed to believe in whichever deity they want too, but not at the expense of people's health - which is essentially what they're doing.
Well how about the continual opposition of safe practises (condom use) even when they've been scientifically proven to help increase the quality of life for the general population (prevention of STD transmission).
I'm not against the church in general, I think people should be allowed to believe in whichever deity they want too, but not at the expense of people's health - which is essentially what they're doing.
The church is against premarital sex at all, which has a hundred percent success rate. Even though I disagree with the Catholic church about premarital sex being necessarily bad, if you do listen to them it works out pretty well.
Luckily, I know a lot of people raised Catholic who know how condoms work, and as far as I know the church would probably rather they use condoms if they must have sex.
Luckily, I know a lot of people raised Catholic who know how condoms work, and as far as I know the church would probably rather they use condoms if they must have sex.
Dignitas Personae in full: http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae...
How does Dr. Krauss argue the Church demonstrates its "outdated, pre-scientific understanding"?
"I refer not to the hot-button issues of abortion or stem cell research but to the Catholic church's continued opposition to a decidedly pro-life medical intervention: in vitro fertilisation."
Interesting that Dr. Krauss chose to say IVF is "decidedly pro-life." Is a medical intervention pro-life if it results in the birth of one child but the death of four to engineer that birth?
He goes on to say that the Church opposed IVF because "as I understand it, that a baby conceived by this method would not have a soul." Dr. Krauss understands incorrectly, as the Church did not advocate this position (it contradicts the Church's own teaching on the nature of body and soul).
Dr. Krauss wonders "whose dignity is enhanced by withholding medically viable methods that have allowed infertile couples, now numbering in the millions, to conceive and give birth to children they will love."
Dignitas Personae gives him his answer on page 6: "The Church, by expressing an ethical judgment on some developments of recent medical research concerning man and his beginnings, does not intervene in the area proper to medical science itself, but rather calls everyone to ethical and social responsibility for their actions. She reminds them that the ethical value of biomedical science is gauged in reference to both the unconditional respect owed to every human being at every moment of his or her existence."
In other words, the Church concerns itself with the dignity every human being deserves, no matter how small or how young, or how weak or how old. Performing a medically viable procedure that kills four children to implant one ... doesn't respect the dignity of those four now-dead children.
Page 8 of DP gets right to this point: "It should be recognized, however, that given the proportion between the total number of embryos produced and those eventually born, the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high. [Footnote 27: Currently the number of embryos sacrificed, even in the most technically advanced centers of artificial fertilization, hovers above 80%.] These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in vitro fertilization as the price to be paid for positive results. In reality, it is deeply disturbing that research in this area aims principally at obtaining better results in terms of the percentage of babies born to women who begin the process, but does not manifest a concrete interest in the right to life of each individual embryo."
Dignitae Personae goes on to discuss IVF on the next page: " Embryos produced in vitro which have defects are directly discarded. Cases are becoming ever more prevalent in which couples who have no fertility problems are using artificial means of procreation in order to engage in genetic election of their offspring. In many countries, it is now common to stimulate ovulation so as to obtain a large number of oocytes which are then fertilized. Of these, some are transferred into the woman’s uterus, while the others are frozen for future use. The reason for multiple transfer is to increase the probability that at least one embryo will implant in the uterus. In this technique, therefore, the number of embryos transferred is greater than the single child desired, in the expectation that some embryos will be lost and multiple pregnancy may not occur. In this way, the practice of multiple embryo transfer implies a purely utilitarian treatment of embryos. One is struck by the fact that, in any other area of medicine, ordinary professional ethics and the healthcare authorities themselves would never allow a medical procedure which involved such a high number of failures and fatalities. In fact, techniques of in vitro fertilization are accepted based on the presupposition that the individual embryo is not deserving of full respect in the presence of the competing desire for offspring which must be satisfied."
And in the next paragraph, Dignitas Personae directly responds to Dr. Krauss' view that IVF is a "decidedly pro-life": "This sad reality, which often goes unmentioned, is truly deplorable: the "various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life"."
There's much more.
The Church certainly understands the "biomedical understanding of human conception." But yes, the Church is guilty of "allow[ing] the foundations of its morality to be fixed in the past" -- moral foundations don't seem like something that ought to change -- Thou shalt not kill seems as if it should be true today and tomorrow, just as it was yesterday. But Dr. Krauss is incorrect to claim that the Church is "ignoring advances based on changing knowledge." She isn't. She's engaging with scientific advances and understanding them, and analyzing them from a moral and ethical perspective. Then, on the basis of her moral authority, she says what she sees -- that morality doesn't change just because science does, if it was wrong to kill a man with a sword it's still wrong to kill him with a gun.