Mishka, the Catholic Church does indeed run schools and hospitals.
They also receive huge amounts of Govt money for doing so.
Go to St John of God Hospital for instance, you will be slugged full
fee and hospitals can be quite lucrative.

Service providers in the third world are often funded through UN
agencies and Western Govts. That includes Catholic services provided.

When will the Catholic Church become open and accountable about
what they have, what they earn and what they spend?

A foetus does in fact have a brain. So does any other species.
If you know anything about brains, you'll know that there are
3 so called sections. The repitilian, the emotional circuits and
the thinking bits. The neocortex, which makes us human and
differentiates us from other species by its size, is not there in
any functioning form until week 23 or so. So no human brain at
day 40 I am afraid.

Yabby, I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church accounts for the public funds it receives. As for any other funds, it is a private institution and if anyone has a problem with the way they operate they simply don't have to give them money. However, the last time I checked, my local parish was fully audited and parishioners not only were informed of how funds were spent but given a voice in decision-making through the parish council. I think you'll find a similar process exists for Catholic charities and other Catholic NGOs.

As regards brain development, yours is a moot point in relation to the example in my article and the ensuing discussion. I will indulge your tangent, however, and note that - given the principles of doing no harm and erring on the side of caution - I and others of my acquaintance have grave concerns about using brain development as an indication of human life or personhood (as some prefer). Whether we are talking about 40 days or 23 weeks or post-birth, the question arises as to exactly when the line is crossed from non-human to human or human organism to person. It doesn't really matter what criteria are used or which stage of development is being discussed, because at any of the stages and using any criteria there is the insurmountable moral question of when is it right to kill and when is it not. Current laws rely on pregnancy dates that are notoriously unreliable, and every embryo/foetus is different in its development - one woman's child born at 23 weeks survives without health problems while another woman's dies soon after birth. Personally, I can't pin down exactly when our offspring become "human", and that is one of the reasons I give benefit of the doubt to any human organism, regardless of its brain development. That may not be a satisfactory answer for you, but I personally would rather not take the risk that an evaluation in these terms might lead to the death of an innocent human being.

Mishka, I am sure that your local parish accounts for every cent of
what lands up in the collection tin. But parishoners would have no
idea about what is sloshed away in the Vatican Bank, where only
the pope and the cardinals have a look in. In fact it was only
claimed "diplomatic immunity" which saved the day when officals
were going to be legally charged over the Vatican Bank scandal
involving billions, including money laundering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Works_of_Religion

"Do no harm" is all very sweet, except of course that living the
Western lifestyle, you do harm every day by living unsustainably.

Women have around 300 chances to have another cute baby, reality
prevails, you can't keep them all. Having children when they are
actually wanted and loved, would eliminate much suffering that we
see around us.

Since the industrial revolution, our human population has gone from
1 billion, to 7 billion, heading for 10 billion. As Darwin so
accurately mentioned, far more of any species will be created, then
can ever survive. If you think that the human population can keep
growing, wiping out all other species in the process and largely
at their expense, then your philosophy is clearly doing far more
harm then you are aware of.

The human psyche is indeed paradoxical; and rationalisation a marvellous magic trick for deluding 'conscience'.

It is theorised that humans are born with an inbuilt or innate sense or right and wrong, good and evil. Whether correct or not, all humans (save the odd psychopathic personality) seem to exhibit such a sense early in development. Curious then how layer upon layer of 'learning', rather than reinforcing such an innate sense, seems to dillute and confuse that sense, rendering it flexible to the extent of submission to contemporary and transient 'values'. Even rendering 'conscience' unreliable, weak, or obsolete.

On a practical level, no-one ought need promise of an 'afterlife' or of any other reward for living a 'virtuous' life - such as 'luck' in this life, or subsequent reincarnation in a higher form. Life should carry its own reward, good or ill, as conduct dictates. Strange and problematic then how materialistic 'success' in this life is accorded such a high level in the 'virtue' stakes.

Living in harmony and balance with one's evironment ought be viewed as the highest virtue attainable, 'live and let live', in respect for and acknowledgement of the natural order. But the drive for conquest appears to know no bounds, be it number of cows, pigs, oil rigs, mansions or offspring.

One cannot blame Man for his inherent weaknesses, but rather for failing to learn true respect, for failing to evolve despite his many gifts and ultimate promise. For all his worldly development, Man is no master, but rather a slave to weakness and corruption. God, I'm sure, would be far from impressed.

An ethic of restraint is absent, supressed or derided, and in consequence all sense of 'conscience' is compromised, and in some quarters is totally defeated. Though some may rail against the storm of iniquity, it will take a far greater movement to effect a real change of direction, for Man to become a conservator, to achieve inner peace, to cherish and nurture virtue, and to personify the true meaning of 'conscience'.

Murder is indeed a grave sin, but its severity varies. One factor that you already mentioned, Mishka, is the awareness of the perpetrator to wrongdoing. Others are the amount of pain inflicted; the level of awareness of the victim; the amount of accumulating learning which the victim loses; and the degree of attachment of the victim to its body. Also, without the seed of selfishness sin cannot exist. Such cases are rare, but if one kills while pursuing their duty with no self-interest in mind, then they are pure as snow (even when making a mistake).

There are several different reasons why a state should not intervene in the case of killing an unintroduced child:

1. Consistency:

If the state is to "protect" a human baby that is not a member of its society, then it should also protect animals (that are also non-members) in the same way. If a non-member animal can for example be legally eaten, then so should a non-member human. Similarly, the state should not distinguish between the born and the unborn, only between members and non-members.

(that's a challenge to the humanist dogma that man is a superior species)

2. The right of the child to not-belong:

Whence this automatic and nonsensical assumption that anyone born within a certain territory wishes to belong to the local society?

(that's a challenge to the humanist dogma that mankind has a collective purpose)

Now one could say that the child is not asked directly, but rather his/her parents: it is indeed less than ideal, but we currently know of no better outlet for a baby to express its wishes.

(that's a challenge to the humanist dogma that a baby is nothing but sperm+egg, hence cannot choose its parents)

The parents should not act in self-interest but as the child's best representatives: a parent who knowingly misrepresents his/her child claiming that it would not be interested in joining society while knowing that it would, commits contemptible fraud and a criminal offense (note that any of the parents may introduce the child to society even without the others' consent).

(continued...)

(...continued)

Had there been an objective test, such as an EEG machine that reads the child's brainwaves and can answer whether or not they wish to join society, then surely I would prefer such method - but since there isn't any (yet), we need to rely on the parents to best represent their child.

3. Ignorance:

The state has no moral or spiritual credentials, so is in no position to tell the difference between selfish and unselfish acts.

(that's a challenge to the humanist dogma that all knowledge and all wisdom is objective and scientific)

4. Non-exclusivity:

Why the state and not a different organization? If someone is to "protect" unrelated children, then why not the Sicilian Mafia, Ali-Baba and his 40 thieves, or the local bikie club?

(that's a challenge to the humanist dogma that humans joined together form a larger and better organism)

5. Wider implications:

Outright murder of one's child is a very rare event nowadays, but more common and morally compelling cases are when parents refuse, based on religious/spiritual principles, to treat their child in certain ways which the state demands, such as providing them with certain medical procedures; certain foods; or specific education which trains the child to cope and integrate with the surrounding society (evil as it may be). The state does not distinguish between outright murder and "murder" by "negligence" - notwithstanding the fact that it is the state, rather than the parents, which is negligent of the child's spiritual welfare, placing the survival of its physical body above all other considerations.

(that's a challenge to the humanist dogma that we are just bodies with no spirit)