Pope Says Forgive Women Who’ve Had Abortions

The headlines are everywhere—Pope Francis says priests can forgive women who’ve abortions—and the implications are unmistakable: cool Francis is once again breaking with tradition on hot button issues of sexuality and taking the church in a more progressive direction. But Francis’ move raises questions that reflect on both his popular image and the battle over abortion within the church.

The first is whether, when you dig below the surface, Francis has done anything new or whether the media is once again being overly generous in its reading of the pope’s progressivism. Because despite the headlines suggesting a major change in how the church handles abortion by giving priests during the jubilee “Year of Mercy” the “authority” to forgive women who’ve had abortions, the change is more a matter of PR than church policy.

The Catholic Church considers abortion a grave moral sin and under Canon Law, “a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.” (According to the Vatican, other sins that carry a similar sentence include apostasy and heresy, physical violence against the pope, profanation of the Eucharist, violating the secrecy of the confessional, and attempted ordination of women; no mention of the murder of a living person or the sexual abuse of a child.)

Technically, only bishops or priests who are given permission by a bishop can forgive the sin of abortion and restore a woman who has had one to good standing in the church. But many bishops already give priests in their diocese blanket permission to do so and priests may petition the local bishop for such authority. For the Jubilee Year, Francis is granting all priests universal permission “to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it.”

As Candida R. Moss, a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame told NPR:

It does serve as a kind of information alert for a group of disenfranchised women who have felt unwelcome by the Church. Even though John Paul II used much the same language and forgiveness has always been available — albeit through more formal channels — that message wasn’t out there because the rhetoric that accompanies abortion is so elevated that it eclipses the Church’s teaching on forgiveness and mercy.

Just as it’s unclear how many priests would actually be newly empowered to forgive the sin of abortion, it’s unclear how many women would seek such forgiveness. Many women who’ve had an abortion may not even be excommunicated because under church law a woman needs to know that she was undertaking an excommunicable offense at the time of the abortion. A woman is also not excommunicated if there are certain mitigating circumstances, like “grave fear.”

And many women may not believe that they need to be forgiven for a decision they don’t believe is a sin in the first place. A sizeable percentage of Catholics don’t consider abortion morally wrong. According to a 2013 Pew Poll, 53% of white Catholics and 64% of Hispanic Catholics consider abortion “morally wrong.” These means that as a whole, just over 40% of Catholics don’t consider abortion a sin, although that number falls to 25% among Catholics who say they go to Mass weekly. And only about 20% of US Catholics consider the pope and the bishops the final moral authority on abortion according to a major poll of American Catholics.

And while Francis spoke movingly of encountering women who were racked by guilt for having an abortion, noting, “I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision,” a recent study found very low levels of guilt or regret post-abortion. The three-year study of 670 women who had an abortion found that 95% didn’t regret their decision and after three years most women “rarely” thought about it.

So with the exception of regular church-going Catholic women racked with guilt over an abortion they had despite knowing it was morally wrong who didn’t realize they could ask for forgiveness, the pope’s announcement may have little impact on actual women. “I don’t think Catholic women will be queuing up next year to ask for forgiveness,” said Jon O’Brien of Catholics for Choice, who suspects the real audience for Francis’ message is the U.S. Catholic bishops, who have railed against abortion for decades in the political arena.

“Conservatives want the statement to be political, not pastoral,” said O’Brien, “but it’s clear that Francis is really struggling to understand women who’ve had abortions. It’s all about the symbolism of a woman sitting down to talk to a priest about abortion and not having to seek out a special bishop. He’s trying to show the bishops a different way of doing something.”

It appears that Francis is trying to execute a perfect two-step on abortion in advance of his visit to the U.S.: on the one hand, broadcasting the church’s extension of mercy, a key theme of his papacy, to even what it considers the most serious of sins, while on the other hand reinforcing to Catholics, about half of whom support legal abortion, that abortion is a heinous moral crime that technically can be forgiven only by appealing to the highest authority.

55 Comments

  • zinealine@gmail.com' cranefly says:

    The story here is that there was ever a time when a woman who went to confession and confessed to an abortion could be turned away without absolution, awaiting paperwork from on high, even if the priest wanted to absolve her and was completely convinced of her penitence. I don’t have words for how shocking and depraved that is, considering the Catholic worldview. It would seem to violate the “seal,” would it not? Which is probably why I never heard of such a thing before. Because it was completely unenforceable, and hopefully it was rarely, if ever, enforced. And because it flies in the face of everything Catholics have been taught as children since Vatican II.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    How does he know priests can now forgive this sin? Is he the ultimate authority on saying who can forgive what? And why does the jubilee year make any difference? Did he grant this power to priests, but only for a certain time period? Doesn’t any of this seem fishy to anyone else?

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    This may be a view into the workings of Theology. Did the church make up sin so that they could be the one in a position to forgive sin? And once a sin is made up, it first has to be a sin for a really long time so that belief in that sin becomes strong. Does this pope show more love for the people than past popes by being the one to forgive?

  • atheistcable@gmail.com' atheistcable says:

    I’m quite offended by this. You forgive someone if they did something wrong! There is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with having an abortion.

    Likewise concerning same-sex relationships. We’re allowed to get married now–here in the USA. It’s normal, it’s natural. No one needs to forgive us for getting married to someone of the same sex.

    BUT, I also understand that this is probably what the pope has to do as a first step toward eventually recognizing abortion as a necessity in the face of world overpopulation, extreme poverty, and global warming.

    Like same-sex relationships, abortions are natural, necessary and a good thing for society.

  • dkeane123@comcast.net' DKeane123 says:

    “…in the face of world overpopulation, extreme poverty, and global warming.” – or a woman being forced into motherhood for being human.

  • dkeane123@comcast.net' DKeane123 says:

    Oldest marketing trick in the book. Create a problem that only you can solve.

  • tojby_2000@yahoo.com' apotropoxy says:

    Judaism created a metaphysical category called “sin” and their children, Christianism and Islamism, worked up a ritual for “forgiveness of sin”. The latter construct is designed to “save” “souls” from eternal torture by their benevolent god. All three neuroses collectives enjoy enormous tax benefits in the USA and, excepting Islamists, have an massive impact on every level of social life here. These religionists have convinced themselves that they are a persecuted minority. They are, in actuality, a persecuting majority.
    Fortunately, their center cannot hold. They slouch toward oblivion.

  • atheistcable@gmail.com' atheistcable says:

    YES, rape! Thank you. It’s not that I’m unaware of rape–I just got finished reading several books on all the rape and torture of Kosovo women by Bosnians and Serbs.

    And then all the women raped, disfigured and tortured by Joseph Kony, Boko Haram, Sudanese, South African men engaging in “therapeutic rape of Lesbians”–well, everywhere there are women, hetero men are there to rape them.

    There are sooo many reasons why women need to have abortions–and they’re all legitimate reasons.

    My favorite bumper sticker is: “If you’re opposed to abortion … then don’t have one.”

    My favorite motto (which must be put in all caps): TRUST WOMEN!

  • atheistcable@gmail.com' atheistcable says:

    I love your comment. Spot on.

  • joerogers67@gmail.com' joeyj1220 says:

    imagine in someone’s mind that they figured abortion (and the choices that led to it) were a “graver sin” than something like the raping of children, complicity in mass murder, and the callous disregard for the poor (none of which are “excommunicable” offenses)

  • Dennis.Lurvey@live.com' Well_Read says:

    studies have shown most women who have abortions are not contrite, not sorry, believe they made the right decision. for every 1 person converting to Catholicism 8 are leaving the church or leaving religion. it’s no wonder they are attempting to seem not so judgmental and divisive. but they are, it’s the same people who distributed pamphlets on how to tell is someone is a witch, nothing has changed.

  • zinealine@gmail.com' cranefly says:

    Lately I’ve been skeptical of the liberal talking point that the pro-life movement “just wants to control women,” as opposed to giving a rats a$$ about the lives of little babies. But in this case, there can be no doubt. A man who killed 1000 day-old babies Herod-style for power and worldly gain could have been forgiven by a priest, but a woman killing a baby just months younger to protect her own body, or to save the child from being born into a family of rape, abuse, or incest – that required administrative approval to absolve? The only conceivable logic behind it is that the freedom of women was public enemy #1. And since the only thing in the universe that actually matters is salvation, that’s what they withheld, threatening women – and only women, when it came to violence – with everlasting torture, while the violence of men could be washed away for an “oops.” It’s so sick I almost can’t breathe.

  • emilyk04@gmail.com' Fired, Aren't I says:

    Pretty sure “sin” was created the moment human religion was created, which was loooong before Judaism.

    Although, I’m not sure how Jews are a “persecuting majority” except in parts of Israel, and even then, it’s only a specific sect of Judaism to which that would apply.

    But maybe you know something I don’t.

  • tojby_2000@yahoo.com' apotropoxy says:

    Many religions do not promote the concept of sin.

  • polyearp2@gmail.com' Laurence Charles Ringo says:

    So…does that make the concept of sin somehow unreal,apotropoxy?

  • tojby_2000@yahoo.com' apotropoxy says:

    The concept is real. Concepts of Mithras are real, too, but it doesn’t mean that he was ever more than a myth.

  • dkeane123@comcast.net' DKeane123 says:

    I would note that by pure chance (50/50) we are born to a particular gender. No person by the chance of being born female should be forced to become a mother as a result of natural sexuality.

    I do agree with your comment though.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    The concept of sin is also dangerous, because it is about one person or group judging another person, and might also involve punishment.

  • whistling.girl2910@gmail.com' pennyroyal says:

    The origins of the word, “sin” are based in archery. Going back into early times, it meant to aim and shoot an arrow and “to miss the mark.” The meaning of the word, then, has evolved radically from the equivalent of a mistake or error to something involving shame and humiliation to the person so-labeled.

    Originally something that had meant, the person could just had to try again, became something so horrible as to make the sinner virtually irredeemable, a pariah. Catholic Christianity and then Calvinism kept making one’s “sins” seem worse and worst. Salvation theology then required a savior to redeem ‘sinful humans’ and all humankind. And then, in a patriarchal religion, women, “daughters of Eve” were more sinful than men and even inherently evil.

    Thus you have a set. Only that pure, chaste priests (sic ‘male’) could lift a woman’s sins from her. This makes the Catholic Church both the inflictor of the shaming and the one that lifts the shame. You see how circular this is! Of course, Catholicism is hugely pro-natalist. It outlaws artificial birth control and then women bear more babies/souls to become future Catholics. Thus in this magic religion, abortion becomes the greatest sin ever, so bad, so evil that we now have the complete system set up: to pope is seen as generous and ‘liberal’ even beneficent, when in fact he is not at all. Instead he is reifying this whole construct.

    This means, since women sin worse than men (by using birth control and abortion–and their ‘sin’ of exercising personal autonomy, without church), this gives the Vatican an excuse never to allow women priests. A closed system and women never get a break.

  • whistling.girl2910@gmail.com' pennyroyal says:

    it’s a construct to shame and gain power over another using one group (church’s) supposed moral authority.

    Read the small book by 9-11 survivor Nikki Stern: “Because I Said So: the Dangerous Appeal of Moral Authority.” You’ll understand authoritarian religions and politicians all the better.

  • whistling.girl2910@gmail.com' pennyroyal says:

    the problem is the Catholic Church (and GOP politicians) needs to take a quantum leap that I don’t think will happen before this over populated planet is destroyed by our mania to overpopulate it.

  • whistling.girl2910@gmail.com' pennyroyal says:

    rape and impregnating the enemy’s wives and daughters has always been a tactic of war. Shame and humiliate the whole family and community.

  • whistling.girl2910@gmail.com' pennyroyal says:

    A feminist song from the 80s had the refrain, “the rising of the women is the rising of the race.” Forced to bear and raise more children than they can support many relationships collapse into bitterness and early aging.

    Couples with large number of children can’t educate them. The whole society is burdened as is happening in places like Nigeria. When women control their reproduction, when women can earn money to support or contribute to the supporting of the family, the whole society improves. Thus the Catholic church’s ban on birth control and abortion is inhuman and enslaves both women and men.

  • whistling.girl2910@gmail.com' pennyroyal says:

    exactly, cause and cure at the same place. Like a hospital infecting women and they have to come back for medicine to ‘cure’ it.

  • emilyk04@gmail.com' Fired, Aren't I says:

    Correct. My statement still remains true.

  • atheistcable@gmail.com' atheistcable says:

    I agree with your statement, except I would like to point out–mainly for others reading these comments–that there isn’t a time when we say “Yesterday, the Earth was not overpopulated, but today it is.”

    The Earth is already and has been overpopulated–maybe not Texas, but certainly the Philippines, China, India are, for just a few examples.

    Overpopulation includes international struggles over limited water resources. Overpopulation includes too many people and too few jobs. And with the advancement of robotics, there will be fewer and fewer jobs for humans. Mitt Romney should remind us “Robots are people too, my friend.”

    One robot working 24/7 replaces at least 5 people.

    Poor people join organizations like Boko Haram, al Shabaab, Joseph Kony, etc. because there are not jobs elsewhere–except for these killing organizations.

    Tens of thousands of refugees from Africa are trying to get out–for opportunities to live and avoid desperate poverty–yet the Catholic Church keeps promoting this idea that “God” wants us to be fruitful and multiply.

    How to define and recognize a state of overpopulation is the problem. To the woefully uneducated, we’re not overpopulated because everyone in the world can live in Texas. But try to tell them that that’s not true because in fact, not everyone in the world or everyone in this country can live in Texas.

    Your comment is true in that everyone wants to achieve a middle-class lifestyle. Everyone wants a house, a car, and clothes all of which consume a lot of water and energy to make these things. This adds to global warming, raising sea levels which, along with deforestation, is depriving humans of even more spaces to live.

    Various hunger organizations are always promising that hunger is declining, but we need your money to help us feed more malnourished children. Those who can afford it should Not send their money to these organizations, but to pro-Choice, pro-abortion organizations to help bring about ZPG.

  • bernekingjr@guilford.edu' STLCardsDad says:

    The idea of sin, is the same as a moral accountability to the state/ government/ society, or any higher power regardless of benevolence. We charge drunk drivers with double homicide for killing a pregnant mother, but some how the line blurs when it comes to abortion. Christians consider murder a sin, we as a society consider killing a pregnant mother a double homicide or murder, so why is it shocking to society when Christians consider an abortion a sin? I am not really advocating for one side or the other, but I feel like we are always out to further our own agendas and push our own brand of beliefs upon each other. Personal freedom & civil rights come with the responsibility of upholding that right for every one even those who we disagree with in areas of religious beliefs. I feel the Pope is trying to show that the church welcomes all people, to its doors, its trying to show a more modern face for the church, more like the one Paul talks about in his letters in the Bible. Take these ideas and comments for what they are, but I feel the Catholic church taking this step is positive.

  • tojby_2000@yahoo.com' apotropoxy says:

    Early religions did not posit a personal deity who concerned itself with the particulars of human behavior one way or another. Those deities didn’t have laws for man. They only behaved in great ways and humans tried to propitiate them in the hopes that disaster could be avoided. Sin, as you may know, is usually defined as a violation of a god’s law.
    Most of the Jews of Israel believe they are the victims in the Palestinian-Jewish struggle. They are, in fact, the persecutors.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    In the abortion question it is one sided. Christians are trying to push their beliefs on others, and those others are not trying to push their beliefs on Christians.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    Maybe it is their own fault for joining the religion in the first place.

  • whistling.girl2910@gmail.com' pennyroyal says:

    Most people don’t consciously choose, they are born into a religion and indoctrinated long before they have the cognitive ability to decide for themselves. For this reason I advise that parents not take their children to church school and instead educate them in ethics and morality including virtue ethics. That encourages parents and others in the child’s life to live ethically.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    At least society has now reached the point where we can opt out if we want. Even women. It is time for them to step up to the plate and start rejecting religion. I know some are, so we are advancing.

  • whistling.girl2910@gmail.com' pennyroyal says:

    I agree that women are changing. My local paper had an article on a Catholic priest who’s a Buddhist Sensei or teacher. Even in my traditionalist area, people are waking up, at least to the more toxic elements of religious extremism.

  • bernekingjr@guilford.edu' STLCardsDad says:

    I am sorry but I fail to see how this argument is one sided, Christians say its Sin, and advocate for abortion to be illegal and try to create laws that make abortion illegal. The world says it is not sin and says it should be legal and work to create laws that make it legal, how is this one sided? Both sides are trying to create a laws to protect what they feel is the correct moral stance on this issue. This is an argument of morals and what one side is willing to make acceptable and what the other is not.

  • bernekingjr@guilford.edu' STLCardsDad says:

    The Church did not create sin, Man actually created sin(read Genesis), and the Pope and his clergy do not forgive sin, God, does. The Catholic church believes that their Clergy are the only ones with the authority and training to speak to God, so they have to ask for forgiveness thru them. This is a fairly large simplification of the processes, but this is just how the Catholic church does things, most Protestants believe all you need to do to be forgiven of sin is believe Jesus Christ Died on the cross for your sins, and as long as you believe in him thats it you are good to go. Just want to clarify the Theology a little bit for you.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    It sure does seem like fundamentalist Christians are trying to control the rest of the population, and in a conservative state like Texas they are on the attack with a lot of laws. They want people who don’t conform to be punished. Nobody is trying to change Christians or punish them or control them. That is why it seems one sided.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    I think we are maturing to where we can go beyond the Theology, and consider the psychology behind the theology. Man defined sin, but it was in the context of the church and what they were working to accomplish. The church is always concerned with its survival and growth, and it does things to those ends. The church can exercise control over people, and if it doesn’t, some other church will come along and take their people and convert them to a church with better understanding of the methods of control. This is true for both Catholics and Protestants, although the theologial details can be different. It is best not to bring God into the theological discussions because that just confuses things. The concept of God is just part of the method of control.

  • bernekingjr@guilford.edu' STLCardsDad says:

    Really no one is trying to control Christians? So ISIS is not beheading Christians? Did we not just arrest Kim Davis for refusing to issue marriage licenses? Did the public not go after the guy who refused to bake a cake for the gay wedding? Did they not shut down a pizza place in Indiana? These actions are assertions of power from another side trying to change Christian views. Sorry you are wrong, both sides are guilty of trying to control the other.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    These things are all worthy of discussion, except ISIS beheading Christians doesn’t really belong in this discussion. The other things you mention are Christians reacting to a world that is changing in ways that Christianity doesn’t want. They are fighting to keep their position in the national game of King of Moral Mountain. They will probably get knocked down from the top, but it is their own fault.

    The ISIS thing is really the ultimate result of our actions in the Middle East, overthrowing the governments of Iraq, Pakistan, and Iran. We feel it is in our national interest to control their oil, so we knock down their governments and install our puppets. Then when it comes back to haunt us, we look at it as our national right because of American exceptionalism which sees us as God’s favorite (along with Israel).

  • Ehaken@mailinator.com' Guest30 says:

    I like the definition given by Robert Heinlein the best: “Sin” lies only in unnecessarily harming others. Hurting yourself isn’t a sin, just stupid”

  • bw40ny@gmail.com' Bee Wald says:

    My only question is that why are women being forgiven for only a little amount of time? If a woman has an abortion after the grace period, will she be disregarded for a reason in which many people for forgiven for before? I believe that if women should be forgiven, they should be forgiven forever, even after the grace period.

  • imjessietr@yahoo.com' Kelly says:

    The Church is the one who settled on the content of the bible. It is arguable, therefore, to suggest the Church is the one to define sin. After all, just how many sins does God actually mention? Seems like most of the rules come from the mouths of the prophets/priests, all of whom are getting paid to say such things.

  • imjessietr@yahoo.com' Kelly says:

    Limited time offers are a great sales tactic 😛

  • imjessietr@yahoo.com' Kelly says:

    But Christians are simply doing that (saying killing a pregnant mom is double murder) because many view children as future servants. The surviving father has lost not only his brood mare but also his servant-to-be. Nowhere in the bible is an abortion wrong. If a pregnant mom is killed, it is the death penalty (just one). If the fetus alone is killed, it is a mere fine. If a man is paranoid and thinks his wife cheated on him, the priests must try to induce an abortion (if the baby aborts, it’s proof she cheated which THEN means they can stone her for adultery). Babies and fetuses die all the time in the bible, many with divine mandate.

  • imjessietr@yahoo.com' Kelly says:

    Christians can say what they want. The Word of God said it’s not.

  • imjessietr@yahoo.com' Kelly says:

    Indeed. Rome didn’t fall because of gays. It fell after Christianity took control of it. 🙂

  • crzylmy@gmail.com' Smknws says:

    The Catholic Church considers abortion a grave
    moral sin and under Canon Law, “a person who procures a successful abortion
    incurs an automatic (latae sentential)
    excommunication.”

    I do not understand why the Vatican
    is still hung up on SIN . How many yrs ago did the Vatican accept EVOLUTION ?

    ok as long as it was Gods idea , but
    its ok by me if people of religion believe in a God that they can’t prove
    exists, and atheists dont believe in the god that those people cant prove . For
    my own reasons i feel comfortable with an invisible creator . So the Vatican
    has evolved !!!! I am very confused why , if they accept Adam & Eve were
    microscopic organisms , why don’t they know it would be impossible for them to
    sin .

    The concept of HELL is redundant ,
    if we are body and soul , body turns to dust , soul goes back to God, my most important question to the Vatican would be WHY are you
    still teaching in schools and from the pulpit Adam & Eve with a talking
    snake and first sin along with satan & hell . I heard the Pope use those words not long ago , you just
    cant have it both ways !!

    As I see it and i have given much
    thought to this,:-) 20 yrs or more, If they teach the accepted evolution /
    creator , they lose their control over the believers . no Cain or Able ect .. ,
    so why do we have so many religions who believe in the same God but all with
    different rules, laws and regulations , they all believe that they have the
    ONE true religion . There will never be peace as long as man made religious
    laws divide US , lets put GOD back in the drivers seat only S/HE knows where
    s/he wants us to go .

    When the very first words of Genesis were written , the
    words evolution and microscopic organism did not exist but thousands of yrs
    later we have scientists to explain evolution .

    Genesis 1: 26..27..28 God said let US
    make wo/mankind in OUR image , who was he talking to , my
    opinion to OUR souls preparing us to live in a body / HUMAN /
    BEINGS with great intelligence , and one day
    remember that WE are the US in
    Genesis … S O U L is the SOURCE
    OF UNIVERSAL LIFE .

    What does this have to do with forgiving women who had
    abortions ? The Vatican is still living in the past after accepting Gods new
    version of creation … yes i am a Christian for more than 70 yrs , reckon i
    have too much time on my hands BIG grin .

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    It seems like God doesn’t want to be in the driver’s seat. You say it’s OK if people of religion believe in a God that they can’t prove exists, and atheists dont believe in the god that those people cant prove. That makes things too simple. The better question is about Jesus. You can’t question God because there is nothing there to question, but the Bible is full of stuff about Jesus, and that can be questioned. It is possible to show by the Bible that there is no actual Jesus, and at that point the God question no longer matters.

  • crzylmy@gmail.com' Smknws says:

    You can’t question God because there is nothing there to question,

    are you sure , and you can prove it … and i think Jesus’ name at birth was Emmanuel , not sure when he became Jesus

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    In the middle of the first century Christians like Paul were finding Christ in old testament scriptures. Then in the last third of the first century, the gospels were written and Jesus the man from Nazareth was created. The story of Jesus had to be backdated to the first third of the first century to make it more believable.

  • polyearp2@gmail.com' Laurence Charles Ringo says:

    Sure…but if someone breaks into your home and rapes and/or murders your wife/daughter,it’s unlikely that you would view those horrible events as”myth”,would you,apotropoxy?

  • crzylmy@gmail.com' Smknws says:

    I guess you aren’t sure then … I like to think the idea there is an intelligence within evolution.. because there is a chance it may be able to stop all the problems caused by religions .
    With out IT random evolution is to blame for all that is wrong and nothing can be done , altho Sam Harris ‘ book FREE WILL or lack thereof , makes me wonder , altho unintended if he is correct and it has been proved by science , our ,choices have already been made micro seconds before we actually think WE made the choice, it would seem there is intelligence in his version of evolution .. what other explanation could there be , i have a feeling you can explain it . I really would be grateful .

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    It doesn’t matter that evolution is to blame for what is wrong. The important thing is it is responsible for what is right. The free will arguments also don’t matter because they don’t change anything. They don’t change the law, or what you are responsible for, or what will or might happen. It makes no difference, and if you start thinking it does make a difference, that will have nothing but negative effects. You can tell this by thinking about what difference it might make. Any difference you might think about won’t make any sense in the real world.

    The Emmanuel thing is a work in progress, and subject to change.

  • crzylmy@gmail.com' Smknws says:

    It doesn’t matter that evolution is to blame for what is wrong.

    Are you joking .. look at the world news today !

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    I guess now we do for the first time have the capability to change evolution. We can figure out how to do intelligent design. It will take a while, and involve a learning period. For now we can only change the food supply, and offer medical solutions through enhanced evolution, and maybe improved pets. We won’t directly be changing world news, but eventually that might evolve.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *